Who Populates the Millennial Kingdom?

[Aaron]

And I have to disagree with your understanding.

There is a difference between the Age/s to come and the here and now. And Paul was writing in the same Age we are part of, yet still predicting a future Age.

Ephesians 2:6-7

King James Version (KJV)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.


And we see that this aspect of our having been translated into the Kingdom of His dear Son, which is what you have in view according to your position is already noted in the phrase " and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

Two different things in view: first, that we are saved, and secondly, that the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us might be shown in the Age/s to come.




Aaron, the events of Revelation do not speak of anyone being born again. The Tribulation Martyrs, for example, are physically resurrected at Christ's return. They were already born again, so we see two separate issues in view.




The "first" death occurred when Adam sinned, and that held lasting consequence for all men. All men are born dead today. When we are saved we are already dead in trespasses and sins, and our salvation involves us being made alive, which is the result of the indwelling of God.




The First Resurrection is the first of two resurrections taught by Scripture, both Old and New Testaments: the resurrection unto life, and the resurrection unto damnation.

"First" in "First Resurrection" is the word protos, which is also used to indicate rank (i.e., greater or lesser), not just sequence (i.e., first, second, third, and so on).

It is the same word used here:


Hebrews 9:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


We know the Covenant of Law was not the first in the manner of sequence, we could point out several which preceded it, just like we can point out several resurrections which precede the resurrection in Revelation 20 which precede it, starting first with the true First Resurrection in regards to glorification which is Christ's resurrection.

In reality the first resurrection we experience as believers is the resurrection we undergo when we are imparted life. That life is the result of God, the Source of eternal life, indwelling us.




You are seated at your desk, or wherever it is you have your computer, Aaron. lol

Your being seated with Christ is positional now, it is the declaration of God. But one day you will be literally seated with Him, just as men will be seated with these fellows in the Kingdom...

Matthew 8:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.


Does "east and west" have a meaning in Heaven? Or in that Kingdom promised Israel by God?




And the Millennial Kingdom is the temporal reality taught in the Old Testament and reiterated in Revelation.

And I will have to pick this up tome-orrow, lol.


God bless.

One thing at a time. But, "ages to come" means from now on and forever more. At least that's what I get from Vines. But I'm not going to belabor the point.

 

[OldRegular]

In Revelation 19 we are shown the return of Jesus Christ in the Full Glory of the Godhead; Glory which HE laid aside at HIS first coming 2000 years ago.

MY question to all Darby/ Scofield dispensationalists is how does mortal man live in the presence of the Full Glory of the GODHEAD. Scripture tells us differently!

Exodus 33:18-23
18. And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22. And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23. And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

I believe that revelation is progressive but GOD DOES NOT CHANGE!

1 Timothy 6:13-16
13. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14. That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15. Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16. Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

 

[Darrell C]

No. There is no unseating. My words: "It is the ETERNAL reality."

The point he is making is that in Revelation 20, in the First Resurrection, those raised from the dead are said to "reign with Christ one thousand years." This sets a time limit for a specific reign. In regards to the Sovereignty of God that is an Eternal Reign, so the time limit must identify that particular period. This period precedes the Eternal State, where we know that God will be all in all.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I didn't say it was figurative. We were dead in sin, but we were raised in Christ. Not figuratively, really.

And I would agree that our resurrection from the dead, which takes place at salvation, is literal. We were literally dead, and literally raised again in the spiritual, in the eternal sense.

But the First Resurrection is a physical resurrection, and seeing that they reign one thousand years implies they are not just bodily raised, as Lazarus, but glorified. It is true that the Old Testament Prophecy concerning the Kingdom promised long lifespans, but glorification is the likely view. Even if we took the position they were only raised physically, and had to wait until the Great White Throne to be glorified, it still does not meet the standard of Rapture teaching which has the entire Church, both dead and living, glorified at the same time.

What John saw was the souls of those who were beheaded for the testimony of Christ, in other words, those who were persecuted. The promise to those who suffer with Christ is that they will reign with him. And the promise to every true believer is that he will suffer persecution. He sees them in seated in Heaven. The Apostle says we are already there. Not figuratively. Really. In our temporal, moment by moment lives, it is not yet made manifest, but this is already an accomplished fact.

I would agree in part, the Eternal Declaration of our completed salvation is evident, such as Paul saying we have been glorified in the past tense.

