22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

Of course not. I'm asking where the concept is taught in scripture.

I told you. It is obvious to me that you don't understand the Bible, Old or New testament.

Ridiculous question.

On the contrary, if you are a true Amillennialist, then you DON'T believe the Old Testament as written. Amillennialism must spiritualize the Old Testament in order to delete everything the scriptures say about Jewish hegemony, Israeli dominance, and the rule of Jesus on the earth. I don't offer you scriptures because the eschatology you believe has an kluge fix for them all. I doubt you would be convinced by any scriptures I could cite. And there are hundreds of them, which are invisible to someone who refuses to see them.

Here's a better question. Do you believe the NT shines light on (clarifies) OT scripture?

I don't believe what Amillennialism believes about the correlation between the NT and the OT. Amillennialism does NOT accept the OT as written. Amillennialism purposely misconstrues what the Old Testament teaches because the OT as written contradicts and throws down Amillennialism. You don't believe or affirm what the Old Testament teaches even if you refuse to admit it. Amillennialism first misinterprets the New Testament, then it superimposes that false interpretation over the Old Testament in order to "see" Amillennialism in the OT.

Why? Amillennials are enamored with a false dichotomy between the physical and the non-corporeal. Amillennialism redefines terms and makes up new ones in order to hear what they want hear taught in the scriptures. "Israel" is reinterpreted as "true Israel" or "spiritual Israel" The concept is erroneously bifurcated into "spiritual Israel" and "physical Israel", which is NOT Biblical. You call yourself a "spiritual Israelite" which is an empty concept, not actually a real thing.

 

[CadyandZoe]

We believe the NT Church was grafted into an already existing spiritual entity - the good olive tree, the flock of God, which represents remnant elect believing Israel.

THAT is replacement theology at the core.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I was quoting Paul. I don't know who Randy is.

Read it again. Paul was quoting poster "Randy Kluth" and you thought it was Paul saying it instead of Randy. So, you accused Paul of being a false teacher based on something he quoted from someone else as if he said it himself. You need to be pay closer attention.

 

[WPM]

THAT is replacement theology at the core.

This is a strawman argument because it intentionally misrepresents the argument of Amils in order to make it easier to discredit it. It involves a picture being presented that doesn’t accurately reflect the beliefs of the one you are debating. 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.

Dispensationalists are quick to speak on behalf of their opponents and slow to listen to how their brethren actually understand the whole dynamic between Israel and the Church. They commonly disparagingly throw the “Replacement Theology” charge at those they disagree with, without any effort of trying to ascertain what they really believe. They also deem their opponents as believing in ‘Supersessionism Theology’ (from the Latin supersedere: ‘to be superior to’). Dispensationalists allege that their evangelical opponents believe (1) the Church has replaced ethnic Israel and that (2) God has no further future plans for the nation of Israel. They claim such without any factual or fair basis for doing so.

Dispensationalists create a straw man argument either through genuine ignorance, because they don’t really get what Covenant Theology teaches, or as a willful attempt to twist, smear and discredit their brethren who believe that God has only ever had one people from the beginning. Regardless, their charge is a logical fallacy. Despite being robustly challenged and repeatedly corrected, many continue to hurl this depreciatory slur in an attempt to justify their own partial teaching. It is employed by some to be deliberately provocative and by others to intentionally misrepresent their opponent’s position. When all is said and done, this only serves to expose the weakness of the Dispensational position, rather than carry any real, valid or accurate theological credence.

The teaching of the Church for most of its history has rejected the idea that there is any theologically distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Christ during the new covenant era. They believe there has only ever been one spiritual people from the start. These believers do not claim to hold to “Replacement Theology,” but rather ‘Remnant Theology’ meaning there is a continuity between God’s people in the Old and New Testament. Other terms describe the same position like ‘Continuity Theology’, ‘Inclusion Theology’ and ‘Expansion Theology’. Some use comparable expressions like ‘Addition Theology’ or ‘Fulfilment Theology’. Another lesser-used expression is ‘Messianic Fulfillment Theology’. Regardless of which one of these phrases is preferred, its advocates believe that the New Testament Church (assembly) is not a replacement of Israel, neither is it a new Israel, but it is an extension and continuation of true faithful Israel. This is supported by the fact that the inception of the new covenant didn’t mark the end of the Abrahamic lineage of faith but rather the enlargement of the same.

