Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

[azamzimtoti]

(Psa 102:18 This will be written for the generation to come, That a people yet to be created may praise the LORD.)

Strike one Dwight.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I thought things were going quite well actually.

Why is being critical of a doctrine so offensive?

People can be critical of OSAS and the teachers if they want to, I rather they express their ideas so I can test it against scripture and be sure.... and they can tell me about an author if there are problems so I can make my own judgments.

I used to think Paul Ellis was worthy of my attention until a few people pointed our a few things and then I was more cautious.

Was it not you who said we should probably not speak because you did not like the way I spoke to you?

And now because someone who seems to agree with you does it it is ok??

Again, It just proves my point

Yes people should be critical of doctrines, Yet when I did that with you you were offended and said I was out of line or something, Now that someone else has done it, you can not see why I am so upset.

PS, I am not upset. I gave a book, and told someone to read it, There was SOME GOOD in it, And said I do not agree with everything the person said, And look at how someone responded to that.

PS. I have read MANY Books, from all sides of the argument, To be honest, Alot of them have some stuff that makes sense. Thats why you read alot.

But hey Who am I to say anything.. If I say something against some doctrine, I am being mean and offensive, But if someone esle says it. it is perfectly ok

Like i said, maybe it is time I left. this place is not what it used to be.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I have the book.



I just stated what Dwight said, simple enough quotes from him. Both statements he made are totally untrue. And I can backup my claim from both the NT and OT.

You picked one aspect. Most books you read you can find flaws with. So you found a few things you disagreed with? WHo cares. it does not mean the book does not have some good stuff in it a person can use.

I can probably pick books you would like to read and attempt to discredit them also. But what good would it do?

Let the person read it.And let them decide. I read th ebook of mormon so I could see what Mormons believe. Is that a bad thing?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

(Psa 102:18 This will be written for the generation to come, That a people yet to be created may praise the LORD.)

Strike one Dwight.

Says the person who thinks AD 70 fulfilled alot of prophecy

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Hi thanks, sorry

So then are you saying Jesus hides the spiritual understanding and that is the key to understanding Mathew 24 ?

Spiritual understanding of what?
Jesus said events would take place. He was speaking of future events as if he was speaking of histoorical event as if they had already occured Which is what prophesy does. Jesus can see the present, the past and the future as if they all had already occured. THATS what makes prophecy so powerful. ONLY GOD CAN DO THIS

 

[azamzimtoti]

(Isa 65:1 "I made myself available to those who did not ask for me; I appeared to those who did not look for me. I said, 'Here I am! Here I am!' to a nation that did not invoke my name.)

(Isa 65:2 I spread out my hands all day long to my rebellious people, who lived in a way that is morally unacceptable, and who did what they desired.)

Paul quotes the above in Romans therefore his church "ministry" (to both Jews and Gentile) and the church was found in the old testament.

(Rom 10:20 And Isaiah is even bold enough to say, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I became well known to those who did not ask for me."

(Rom 10:21 But about Israel he says, "All day long I held out my hands to this disobedient and stubborn people! ")

 

[UnderGrace]

Was it not you who said we should probably not speak because you did not like the way I spoke to you?

And now because someone who seems to agree with you does it it is ok??

Again, It just proves my point

Yes people should be critical of doctrines, Yet when I did that with you you were offended and said I was out of line or something, Now that someone else has done it, you can not see why I am so upset.

PS, I am not upset. I gave a book, and told someone to read it, There was SOME GOOD in it, And said I do not agree with everything the person said, And look at how someone responded to that.

PS. I have read MANY Books, from all sides of the argument, To be honest, Alot of them have some stuff that makes sense. Thats why you read alot.

But hey Who am I to say anything.. If I say something against some doctrine, I am being mean and offensive, But if someone esle says it. it is perfectly ok

Like i said, maybe it is time I left. this place is not what it used to be.

Mr . EG my statements were not personal.

I am trying to understand why eschatology, and discussing its various authors become so personal, it baffles me, I am trying to make a case that it should not be personal.

Now these were directed personally towards me....see the difference?

Do you know what prophecy is sis?

Before you start telling people what they believe maybe you should ask.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Blah Blah Blah.

Thats what it comes down too.

I am out!

 

[Journeyman]

Doesn't matter...the seed of the woman is literal and referencing JESUS that was BORN of a WOMAN and what did John say about those that deny he came in the FLESH while spiritualizing everything away?........yep you got it.........

Tuthfully John made that statement because Jews were waiting for the Messiah to free them from their human overseers, like the Romans. And that's one reason why Jews to this day don't believe the Messiah has come. They believe the Messiah will draw all Jews back to the Middle East, but the truth is,

He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son Col.1:13

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Cor.2:14

 

[azamzimtoti]

Reminds me of the da, da, da song.

 

[UnderGrace]

Reminds me of the da, da, da song.

Well, I missed this from 2010. Pretty funny.

 

[iamsoandso]

They were expecting His second coming, in power and glory. They did not have the HS as of yet. After Pentecost they settled down and got about their Father's business. Reminds me of many trying to steer the Lord to do things their way.

Why would you think that? Why I ask is the Scriptures in post # 462 and #464 all seem to indicate that they did not understand what Jesus meant when he told them he would die. Immediately after the Olivet Discourse he is betrayed and then Crucified but then in all of the Gospels they seem as though they were not expecting him to die and then return from the grave in three days.

