The Alexandria Christian School in Old Egypt And Amillennialism

[Randy Kluth]

I'm just curious, where is your historic proof for that?

Proof for which of the several points I made? I never considered it important to "prove" things I've read over the last few decades. Some of things are generally accepted facts.

I've seen you compare Premil/Chiliastic elements to Gnostic heretics. So why is there need for proof of that? If you've done it, and early Amils attacked Chiliasts as in league with Cerinthus' beliefs, why is there any question about it?

Do you question whether Amils destroyed the works of Chliasts? I've read that through the years a few times. So, I've never questioned it. The attitude Amils displayed towards Chiliasts doesn't even make me question it.

Are you questioning whether Gnostic works were burned? Again, I've read this through the years, that much of the Gnostic material we've obtained came not directly but through the works of those refuting it. Why should I question that? It seems logical. The orthodox Church logically wanted to dismiss the works of heretics to keep the Church pure.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I refer to several versions, but I'll not deny that the 1611 KJV is my main study version.

I have no problem with that. I was raised in the Lutheran Church reading the RSV. But my wife is English--so, I have no problem with your preference for any English product! ;)

The idea that the Alexandrian text being more reliable because it has a shorter number of words than the Majority Text was a suggestion of proof of earlier dating by Wescott and Hort. They tried to claim the Majority Text was thus corrupted from the later adding of words.

Yes, it's a logical assumption but certainly not proof of anything. Over time dedicated monks could be tempted to add words to clarify or to prove the then-current orthodoxy of the Church. Less words may indicate less tampering with?

They couldn't prove such a notion though, because quotes from the Majority Text by the early Church fathers proved the early use of the Majority Text, even though the Majority Text copies only go back to around the 4th century.

I think that the more old manuscripts we have from more and varied locations the closer we get to the original. They should all be compared.

But I certainly don't think there is any conspiracy that took place in the area of Alexandria. There were good Christians there just as there were in the Eastern part of the ancient Church.

The originals are gone, and I respect the work of all responsible scholars on the subject. Well, I suppose I don't respect those scholars with a liberal agenda....

 

[Behold]

Well, they're somewhat right... not all of them, and maybe only a few. As Paul says in Romans 9:6-8, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."

The "house of Israel" is speaking about Jews.
This is why Jesus made no distinction between them, when He was here.

If you look at the linage of Jesus.......there is a non-jew in His own linage.

Yeah no "replacement." The body of Christ and God's Israel always was what it was and is...

Yes., no replacement of Jews by the "body of Christ".
Currently in the 'time of the gentiles" most of the Body of Christ is Gentile......and this does not preclude a Jew from becoming Messianc.
In fact my Church is full of Messianic Jews.......some are Russian, French, Ethiopian.....

Replacement theology is just one more cult of mary fabrication., among so very many.

 

[WPM]

The Jews, who are God's original "chosen".

WE have a couple or 3 of these "replacement theory" SHOUTERS, here on the forum, who will tell you that all those Jews who are in Israel right now, are not really God's Chosen.......as they have been replaced by the body of Christ as "true Israel", they will tell you.

The Bible doesn't teach replacement theology, but it does teach expansion theology. The redeemed NT Church has been grafted into the believing remnant from the Jewish OT Church. Those who reject Christ are not God's chosen people, they are of their father the devil.

 

[WPM]

Proof for which of the several points I made? I never considered it important to "prove" things I've read over the last few decades. Some of things are generally accepted facts.

I've seen you compare Premil/Chiliastic elements to Gnostic heretics. So why is there need for proof of that? If you've done it, and early Amils attacked Chiliasts as in league with Cerinthus' beliefs, why is there any question about it?

Do you question whether Amils destroyed the works of Chliasts? I've read that through the years a few times. So, I've never questioned it. The attitude Amils displayed towards Chiliasts doesn't even make me question it.