 

[WPM]

I don't believe what Amillennialism believes about the correlation between the NT and the OT. Amillennialism does NOT accept the OT as written. Amillennialism purposely misconstrues what the Old Testament teaches because the OT as written contradicts and throws down Amillennialism. You don't believe or affirm what the Old Testament teaches even if you refuse to admit it. Amillennialism first misinterprets the New Testament, then it superimposes that false interpretation over the Old Testament in order to "see" Amillennialism in the OT.

Why? Amillennials are enamored with a false dichotomy between the physical and the non-corporeal. Amillennialism redefines terms and makes up new ones in order to hear what they want hear taught in the scriptures. "Israel" is reinterpreted as "true Israel" or "spiritual Israel" The concept is erroneously bifurcated into "spiritual Israel" and "physical Israel", which is NOT Biblical. You call yourself a "spiritual Israelite" which is an empty concept, not actually a real thing.

Can you not tell the truth? Do you get satisfaction out of deliberately twisting what others believe? Are you not convicted by the Holy Ghost?

I have suitably refuted your argument on Israel and you had no answer, so do not give me that. The fact is, you are married to what your teachers have taught you and refuse to let the Scriptures expose your error.

Ignorance of New Testament truth leads many to a distorted and erroneous understanding of Old Testament truth. Ironically, and paradoxically, especially allowing for how they describe themselves, many Futurists choose to live in the past. They understand ethnic Israel today in an old covenant sense, rather than a new covenant context. It is as if the old covenant is still active and valid and the new covenant has yet to arrive. Futurists seem unable (or unwilling) to recognize the seismic shift that occurred through the introduction of the new covenant. When pressed, they continually run back to the Old Testament for some type of support for a favored place for national Israel, a return of the Jews to their ancient land boundaries, the reintroduction of the old covenant apparatus, including a rebuilt physical temple, animal blood sacrifices, and a restored Old Testament priesthood. They have to pitch their tent in the Hebrew Scriptures because they have absolutely no endorsement in the New Testament for their theological model.

Sensible and enlightened Bible scholars place greater emphasis on the New Testament because it is the fuller revelation and it is where we now reside. God’s truth has been a gradual progressive unfolding and unveiling of truth to mankind from the beginning. The change and advancement that came with the New Testament era did not jettison the old Hebrew promises but rather fulfilled them. The doctrinal light became a lot clearer with Christ’s appearance and vivid illumination of the whole dynamic between the Old and the New Testament and the first and second advents. Our Lord removed the existing vail, dispelled the religious mist and has shed much-needed light on God’s redemptive plan.

That is why theologians insist: “the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” Steve Lehrer wisely advises: “read the Old Covenant Scriptures through the lens of the New Covenant Scriptures” (New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered).

The New Testament is latent in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is patent in the New Testament. As Reformed Theologian Vern Poythress explains: “The significance of a type is not fully discernible until the time of fulfillment … In other words, one must compare later Scripture to earlier Scripture to understand everything” (Understanding Dispensationalists).

 

[WPM]

I was quoting Paul. I don't know who Randy is.

Hello! I was quoting Randy K. That shows, you do not even read the posts before you respond.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I told you.

Where did you tell me?

It is obvious to me that you don't understand the Bible, Old or New testament.

Do you think this type of comment promotes good discussion? Why do you need to resort to insults like this? Do you think it does anything to back up your case?

On the contrary, if you are a true Amillennialist, then you DON'T believe the Old Testament as written.

That is a lie. I don't appreciate your lies. I do believe it as written, but you mistakenly believe that "as written" means it's always literal. That is clearly not the case. Have you never read the book of Daniel, for example?

