Featured Pre-, mid- & post-trib?

Exactly. It looks like quaaf has missed that part and completely missed the context of the passage I shared, but this is typical of those of his ilk and is to be expected.

 

I don't consider quantumfaith as 'ilk'. You need to bridle your tongue P4T.

 

Perhaps bridle yours for once and look up what 'ilk' means. There is nothing derogatory about the term.

 

ilk
/ilk/
Noun
A type of people or things similar to those already referred to: "reporters of his ilk".
Synonyms
sort - kind - species - type - genus - variety - breed

OK P4t, you taught me something, my apologies to you. QF is indeed a 'follower' and definitely, loyally, goes along with his ilk, always. He seems to even admire Ach.

My apologies to you once again. 'Ilk' has always seemed to be such a nasty term to me. I know better now.

 

No problem kyredneck. I am not looking to be your enemy and I forgive you and therefore hold no grudge.

Furthermore I only wish the passage I've given was addressed in its context instead of the other comments coming in being directed upon persons. But a simple provision of the text was my objective; or, to address truth of a passage of Scripture which was given in the context of the thread at that point. The Jews were guilty of the crucifixion of the Christ, and that is not to mean that we are not guilty as well as He died for our sins also. But the fact remains, Israelites crucified Christ and that was my point toward ach.

 

Oh, Ach knows, he's been told:

"The Jews judged Him to be worthy of death, but God judged righteously and annulled their judgment by raising Him from the dead. Take note of the redundancy of the message from the Comforter in convicting the Jews; YOU KILLED HIM, BUT GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD:

Acts 2:
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words.
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;
23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:
24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation.

Acts 3:
12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this man? or why fasten ye your eyes on us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made him to walk?
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.14 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you,
15 and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.

Acts 4:
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders,
9 if we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means this man is made whole;
10 be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Acts 5:
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,
28 saying, We strictly charged you not to teach in this name: and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man`s blood upon us.
29 But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree.
31 Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Acts 7:
51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52 Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers;
53 ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7

Acts 10:
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom also they slew, hanging him on a tree.
40 Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest,
41 not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he charged us to preach unto the people, and to testify that this is he who is ordained of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead.

Acts 13:
16 And Paul stood up, and beckoning with the hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, hearken:
27 For they that dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him.
28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet asked they of Pilate that he should be slain.
29 And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.
30 But God raised him from the dead:
31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people."

 

Glad to see it, as I like both of you and enjoy your posts.

 

I think it is quite arguable. The fact that he could spiritualize the 7 days of creation and call the consummated kingdom the 7th day is clear enough to me that his understanding of a literal kingdom (or a literal day or literal Sabbath rest) is not as literal as you would like. So we will absolutely agree to disagree.

I think that is the tell tale sign here. You are so engrossed in your view, you can't consider other options. Perhaps their disciples did teach it if you would allow for it. But you don't. You can't.

What I meant was that you said the 7 year trib was so obvious in Ire. quote, yet he only mentioned 3 1/2 years. You are adding another 3 1/2 years to his understanding to make 7. I know where dispies get the 7 years. I was the uber dispie at one time. I just don't see it as justified, especially w/ the way numbers functioned in apocalyptic literature.

And why bring up Chafer??? He is NOT a historicl premill but a founding father of academic Dispensationalism.

 

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. Acts 23:6
But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus. Acts 18:21


What are the odds that this man may have been in the crowd crying, Crucify him, crucify him?

 

I'm not sure who you are used to dealing with on here (Soooo many come and go), but I personally try to gather facts from both sides of the fence and then try to, first, display where the other side agrees with me. This at least gives me a common ground from which to work.

Chafer and many others 'not' dispy place him squarely in the Pre-mil. Therefore it is actually many of the Disps, Amil, and Post-Mil Church History writers/scholars (depending on which you are looking at) who give testimony that the early church (till around 450'ish) was in orthodoxy, Pre-Mil, and yes that Ira (for short ) is considered such.

 

So do you propose that those disciples of the apostles immediately left the sound teaching of the apostles, and 'all' agreed to redo the church view, in this area, so that we have no testimony of a contrary view for the first 200+ years... and then very slowly the apostles (presumed) actual view began to emerge once more to be established as church doctrine around 450'ish ad??

IF the apostles taught such, it would have been sounded out from the first and passed on to the next. If it were a corrupted teaching we would see a 'departure' from the truth, not a completely different view being first and then a change over a couple hundred years.

I believe 'that' is a tell tale sign of one who will not believe the truth even when the historical data that is presented before them. I find it odd that you ignore the historical data and yet state "I don't allow" . :BangHead:

 

My supposition has been that the data is not as premill as we would like. Your quote of Ira is a good example who spiritualized the reign of Jesus as the 7th day of creation (fulfillment) and Sabbath rest in which the nations are blessed (thus equating it to Rev. 21-22 and eternity).

However, the early church cannot be the arbiters of dogma or we are in trouble. To prove theological positions based on the fathers is tenuous and only to be corroborative rather than probative. I'm not saying you are doing this, but it sounds awefully close.

Disciples can err. Jesus' own did for a time. The greatest error most disciples make is to take their teacher's ideas to the extreme never intended by the master. Chiliasm could be an example of that, taking too literally Rev. 20.

I'm not denying that the early church seems to be chiliast. I am saying that they could be misunderstood or incorrect by taking their master's view too far or too extreme.