The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

[ewq1938]

No. I'm in the amillennialist camp... although I don't really like that term, because it seems to insinuate (by the 'a' prefix) that we think there is no millennium.

Good for you, I also covered that in my list.

 

[PinSeeker]

Such a distinction is not found in Revelation 20.

It is. It specifically says, "so that he might not deceive the nations any longer.

The nations cannot be deceived while satan is imprisoned.

Agreed. I never said otherwise.

You say they can be but in a limited fashion which, again, is non-biblical.

No, I didn't. EWQ. If you somehow got that impression, it was a mistake on your part.

No, it's not happening now.

Yes, it is. :) We disagree.

The dead in Christ remain dead until the second coming when the bodily resurrection happens.

Agreed. Physically. Right. I'm... not sure what you think I'm disputing.

What is happening now, is that people are accepting the gospel and are being born again.

Right. This is the first resurrection, and it is happening to individuals all through God's millennium.

You are conflating physical resurrection with spiritual re-birth.

Absolutely not. They are very different things. The spiritual rebirth is a spiritual resurrection. We are raised from our previous deadness in our sin. If I were conflating two things, I would be making them one and the same. The spiritual resurrection and the physical resurrection are very different. You may say that I am "conflating" the spiritual rebirth and the spiritual resurrection, and I'm fine with that, as Paul does exactly that, and he's right. :)

Same thing. Nations do not exist if there are no individuals.

The nations and individuals within those nations are two different things. I agree that nations cannot exist if there are no individuals to make them up, but that's non sequitur, really. I'm not sure what your nationality or ethnicity are, but I am an American. I am not, however, America. :) That should be enough, but you say it's about race.

PinSeeker: In the days of the ancient Israelites, he was able to deceive the nations, but Jesus came and bound Him from doing that
No, he didn't do that.

Yes, He did, EWQ. Jesus Himself, God the Son, says, "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house." As I said, Jesus is most certainly "plundering Satan's house," which would not be possible if the "strong man" (Satan) has not been bound.

Even Revelation 20 makes clear an angel does this not Christ.

Okay, well again, not to be insulting, but I say you are reading that too shallowly. This is apocalyptic literature, and John's dream. i would say you could easily replace (in a sense, not to change scripture, although I feel sure you will accuse me of that) "angel" with "the angel of the Lord," which, in many places in the Old Testament, is a pre-incarnate manifestation of Jesus... a theophany (a term you are probably well aware of).

Christ said after he left that Satan was coming as the ruler of the world. That is the reality now and since the ascension and will only end when Christ returns.

Sure, of the world, But Who is Ruler over this world, EWQ? Who would that be? Well, God, of course. And Jesus, the second Person of the Godhead, is "seated at God's right hand," which means He has completed His work of redemption and is in God's power, the very power and absolute sovereignty of God. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords. That is the reality now and since the ascension and will continue, but in Person, when Christ returns.

He is not the King over the world right now.

Oh.... yes He is.

His contextual answer was "No".

His contextual answer was 'yes,' and Pilate knew that very well. That's why he "washed his hands of the matter" and turned Jesus over to the Jews. He did not say He wasn't a king, but that His kingdom ~ and one cannot have a kingdom if that one is not a king ~ is not of this world. Plus, Jesus did not say no to Pilate's question, but merely said, "You have said so." Not denying a question to which the answer is known to be and truthfully 'no,' and allowing the impression that the answer is actually 'yes' is lying, EWQ. Jesus did not do that.

Both the first resurrection and the second of Revelation 20 are physical.

Nope. But I get that's your stance.

Before physical death is the possibility of spiritual re-birth but not after physical death as you are claiming.

I'm... not claiming that at all, EWQ. To be quite honest, I'm not even sure I can make sense out of this statement of yours.

They had already had a physical resurrection but are still called the dead because they are all spiritually dead and going to the lake of fire. The saved were resurrection a thousand years before this.

Uh, what? Okay, again, the sense of this is escaping me...

Yes, the physically deceased wicked are physically resurrected at Christ's return. Their bodies are resurrected; their spirits have been in what we call the intermediate state, but quite conscious, like the rich man in Jesus's parable in Luke 16. They were always spiritually dead, even when they were physically alive and did not experience the first resurrection during God's millennium, but only the second, this physical one, on Christ's return. And, after the Judgment, they remain spiritually dead, and follow Satan and his minions into hell. Their resurrection is to judgment (John 5:29), and this is how they spend eternity.

