The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Timtofly]

When we search for Chiliast teaching between AD 30-430 (which is the gamut of this research), we cannot find one single shred of teaching on a future millennial kingdom from any of the early Church fathers based in Israel, Syria, Egypt and modern Greece.

You make this claim, then make a long list of names that wrote about it. So what gives? Are you contradicting yourself?

Did they just offhanded mention 1,000 years, but made no interpretation whatsoever?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Oh, so the following is referring to a literal one thousand generations then? According to your logic, it must be.

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

So, God only keeps His covenant of love for one thousand generations and then His covenant expires? Tough luck to the 1001st generation, I guess, right?

You're being as silly as the guy you're defending. I'll say it the "thousandth" time! Words mean what they mean *in context!* That means a "thousand" can mean "one thousand." If the word "thousand" is used as a "manner of speaking," it can mean something else.

 

[Randy Kluth]

LOL. Years of debating with Premils shows them to be the spiritualists.

You're supposed to put a smiley face after that, or you're demonstrating a most unseemly side of yourself.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If we have the gall to question their beliefs then it seems some of them think it means we're part of a devil worshiping cult. It's unreal.

Who are "they?" I'm a Premil and I don't think you're a devil-worshiper! But I do think you fail to take seriously the warning in Revelation not to tamper with the words and their meaning. You can speculate about them, but trying to politically drive, with force, a symbolic meaning onto an otherwise literal statement is what the warning seems to be all about. Why not keep it speculative if you want to turn it into an allegory?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Premils are so blinkered by what they have been taught that they cannot see the figurative import of a thousand in Scripture. To accept that would instantly blow their beliefs out of the water. 10, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 are often used as round figures in Scripture to describe greater truths. We do the same today.
mmon or unusual to say I had a thousand dollars. They would simply round it off to a familiar even number. This is where 10, 100, 1,000, and 10,000 are often used. These are not wooden numbers.

OK, you're making me say it--that's a interpretive fallacy. If a "thousand" is used a thousand times in Scriptures as a figure of speech, that doesn't mean it is being used as a figure of speech in Rev 20. I haven't quite told you this a "thousand" times, but to you it's required that I use the word "thousand" symbolically.

 

[WPM]

OK, you're making me say it--that's a interpretive fallacy. If a "thousand" is used a thousand times in Scriptures as a figure of speech, that doesn't mean it is being used as a figure of speech in Rev 20. I haven't quite told you this a "thousand" times, but to you it's required that I use the word "thousand" symbolically.

I never said the thousand years is a figure of speech in Rev 20. It is a metaphoric reference, as the whole book is overwhelmingly.

 

[WPM]

You're supposed to put a smiley face after that, or you're demonstrating a most unseemly side of yourself.

You don't tell me what to do or not do.

 

[Timtofly]

By exaggerating, distorting, or fabricating someone’s position, it makes it much easier to present your own position as plausible and logical. But this type of underhand tactic only serves to prevent open, honest, profitable, rational and objective discussion.

So why do you present your argument that way?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I never said the thousand years is a figure of speech in Rev 20. It is a metaphoric reference, as the whole book is overwhelmingly.

Your argument used the word "thousand" in several different ways, including as a "figure of speech." That argument, as you yourself admit, is not valid. It is not valid anyway, since it is commonly identified as an Interpretive Fallacy.

One person puts it like THIS:
6. Selective use of meaning: Selecting the meaning you like best.

This is like the illegitimate totality transfer in reverse. Instead of the word carrying all the possible nuances, the interpreter will select which nuance he or she likes best. We must remember that the context determines the nuance, not the interpreter.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You don't tell me what to do or not do.

Then you're scandalizing yourself by slandering others, referring to Premils as "spiritualists." If that's what you want to do?....

 

[Randy Kluth]

No one is saying it has to be symbolic in Rev 20 because it's used symbolically elsewhere. The fact that it is used symbolically elsewhere shows that it CAN be used symbolically, which some Premils deny.

Of course. Who has said otherwise?

Nobody is denying that once "thousand" can be used symbolically, metaphorically, or allegorically that it can be used the same way again. It is context that matters.