Tell me, is it literally written anywhere in the Old Testament that the promises God made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham, Jesus Christ and those who have faith like Abraham and belong to Christ? It's not, right? Yet, that is what Paul taught in Galatians 3:16-29. So, is it wise to always take the OT "as written" when taking it literally causes us to come to different conclusions than those Paul came to in passages like Galatians 3:16-29?

Amillennialism must spiritualize the Old Testament in order to delete everything the scriptures say about Jewish hegemony, Israeli dominance, and the rule of Jesus on the earth. I don't offer you scriptures because the eschatology you believe has an kluge fix for them all. I doubt you would be convinced by any scriptures I could cite. And there are hundreds of them, which are invisible to someone who refuses to see them.

You must not like Paul every much because of how he spiritualized the promises that God made to Abraham and his seed. Do you somehow not understand that I'm simply accepting how the New Testament explains the fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies? Why not make it easy on yourself and do the same instead of insisting on your hyper-literal interpretations instead?

I don't believe what Amillennialism believes about the correlation between the NT and the OT. Amillennialism does NOT accept the OT as written.

We don't believe it's all literal, if that's what you mean. So what. It clearly isn't all literal.

Amillennialism purposely misconstrues what the Old Testament teaches because the OT as written contradicts and throws down Amillennialism.

LOL. Again, does what Paul wrote in passages like Galatians 3:16-29 agree with your "as written" approach to interpreting the OT? It clearly does not. So, it seems that your problem is really with the New Testament authors and not with me since I am merely agreeing with what the NT authors taught about how the OT should be understood.

You don't believe or affirm what the Old Testament teaches even if you refuse to admit it. Amillennialism first misinterprets the New Testament, then it superimposes that false interpretation over the Old Testament in order to "see" Amillennialism in the OT.

Are lies all you have? Your posts are filled with lies without any scriptural support being offered to back them up whatsoever. How can I possibly take you seriously when that is the case?

Why? Amillennials are enamored with a false dichotomy between the physical and the non-corporeal. Amillennialism redefines terms and makes up new ones in order to hear what they want hear taught in the scriptures. "Israel" is reinterpreted as "true Israel" or "spiritual Israel".

Another lie. No, we don't redefine "Israel", we recognize that there are two Israels as Paul taught here:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

The concept is erroneously bifurcated into "spiritual Israel" and "physical Israel", which is NOT Biblical. You call yourself a "spiritual Israelite" which is an empty concept, not actually a real thing.

Please tell me how you interpret Romans 9:6-8.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Can you not tell the truth? Do you get satisfaction out of deliberately twisting what others believe? Are you not convicted by the Holy Ghost?

His blatant lies about Amils are unbelievable. It's a desperate tactic. He is completely incapable of forming a coherent argument to back up what he believes, so he resorts to telling lies about what we believe instead. It's shameful and disgusting.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Thanks; a very true statement.
We are told to - Call upon the Name of the Lord and you will be saved. Joel 3:32, Acts 2:21, All in the context of the forthcoming Lord's Day of fiery wrath.

This is a contradictory statement and all quite wrong, as the raising of all the dead does not happen until the GWT Judgment; AFTER the Millennium.
There is no prophecy that says anyone other than the GT martyrs are resurrected. Rev 20:4

You could be right, but I am convinced that all of Jesus' followers are "caught up together" to meet the Lord. In any case, the resurrection takes place in this age, rather than the next age.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

THAT is replacement theology at the core.

You said this in response to what Paul M said, which was this:

We believe the NT Church was grafted into an already existing spiritual entity - the good olive tree, the flock of God, which represents remnant elect believing Israel.

Can you explain how this is "replacement theology" when he didn't say anything about anyone being replaced? Gentile believers have joined with Israelite believers into one body, which is the church. Who is being replaced in this process?