Are you questioning whether Gnostic works were burned? Again, I've read this through the years, that much of the Gnostic material we've obtained came not directly but through the works of those refuting it. Why should I question that? It seems logical. The orthodox Church logically wanted to dismiss the works of heretics to keep the Church pure.

I do not question that the Gnostic material was destroyed. There is strong historic evidence that supports that. But where is your evidence that the Chiliast material was burnt by the early Church (Amils)? I've never read that.

 

[Behold]

Those who reject Christ are not God's chosen people, they are of their father the devil.

Every unbeliever is "of your father the Devil".

= Jew or Gentile.

Hell makes no exemptions regarding unbelievers......It'll take a Jew, or a Gentile.

John 3:36 makes no exceptions.

 

[Behold]

I don't respect those scholars with a liberal agenda....

Then definitely avoid the NIV, as its not just a very liberal translation, its among the worst Translations ever created.

 

[WPM]

Every unbeliever is "of your father the Devil".

= Jew or Gentile.

Hell makes no exemptions regarding unbelievers......It'll take a Jew, or a Gentile.

John 3:36 makes no exceptions.

Why then are you calling people who hate Christ God's chosen people? I can't think of anything more erroneous.

 

[PinSeeker]

The "house of Israel" is speaking about Jews.

Right, God's household, and true Jews of God, as I said.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Behold]

Why then are you calling people who hate Christ God's chosen people?

God original chosen people had never heard of Christ.....so, they didnt' believe in Him.
They were still God's Chosen.
At mount Sinai, 3000 of God's "chosen" died, and not because they rejected Christ.

You do have "elect" Jews.......and you do have the 12 Tribes, and you do have the Trib where God is going to resume His dealing with the Jew......using 144,000 of them., from the 12 Tribes

I can't think of anything more erroneous.

One you understand more, you'll see it differently, but not until.

 

[Behold]

Right, God's household, and true Jews of God, as I said.

True Jews, are Jews.

Over 6.4 million of them now found in Israel, as the Bible prophecied that they would come back to their Land.
They have., with more on the way there, in these end times.

"all True Jews".

 

[Behold]

The person who created the Catechetical School of Alexandria = Origen, took a knife, and castrated himself, based on a bible verse he mistranslated in his own head.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture preceded the book of Revelation. So I don't think we can prove anything other than many Christians have viewed the "Millennium" allegorically quite early, if not from the start.

I happen to believe John meant the Millennium to be literal, but I have no way to get into his mind when he wrote it down. We can only go back to the OT prophecies to see if a literal future kingdom of mortal men is predicted or not. There is nothing there about a thousand literal years.

Your response makes me wonder if you understood my point or not. I'm simply saying that the Amillennial doctrine did not start with allegorical interpretations made by Gnostics in the 2nd century as the liar Davy is trying to claim. I have shown how the Amillennialist doctrine is based on clear, straightforward passages that we use to help understand more difficult passages in books like Daniel, Isaiah, Zechariah and Revelation.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

"replacment theology"....that is a "doctrine of devils" that pretends that the born again gentile church is "true Israel"......This heretical nonsense was created by the MaryCult.....The Catholic church. "Fathers".

They also created the "Dark ages".

First of all, there's no such thing as "the born again gentile church" as the church is made up of both Jew and Gentile believers. And what is this "replacement theology" of which you speak? Who do you think is being replaced? Are you aware that there are two Israels? One does not replace the other.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Jews, who are God's original "chosen".

God's chosen are those who belong to Christ. No one has been replaced.

Romans 8:31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies.

Tell me, who are the ones "whom God has chosen" that no one can bring any charge against?

WE have a couple or 3 of these "replacement theory" SHOUTERS, here on the forum, who will tell you that all those Jews who are in Israel right now, are not really God's Chosen.......as they have been replaced by the body of Christ as "true Israel", they will tell you.

Have you never read the Bible? Do you think that the unbelieving Jews that Jesus called hypocrites and vipers in Matthew 23 are among God's chosen? Are any Jews who rejected Christ then or who have rejected Christ since then among God's chosen?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why then are you calling people who hate Christ God's chosen people? I can't think of anything more erroneous.