What is not transparently clear in the context must be taken at face value, or you risk incurring God's wrath. God said don't mess with the words of the prophecy. It's safe to say that it likely means what it says, when the context does not itself *demand* that it be taken symbolically.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No one is saying it has to be symbolic in Rev 20 because it's used symbolically elsewhere. The fact that it is used symbolically elsewhere shows that it CAN be used symbolically, which some Premils deny.

Of course. Who has said otherwise?

The argument Amils sometimes make is that the preponderance of its use as a "saying," or in a metaphorical sense, makes it highly likely that in highly-symbolic Revelation its use is also symbolic. That is a simple diversion, since this argument only holds up if the word is being used in several places *in the same way.* In Rev 20, the word "thousand" is not being used in the many ways it is being used in the quotations used to prove it can be used symbolically.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Porphyry/Porphyrius

Another of your silly "proofs" that Modern Premil adopted heretics' material to offer their own beliefs! At your own admission, he was an enemy of orthodox Christianity, and certainly not a Christian. Christians, including modern Premils, base their beliefs not on heretics, but on the Scriptures.

If there are common beliefs between them, you might as well say that Christianity today is an offshoot of Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses, because Mormons taught that we are "sons of God," and JWs teach that God's Kingdom is an earthly kingdom, which you also claim exists in today's world.

But these arguments are illegitimate. The simple fact is that commonality of beliefs happens when there is a common source--the heretics themselves are not the source, and their heretical perspective is not being followed.

In the case of belief in Israel's supremacy and restoration of the Law in the Millennium, that was taught by the ancient Jews. And Modern Dispensationalists teach the equality of Jew and Gentile in Christ, claiming that any "restoration" of practices under the Law will be purely symbolic of Christ.

In my view, these are shameful tactics, basically "name-calling" to preserve pride in your position. Calling brothers the spawn of heretics is an ugly thing to do, and you double down on it!

 

[Timtofly]

The only difference was, the seventh day for Premillennialists was a future millennial, whereas the Amillennialists believed that the seventh day was an eternal day without end.

So you admit Amil were just as wrong back then as they are today. Can you quote a verse that states an eternal day, even symbolically?

How long was the original Sabbath? Is that Sabbath still ongoing with no end?

 

[Randy Kluth]

So you admit Amil were just as wrong back then as they are today. Can you quote a verse that states an eternal day, even symbolically?

How long was the original Sabbath? Is that Sabbath still ongoing with no end?

Excellent point! Maybe it's been made before, but I don't recall.

If they are 7 days equally defined, then each one is limited by a corresponding period. The Millennial Day theory is based on this idea, which was promoted by Jews even before Christianity began, and the Apostle John received his revelation.

"Days" are periods of time of limited proportion. If the 7th day was meant to be eternal, the record would've said something like "a time of eternal rest" or "7,8,9..."

 

[Timtofly]

Oh, so the following is referring to a literal one thousand generations then? According to your logic, it must be.

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

So, God only keeps His covenant of love for one thousand generations and then His covenant expires? Tough luck to the 1001st generation, I guess, right?

Do you know how long it would take to get to 1,000 generations? Can you give us how many generations there have been since Adam? Are we even going to make it to 900 generations? Kind of hard to worry about that 1001 generation, since you wipe out all humans and remove their ability to procreate, way before that point.

 

[Timtofly]

a thousand is commonly used as an even round figure to represent New Testament truths.

How many times is this usage and what are the NT verses?

I highly doubt you are being literal, but figurative here to prove you can be figurative all the time. I daresay you will continue thousands of times to drive home only figurative indefinite points, instead of literal ones.

I never said the thousand years is a figure of speech in Rev 20. It is a metaphoric reference, as the whole book is overwhelmingly.

Sorry that Revelation is so overwhelming for you. Be prepared to sit in the corner for 1,000 overwhelming years of denial. Oh wait, you were not being literal, but figurative again.

 

[Taken]

Premillennialism, is the belief that Jesus will return to Earth before the millennium, thousand year reign.

Rev 6
[1] And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

Seems to me the Tribulation of God has begun...

So, @Paul Malcomson .... Can you identify the Scripture of when Jesus returns to earth?

The Church has been in tribulation since the stoning of Stephen.

Seems you didn’t get my post to you....