But, Paul's statement that we are seated with Christ speaks of all believers, not just Martyrs. Not all Christians are martyrs.

And the First Resurrection is exclusive to the Tribulation itself, because it is in that time men will be forced to take the mark of the Beast. So even if one took the view that the mark was figurative for the evil men think (forehead) and the evil men do (hand), we still see an exclusive group resurrected, that is...martyrs.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

One thing at a time. But, "ages to come" means from now on and forever more. At least that's what I get from Vines. But I'm not going to belabor the point.

This is actually an argument that some who believe salvation can be lost use. The general principle is that when "eternal" or "everlasting" salvation is clearly the result of belief, they try to make this simply mean a long time, not that it means it is itself eternal.

But we can see that it's meaning is usually defined in the context it is used.


Ephesians 2:6-7

King James Version (KJV)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.


The links show the separation of the words the words "in" "the ages" "to come." Our being seated with Christ is now, contrasted with the riches of His grace shown to us, which we enjoy now, but that which we will see will exceed our current position, which is not a physical seating with Christ, but yet just the Eternal Declaration. Just as Paul states we have been glorified, yet we are still in unredeemed flesh.

Now we can expand the context of Paul's statement by backing up, where we see...


Ephesians 1:17-21

King James Version (KJV)

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:


Now we restore the progression of Paul's teaching:


Ephesians 2:6-7

King James Version (KJV)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.


In view is not just a matter of our position in Christ now, but that which shall come. Again we see that there is an age to come. We can see this have an application to the Eternal State ultimately, but, we still have to deal with the Prophecy we have been given, which speaks of an age/period/era which will last one thousand years. If that is viewed as simply a reference to "a long time," then we still have to deal with the exclusivity of Martyrs being raised.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

In Revelation 19 we are shown the return of Jesus Christ in the Full Glory of the Godhead; Glory which HE laid aside at HIS first coming 2000 years ago.

Nowhere does Scripture teach that the Son of God laid aside His glory, but rather that His Glory was veiled when He manifested in human flesh. Not as taught in the popular teaching of the Kinosis, which teaches that the Son "emptied Himself of that glory, that implies a setting aside of Deity. That glory remained, though veiled in human flesh, which the writer of Hebrews calls the "veil." That veil separated man from God, and only by going through the veil could men come into His presence.

Christ was fully God and fully Man.

MY question to all Darby/ Scofield dispensationalists is how does mortal man live in the presence of the Full Glory of the GODHEAD.

Same way they did here:


John 20:26-27

King James Version (KJV)

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.


Christ was still God, still in the flesh He took upon Himself, yet raised in glorified form.

That is how He will return.

Scripture tells us differently!

Exodus 33:18-23
18. And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22. And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23. And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
Click to expand...

I would agree this is the Godhead, but let's not forget that God also visited men on a number of occasions where He also took on human form. He met with Abraham on the Plains of Mamre, for example.

I believe that revelation is progressive but GOD DOES NOT CHANGE!

We are not talking about God changing, but how God ministered to men differently.

We do see a change in ministry when He veiled His glory in the Incarnation. While the Lord had previously taken on human form to interact with men, this time that form was specifically created that He might die in that body and be raised from the dead in that Body. That same body He took up residence in is at this time the same body He was raised in.

That isn't "God changing," simply God ministering in a way in which prior to the Incarnation He had not.

1 Timothy 6:13-16
13. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14. That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15. Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16. Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

We distinguish between God in His Eternal Godhead and God stepping into our universe. The Son is Eternal, but the Christ has a point in time when He came into existence...in this realm, the physical universe. He is not the "eternally begotten Son," but by His own Word He has made it clear that there was a day in which He would be begotten, and that took place, whereby God stepped out of Eternity into our sphere for the specific purpose of dying for our sin.

Abraham prophesied this:


Genesis 22:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.


God bless.

 

[Aaron]

The point he is making is that in Revelation 20, in the First Resurrection, those raised from the dead are said to "reign with Christ one thousand years." This sets a time limit for a specific reign. In regards to the Sovereignty of God that is an Eternal Reign, so the time limit must identify that particular period. This period precedes the Eternal State, where we know that God will be all in all.

...

And I would agree that our resurrection from the dead, which takes place at salvation, is literal. We were literally dead, and literally raised again in the spiritual, in the eternal sense.