I don't get the sense that this guy has ever read the Bible.

 

[Behold]

First of all, there's no such thing as "the born again gentile church"

Paul is the "apostle TO The Gentiles"..........no other Apostle has this ministry or title, in the NT.

Once Jesus Died and rose again, the "time of the Gentiles" begin.....

So, this is God setting the Jews aside, during which the "time of the GENTILES".. has come...and we are in it.
When will the '"TIME of the Gentiles" end?........It ends when the Tribulation begins, and that will occur when the last gentile who is going to be born again in the "time of the Gentiles".. is born again.
It could be today., and once this happens, "the TIME of the GENTILES" will end, and the TRIB, will begin, and God resumes His dealing with the JEW.
This is why 144,000 JEWS will stand up, from the 12 Tribes.....in the Trib.
This does not happen in "the TIME of the Gentiles", @Spiritual Israelite

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

True Jews, are Jews.

Over 6.4 million of them now found in Israel, as the Bible prophecied that they would come back to their Land.
They have., with more on the way there, in these end times.

"all True Jews".

What is your excuse for your ignorance? There are ethnic Jews and religious Jews, but in terms of "true Jews", Paul explained who they are here:

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Paul said that a Jew (a true Jew) is NOT a Jew who is one outwardly (a religious Jew) because of outward things like being physically circumcised, but one IS "a Jew who is one inwardly" because of being spiritually circumcised. All believers are spiritually circumcised with "the circumcision of Christ', so all believers, Jew and Gentile, are true Jews. I don't get the sense that you've ever read the New Testament.

Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

Philippians 3:3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Paul is the "apostle TO The Gentiles"..........no other Apostle has this ministry or title, in the NT.

So? What is your point? He also preached to Jews.

Romans 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.

Once Jesus Died and rose again, the "time of the Gentiles" begin.....

Does context mean nothing to you? The times of the Gentiles has nothing to do with the church, but rather the time during which Jerusalem would be trampled by the Gentiles.

Luke 21:24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

So, this is God setting the Jews aside, during which the "time of the GENTILES".. has come...and we are in it.

God did not set the Jews aside. Are you serious? Where do you get this nonsense from? He wants all people to be saved and has never set anyone aside in relation to salvation.

 

[Davy]

The "Father of Gnosticism" was Valentinus.

He almost became a Pope in Rome.

Sadly, their false pagan doctrines are still with us today. Amillennialism is one of them, as Christ's Apostles and earliest Church fathers were all Premill, which is what is actually written in God's Word.

Gnosticism teaches that Lord Jesus did not actually die on the cross, that His disciples took Him down before He died, and that He married, had children, and lived to old age. That is what they taught in 2nd century A.D., and still teach that among their deceived pagan followers today.

Gnosticism is associated with materialism. It believes in a worldly kingdom here on earth for 'today', without Christ's literal presence and return. There is only one main body of people on earth today behind the establishing of that one-world kingdom movement, and it is Satan's host and the coming one-world beast kingdom Jesus warned the Church about in Revelation 13:1 for the end of this world. That is what their false Amillennial doctrine is designed to deceive Christians about, even though that doctrine crept into the Church back in the 2nd century A.D. when Gnosticism also crept into the Church back then.

That is why many Amills preach that 'today'... Christ's Kingdom is already manifest here on earth, even without Lord Jesus, and that it is up to the existing Church on earth today to CREATE His Kingdom for ALL nations, today, now. That is actually what the goal of the one-world beast kingdom for the end of 'this' world is about. That is actually what they are trying to setup today. As written in God's Word, Christ's Kingdom does not come LITERALLY until Jesus returns at His future 2nd coming, which His true faithful Church is still waiting for.

Thus actually, there are still only 2 Sides at work with this, God's people and Satan's host of servants here on earth.