 

[WPM]

His blatant lies about Amils are unbelievable. It's a desperate tactic. He is completely incapable of forming a coherent argument to back up what he believes, so he resorts to telling lies about what we believe instead. It's shameful and disgusting.

Is a classic sign that he lost the battle along time ago. All as we are getting no is frustration and misrepresentations.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It depends if you are a babe and require a vision of something familiar to you Like a Big scary animal with seven head and ten horn, and you already know what big mean, an animal mean, a head means and what a horn means.......

OR if you are wise to know spiritually it literally means Great Controlling Power over men at large with ten lessor powers.

To Compare ... for example; currently there is...
* The European Union; with heads and horns; big powers and lesser powers, Over a large group of people.
* The League of Arab Nations...ditto
* Africa Union...ditto
* The League of Nations....now The United Nations...ditto

LOL. Are you trying to convince me that the entire book of Revelation is all literal or what? Hey, if you want to believe that literal locusts have an angel as their king, I guess I can't stop you.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Can you not tell the truth? Do you get satisfaction out of deliberately twisting what others believe? Are you not convicted by the Holy Ghost?

I have suitably refuted your argument on Israel and you had no answer, so do not give me that. The fact is, you are married to what your teachers have taught you and refuse to let the Scriptures expose your error.

What you proved is that in order for someone to affirm Amillennialism, one needs to redefine terms with meanings contrary to what the Bible intended. You don't care what the Bible actually says. How can you when you change the meaning?

That is why theologians insist: “the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.”

The only theologians who say this are those who don't believe that the average person can read or understand the Bible without help from them. No serious Bible student treats the Bible this way. The statement is like training wheels for those who are just beginning to ride a bike. Just as those skilled in bike riding remove the training wheels, those skilled in exegesis don't rely on simplistic platitudes and stock phrases.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus is the Word of God that came forth out of Gods mouth.
God prepared a body for Him, for when he would come into the world.
A faithful Jewish woman who was a virgin, who was betrothed to a man named Joseph of the House of David, was selected to carry for 9 months according to mans law, then deliver forth the babe.
Between receiving the babe in her womb and delivery, she an Joseph married. The child was thus born coming forth from a human woman’s womb, which is according to the law of nature.
According to Jewish Law and Gentile Law, the child was Legally the son of Mary and Joseph.
According to Jewish Law, ONLY a Jew of the House of David could occupy the Jewish Throne and be King of the Jewish Race.
When God appointed David as a Jewish king, God also established his Throne as an everlasting Throne. Also the city of Jerusalem, the seat of Government of the Jews, and the “kingdom” National Land of Israel, the boundaries of Land God Promised Abraham and his descendants.

Because Jesus, was Lawfully by mans law, a Jew, of the House of David, a son of Joseph...every direct of line of Men...father, grand father, gg, ggg, etc. are all call fathers....and thus Jesus was lawfully the son of each one from Joseph to king David, establishing Jesus’ lawful earthly kingship right.

Because Jesus is also the Word of God, came forth out from God, He is God ...... Satisfying Gods Law that only God Can rule Gods Earthly Kingdom...

For Jesus to be called.....A Jew, a son of Abraham...continue the lineage, of David back to Abraham.

The importance of being connected to Abraham...is the promised land.
Promised to Abraham and his Heirs.

And who are his heirs? Paul taught that they are Christ Himself (Galatians 3:16) and those who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:29). Do you accept what Paul taught about this?

As far as "the promised land", is that really what Abraham was looking for? At first, yes, but then he realized he should be looking for something far greater than that. Have you never read this:

Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore. 13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

This passage shows that God has something far better in store for His people than just a piece of land. You seem to not take NT scripture into account when interpreting OT scripture. That is not wise.

So, what Scripture says, IS Jesus took upon himself the seed of Abraham...which is to say, By being delivered forth from a Jewish woman’s womb married to a man of the House of David...he was lawfully entitled to be King of the Jews AND Sit in King Davids Throne, Rule His Kingdom from Jerusalem and His Kingdom be Abrahams promised land.

