Amil can only be proved to be true if Amils accept all of the following terms and convincingly satisfy these terms.

[ewq1938]

So, you think Jesus' reward is to reign over a millennium that ends up with billions in open rebellion despite his manifested glory. Talk about illogical and unscriptural.

That happens in Amill. Why act as if it doesn't?

Most go to hell. That is not a failure. It is a just to receive punishment for a sinful unrepentant, Christ rejecting life.

 

[jeffweeder]

That happens in Amill. Why act as if it doesn't?

In Amill he is not reigning in his 2nd coming glory.
In premill he is reigning in his manifested glory...and ours for that matter.
Salvation is by faith not by sight (as always) when it comes to the millennium inhabitants...right?

 

[ewq1938]

In Amill he is not reigning in his 2nd coming glory.
In premill he is reigning in his manifested glory...and ours for that matter.
Salvation is by faith not by sight (as always) when it comes to the millennium inhabitants...right?

So? The rebellion is in both of our bibles but it is not a failure in either doctrine.

 

[jeffweeder]

So? The rebellion is in both of our bibles but it is not a failure in either doctrine.

When it comes to being saved through faith, premill isn't even in the race and therefore pointless.

 

[ewq1938]

When it comes to being saved through faith, premill isn't even in the race and therefore pointless.

So Premills are not saved Christians??

 

[jeffweeder]

So Premills are not saved Christians??

I didn't say that.
All Christians look forward to his coming.
When it comes to successfully evangelizing unbelievers', faith is essential in their response if there is any chance of them bearing fruit.

 

[ewq1938]

I didn't say that.

Looks like you did though. Why not explain what you meant? Also, what you have said is petty and judgmental and without any valid basis.

 

[jeffweeder]

Looks like you did though.

I didn't.

Why not explain what you meant?

I did.

 

[covenantee]

It is God's plan for the church. His plan for the Jews and the Gentiles are completely separate and different.

Is His plan for Jews and Gentiles alike that they should receive His Son and His salvation, and be added to His Church? Ephesians 2:13-22

Or should Jews reject His Son and His salvation and His Church, because His plan for Jews is "completely separate and different"?

Describe the plan that you claim is "completely separate and different".

 

[Keraz]

#215

Explain Luke 13:32-33. Did Jesus just unnecessarily repeat Himself? .......................Where else does He do that?
Was He referring to the same things? .........................Those 2 verses have different outcomes.
What is the reward mentioned?........................Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice to Redeem mankind. Does He not deserve a reward?

This got buried, conveniently, as the truth of what Jesus said disproves the AMill theory.
That the AMill belief defies commonsense and logic, doesn't concern its exponents.

But the cunning avoidance of scriptures that show how wrong that theory is; like Revelation 20's -plainly stated truths, cannot be allowed to be unaddressed and glossed over.

Luke 13:32 Listen, today and tomorrow, I shall be driving out demons and working cures and on the third day, I shall attain My goal.
This must be a prophecy, as in the next verse Jesus says;
Luke 13:33 However, I must go on My way this day, tomorrow and the next, then meet My death in Jerusalem.
His immediate future, exactly fulfilled.

A matching prophecy is in Hosea 6:2 After two days He will revive us, on the third, He will restore us, that we may live in His presence.
So, there are two “days” that the people of the world must wait until Jesus Returns to His Kingdom and restores us. Then He will reign on earth for the final 'day'. Each 'day' here must mean a thousand years.

We all desire the truth, we all have to overcome ideas, theories and doctrines which may or may not be correct. Get it right, or pay the price of ignorance as the end times unfold.

 

[Davidpt]

I think that Revelation is about the Jews.

If Revelation is about Jews it is about spiritual Jews, IOW, it is is about the church. It certainly isn't about the branches that were cutoff because of unbelief.

It could have happened at any time had Israel obeyed but of course they never did. Jesus gave them one last chance, but they rejected him as well.

And guess what that would mean? It would mean the OT has some false prophecies. For example, the following.

Psalms 110:1 Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Everyone knows or should know if they don't, this prophecy predicted a first coming followed by a leaving, followed by a return. The return is yet to happen, though.

Zechariah 14:5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

And this prophecy predicted a return(which is yet to happen) after His leaving of the planet in order to fulfill Psalms 110:1.

Isaiah 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.


and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked---compare with---Revelation 19:15 and Revelation 19:21, and also 2 Thessalonians 2:8.

And I'm sure I can find more, but this should be plenty to make the point, that what you said was possible, it was not even possible at all since it would have made God and the prophets He spoke though, out to be liars since none of those things could ever get fulfilled if you are correct. In the OT it predicts a 2nd coming numerous places, except it was hidden until Christ came.

If you are ok with the fact, that if you are right, this would mean that God lied numerous times in the OT, the fact some of these prophecies predict a 2nd coming, by all means then, continue believing that that was a possibility had the Jews not rejected Christ at the time. Not to mention, there goes the 70th week, or at least the last half of it, out the window if what you said could have happened, had it happened. Except it was never possible to begin with and numerous prophecies in the OT undeniably prove it.