Rev 6: is the Lamb opening the First Seal.
Rev 6: whereby the Lamb opens the First Seal, “seems to me GODS TRIBULATION BEGINS”.

I am speaking of Gods Tribulation...Seals, Trumps, Vials.

You responded with MENS Tribulations.

So, let’s first settle; Do you see a difference Between MENS Tribulations that have occurred BETWEEN Men, for EONS....
AND...
Gods Tribulations send down from Heaven...VIA:
Seals, Trumps, Vials ?

 

[Timtofly]

Excellent point! Maybe it's been made before, but I don't recall.

If they are 7 days equally defined, then each one is limited by a corresponding period. The Millennial Day theory is based on this idea, which was promoted by Jews even before Christianity began, and the Apostle John received his revelation.

"Days" are periods of time of limited proportion. If the 7th day was meant to be eternal, the record would've said something like "a time of eternal rest" or "7,8,9..."

Yet Amil will not base their point on reality even if it can be proven.

The whole point is based on an indefinite period of time which has to be symbolic instead of literal.

If the first 6 days were a literal 24 hr time period, and the Sabbath was 1,000 years, then the 6,000 years since the fall could be compared with a Sabbath day without end. God compared His time of 6 24 hour days with a 7th day lasting 1,000 years to let the earth work out creation.

Similarly after 6,000 years of a mess, God would respond with an eternity of righteousness. But Amil will not use Scripture in comparison that is making a literal point, but only Scripture that details figurative points. And no Scripture even defines there will be an eternal Day, as that is an oxymoron. Two totally different concepts in an attempt to make a coherent point, but still only a figurative attempt, not literal.

Peter was not going for an eternal day in 2 Peter 3. The Psalmist was not going for an eternal day in Psalm 90. But the way the ECF are presented here is that this chiliast notion was about an eternal day, instead of a literal 1,000 years. That has yet to be proven, but the op presenter keeps trying to insinuate that point. That would be considered an opinion forced onto the historical record, by those very same people making that point, had it been any other poster making that claim.

Modern Amil do not get their doctrine from those same alledged ecf, any more than any other modern day eschatology. Amil today have switched from a future 1,000 years, to the current here and now of the last 1992 years.

Also the 70th week of Daniel 9 has not been finalized. If that were the case we would already have been in that millennium for an indefinite amount of time. Sin and Adam's dead corruptible flesh, is still an ongoing phenomenon. When the 70th week ends, all will know righteousness. Adam's time will be up. Creation will go back to the way it was prior to Adam's disobedience. That is not Israel centric. That is literally the whole world living in the original Sabbath. Of course Jerusalem, and Jesus' blood relatives will be premier among the rest of the nations.

If there is an issue with segregation, why was Adam set apart from the other sons of God in the Garden of Eden? Was that not literal segregation for a purpose? There is no segregation now, except for what human selfishness defines as segregation. Moses and the Law was a segregation from the world. Abraham was called out, a segregation from the world. Is segregation that is symbolic OK, but not if it is literal?

The only literal thing they concede is the cleansing fire, but only if it literal kills everyone. Certainly not a symbolic fire that literally destroys all of mankind's works. We are talking about a fire that strategically removes all technology, but does not harm any humans. Not just left in rubble but is climactically and dramatically no longer in existence. Certainly the only literal way to read:

"and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

How can that only be symbolic? What all posters fail to grasp is that at any moment the spiritual blindness will be removed along with every human technology. There will be beings that will do God's will without needing any of what we use to make life easier. They will not be bound by current physical limitations. And it will definitely not be the church age, nor the age of Christianity any more. It will be the Day of the Lord. There were no Christians on that 7th day, in Genesis 2, only the sons of God. But the final harvest and the removal of 8 billion souls, has to happen before the Millennium can start. That is being literal, not symbolic. The final harvest is not a suggestion in Matthew 13.

 

[Taken]

John says “I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away," you say "no, that will not happen John, I know better."

No need to make up lies Paul...I said no such thing!

I asked you ONE question...post #736 You responded with a page long of gobblygook....

Could you respond with an answer to what I asked?


So, @Paul Malcomson .... Can you identify the Scripture of when Jesus returns to earth?