22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[WPM]

I argue my case in the following posts: #5501 and #5532

Paul is quoting Jeremiah and so Jeremiah is the context. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, he speaks of three covenants: 1) the one Israel broke, 2) a new covenant, and 3) a covenant made after the days of the New Covenant.

Please address my rebuttal. Stop avoiding. It does not enhance your cause.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If Daniel meant 490 years he would have written

(Four Hundred Ninety Years)

LOL. Daniel is a good friend of yours, is he? You know him that well? LOL. Why did he say 70 weeks instead of 490 days if he was intending to speak of a literal 490 day time period? What is the supposed future commandment to restore and build Jerusalem all about? Please elaborate on that.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Please address my rebuttal. Stop avoiding. It does not enhance your cause.

WPM I can't help it if you don't read to understand what I just said. Paul is quoting Jeremiah so Jeremiah is the context, not Hebrews 8. Your explanation is in error because you misunderstood that Hebrews 8 was the context. If I need to spell things out to you, I insult your intelligence, which I'm trying to avoid.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There were nations in those places way back then. Do you have to be purposely ridiculous, and answer a question with 2 questions along with just a repetitious statement instead of a legitimate answer?

LOL

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

A future temple. Even the folks at Wikipedia know this Ezekiel 40 - Wikipedia

So, you get your understanding of scripture from Wikipedia, do you?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

For all your denial of replacement theology, you sure use that word a lot.

Another lie from you. I rarely use it other than when I'm talking about Amils being false accused of believing in replacement theology.

Jesus did not replace the OT with the NT. Jesus fulfilled and completed the OT, and is still carrying out the NT, until the end of the Millennium, 1,000 years after the Second Coming.

You don't have a clue about what is taught in scripture. You need someone to teach you. Your efforts to figure it out on your own have been a complete failure.

Hebrews 8:6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.....13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Scripture teaches that the new covenant replaced the old one. You apparently have never read Hebrews 8.

 

[RLT63]

So, you get your understanding of scripture from Wikipedia, do you?

No. Just noting even they could see this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, I'm speculating that Christian theologians were blind to Premillennialism because they were forced to account for the fact that Israel no longer existed after 70AD. Granted, Paul wrote that God was not done with Israel prior to that. As of the time of writing, Israel still existed. But after 70AD Israel no longer existed. If I was living in the third or fourth century AD, I would have become a proponent of Amillennialism, telling people that since God allowed Israel to be destroyed and his people taken captive, one must reinterpret various passages of the OT to account for this. After 1948, Christians were forced to re-examine the Amillennial position.

I was referring to the people of Israel in particular and not the nation. So, you completely misunderstood me. And modern day Israel, consisting of many who are not even naturally descended from the ancient nation of Israel, and most of whom reject Jesus Christ, has no bearing on Amillennialism whatsoever.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No. Just noting even they could see this.

Unbelievers can't see anything when it comes to the truths taught in scripture, so I disagree. Why do you believe in future animal sacrifices made for the atonement of sins (Ezekiel 45:15-17)? Do you not understand that Jesus made His "once for all" sacrifice so that animal sacrifices would no longer be necessary?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I showed you from scripture. Now, if you didn't agree with my interpretation, that is one thing. But to claim I didn't show you is another thing.

If you call that showing me, then you could have picked any random passage from scripture and it would've supported your case just as much (not at all). The fact that you don't have any scripture that more clearly supports your belief is very telling.

Isaiah 29:11-12
11 The entire vision will be to you like the words of a sealed book, which when they give it to the one who is literate, saying, “Please read this,” he will say, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” 12 Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, “Please read this.” And he will say, “I cannot read.”

What was your reason for quoting this passage?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

WPM I can't help it if you don't read to understand what I just said. Paul is quoting Jeremiah so Jeremiah is the context, not Hebrews 8. Your explanation is in error because you misunderstood that Hebrews 8 was the context. If I need to spell things out to you, I insult your intelligence, which I'm trying to avoid.

It would be much better if you spelled things out than if you stick to being extremely vague and unclear the way you normally are.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Don't mistake unwillingness with inability. There are two reasons why I don't prove my position to you from scripture: 1) your intractable insistence that the OT must be understood through NT lenses, and 2) It takes hours of typing to fully explicate relevant passages. I am talking to people who seemingly have but a cursory experience with the OT. In addition, I am speaking to people who don't intend to take advantage of my answer for their own benefit and enlightenment; all they want is a target to shoot at.

Nice excuses there. Since you are unwilling to do that then there is no point in us discussing anything any further. I'd rather talk to people who are actually willing to back up their claims with scripture.

Finally, as all can attest, people don't like to read long posts, which is why I decided to make videos. I mistakenly thought that I would be able to give brief answers here, and for further detail, refer people to my video. I never imagined that people would flat out refuse to watch a 15 minute video.