The physically deceased saved are also physically resurrected at Christ's return. The saved did experience the first resurrection during their lifetimes, and became (were made) spiritually alive then. And, as I've said, this happens individually for all the ones saved during the course of God's millennium. Now, on Christ's return, they, having previously physically died, now are physically resurrected also ~ their bodies are resurrected and reunited with the spirit, which has been in this same intermediate state but with Jesus since their physical death. And their resurrection is to eternal life (John 5:28-29), and this is how they spend eternity.

All will hear his voice but not at the same time.

That's not what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4... :) Paul says, "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord." He didn't say it, because he was speaking (writing, as this is a personal letter) to Christians, but the dead not in Christ rise after those dead in Christ. There are not two second resurrections, but only different outcomes of the same resurrection, one to eternal life, the other to judgment and eternal punishment (John 5:28-29)

Revelation 20 is clear about people living and then "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" proving two resurrections separated by a thousand years. Amillennialism avoids this like the plague.

LOL! Well there are two resurrections, but not two second resurrections. :) And more to your assertion here, "the rest of the dead" in Revelation 20:5 is quite obviously in contrast to the ones who "had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God... who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands... came (have come) to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" of Revelation 20:4. Those in Revelation 20:5 are the ones who do not experience the first resurrection, but only the second. No, amillennialists avoid nothing. :)

PinSeeker: In being born again, we are raised from death in sin to life in Jesus. It is a resurrection. Let me ask you this: Do you believe the Gospel to be both now and not yet?
No, no one believes that.

Um, believes what, EWQ? That we are raised from death in sin to life in Jesus? I hope you believe that, because if you don't, then I would have to question your Christianity. Or are you referring to the Gospel being both now and not yet? Because that also is Christianity 101.

The Millennium is a time of peace devoid of satan.

A lot of folks believe that, for sure. But the whole pre-tribulation, "Rapture/Great Tribulation" schema is, well, very colorful and fanciful. :)

Grace and peace to you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Bah. You responded to 6 things today that I posted. Do you think I have time to respond to each? Pick one topic and I will reply.

I think you probably do based on how much you post, but whatever. How about you respond to post #790 then? You said before that the Greek word translated as "kingdoms" in the KJV translation (but few others) of Revelation 11:15 is always plural. I gave several examples (and could give many more) where the word is not used in the plural, which disproves your claim. Please respond to that.

There is nothing that I cannot refute in regard to any Amillennialism proof texts.

LOL. There's nothing that you can't try to refute in regard to Amillennialism, but you fail to actually refute any of them. Your arguments are far weaker than you realize.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, except for the way you apparently mean "burning up," I agree. :) Verse 7 says "...by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." The heavens and the earth being "stored up" is the same as their "being kept," and they are being stored up "for fire," which is the same as " judgment and destruction (ruin)" of the ungodly. It absolutely is about that; our God is a consuming fire. Now, "the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved," as verse 10 says, but, continuing with verse 10, "the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed," meaning there will be nowhere for the evil to hide themselves or their evil works; everyone will know them for who they are.


Literal fire does not make new, it destroys. Again, our God is a consuming fire. God will make new by removing sin, the same as He makes us a new creation ~ "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come" (2 Corinthians 5:17) ~ when we are born again, even having been previously dead in our sin.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you're saying. Let me just ask you this. Do you believe at Christ's return that He will remove all of the wicked and all the things on earth that are used to do wicked things?

What do you mean by "wicked things," SI? Things, in and of themselves, are not wicked. What he "gets rid of" are the wicked, and they... obediently... depart. We see this in what Jesus Himself says Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 25:41-46.

That's generally true, but some things are wicked in and of themselves as well. Let me just give you a few examples of things that humans have made to be wicked. Examples of things that are wicked in and of themselves because humans made them that way would include strip joints, drug houses (and the hard core drugs sold and used there), adult book stores and the things sold there and so on. What do you think God will do with things like that?

Other than what is in Scripture, no. It will be far greater than we can imagine, I think. But I kind of think everything will look pretty much the same, actually. But it will be much different, of course.

Pretty much the same but much different? Huh? I'm not sure if that comes across the way you intended.

I think we have a glimpse of this in what the world looked like before the events of Genesis 3. But I don't think that means there will be no buildings or roads or houses or... clothes... :) I guess none of us can really imagine a world without sin, but that it will be.

