A problem with premillennialism

[Tambora]

Abraham was a Hebrew from the family of Eber.

Eber was a Gentile since there was no nation of Israel at the time.

 

[Musicmaster]

So I ask you this:

Do your think those great men of faith who were beheaded, crucified upside down, burned at the stake, tortured, hung, because they would not declare, "Caesar kurios"---Caesar is Lord---were experiencing God's wrath?

We are not promised a rose garden. We are not told that we will never have to endure suffering or tribulations and persecutions. In fact we are told the opposite. We are also told For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future no any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

ANd Jesus' own promise."I will lose none who the Father has given me, and I will raise them up on the last day."

So, it isn't a matter of rationalizing. It is a matter of whether there are presuppositions that have made their way into the hermeneutics, and arrived at something that may not be true, and then run with it.

Those martyred for their faith in Christ, stood on rock solid ground.

Side-stepping the logical fallacies in your application of emotional arguments such as "rose garden" and such, let's look at your rationale that was offered. Let me answer your question with a question. Can you show to me that those apostles and other saints being tortured and murdered in gruesome ways from the Hand of the Most High? No. They were not. The tribulations perpetrated by the hands of evil men, those are what they are. None of that was the "wrath of the Lamb."

The tribulation period, however, is entirely different. The wrath of the Lamb, although increasing in intensity with each subsequent seal, and each trumpet blast, ALL of that will be the wrath of the Lamb, as is declared in Revelation chapter 6 at the beginnings. It will take a little while for the people of the earth to realize what's happening, but they admit the obvious nonetheless after the opening of the sixth seal by the Hand of Yahshuah.

So, there is indeed VAST differences between persecutions and the wrath of the Lamb, for the wrath of the Lamb will ultimately beat us Jews to a bloody pulp before we FINALLY confess Yahshuah as Mashiach, and weep because we pierced Him through our rejection. The wrath will also whip men into such a frenzy that even with the flesh rotting and burned, they will still curse Yah.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Another reason none here should want to pass over into the tribulation is that those people will no longer be under the Gospel of Grace (of Yahshuah), but rather the tribulation saints will be under the Kingdom Gospel, which is different. In the Kingdom Gospel, one must ENDURE.

Matthew 24:13-14
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Many run aground of those strange, unscriptural doctrines rooted in works-based salvations when trying to defend these verses allegedly speaking of us today.

MM

 

[Mr GLee]

Modern thinking is interesting, is it not? We're told by Paul to "comfort" one another with the deliverance, but then there are those who believe that deliverance will happen only after horrid death all around. Be comforted with that...? Some belief systems render Paul's instructions as having originated either from a lunatic or a liar, or the Lord is really angry with the Church.

Which is it; to those of you who believe you'll be here during the horrid tribulation? Was Paul a lunatic, a liar or has the Church betrayed the Lord as did Israel, and therefore the wrath upon both? If the Church is going to be here through half or most or all of it, then the Lord must, in the thinking of those who believe along those lines, be angry with the Church as well, which places the Church on the same level of betrayal as the rejection of Israel.

Surely someone has an idea in how to rationalize this.

MM

No signs were given (a pagan tradition) Why look for the tribulation if it is already here?

I would think the tribulation began at the time of the first cetury reformation.

The comforter pouring out his Spirit life in jeapordy of his own Holy Spirit. The propmised Holy Spirit spoken of in John 14 Our unseen head Christ promised to teach comfort and guide and last but not least bring to our memory the previous things he has taught

 

[Musicmaster]

No signs were given (a pagan tradition) Why look for the tribulation if it is already here?

I would think the tribulation began at the time of the first cetury reformation.

The comforter pouring out his Spirit life in jeapordy of his own Holy Spirit. The propmised Holy Spirit spoken of in John 14 Our unseen head Christ promised to teach comfort and guide and last but not least bring to our memory the previous things he has taught

Nope. That simply doesn't fit the text.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Many of our modern evangelical churches should change their names to something akin to "The First Church of the Masochists," when they preach about their being here during any portion of the tribulation period intended for the unbelieving Jews and the unbelieving world. It's masochistic to want to be here under an entirely different gospel that is not of grace.