One more thing while it's on my mind, before Jesus went to the cross He already predicted He would leave the planet at some point then return at some point. Meaning the parable involving the talents(Luke 19:12-27). And now what you proposed as having been a possibility, would have made Jesus out to be a liar as well.

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done , saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

 

[Davidpt]

So, you think Jesus' reward is to reign over a millennium that ends up with billions in open rebellion despite his manifested glory. Talk about illogical and unscriptural.

He reigns now saving a great number of people that nobody can count.

You in turn think, the fact satan literally saw God in all his glory, as did the angels, that it was illogical and unscriptural that satan and billions of angels could have rebelled? What is wrong with your some of your reasoning of things here? You act as if humans are far more intelligent than satan is. That humans could never rebel against God after having seen Him in His glory, meaning Christ in the case. But satan certainly could since satan is not as intelligent as humans are. Is that what we are to believe?

Prove your point using satan and his angels in order to do so. Prove that anyone that sees God in all His glory, such as satan obviously did, that this same one can not then rebel against Him since this is illogical.

 

[Rich R]

You missed this:

Matthew 26:28 Greek
1510 [e]
estin
ἐστιν
is
V-PIA-3S

Present indicative active.
No prophetic future there.

Very true. It is in the present tense. That's precisely why this verse is using the prophetic future. as indicated by the fact that Jer 31:31 (or the whole chapter) has not come to pass.

The purpose of the prophetic future figure of speech is to show the certainty of some future action.

Ooops! I just realized that what I've been calling prophetic future is actually called Prophetic Perfect. Doesn't change the concept though.

Here's Wiki on prophetic perfect: Prophetic Perfect

Matthew 26
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

No "none of it has come to pass".
Simply actual extant reality.


There are no future tenses in the Scriptures I've cited. All have either been fulfilled to completion, or initially fulfilled with ongoing completion.

I think you are much closer to things when you said, "or initially fulfilled with ongoing completion." The deserts aren't blooming yet.

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

How could the New Covenant be everlasting if none of it had yet come to pass?

The answer is self-evident.

Look up the meaning of the Greek word they translate as "everlasting." It does not mean something already done, something that existed in the past. It's more about what is future.

 

[Rich R]

Is His plan for Jews and Gentiles alike that they should receive His Son and His salvation, and be added to His Church? Ephesians 2:13-22

Or should Jews reject His Son and His salvation and His Church, because His plan for Jews is "completely separate and different"?

Describe the plan that you claim is "completely separate and different".

The Jews or Gentiles can accept Jesus and be saved now.

But if they don't God has another plan for them, which is outlined in Romans 11.

Rom 11:26,

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:​

​

If the Gentiles don't accept Jesus, they will be judged according to their works as per Rev 20:13

It'd be a stretch to say those two plans are anything but completely separate and different,

 

[WPM]

#215

This got buried, conveniently, as the truth of what Jesus said disproves the AMill theory.
That the AMill belief defies commonsense and logic, doesn't concern its exponents.

But the cunning avoidance of scriptures that show how wrong that theory is; like Revelation 20's -plainly stated truths, cannot be allowed to be unaddressed and glossed over.

Luke 13:32 Listen, today and tomorrow, I shall be driving out demons and working cures and on the third day, I shall attain My goal.
This must be a prophecy, as in the next verse Jesus says;
Luke 13:33 However, I must go on My way this day, tomorrow and the next, then meet My death in Jerusalem.
His immediate future, exactly fulfilled.

A matching prophecy is in Hosea 6:2 After two days He will revive us, on the third, He will restore us, that we may live in His presence.
So, there are two “days” that the people of the world must wait until Jesus Returns to His Kingdom and restores us. Then He will reign on earth for the final 'day'. Each 'day' here must mean a thousand years.

We all desire the truth, we all have to overcome ideas, theories and doctrines which may or may not be correct. Get it right, or pay the price of ignorance as the end times unfold.

Hosea 6:1-3: “Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.”

There is no reason to interpret these 3 days as anything other than 3 literal days. This again shows that it is Premils that are constantly spiritualizing clear literal Scripture away in order to sustain Premil. Anyway, Jesus literally fulfilled Hosea 6:2. It has already happened. Jesus said he would fulfil this, and He did. Matt 12:40 reads: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

There is no millennium mention or inferred in this passage. You have to force it into the text. It doesn't in any way say on the 3,000th day but the 3rd day, this is symbolism/spiritualization gone crazy. Such extremities are required to make Premil fit. The reality is it is referring to Christ's glorious resurrection.

Not so. He is describing the resurrection of Christ. There is no mention of thousands. You force that into the text to support your beliefs. What is more. We are already in the 3rd thousand now, demolishing your future millennium theory.

Jesus said in Luke 24:46-49: “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.”