But the First Resurrection is a physical resurrection, and seeing that they reign one thousand years implies they are not just bodily raised, as Lazarus, but glorified. It is true that the Old Testament Prophecy concerning the Kingdom promised long lifespans, but glorification is the likely view. Even if we took the position they were only raised physically, and had to wait until the Great White Throne to be glorified, it still does not meet the standard of Rapture teaching which has the entire Church, both dead and living, glorified at the same time.

...

I would agree in part, the Eternal Declaration of our completed salvation is evident, such as Paul saying we have been glorified in the past tense.

But, Paul's statement that we are seated with Christ speaks of all believers, not just Martyrs. Not all Christians are martyrs.

And the First Resurrection is exclusive to the Tribulation itself, because it is in that time men will be forced to take the mark of the Beast. So even if one took the view that the mark was figurative for the evil men think (forehead) and the evil men do (hand), we still see an exclusive group resurrected, that is...martyrs.

Well, the fact that the Apostles teach that there has been a real resurrection of the saints, and that it was spiritual, has been established. But you say that's not the resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20, because those raised were martyred. I would disagree that physical death is a requirement for martyrdom. I won't debate that point yet, but just for the record, is it only those that were beheaded at a future time that were raised? and not those who perished some other way, e.g. starved, shot, hanged, etc? Or is it all who were killed for the testimony of Christ, no matter the manner of their murder, during the time of the beast as you see it?

 

[DHK]

Here are some questions to anyone on this thread who would like to answer:

1. The word "thousand" is used six times in the first seven verses of Revelation 20. If its meaning is not a literal thousand years, then what is it, and who determines its meaning?

2. There are two witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11. They are God's witnesses who stand prophesying for 3 1/2 years. If they are not two literal men, then what are they? Who determines that meaning and how do they arrive at that meaning?

3. There are seven churches being addressed by Christ in chapters two and three? Are they literal churches? Is Christ literally Christ? Why or why not?

4. The book is being written by John at the command of Christ. Is John a literal person called John, and Christ literally Jesus Christ? Why or why not? If so many other things in this book are allegorized who is the authority to say which parts should or should not be allegorized?

 

[percho]

For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth John 5:21

Are the two in bold simultaneous? Is one physical and the other spiritual? If yes. witch is witch?

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Eph 2:1 Arron, I think said that in bold is past tense. Is it? Is it even there?

Of course verse 5 does say:
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )

Is that underlined, past tense or is it something that took place in the past and is to also take place in the future?

“he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. Acts 2:31 NKJV
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matt 16:18 NKJV
And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Col 1:18 NKJV

Was Jesus of Nazareth raised from the dead and quickened? 1 Peter 3:18

Is Acts 2:31 the beginning of Matt 16:18

even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: John 5:21,22

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening (life giving?) spirit.

or is it something that took place in the past and is to also take place in the future? From above.

 

[percho]

Here are some questions to anyone on this thread who would like to answer:

1. The word "thousand" is used six times in the first seven verses of Revelation 20. If its meaning is not a literal thousand years, then what is it, and who determines its meaning?

2. There are two witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11. They are God's witnesses who stand prophesying for 3 1/2 years. If they are not two literal men, then what are they? Who determines that meaning and how do they arrive at that meaning?

3. There are seven churches being addressed by Christ in chapters two and three? Are they literal churches? Is Christ literally Christ? Why or why not?

4. The book is being written by John at the command of Christ. Is John a literal person called John, and Christ literally Jesus Christ? Why or why not? If so many other things in this book are allegorized who is the authority to say which parts should or should not be allegorized?

4 very good questions.

 

[agedman]

One thing at a time. But, "ages to come" means from now on and forever more. At least that's what I get from Vines. But I'm not going to belabor the point.

Aaron, did you miss the post were i showed the Greek translation?

Here it is again:
"that in the ages to come" (taken primarily from Strongs, because of the limited time I have).

"that in the ages" is a single Greek word - aión. It means: a cycle of time, space of time. Strong states that it is used as some future age contrasted to the present age - one of a series of ages that stretch to infinity.

"to come" is one Greek word - eperchomai. It means: come to, arrive, come on, come upon, attack.

Therefore, the phrase, "that in the ages to come," may be paraphrased by stating:
"... that in some future age to come in contrast to this age..."

Trust this helps focus the discussion without interference.

 

[agedman]

This...





...does not say "...the Apostles were pre-millennial." It speaks of a singular Apostle and those who learned from him.

Your argument therefore is contrived, which then demands proof of pre-millennial teaching from all Apostles.