I'm not saying there can't be those things, but there are some things that will need to be removed from the earth, wouldn't you agree? I'm sure you do. So, how exactly do you think that will be accomplished?

No. I'm in the amillennialist camp... although I don't really like that term, because it seems to insinuate (by the 'a' prefix) that we think there is no millennium.

What term would you prefer? Postmillennialism is already taken. It just means we don't believe in a literal thousand years and we don't believe the thousand years takes place after Christ's return and doesn't mean that we believe the thousand years doesn't even represent an actual period of time with a beginning and an ending. The label doesn't mean anything. People know what we believe, so I don't see the label as having any significance. If people are too lazy to find out what we actually believe and make assumptions based on a label, then that's on them.

I'm not sure how long ago, but at some point, folks started referring to this camp as the nunc-millennial camp (the 'nunc' prefix means now, or current). This is the conversation I've been having with ewq, if you've been following.

No, I haven't really been following that particular conversation since it doesn't interest me that much (no offense...it just doesn't).

 

[PinSeeker]

Do you believe at Christ's return that He will remove all of the wicked and all the things on earth that are used to do wicked things?

The people, yes. I'd have to know what you mean by "things," but I guess I'm taking that to mean inanimate objects, and to that would say no. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate any mere thing will be removed.

...some things are wicked in and of themselves as well. Let me just give you a few examples of things that humans have made to be wicked. Examples of things that are wicked in and of themselves because humans made them that way would include strip joints, drug houses (and the hard core drugs sold and used there), adult book stores and the things sold there and so on. What do you think God will do with things like that?

There will be no more sin or even temptation to sin. So there will be no more love of or need for money, no more lust, no more abuse of drugs... again, no more sin. So I guess we could say all those things will go away, but not because they are actually sent away or destroyed or actually burned up, really.

Pretty much the same but much different? Huh? I'm not sure if that comes across the way you intended.

LOL! Maybe you're right... :) But really, I don't think it confusing to have said things will not look different, but only be much different ~ meaning without sin.

I'm not saying there can't be those things, but there are some things that will need to be removed from the earth, wouldn't you agree?

Sure. See above. I think we are/were just missing each other a bit.

So, how exactly do you think that will be accomplished?

Like I said above, I think that because there will be no more sin, there will be no more desire for and no more "need" for those things. This analogy falls short of the mark, I guess, but it's sort of like toys that you played with as a child. I mean, you may have kept some for your kids or grandkids to play with, but that's beyond the point. You're not a child anymore, so you don't play with them anymore

What term would you prefer? Postmillennialism is already taken. It just means we don't believe in a literal thousand years and we don't believe the thousand years takes place after Christ's return and doesn't mean that we believe the thousand years doesn't even represent an actual period of time with a beginning and an ending. The label doesn't mean anything. People know what we believe, so I don't see the label as having any significance.

I agree with you here. I prefer nunc-mill, because it is more descriptive and less likely to create or invite misimpression or misrepresentation by... others. :) But I agree: it's not terribly important.

If people are too lazy to find out what we actually believe and make assumptions based on a label, then that's on them.

Laziness... Maybe partly, but I think it's more because others ~ especially pre-tribulation folks ~ are so bought in and personally invested in that point of view that they find any way they can to tear down the a/nunc-mill point of view, even to the point of misrepresenting it and creating straw-man arguments to do so. Do you notice that?

I mean, even from the start of these conversations, pre-mill folks say things about the a/nunc-mill point of view that are at least quite wrong, if not very wrong, and it has to be intentional, because even after multiple clarifications, they still keep at it. But when a-mill folks answer and clarify, they contrast their views with pre-mill views, and there is no argument from the pre-mill side saying that their pre-mill views are misrepresented, but only further attempts at tearing down a-mill views and even disagreements with a-mill folks about what the a-mill position really is, and yet more misrepresentations of it. It really, SI... it really, I think, gets into idolatry.

No, I haven't really been following that particular conversation since it doesn't interest me that much (no offense...it just doesn't).

Ah, well that conversation (between me and ewq) is exactly what we're talking about here. He/she is very much bought in to the pre-tribulation view. Now that doesn't make him/her any less a Christian than me, of course; pre-trib folks believe in Jesus, too, and as such are our brothers and sisters and just as strong in the faith and just as much in Christ as we are. Meh... I guess we could say the same about ourselves, that we are very much bought in to the a/nunc-millennial view... and truthfully, there's some idolatry there, too, although maybe it manifests itself in slightly different ways. But it's been a case study in what I was saying immediately above... :) Anyway, again, yes, one great day, there will be no more sin.