MM

 

[Arial]

Side-stepping the logical fallacies in your application of emotional arguments such as "rose garden"

Is that what you call sidestepping? It was not an emotional argument. It is a common saying, meaning that we are not promised a trouble free life.

Let me answer your question with a question.

Also known as not answering the question.

Can you show to me that those apostles and other saints being tortured and murdered in gruesome ways from the Hand of the Most High?

I didn't say they were. That is what happens when one "answers a question with a question." I was asking you if you considered that to be facing God's wrath. ANd since you don't. why do you consider that if believers are present when God's wrath is poured out on the earth, they are experiencing God's wrath?

The tribulation period, however, is entirely different. The wrath of the Lamb, although increasing in intensity with each subsequent seal, and each trumpet blast, ALL of that will be the wrath of the Lamb, as is declared in Revelation chapter 6 at the beginnings. It will take a little while for the people of the earth to realize what's happening, but they admit the obvious nonetheless after the opening of the sixth seal by the Hand of Yahshuah.

I see what you are saying, but it is all based on one suppositional position and interpretation. Which I happen to think is wrong, and there are other views that are more consistent with the whole of Scripture. WHat gets me is that those of a dispensational persuasion such as this, can't even be reasoned with. They brook no disagreement. Never even consider the possibility that they may be wrong. Are generally very high handed and dismissive with disagreement. Which is why that is all I am going to say about it. I have already gone round and round with another poster over it, and the inability to communicate with anything outside the presuppositions is astounding.

 

[Mr GLee]

Nope. That simply doesn't fit the text.

MM

Which text?

Like never before or ever again ? Terrible tribulation for a Jew that was trusting his dying flesh

Gospel, great Joy like never before or ever again especially for all the nations of the world that could the come together as one family of nations

Some say the time of trouble will not begin unless they see the literal blood .

 

[Musicmaster]

I didn't say they were. That is what happens when one "answers a question with a question." I was asking you if you considered that to be facing God's wrath. ANd since you don't. why do you consider that if believers are present when God's wrath is poured out on the earth, they are experiencing God's wrath?

If I understand your question correctly, the underlying assumptions behind it are what seems flawed. The Wrath of God during the tribulation is poured out upon ALL on the earth, with no protections promised for believers.

I see what you are saying, but it is all based on one suppositional position and interpretation. Which I happen to think is wrong, and there are other views that are more consistent with the whole of Scripture. WHat gets me is that those of a dispensational persuasion such as this, can't even be reasoned with.

Well, let's change that, shall we...which is a two way street, which means that all sides are not at all easy to reason with, including yours.

They brook no disagreement. Never even consider the possibility that they may be wrong.

And you do? Prove it.

Are generally very high handed and dismissive with disagreement. Which is why that is all I am going to say about it. I have already gone round and round with another poster over it, and the inability to communicate with anything outside the presuppositions is astounding.

Well, I don't know who those people are, but I'm not one of them, so I would hope that we can dispense with the ASSumptions, and move forward.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Which text?

Like never before or ever again ? Terrible tribulation for a Jew that was trusting his dying flesh

Gospel, great Joy like never before or ever again especially for all the nations of the world that could the come together as one family of nations

Some say the time of trouble will not begin unless they see the literal blood .

What you stated smacked of preterism, which doesn't fit the text.

MM

 

[jeremiah1five]

The statement that only Hebrews were made slaves is almost certainly not true. Even Egyptians themselves were sometimes enslaved to pay a debt. The wars that occurred with other nations over Goshen after they migrated into it because of the famine, resulted in those who settled there to also become slaves. Also we have a record of at least one Hebrew, Joseph, marrying an Egyptian and having two sons.