Instead the ones who went to his tomb believed the gardener had moved his body not that he rose from the dead. Thomas when told said he would not believe it unless he saw the nail holes so he doesn't seem to be reacting as if he was expecting him to rise after three days. Peter instead of going to his tomb as if he understood he would rise on the third day was instead was going fishing. Cleopas in Luke 24:21 https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-21.htm is very outspoken in saying to Jesus that they had hoped/trusted that he(Jesus) had been(pas-tense) he who should have(Pas-tense) redeemed Israel but that it was the third day after what was done(Jesus death) and so he doesn't seem to think Jesus was the one to redeem Israel anymore.

In short though if they had understood and believed he would die and be raised the third day then it would make sense they were asking him about his "second coming" but all four Gospels show that all of them were caught off guard by him being killed and not expecting him to rise the third day from the grave so in Matthew 24:3 they would have only been able to ask of the only coming they understood and believed.

 

[dcontroversal]

Tuthfully John made that statement because Jews were waiting for the Messiah to free them from their human overseers, like the Romans. And that's one reason why Jews to this day don't believe the Messiah has come. They believe the Messiah will draw all Jews back to the Middle East, but the truth is,

He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son Col.1:13

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Cor.2:14

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH man you have a lot to learn......John made that statement because MANY were spiritualizing away CHRIST and DENYING that GOD has come in the flesh...wow man...and You do know that this was written SOME 40 to 60 years AFTER Christ ascended......AND JERUSALEM FELL BEFORE he wrote that statement....

WOW MAN............

 

[iamsoandso]

Why would you think that? Why I ask is the Scriptures in post # 462 and #464 all seem to indicate that they did not understand what Jesus meant when he told them he would die. Immediately after the Olivet Discourse he is betrayed and then Crucified but then in all of the Gospels they seem as though they were not expecting him to die and then return from the grave in three days.

Instead the ones who went to his tomb believed the gardener had moved his body not that he rose from the dead. Thomas when told said he would not believe it unless he saw the nail holes so he doesn't seem to be reacting as if he was expecting him to rise after three days. Peter instead of going to his tomb as if he understood he would rise on the third day was instead was going fishing. Cleopas in Luke 24:21 https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-21.htm is very outspoken in saying to Jesus that they had hoped/trusted that he(Jesus) had been(pas-tense) he who should have(Pas-tense) redeemed Israel but that it was the third day after what was done(Jesus death) and so he doesn't seem to think Jesus was the one to redeem Israel anymore.

In short though if they had understood and believed he would die and be raised the third day then it would make sense they were asking him about his "second coming" but all four Gospels show that all of them were caught off guard by him being killed and not expecting him to rise the third day from the grave so in Matthew 24:3 they would have only been able to ask of the only coming they understood and believed.

I apologize if this seems as though I am against every position at once but defending every position at the same time. But if They ask him one thing and he answered it. And then also because they did not understand what would happen a few days later he told them about his second coming also and the events surrounding it.It would seem logical that an Preterit,an Amill. and an Disp. ect. would find support for their position in his answer. That is if it's looked at as it's completely left or right,my camp or yours instead of him explaining what was fulfilled, about to be, and the things afterward.

 

[UnderGrace]

I apologize if this seems as though I am against every position at once but defending every position at the same time. But if They ask him one thing and he answered it. And then also because they did not understand what would happen a few days later he told them about his second coming also and the events surrounding it.It would seem logical that an Preterit,an Amill. and an Disp. ect. would find support for their position in his answer. That is if it's looked at as it's completely left or right,my camp or yours instead of him explaining what was fulfilled, about to be, and the things afterward.

I was somewhat confused....do you have a postion or is it more an eclectic approach?

 

[azamzimtoti]

(Mat 16:21 From that time on Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.)

(Mat 17:12 And I tell you that Elijah has already come. Yet they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wanted. In the same way, the Son of Man will suffer at their hands.")

(Mat 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.)

 

[UnderGrace]

Let me just add to my previous post... This is not to say I agree with 100% of what Pentecost said in his book (I think some of the earlier authors/commentators were more accurate than he, in places), but "dispensational teaching" does see a distinction between "Jews" and "Gentiles" (NOT IN "THIS PRESENT AGE [singular]" IN "THE BODY"/"the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY," wherein there is NO DISTINCTION of Jews or Gentiles in our standing before God "IN CHRIST")--for example, Matthew 24:14 is not US sharing "the gospel" NOW... Matt24:14[26:13] is the "INVITATION" to the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom that will "go out" DURING the trib years (and delivered by the faithful/believing remnant of Jews/Israel, who will have COME TO FAITH following our Rapture--this is a matter of "right application of Scripture" [aka "correctly apportioning"] rather than applying it all to US, willy nilly)

[an example: where the 144,000 are set in contradistinction to the "a great multitude... of all the nations" in the trib years]

Watermark many Jews are already part of the body through faith in Christ.....why a remnant?

I would state like in all doctrines like dispensational doctrine there are usual many variations held by different people so it is really hard to pin down which it the true version

 

[iamsoandso]

I was somewhat confused....do you have a postion or is it more an eclectic approach?

lol, Not at all in fact but rather narrow. The issue is not me though but instead why those different positions came from the same discourse. I think it to be the things I've mentioned in my former post.

 

[UnderGrace]

How do the futurists deal with Matthew 24:
34Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.

In light of the words this generation?

 

[UnderGrace]

lol, Not at all in fact but rather narrow. The issue is not me though but instead why those different positions came from the same discourse. I think it to be the things I've mentioned in my former post.

Well eschatology has always confused me until recently ....I give all credit for my former confusion to Hal Lindsey... LOL