I believe your video would most likely bore me to death and make me fall asleep. I come here to read posts and respond to them, not watch videos.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Bear in mind that Paul is writing to the Hebrews. He expects his readers to be intimately familiar with the Hebrew scriptures. In order for Gentile readers to understand this epistle, we need to catch up to our Hebrew brothers and sisters. As Paul says in Romans chapter 3, they have an advantage because they were given the oracles of God. They had access to the scriptures a lot longer than we. Unless we read and study the referenced passages, we will fail to grasp his point.

The referenced passages are explained for us in the NT. Why do you not want to take advantage of that? Instead, you act like you're living in ancient times when only the OT existed.

As Gentile Christians, many of us, myself included, miss the fact that Jeremiah 31:31-34 mentions two distinct covenants.

No, it absolutely does not. Only the new covenant is referenced in relation to that passage, which can be clearly seen in Hebrews 8.

I must have read that passage hundreds of times and argued from that passage on message boards for many years. I didn't notice two covenants in that section until someone point it out to me, but once he pointed it out, it immediately jumped out at me.

That person duped you. You shouldn't have fallen for it. You had it right before that.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I was referring to the people of Israel in particular and not the nation. So, you completely misunderstood me. And modern day Israel, consisting of many who are not even naturally descended from the ancient nation of Israel, and most of whom reject Jesus Christ, has no bearing on Amillennialism whatsoever.

I realized you were speaking of the people of Israel. This is why I corrected you.

 

[CadyandZoe]

If you call that showing me, then you could have picked any random passage from scripture and it would've supported your case just as much (not at all). The fact that you don't have any scripture that more clearly supports your belief is very telling.

What was your reason for quoting this passage?

I disagree. The problem is not my explanations. The problem is that you either don't understand my explanations or you are refusing to accept them. I quoted Isaiah 29 because what he said there continues to take place down to this very day.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It would be much better if you spelled things out than if you stick to being extremely vague and unclear the way you normally are.

I was not vague and unclear. I was very clear and understandable.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Nice excuses there. Since you are unwilling to do that then there is no point in us discussing anything any further. I'd rather talk to people who are actually willing to back up their claims with scripture.

I believe your video would most likely bore me to death and make me fall asleep. I come here to read posts and respond to them, not watch videos.

I have backed up my views with scripture. Apparently they are not the kinds of scripture you expected. Are you really as unable to understand language as you say? I don't believe that.

 

[WPM]

WPM I can't help it if you don't read to understand what I just said. Paul is quoting Jeremiah so Jeremiah is the context, not Hebrews 8. Your explanation is in error because you misunderstood that Hebrews 8 was the context. If I need to spell things out to you, I insult your intelligence, which I'm trying to avoid.

You have a major problem with directly addressing the rebuttals that are addressed toward your claims. Contrary to work you seem to think, that doesn't enhance your arguments, it exposes them. You don't seem to grasp that. There are so many rebuttals that you have ignored obviously because you obviously have nothing biblical to refute them. The reader can see it for themselves.

My last post remains on addressed. How do you because it shows you the contacts of what is being said.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The referenced passages are explained for us in the NT.

That is where you are wrong and why you are unable to understand what the scriptures are saying. I am not being unclear. You are simply crippled by your broken method of interpretation.

Why do you not want to take advantage of that? Instead, you act like you're living in ancient times when only the OT existed.

Don't confuse explanation with exegesis. Paul is not exegeting the OT for his readers as you suppose. The Hebrew people are Paul's audience. The Hebrews alive during that time had access to the Hebrew scriptures from early childhood and need no one to exegete them. Convincing the Hebrew believers to not abandon Jesus is Paul's purpose for writing his epistle to the Hebrews, and to that purpose, Paul explains the significance of OT passages in light of new revelation. Paul is explaining the scriptures not exegeting them.

We, on the other hand, being Gentiles and unfamiliar with the OT, need to exegete the OT. We need to do the work of understanding the OT before we can understand Paul's explanation of them.

No, it absolutely does not. Only the new covenant is referenced in relation to that passage, which can be clearly seen in Hebrews 8.

Review post #5534 and the other posts listed there where I explain this in further detail.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You have a major problem with directly addressing the rebuttals that are addressed toward your claims. Contrary to work you seem to think, that doesn't enhance your arguments, it exposes them. You don't seem to grasp that. There are so many rebuttals that you have ignored obviously because you obviously have nothing biblical to refute them. The reader can see it for themselves.

My last post remains on addressed. How do you because it shows you the contacts of what is being said.

Do you really care what the reader thinks? I'm not sure.
I'm a reader and you don't care what I think.