1 Cor 15:3-4: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures."

Where? It is not mentioned anywhere else in Holy Writ, apart from the highly symbolic book of Revelation, and even then, only in the 3rd chapter before the end of the sacred text. I wish Premils quoted the full text of the Scripture that they mention to support their position. The text you mentioned make no mention of a future thousand years. No text seems safe with Premil eisegesis. Where is there any mention of an alleged future millennium in Hosea 6:2 or Luke 13:32?

 

[WPM]

The Jews or Gentiles can accept Jesus and be saved now.

But if they don't God has another plan for them, which is outlined in Romans 11.

Rom 11:26,

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:​

​

It'd be a stretch to say those two plans are anything but completely separate and different,

No. That new covenant plan is God's only plan. There is no other salvation or way of favor with God. The covenant was introduced 2000 years ago. You are preaching a false gospel.

 

[Davidpt]

Hosea 6:1-3: “Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.”

There is no reason to interpret these 3 days as anything other than 3 literal days. This again shows that it is Premils that are constantly spiritualizing clear literal Scripture away in order to sustain Premil. Anyway, Jesus literally fulfilled Hosea 6:2. It has already happened. Jesus said he would fulfil this, and He did. Matt 12:40 reads: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

There is no millennium mention or inferred in this passage. You have to force it into the text. It doesn't in any way say on the 3,000th day but the 3rd day, this is symbolism/spiritualization gone crazy. Such extremities are required to make Premil fit. The reality is it is referring to Christ's glorious resurrection.

Even though I'm Premil and have entertained Keraz' interpretation of that in the past, your interpretation of it appears to be a better example of using Scripture to interpret Scripture in this case. Therefore, I'm more inclined to agree with Amils in this case than I am with Premils. But even so, that doesn't necessarily prove Premil is not Biblical. It just means this particular passage might not support Premil is all.

 

[Rich R]

If Revelation is about Jews it is about spiritual Jews, IOW, it is is about the church. It certainly isn't about the branches that were cutoff because of unbelief.




And guess what that would mean? It would mean the OT has some false prophecies. For example, the following.

Psalms 110:1 Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Everyone knows or should know if they don't, this prophecy predicted a first coming followed by a leaving, followed by a return. The return is yet to happen, though.

Zechariah 14:5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

And this prophecy predicted a return(which is yet to happen) after His leaving of the planet in order to fulfill Psalms 110:1.

Isaiah 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.


and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked---compare with---Revelation 19:15 and Revelation 19:21, and also 2 Thessalonians 2:8.

And I'm sure I can find more, but this should be plenty to make the point, that what you said was possible, it was not even possible at all since it would have made God and the prophets He spoke though, out to be liars since none of those things could ever get fulfilled if you are correct. In the OT it predicts a 2nd coming numerous places, except it was hidden until Christ came.

If you are ok with the fact, that if you are right, this would mean that God lied numerous times in the OT, the fact some of these prophecies predict a 2nd coming, by all means then, continue believing that that was a possibility had the Jews not rejected Christ at the time. Not to mention, there goes the 70th week, or at least the last half of it, out the window if what you said could have happened, had it happened. Except it was never possible to begin with and numerous prophecies in the OT undeniably prove it.

One more thing while it's on my mind, before Jesus went to the cross He already predicted He would leave the planet at some point then return at some point. Meaning the parable involving the talents(Luke 19:12-27). And now what you proposed as having been a possibility, would have made Jesus out to be a liar as well.

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done , saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

I never meant to deny a second coming. If I did, it was unintentional. I fully believe in a second coming.

It seems their is whole doctrine is built around the concept of a "spiritual Jew." Since, the actual term is nowhere to be found in the scripture, it must be inferred. The problem with inferring things is that one's imagination can go wherever it wants. The person becomes the authority instead of the words in the scriptures.

If there were such a thing as a spiritual Jew, it would have a huge effect on God's plan. It seems to me that God would not let something that important be obscure, discovered only by inference. I'd think He'd come right out and use the term "spiritual Israel" at least once somewhere, if not multiple times so as to avoid confusion.

 

[Rich R]

No. That new covenant plan is God's only plan. There is no other salvation or way of favor with God. The covenant was introduced 2000 years ago. You are preaching a false gospel.

Read all of Romans 11, noting particularly,

Rom 11:26,

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:​

​

All I did was quote that verse. How is that preaching a false Gospel?

Is all Israel saved now? I don't think do. So Romans 11:26 must be talking about some other plan God has for the Jews who don't accept Jesus in this age. That is precisely what Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc. are about.

 

[IndianaRob]

Read all of Romans 11, noting particularly,

Rom 11:26,

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:​

​

All I did was quote that verse. How is that preaching a false Gospel? Are you suggesting that both Paul and I are doing that?

Is all Israel saved now?

If all Israel isn’t saved right now then “all Israel shall be saved” is a mistake in the Bible or “all Israel” doesn’t mean what you’re putting forth.