Where does scripture teach this? If this was true, we should expect to find things like this taught in the New Testament, right? So, where can we find it?

And, Every person, who through agreeing to conversion, take in them the Seed of God, Who is Christ, they also take upon themselves the seed of Abraham, and are entitled to be heirs of Abrahams promised land.
Jews are Israel, Gentiles are not Israel, Gentiles do not become Israel, Gentiles do not become Jews......ALL become sons of Abraham, Father of many nations. All become sons of God.

If you have not heard this lesson, and can not find the teaching in scripture, reply with my text. Highlight specific parts.

In Romans 9:6-8, it refers to two different Israels. One's nationality has no bearing on being part of one of the Israels. In Romans 2:28-29, Paul refers to a type of Jew of which physical things have no bearing, such as being physically circumcised. So, being a part of spiritual Israel and being a spiritual Jew has nothing whatsoever to do with one's nationality, but rather has to do with whether or not someone has been spiritually circumcised with the circumcision of Christ and whether or not they are a child of God which occurs by way of having faith in Christ (Gal 3:26). With that in mind, how cna you say that "Gentiles are not Israel"? No, they are not the nation of Israel, but believing Gentiles are part of Spiritual Israel because they meet the requirements of being part of it as explained in passages like Romans 9:6-8.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What you proved is that in order for someone to affirm Amillennialism, one needs to redefine terms with meanings contrary to what the Bible intended. You don't care what the Bible actually says. How can you when you change the meaning?

You get called out for your lying and what do you do? Tell more lies. Who are you to tell him or anyone else that they don't care what the Bible actually says? You're coming across as if you're saying it's not possible for someone to care what the Bible says unless they agree completely with you. That's ludicrous.

The only theologians who say this are those who don't believe that the average person can read or understand the Bible without help from them. No serious Bible student treats the Bible this way. The statement is like training wheels for those who are just beginning to ride a bike. Just as those skilled in bike riding remove the training wheels, those skilled in exegesis don't rely on simplistic platitudes and stock phrases.

No, they would say that we all need help from the Holy Spirit just as Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. Do you think people can understand the Bible, especially the deeper things, without help from the Holy Spirit?

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is a strawman argument because it intentionally misrepresents the argument of Amils in order to make it easier to discredit it.

You are the one who uses terms like "spiritual Israel" and "spiritual Zion" and etc. This language and vocabulary reflect your replacement theology. If you didn't teach replacement theology you wouldn't need to redefine the term Israel. You would simply say "the church", but instead you say, "spiritual Israel" equating the church with Israel.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then . . .

 

[CadyandZoe]

Where did you tell me?

Why do you tempt me to insult you? Do you not understand the meaning and significance of the phrases "son of God", "son of man", "king of Israel", "son of David", "messiah"?

That is a lie. I don't appreciate your lies. I do believe it as written, but you mistakenly believe that "as written" means it's always literal. That is clearly not the case. Have you never read the book of Daniel, for example?

I am have not lied. You simply don't recognize what you are doing. I say you don't believe the OT as written because you believe you need the NT to understand it. Am I wrong?

Tell me, is it literally written anywhere in the Old Testament that the promises God made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham, Jesus Christ and those who have faith like Abraham and belong to Christ? It's not, right?

Yes, it is. Paul didn't make crap up as you suppose. He does not share your hermeneutic. He takes no license or liberty with regard to the scriptures. His arguments are based on the OT as written.

What do I mean by "as written"? We are seeking the author's original intent. When we read Daniel or Isaiah, we aren't asking "what does the NT say about it?" We are asking, "what did Daniel mean to say?, what did Isaiah mean to say. THAT is how Paul read the OT. Our approach should be the same as his approach. Paul didn't invent the concept of Gentile salvation. He came to understand the concept from a study of Genesis.

I am not talking about whether or not a passage should be taken literal. I am talking about reading to understand what the author originally meant. Amillennialism doesn't interpret the OT that way. It reads into the OT what it wants to see.