It was between Pharaoh and Moses over the Hebrews freedom. There is no passage stating anyone else was freed.
Any Egyptians or defeated opponents that became slaves did not reside in Goshen but elsewhere. Josheph did not give his father and brethren land where someone was already living there. The Hebrews occupied the land and only the Hebrews.

37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. Ex 12:37.

The intermarriage and the influx of "Gentiles" into Goshen, and the likelihood of intermarriages with them, is one way of accounting for the increase in the population of seventy Hebrews to swell to the ranks of what was probably about two million, who left in the Exodus. Scripture appears to only be counting the males of military age, and the direct descendants of Jacob. (Numbers 1:1-3;2:32)
thecompletepilgrim.com

37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. Ex 12:37.

You can do the math to get an approximate. But if 400,000 men were married then it becomes one million.
If these one million had three to four children each couple, then it's about 3-4 million Hebrews the Lord delivered.

"Likelihood of intermarriages"? Hebrews mated with Hebrews. Their practice was to marry within the family like Abraham married his niece, Sarai. Issac married a close family member, as did Jacob. You are supposing something that has no basis in reality with the Hebrews. They were serious about their being Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Eber was a Gentile since there was no nation of Israel at the time.

Being at a Christian Forum is a great equalizer. A neophyte can post textbook responses and be seen as a "pillar" on the site when they are just babies and their knowledge only superficial until a pattern emerges that reveals their level of biblical understanding is only basic, even traditional. I think this describes you. I'm not your teacher but I can tell you've never studied beyond what comes over the pulpit, which is also textbook, especially among Gentile gatherings on Sunday mornings. Well, let me educate you:

Jewish Tradition and the Hebrews:​

• Connection to the Hebrews: In Jewish tradition, Eber is often considered an important patriarch because his name is linked to the term "Hebrew" (עִבְרִי, Ivri). The term "Hebrew" is used to describe Abraham and his descendants, emphasizing their identity as a distinct people.
• Linguistic Significance: The connection between Eber and the Hebrews underscores a cultural and linguistic heritage. The idea is that the term "Hebrew" may have originally referred to Eber's descendants, signifying their identity as people who had "crossed over" into a new land or way of life.

Cultural and Religious Impact:​

• Patriarchal Importance: Eber's role in the genealogical line leading to Abraham highlights his importance in the foundation of the Israelite people. As the forefather of Peleg, through whom Abraham descended, Eber is a key figure in the narrative of the chosen lineage.
• Symbol of Continuity: In Jewish tradition, Eber is often seen as a symbol of continuity and faithfulness, maintaining the worship of the one true God through generations leading up to Abraham, who is seen as the father of monotheism.

Eber's significance lies not only in his place within the genealogical record but also in the symbolic meanings attached to his name and the cultural identity of his descendants. His connection to the term "Hebrew" underscores a profound sense of heritage and continuity for the Jewish people. The seed of the woman.

 

[jeremiah1five]

True. What I question is your warped and twisted interpretational system.



This seems to mistakenly rely upon the presupposition that the Gentiles needed those sacrifices. Romans 1 is very clear on the subject, and to your argument is moot. The Gentile converts were not required to obey all the Law, for they were allowed to eat what was forbidden to us Jews at that time.

Please, feel free to enjoy a shell fish sandwich, eat some snails and shrimp with cocktail sauce...I as a Jew enjoy them.



(yawn) Your diatribe is something that stands upon the strength of its own merits, which are pretty much non-existent.

The difference between fulfillment and what you call "broken" only speaks to us all your severe lack of understanding in how to rightly divide the word of Truth. That whacko group out there who thinks that they have gone back to the Hebrew Roots of the Christian faith...they too are without understanding and rightly dividing of the word of Truth!