Grace and peace to you, SI!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The people, yes. I'd have to know what you mean by "things," but I guess I'm taking that to mean inanimate objects, and to that would say no. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate any mere thing will be removed.

So, strip joints, hard core drugs, pornographic magazines and such will all stay around? I hope that's not what you believe. I'm thinking maybe you haven't given this much thought before.

There will be no more sin or even temptation to sin. So there will be no more love of or need for money, no more lust, no more abuse of drugs... again, no more sin. So I guess we could say all those things will go away, but not because they are actually sent away or destroyed or actually burned up, really.

So, how exactly will they go away then?

LOL! Maybe you're right... :) But really, I don't think it confusing to have said things will not look different, but only be much different ~ meaning without sin.

I think they will also look much different. Much better, in my opinion. Better than we can imagine. If we could imagine it, that would be disappointing because our minds are quite limited.

Sure. See above. I think we are/were just missing each other a bit.

I'm used to not being on the same page with the people I'm talking to, so it doesn't phase me. It's nothing major, anyway. Just something to think about as far as what exactly passages like 2 Peter 3:10-12 mean. We agree on the timing of that and on the end result, which is what matters the most.

I agree with you here. I prefer nunc-mill, because it is more descriptive and less likely to create or invite misimpression or misrepresentation by... others. :) But I agree: it's not terribly important.

Yeah. I fully understand that amillennialism may not be the best label for what we believe, but it seems too late now to change it. I never saw the nunc-millennialism term before until I saw you use it.

Laziness... Maybe partly, but I think it's more because others ~ especially pre-tribulation folks ~ are so bought in and personally invested in that point of view that they find any way they can to tear down the a/nunc-mill point of view, even to the point of misrepresenting it and creating straw-man arguments to do so. Do you notice that?

Yes, I have noticed that for many years. I can't even tell you how many times my view has been misrepresented over the years. Even after I correct their misrepresentations they continue to do it, which shows they are often doing it on purpose rather than unintentionally misunderstanding what we believe.

I mean, even from the start of these conversations, pre-mill folks say things about the a/nunc-mill point of view that are at least quite wrong, if not very wrong, and it has to be intentional, because even after multiple clarifications, they still keep at it.

Well, there you go. I said what I did above before reading this. So, we both have experience with that.

But when a-mill folks answer and clarify, they contrast their views with pre-mill views, and there is no argument from the pre-mill side saying that their pre-mill views are misrepresented, but only further attempts at tearing down a-mill views and even disagreements with a-mill folks about what the a-mill position really is, and yet more misrepresentations of it. It really, SI... it really, I think, gets into idolatry.

I agree.

Ah, well that conversation (between me and ewq) is exactly what we're talking about here. He/she is very much bought in to the pre-tribulation view. Now that doesn't make him/her any less a Christian than me, of course; pre-trib folks believe in Jesus, too, and as such are our brothers and sisters and just as strong in the faith and just as much in Christ as we are. Meh... I guess we could say the same about ourselves, that we are very much bought in to the a/nunc-millennial view... and truthfully, there's some idolatry there, too, although maybe it manifests itself in slightly different ways. But it's been a case study in what I was saying immediately above... :) Anyway, again, yes, one great day, there will be no more sin.

I can honestly say that premils misrepresent the amil view far more often than amils misrepresent the premil view. To me, that is a fact based on my experiences on forums like this. I suppose it can be debated as to why that is the case, but I think I know why for the most part.

Grace and peace to you, SI!

And you as well!

 

[PinSeeker]

So, strip joints, hard core drugs, pornographic magazines and such will all stay around?

LOL! Okay, I'm having a little fun with this:

Well maybe the buildings (with regard to strip joints) will stay... But if they do, they'll be used for something else. :) Something not sinful.

And I feel pretty sure that the manufacturing of hard core drugs and publishing of pornographic magazines will cease (with all other types of sin). :) Businesses do go out of business even now, right? :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL! Okay, I'm having a little fun with this:

Well maybe the buildings (with regard to strip joints) will stay... But if they do, they'll be used for something else. :) Something not sinful.

Nah, I think they will be burned up and replaced with something much better. But, if you were right, I wonder what the poles would be used for? Hmmm.