Another lie. No, we don't redefine "Israel", we recognize that there are two Israels as Paul taught here:

You believe that one of the Israel's is "spiritual" and includes Gentiles, which is incorrect.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You said this in response to what Paul M said, which was this:

Can you explain how this is "replacement theology" when he didn't say anything about anyone being replaced? Gentile believers have joined with Israelite believers into one body, which is the church. Who is being replaced in this process?

Paul M referred to the church at large as "Israel". Again, replacement.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are the one who uses terms like "spiritual Israel" and "spiritual Zion" and etc. This language and vocabulary reflect your replacement theology. If you didn't teach replacement theology you wouldn't need to redefine the term Israel. You would simply say "the church", but instead you say, "spiritual Israel" equating the church with Israel.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then . . .

We're equating spiritual Israel with the church, but not with the nation of Israel. National Israel is a separate entity from spiritual Israel. You can see that here:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Please tell us how you interpret this passage. Do you recognize that Paul is contrasting two Israels here, one of which consists of "the children by physical descent" and the other of which consists of "God's children" who are "the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring"?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why do you tempt me to insult you?

I'm not. That is your choice entirely.

Do you not understand the meaning and significance of the phrases "son of God", "son of man", "king of Israel", "son of David", "messiah"?

Yes, I understand them. I'm not sure that you do, though.

I am have not lied.

You have lied repeatedly in your posts today. That is undeniable. Do you even know what a lie is? It's when you say something that isn't true which you have been doing in regards to what Amils believe. Blatant lies.

You simply don't recognize what you are doing. I say you don't believe the OT as written because you believe you need the NT to understand it. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. In order to believe the OT as written we need the NT and the Holy Spirit's help to understand what is written. Your understanding of reading it as written is to read it all literally. But, it's not all written literally.

Yes, it is. Paul didn't make crap up as you suppose.

Buddy, you better calm down. You are showing a high level of immaturity in this thread which I find to be shameful. Is it not possible for you to have a discussion without lying and without being disrespectful? So, you're saying the OT does clearly teach what Paul wrote about in Galatians 3:16-29? Where?

He does not share your hermeneutic. He takes no license or liberty with regard to the scriptures. His arguments are based on the OT as written.

Really? Tell me where exactly in the OT we can find text that is similar to what Paul wrote in Galatians 3:16-29.

What do I mean by "as written"? We are seeking the author's original intent. When we read Daniel or Isaiah, we aren't asking "what does the NT say about it?" We are asking, "what did Daniel mean to say?, what did Isaiah mean to say. THAT is how Paul read the OT. Our approach should be the same as his approach. Paul didn't invent the concept of Gentile salvation. He came to understand the concept from a study of Genesis.

So, how exactly did Paul learn what he wrote about in Galatians 3:16-29 from the OT? Tell me where he learned it from in the OT. Why do you never mention the Holy Spirit? Do you think the Holy Spirit had a role in teaching Paul his understanding of what the OT means?

I am not talking about whether or not a passage should be taken literal. I am talking about reading to understand what the author originally meant.

Yes, and we can use the NT to help us determine that. That should be obvious. Without Galatians 3:16-29, how would we know that the promises that God made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham and to Christ and would be applied to those who belong to Christ as well?

Amillennialism doesn't interpret the OT that way.

Part of determining what was meant in the OT is to allow the NT to help us see that. Do you have something against the NT or something? Why would you try to interpret the OT without the aid of the NT? That makes no sense.

It reads into the OT what it wants to see.

No, we use the NT to help us understand the OT, such as in regards to the promises that God made to Abraham and his seed. Without the aid of NT passages like Galatians 3:16-29, we would not properly understand that.

You believe that one of the Israel's is "spiritual" and includes Gentiles, which is incorrect.

So, tell me how you interpret the following passage then. You do a lot of talking, but I don't see you doing anything to back up your words with scripture. My understanding partly comes from what Paul taught here, so why don't you take this opportunity to tell me how you think I should be interpreting this passage:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.