MM

Scripture cannot be broken. For the Hebrews, the Word of God is found in their Scripture from Genesis to Malachi. Anything in the writings from Matthew to Revelation that cannot be found addressed in the Hebrew Scripture would be a lie. Type and shadow. Ever heard of this?
Now, if you ever studied how the New Testament came to existence your understanding might be enlarged, but to take Gentile textbook responses over the Hebrew Scripture shows a lack of understanding about redemptive history. It's not about using the New Testament to support the Old Testament but using the Old Testament to support the New Testament. And any interpretation of New Testament passages that violates Old Testament truth is to be rejected. C. T. Russell and Joseph Smith are examples of not respecting the truth foundation of this "so-great salvation" given to the Hebrews through the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants God made with the Hebrew people.

 

[Musicmaster]

Scripture cannot be broken. For the Hebrews, the Word of God is found in their Scripture from Genesis to Malachi. Anything in the writings from Matthew to Revelation that cannot be found addressed in the Hebrew Scripture would be a lie. Type and shadow. Ever heard of this?
Now, if you ever studied how the New Testament came to existence your understanding might be enlarged, but to take Gentile textbook responses over the Hebrew Scripture shows a lack of understanding about redemptive history. It's not about using the New Testament to support the Old Testament but using the Old Testament to support the New Testament. And any interpretation of New Testament passages that violates Old Testament truth is to be rejected. C. T. Russell and Joseph Smith are examples of not respecting the truth foundation of this "so-great salvation" given to the Hebrews through the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants God made with the Hebrew people.

Then YOU are a renegade, or a pretender, because we Hebrews know that the NT writings are trustworthy and true. There are no contradictions.

And besides all that, YOU are not living the Law. None of us are, no matter how hard we try! Trying to do so will not at all make any difference in salvation!

MM

 

[Arial]

It was between Pharaoh and Moses over the Hebrews freedom. There is no passage stating anyone else was freed.

You are conflating. Your claim is that only Hebrews left Egypt in the Exodus. My claim is Numbers 11: 4-6 Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept again and said:"Who will give us meat to eat? We remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; but now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!"

Ex 12:38 A mixed multitude also went up with them, along with flocks and herds, a very large number of livestock.

What does mixed multitude mean?

Any Egyptians or defeated opponents that became slaves did not reside in Goshen but elsewhere. Josheph did not give his father and brethren land where someone was already living there. The Hebrews occupied the land and only the Hebrews.

It is one thing to rewrite history. Another to write history any ole which-a-way without ever studying the history. Many Canaanites and others migrated to Goshen during the famine, and remained there. That is what caused the wars in the first place, and many remained after their defeat, and were no doubt put into servitude for the same reasons that Israel was. To prevent future rebellions and attempted conquests of Egypt. Though it was not God's purpose to free them, His focus was on the sons of Jacob, and that according to the promises to Abraham. But those promises involved two offspring, not one. The primary offspring is Christ. The means is the children of the flesh.

You can do the math to get an approximate. But if 400,000 men were married then it becomes one million.
If these one million had three to four children each couple, then it's about 3-4 million Hebrews the Lord delivered.

You forget that it started with seventy. So how do you get to the 600,000 men and why do (and why have you changed it to 400,000)?

"Likelihood of intermarriages"? Hebrews mated with Hebrews. Their practice was to marry within the family like Abraham married his niece, Sarai. Issac married a close family member, as did Jacob. You are supposing something that has no basis in reality with the Hebrews. They were serious about their being Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

For one who constantly supports his words with "Scripture cannot be broken." you ignore so much of it. They pretty much did as they pleased in that regard, even after they had conquered Canaan, and had the tribal boundaries set by God. Do you suppose they were not doing the same before that? And how do you change the written word that shows that Joseph married an Egyptian and had two sons by her---who are numbered with the tribes of Israel btw?