And I feel pretty sure that the manufacturing of hard core drugs and publishing of pornographic magazines will cease (with all other types of sin). :) Businesses do go out of business even now, right? :)

Yes, I'm sure you're right about that, but what about the existing ones at the time Christ returns? They will stay around? Clearly not. How might the Lord get rid of them? By burning them up and dissolving them maybe? I think so. :)

 

[PinSeeker]

Nah, I think they will be burned up and replaced with something much better... I wonder what the poles would be used for? ... what about the existing (businesses) at the time Christ returns? How might the Lord get rid of them? By burning them up and dissolving them maybe? I think so.

Okay, well more power to ya... :)

I choose not to speculate about it or dwell on it for any amount of time, really, and to just take comfort in the fact that ~ and look forward with eager anticipation when ~ everything will be finally and fully redeemed, and every tear will be wiped from our eyes (Isaiah 25), when:

"... the ransomed of the LORD shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon (our) heads; (we) shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away." (Isaiah 35)
​

I so love Isaiah 35. I love all God's Word, as I'm sure you do, but Isaiah 35 is one of my favorite passages in all Scripture. Anyway, there will be no more sin, as it will all be "burned up" ~ burned away ~ by our Consuming Fire. And in that context, we are in that "fire" right now, being refined, as it were. I'm reminded of one of my favorite hymns:

When through fiery trials they pathway shall lie,
My grace, all-sufficient, shall be thy supply!
The flame shall not hurt you, I only design
Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine!
~ How Firm a Foundation​

Grace and peace to you, SI.

 

[ewq1938]

I think you probably do based on how much you post, but whatever.

Translation, "I refuse to believe what you say because I am a rude person."

How about you respond to post #790 then? You said before that the Greek word translated as "kingdoms" in the KJV translation (but few others) of Revelation 11:15 is always plural.

You are adding "always" to change what I said. I never said it always is plural. I said it was plural in that verse, and it is plural.

I gave several examples (and could give many more) where the word is not used in the plural, which disproves your claim. Please respond to that.

There was no such claim. It was a strawman fallacy.

LOL. There's nothing that you can't try to refute in regard to Amillennialism, but you fail to actually refute any of them. Your arguments are far weaker than you realize.

They are stronger than you are apparently able to recognize. Likely due to doctrinal bias. You have shown poor reading comprehension when you claimed I said the word for kingdoms is "always" plural when I said no such thing. You are the last person to make any declarations about what is a valid refute and what is not.

 

[ewq1938]

Ah, well that conversation (between me and ewq) is exactly what we're talking about here. He/she is very much bought in to the pre-tribulation view.

You apparently don't know anything about me since I am Post-trib.

Meh... I guess we could say the same about ourselves, that we are very much bought in to the a/nunc-millennial view... and truthfully, there's some idolatry there[/QUOTE]

Boy howdy as they say somewhere.

BTW, "nunc-mill" is the worst sounding word I have ever heard. Now-Mill would be a million times better. Or the Greek nun, Nun-Mill. But this still isn't fully in line with what the terms are supposed to represent.

Pre-trib means Christ comes to rapture people BEFORE the tribulation.
Post tribulation means Christ comes to rapture people AFTER the tribulation.

Pre-mill means Christ returns BEFORE the Millennium.
Nunc or Now or Nun doesn't address the return of Christ so Amillennialism is really Post-mill as they believe the return of Christ comes after the Millennium is over.

(Not addressed to you just a general comment: It's a bit sad that a Premillennialist has to be the one to explain this but we do on a great many things so we are used to it.)

Of course the best one is Pre-mill since that is the only biblically accurate position.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Translation, "I refuse to believe what you say because I am a rude person."

Please spare me your hypocrisy. You're as rude as any person on this forum.

You are adding "always" to change what I said. I never said it always is plural. I said it was plural in that verse, and it is plural.

That's your opinion, but the vast majority of English Bible translators disagree with you.

There was no such claim. It was a strawman fallacy.

You certainly were coming across that way. I asked you to provide any other scripture which teaches the concept of there being multiple kingdoms that Christ rules over on earth. You didn't respond.

They are stronger than you are apparently able to recognize. Likely due to doctrinal bias. You have shown poor reading comprehension when you claimed I said the word for kingdoms is "always" plural when I said no such thing. You are the last person to make any declarations about what is a valid refute and what is not.