"Contrived?"

Seriously?

From what pinnacle do you stand upon to post, that you determine the Apostles taught contending doctrines.

Here is one of my sources, where is yours?

“Polycarp was instructed by the apostles, and was brought into contact with many who had seen Christ.” (Adv. Hær., iii. 3)

If anyone new the Scriptures it was the Apostles and what those Apostles taught.

Have you read P0lycarp's letter to the Philippians? Reads just like the writing was from Paul.

Thought I would use your technique to place emphasis.

 

[percho]

Aaron, did you miss the post were i showed the Greek translation?

Here it is again:
"that in the ages to come" (taken primarily from Strongs, because of the limited time I have).

"that in the ages" is a single Greek word - aión. It means: a cycle of time, space of time. Strong states that it is used as some future age contrasted to the present age - one of a series of ages that stretch to infinity.

"to come" is one Greek word - eperchomai. It means: come to, arrive, come on, come upon, attack.

Therefore, the phrase, "that in the ages to come," may be paraphrased by stating:
"... that in some future age to come in contrast to this age..."

Trust this helps focus the discussion without interference.

Along that same thought.

“But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; Luke 20:35 NKJV


How long in that age and are there ages to follow?

 

[Darrell C]

Well, the fact that the Apostles teach that there has been a real resurrection of the saints, and that it was spiritual, has been established. But you say that's not the resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20, because those raised were martyred. I would disagree that physical death is a requirement for martyrdom. I won't debate that point yet, but just for the record, is it only those that were beheaded at a future time that were raised? and not those who perished some other way, e.g. starved, shot, hanged, etc? Or is it all who were killed for the testimony of Christ, no matter the manner of their murder, during the time of the beast as you see it?

While I am not dogmatic about it, I think the Martyrs in view are those killed during the Tribulation, based on the surrounding text. It is given at the end of the tribulation, with correlation to the beast:


Revelation 20

King James Version (KJV)

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


Only in this Age do we see the witness of Jesus, which begin after the Holy Ghost in the Ministry of Comforter had come:


Acts 1:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


It is possible that one might consider all saints that have been martyred throughout history, but I take the position that only Tribulation Martyrs are in view. And while the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is rejected my many, the view I take has all martyrs, as well as those who were not martyrs, resurrected in the Rapture of the Church prior to the beginning of the Tribulation.

Revelation simply does not have a resurrection which fits the terms of the teaching concerning the Rapture of the Church. It can't be the First Resurrection, because the physically living saints are not glorified at this time. That then denies the general resurrection of the Great White Throne, because no mention of the unjust is in view in the Rapture. We could consider the Mid=Tribulation view, and speculate the Church is Raptured when the Two Witnesses are, but again, only those two seem to be in view.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Well, the fact that the Apostles teach that there has been a real resurrection of the saints, and that it was spiritual, has been established. But you say that's not the resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20, because those raised were martyred. I would disagree that physical death is a requirement for martyrdom. I won't debate that point yet, but just for the record, is it only those that were beheaded at a future time that were raised? and not those who perished some other way, e.g. starved, shot, hanged, etc? Or is it all who were killed for the testimony of Christ, no matter the manner of their murder, during the time of the beast as you see it?

In regards to the resurrections, again we distinguish between spiritual and bodily resurrection in regards to the saints. They are two distinctly different resurrections.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

"Contrived?"

Yes, contrived.

Seriously?

Inarguably.

Read the post again and you will see that.

From what pinnacle do you stand upon to post, that you determine the Apostles taught contending doctrines.

I stand from the pinnacle of the Word of God.

You shout up to me with the opinions of men.

“Polycarp was instructed by the apostles, and was brought into contact with many who had seen Christ.” (Adv. Hær., iii. 3)

Here is one of my sources, where is yours?

1 John 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

My source is better.

If anyone new the Scriptures it was the Apostles and what those Apostles taught.

My point exactly.

Have you read P0lycarp's letter to the Philippians?

No, I do not need to read Polycarp when I can read inspired Scripture.

Reads just like the writing was from Paul.

No, actually it does not.

You need to learn to separate the difference of the weight of what God speaks and what men speak.

Thought I would use your technique to place emphasis.

Misinterpreting what someone else says in a post is not a technique, it is an error.

And when I do that I apologize.




God bless.

 

[agedman]

When asked if you have read Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, you said:

No, I do not need to read Polycarp when I can read inspired Scripture.