 

[Tambora]

Being at a Christian Forum is a great equalizer. A neophyte can post textbook responses and be seen as a "pillar" on the site when they are just babies and their knowledge only superficial until a pattern emerges that reveals their level of biblical understanding is only basic, even traditional. I think this describes you. I'm not your teacher but I can tell you've never studied beyond what comes over the pulpit, which is also textbook, especially among Gentile gatherings on Sunday mornings. Well, let me educate you:

Jewish Tradition and the Hebrews:​

• Connection to the Hebrews: In Jewish tradition, Eber is often considered an important patriarch because his name is linked to the term "Hebrew" (עִבְרִי, Ivri). The term "Hebrew" is used to describe Abraham and his descendants, emphasizing their identity as a distinct people.
• Linguistic Significance: The connection between Eber and the Hebrews underscores a cultural and linguistic heritage. The idea is that the term "Hebrew" may have originally referred to Eber's descendants, signifying their identity as people who had "crossed over" into a new land or way of life.

Cultural and Religious Impact:​

• Patriarchal Importance: Eber's role in the genealogical line leading to Abraham highlights his importance in the foundation of the Israelite people. As the forefather of Peleg, through whom Abraham descended, Eber is a key figure in the narrative of the chosen lineage.
• Symbol of Continuity: In Jewish tradition, Eber is often seen as a symbol of continuity and faithfulness, maintaining the worship of the one true God through generations leading up to Abraham, who is seen as the father of monotheism.

Eber's significance lies not only in his place within the genealogical record but also in the symbolic meanings attached to his name and the cultural identity of his descendants. His connection to the term "Hebrew" underscores a profound sense of heritage and continuity for the Jewish people. The seed of the woman.

ROFL!!!
None of that refutes that Abraham was chosen from among Gentiles to separate from his family.

 

[Arial]

If I understand your question correctly, the underlying assumptions behind it are what seems flawed. The Wrath of God during the tribulation is poured out upon ALL on the earth, with no protections promised for believers.

Is it? I do not know if you are one who believes in the "rapture" of the saints before the "seven year Tribulation" or in the middles of it, or if you believe in the removal of the church for a time at all; but if you do, that forms the supposition that God's wrath is poured out on all on the earth. IMO it turns this seven years into the judgement.

But I do not believe in either a removal of the church or a seven year tribulation as described by dispensationalists. Or a literal thousand year reign of Christ over temporal things. It does not fit with what I see the Bible saying. I find no room for the existence of a literal thousand year reign in the Scripture. Neither Jesus or any of the apostles ever mention it. Jesus and and Paul only ever speak of two ages. This age, and the age to come.

And a believer is always protected, in the only way that truly matters. The promised resurrection of the dead in Christ to dwell in the New heaven and new earth with God dwelling among us. God can do whatever He wants. If we die, we are still with Him. He can also have a bird bring food and water to nourish one who is perishing. He did not spare His own Son from suffering in life to the point of death, in order that those Christ died for, might inherit the promise of Rev 21.

You can disagree with my view all you want. I really do not care. What does concern me, is that it is given no credence as to its possibility of being based on Scripture. That it is out of hand declared to be wrong and unsupported by Scripture. And that is not a remark aimed at you personally, just an experiential observation.

I do not state any claim to be able to interpret Revelation line by line. I have not even tried to do so, as there is mystery in it, and I think intentionally so, though it is quite likely that its original recipients could understand it more easily, as apocalyptic writing was a familiar thing to Jews of that era, and it is not to us. But I do see the overall message, and I do see an overall picture that spans much that we find in the OT, and in the first coming of Christ, as seen from the perspective of heaven, whereas the Book give us the same thing from its historic perspective, in the way mankind experiences it. As well as sometimes from the human, historic perspective, of things that have been occurring since Christ's first advent--this age---and will continue until His second advent.

If I were to ask you why Revelation was written and what it gives to all believers throughout time, what would your answer be?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Then YOU are a renegade, or a pretender, because we Hebrews know that the NT writings are trustworthy and true. There are no contradictions.

And besides all that, YOU are not living the Law. None of us are, no matter how hard we try! Trying to do so will not at all make any difference in salvation!

MM

Trustworthy and true? No contradiction?

