Posted on 08/17/2014 10:21:22 AM PDT by wmfights
LOL, gotta love those dogs.
You are right that prior to the emergence of the institutional church the dominant view was Premillennial. If you can find some articles that will compare and contrast pre-nicene Premillennialism with modern Premillennialism I would be very interested in reading them.
How many times will you pretend that nobody has answered that already??? Here's a hint (and you'd finally get it if you stopped avoiding answering the question that has been posed to you several times now) who is the "Wife of Jehovah"?
You cannot say it is the "church". I hope you know why, but I'll be happy to explain it to you once again if you need me to.
“Wife of Jehovah” doesn’t say who Israel is. Maybe this will make it clearer, is there anyone alive today we can say belongs to or is part of Israel.
Is TIger Woods paer of Israel?
Is Steven Spielberg part of Israel?
Is “miss Israel” part of Israel?
Put some meat on the bones, can you? If I go down the street and start asking someone who the wife of Jehovah is, they will look at me as if I have two heads.
Btw, if you don’t know, just say so. No shame in it, since no dispensationalist knows apparently. The fellow posting this series, is silent because the person asking the question doesn’t believe the Gospel. Is that what a Christian does? I thought we were always supposed to be ready to give answer about the faith.
What is the criteria for someone to be considered part of “Israel”?
You would think I am asking someone to explain the theory of relativity.
Your theories and arguments have been thoroughly debunked in the 8th session of this installment and now you apparently pretend that thread never took place...
Of course Peter says the heavens and earth will melt away because they will...After the 1000 reign of Jesus on Earth...
Revelation 21:2 tells us this city, this new Jerusalem is the bride of Christ, Israel or as it is more commonly known, the Church.
Misquoting scripture again to prove something that isn't true...You guys never learn...
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Jesus does NOT say that the New Jerusalem is a bride or church...Jesus says the New City is adorned AS a bride...Adorned 'like' a bride would be adorned...So that's not even a good try on your part...
that’s why I asked for some dispensationalist to define Israel, AND NO ONE HAS.
You have been thoroughly schooled on this topic in the previous thread...No need to repeat it...Go back and read that thread...
I have posted the scriptural response to that question twice. The last time I wrote "Ezekiel 37:11." This is one of the reason I prefer to just post the scriptures without references. If someone is walking in, and taught of, the Holy Spirit, the scriptures will speak to his heart. If he does not have, or is grieving, the Holy Spirit, no amount of explanation will suffice. When one is taught of the Holy Spirit, all the scriptures he has diligently studied flow through his heart and mind, comparing scripture with scripture, ready and willing to be obedient as a little child.
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
I don't see him allowing others to miscontrue him as Catholic (so the Catholic Church is blamed for his teaching) and then publicly denying the Catholic Catechism. "That would strain credulity at that."
The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."
Church should not accept members who deny Vatican II, official says
The Second Vatican Council's teaching, particularly on Judaism and other religions, is rooted in traditional Christian theology and the Bible, and the Catholic Church should not offer concessions to those who do not accept its teaching, said an Israeli-born Franciscan who serves as a judge on a top Vatican court.
Msgr. David Jaeger, a judge at the Roman Rota, defined as worrying a tendency, "here and there in Catholicism, to look leniently upon stray groups that are marginal but well-publicized who denounce the doctrine of the council, including the declaration 'Nostra Aetate'" on the relationship of the church to non-Christian religions.
Msgr. Jaeger, who grew up in a Jewish family, spoke about "Nostra Aetate" during a conference on the Second Vatican Council at Rome's Opus Dei-run Holy Cross University May 3-4.
"While often presented as if it were absolutely new," he said, the teaching of "Nostra Aetate" "perfectly corresponds to the most ancient intuitions of Christian theology" when it affirms "there can be, and in particular cases, are elements of truth and holiness" in other religions, he said. In addition, the document emphasized that Judaism has a special status, which "already was extensively explained by St. Paul, particularly in the Epistle to the Romans."
The council's document explained the church's "doctrine on Judaism, the only religion which, while not knowing Christ, has its origins in biblical revelation, which is why the church does not regard it simply as a 'non-Christian religion,' but ascribes to it a unique status," Msgr. Jaeger said.
While recognizing the unique and special relationship between God and the Jewish people, he said, the council did not say say that Judaism was a "parallel path to salvation" and it did not deny that somehow, in the end, all salvation would be accomplished through Christ.
Obviously motivated by the horrors of the Holocaust, but also by centuries of injustices and persecution of Jews "by those who called themselves Christians and believed they therefore could justify their brutality, the declaration took care to severely condemn such conduct and to highlight the complete illegitimacy of supporting it with any reference to Christianity," he said.
"The proof of Nostra Aetate's effectiveness is that it seems strange to have to say it today," the monsignor said.
However, he said, "One must take this occasion to express the deep hope that leniency will be denied" to anyone who does not accept the council's teaching and "that there will be no being content with fake, quasi-adhesions accompanied by evident verbal and mental reservations to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in general and to 'Nostra Aetate' in particular."
"In fact," he said, "the extreme gravity of the counter-witness of those who have, for centuries, abused the name of Christ and the term Christian to persecute and oppress the Jews must never be forgotten or underestimated in any way."
Where is this Part 8? I’m asking if there’s a corresponding thread on FR.
Of course Peter says the heavens and earth will melt away because they will...After the 1000 reign of Jesus on Earth
LOL, one can read 2 Peter front to back and back to front, and you will not find any mention of the so called 1000 year reign! why not? because it’s not Biblical.
2 Peter 3:7 speaks of the “day of judgement”, or as I like to call it, Judgement Day. v10 says when Jesus returns, it will be like a thief, we won’t know the exact day. please note, Jesus will come again ONE TIME, not twice.
when He does return, IT IS JUDGEMENT DAY, THE LAST DAY.
v10 says “ and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire and the earth and the works upon it will be burned up.”
get it? Judgement Day when Jesus returns AND THEN the earth is destroyed. NO 1,000 YEAR MILLENIAL KINGDOM.
while we are in 2 Peter, you might note 2:1 warns about false teachers bringing destructive heresies, just sayin.
oh, I forgot. please let me know what post # “Israel” was defined in in thread #8. you and BB keep alluding to it, but I can’t find one, so if either of you can say the post number, I would love to go back and read what Israel is to the dispensationalist.
is it an ethnic group?
is it a religion?
is it an ethic group that follows a religion?
If you can find some articles that will compare and contrast pre-nicene Premillennialism with modern Dispensational Premillennialism I would be very interested in reading them.
If you do a search with the keywors Premillennial, Amillennial, or Dispensational you should find the series starting with the 1st part.
Of course it does. Catholics and others who corrupt the meaning of scripture don't understand that but it's true nonetheless.
>>If I go down the street and start asking someone who the wife of Jehovah is, they will look at me as if I have two heads.<<
I see part of your problem. "People on the the street" are as bad a place to get understanding of scripture as the Catholic Church is.
Ok, that ‘s one dispensationalist who has no idea of who/what Israel is. Anyone else?
Who did God put back in their land in 1948?
I find that line of inquiry interesting, particularly in light of Ezekiel 36, et al.
I am not aware that God put anyone back in their land in 1948. Who are you referring to and how do you know God was the one who did it?
any Scripture to support these assertions or do we just take your word for it. I would think if it was so “stunning” you would have given me six verses that say in 1948 God was going to give some people back their land. but as with most things dispensational, it’s an enigma, wrapped in a riddle.......
“he said he would” WHERE???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.