Then when I state, "It reads just like the writing was from Paul," you state:

No, actually it does not.

So, which is it?

Have you read it, or not? Frankly, it doesn't matter.

You claimed I "contrive," but then I show you proof of the statement(s)

Then you want to claim higher ground by boasting, as if the rest of us also don't rely upon the Word of God as our final authority and not men.

Then you state that "I" have misinterpreted YOU when post using the technique of emphasis YOU clearly posted as reasonable and why you use such.

The truth of what I posted is glaringly evident for all to see.

 

[Darrell C]

When asked if you have read Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, you said:



Then when I state, "It reads just like the writing was from Paul," you state:



So, which is it?

Have you read it, or not? Frankly, it doesn't matter.

You claimed I "contrive," but then I show you proof of the statement(s)

Then you want to claim higher ground by boasting, as if the rest of us also don't rely upon the Word of God as our final authority and not men.

Then you state that "I" have misinterpreted YOU when post using the technique of emphasis YOU clearly posted as reasonable and why you use such.

The truth of what I posted is glaringly evident for all to see.

It is not boasting...no word of men can be equated to the Word of God.

Your post is based on error, and you do not even know why. You compound the error because your pride has been wounded, and I can assure you, if you persist in this attitude you will be defeating what you should be here to do.

Reread the post you took issue with and understand your error. I am willing to let it go for your sake, but you force me to point out that error if you persist in this contrived argument that looks to men to make a point.

And men are always going to fail.


God bless.

 

[agedman]

It is not boasting...no word of men can be equated to the Word of God.

I don't know of a single member of the BB who does not consider that "no word of men can equate to the Word of God." That is a silly excuse.

However, there are a great number of times, the "word of men" is used on the BB to give further insight and present authority to a point.

As such, when HISTORY is used, then it should be shown upon what authority that history resides. That is as I did.

Your post is based on error, and you do not even know why. You compound the error because your pride has been wounded, and I can assure you, if you persist in this attitude you will be defeating what you should be here to do.

Reread the post you took issue with and understand your error. I am willing to let it go for your sake, but you force me to point out that error if you persist in this contrived argument that looks to men to make a point.

And men are always going to fail.


God bless.

I want you to prove to me that I posted in error.

I am not too proud to edit or clarify, are you?

If you can show error, then by all means present it.

You challenged what I presented, and I gave you proof.

You have presented that I "contrived" which is saying that I was deceitful, that I underhandedly tried to get by with marring the truth.

Now, you must demonstrate the validity of your statement and the rational of why you consider that I contrive, so that I may make appropriate apology.

 

[Darrell C]

I don't know of a single member of the BB who does not consider that "no word of men can equate to the Word of God." That is a silly excuse.

However, there are a great number of times, the "word of men" is used on the BB to give further insight and present authority to a point.

As such, when HISTORY is used, then it should be shown upon what authority that history resides. That is as I did.

And you appealed to Polycarp.

Here is the exchange:

Darrell C said: ↑
This...





...does not say "...the Apostles were pre-millennial." It speaks of a singular Apostle and those who learned from him.

Your argument therefore is contrived, which then demands proof of pre-millennial teaching from all Apostles.
Click to expand...

"Contrived?"

Seriously?

From what pinnacle do you stand upon to post, that you determine the Apostles taught contending doctrines.

Here is one of my sources, where is yours?

“Polycarp was instructed by the apostles, and was brought into contact with many who had seen Christ.” (Adv. Hær., iii. 3)

Your first error is in not recognizing that you...

...were not in view.

As I said, go back and read it.

The contrived argument here is that the quote does not say "...the Apostles were pre-millennial." It speaks of a singular Apostle and those who learned from him.

And there you go, I am repeating the same thing I have already said, and the only thing that will change is your understanding of the context of the statement.

You speak of ego on my part, yet it is your ego that seems to be the focus here.

I want you to prove to me that I posted in error.

I am not too proud to edit or clarify, are you?

If you can show error, then by all means present it.

You challenged what I presented, and I gave you proof.

You have presented that I "contrived" which is saying that I was deceitful, that I underhandedly tried to get by with marring the truth.

Now, you must demonstrate the validity of your statement and the rational of why you consider that I contrive, so that I may make appropriate apology.

I tried to alert you to the fact that you were in error.

Do you see it now?

And did you not contrive to point out my own error? lol

How's that working out for you?


God bless.