You do not know the bible the way you think you do. You been drinking the Constantinian Gentile false theology Kool-Aid. Scripture cannot be broken, Jesus said. Do you believe this?

Let's see how honest with Scripture YOU are.

Here is the original prophecy by Isaiah about the return of Hebrews back into their Promised Land:

22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea,
Yet a remnant of them shall return:
Isaiah 10:22.

And this is what the apostle Saul said in his letter to the Jewish Christians at Rome:

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: Romans 9:26–27.

Personally, I don't believe Saul changed a word in Isaiah's prophecy. Saul was a rabbi and Pharisee and was a man "above his equals" taught by the great Hebrew Gamaliel.
I think this change was made by Gentiles who had copies or when the New Testament was being put together Gentiles changed the word to support their false belief that Gentiles are saved along with Hebrews/Jews to whom all the covenant promises belong. Or it could be the Gentile translators who made the change - again, to support Gentile inclusion into the Hebrew covenants and their promises. And this is not the only place of Saul changing a word from the Old Covenant to make it say something else, thus breaking Scripture which Jesus said CANNOT be broken. Saul also contradicts himself several times, comparing a few passages contained in his letters on righteousness.

I wonder why Gentile scholars and theologians of centuries past did not see this.
Gentile bias.

 

[jeremiah1five]

You are conflating. Your claim is that only Hebrews left Egypt in the Exodus. My claim is Numbers 11: 4-6 Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept again and said:"Who will give us meat to eat? We remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; but now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!"

Ex 12:38 A mixed multitude also went up with them, along with flocks and herds, a very large number of livestock.

What does mixed multitude mean?

I know you're going to take a neutral passage and make it say something to support Gentiles being among the Hebrews.
But that would be deception and lying to do that. Keeping in context and reason Hebrews lived in Goshen, Hebrews married Hebrews in keeping with the Abrahamic Covenant promise and direction of "YOUR SEED", and Scripture says God delivered Hebrews, Hebrews observed the Passover, Hebrews were the ones enriched by Egyptians giving them - not slaves, not captured enemy soldiers, not Gentiles - much gold, silver, and other valuables.

Id would say since the statement goes on to describe the mixed multitude having to do with "flocks" "herds" and "livestock" that is what I think it seems to imply.

It is one thing to rewrite history. Another to write history any ole which-a-way without ever studying the history. Many Canaanites and others migrated to Goshen during the famine, and remained there.

Scripture please.

That is what caused the wars in the first place, and many remained after their defeat, and were no doubt put into servitude for the same reasons that Israel was.

Scripture please.

To prevent future rebellions and attempted conquests of Egypt. Though it was not God's purpose to free them, His focus was on the sons of Jacob, and that according to the promises to Abraham. But those promises involved two offspring, not one. The primary offspring is Christ. The means is the children of the flesh.

You forget that it started with seventy. So how do you get to the 600,000 men and why do (and why have you changed it to 400,000)?

If 600,000 men are said to have left Egypt were all of these men married? I said 400,000 may have been married leaving 200,000 may have been single.
If 400,000 were married, and all of these marriages produced at least four children then let's do the math. 3-4 million Hebrews in 430 years. And we don't begin with only one marriage, but at least a dozen or more with children - 70 souls.

For one who constantly supports his words with "Scripture cannot be broken." you ignore so much of it. They pretty much did as they pleased in that regard, even after they had conquered Canaan, and had the tribal boundaries set by God. Do you suppose they were not doing the same before that? And how do you change the written word that shows that Joseph married an Egyptian and had two sons by her---who are numbered with the tribes of Israel btw?

 

[jeremiah1five]

ROFL!!!
None of that refutes that Abraham was chosen from among Gentiles to separate from his family.

You know nothing about genealogy, especially when it refers to the seed of the woman - those belonging to God. They were called "sons of God" from the Sethian family line for a reason until they disobeyed and unequally yoked themselves to unbelieving women producing children that were lawless and became "bullies" and "tyrants" as they grew up.