You acted as if it has to be plural and that there wasn't any possibility otherwise. Why are you denying this now?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Boy howdy as they say somewhere.

BTW, "nunc-mill" is the worst sounding word I have ever heard. Now-Mill would be a million times better. Or the Greek nun, Nun-Mill. But this still isn't fully in line with what the terms are supposed to represent.

Pre-trib means Christ comes to rapture people BEFORE the tribulation.
Post tribulation means Christ comes to rapture people AFTER the tribulation.

Pre-mill means Christ returns BEFORE the Millennium.
Nunc or Now or Nun doesn't address the return of Christ so Amillennialism is really Post-mill as they believe the return of Christ comes after the Millennium is over.

(Not addressed to you just a general comment: It's a bit sad that a Premillennialist has to be the one to explain this but we do on a great many things so we are used to it.)

I guess I need to explain to you that postmillennialists believe the world keeps getting better until eventually the entire world are Christians. So, no, Amillennialism is not "really Post-mill".

Of course the best one is Pre-mill since that is the only biblically accurate position.

And, yet, you are completely incapable of convincingly supporting that doctrine. It's no wonder you spend so much time trying (and failing) to refute Amil rather than spending time showing how Premil is true. You have nothing in scripture to support Premil. All you can do to support Premil is take several OT passages out of context and assume that what is described in Revelation 20 follows what is described in Revelation 19 chronologically. You have nothing else from the NT to support Premil. Surely, there would be more in the NT to support Premil than just Revelation 20 if Premil was true, but there's nothing.

 

[ewq1938]

So, strip joints, hard core drugs, pornographic magazines and such will all stay around?

It should disturb you that in your version of the Millennial kingdom Christ rules over has strip joints, hard core drugs, pornographic things of all kinds and murders of Christians. Lovely kingdom you have. You are other Amillennialists are ruling with Christ now? You are doing a terrible job. Just wait for when Premills will rule with Christ. None of those terrible things will exist during the real thousand years.

 

[ewq1938]

Please spare me your hypocrisy. You're as rude as any person on this forum.

That's your opinion, but the vast majority of English Bible translators disagree with you.

No they don't. Quote any translator by name of any major translation saying the word is in the singular.

You certainly were coming across that way. I asked you to provide any other scripture which teaches the concept of there being multiple kingdoms that Christ rules over on earth. You didn't respond.

Well I am busy, but you refused to believe me when I said that.

You acted as if it has to be plural and that there wasn't any possibility otherwise.

No I didn't. You made that up just as you made up that I said it "always" means plural. You are a one man strawman fallacy generator. That is dishonesty!

 

[ewq1938]

I guess I need to explain to you that postmillennialists believe the world keeps getting better until eventually the entire world are Christians. So, no, Amillennialism is not "really Post-mill".

It is because it teaches Christ returns AFTER the Millennium is over. We are discussing what the abbreviated terms mean regarding the Millennium and the return of Christ.

And, yet, you are completely incapable of convincingly supporting that doctrine.

Oh, I have and so have others. You just are so dedicated to your doctrine that you will reject any sound proof that it is wrong.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It should disturb you that in your version of the Millennial kingdom Christ rules over has strip joints, hard core drugs, pornographic things of all kinds and murders of Christians. Lovely kingdom you have. You are other Amillennialists are ruling with Christ now? You are doing a terrible job. Just wait for when Premills will rule with Christ. None of those terrible things will exist during the real thousand years.

It doesn't disturb me at all because those things are not part of Christ's kingdom. Nice try.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,

Yes, it is a lovely kingdom. It's too bad that you have no understanding of it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No they don't. Quote any translator by name of any major translation saying the word is in the singular.

LOL. Why do I have to know their names? How ridiculous. If the translation has "kingdom" instead of "kingdoms", isn't it safe to say that the translators of that translation find the word to be singular in that verse (Rev 11:15)? Of course.

Revelation 11:15 (NIV): The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.”

Revelation 11:15 (NASB): Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.”

Revelation 11:15 (ESV): Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.”

Is this enough for you to show how they actually translated the verse or do I need to provide their names for you for some reason as well?

No I didn't. You made that up just as you made up that I said it "always" means plural. You are a one man strawman fallacy generator. That is dishonesty!

I'm not making it up that you came across as if the word has to be plural without any possibility otherwise. If you want to deny that, that's up to you. But, that would mean you're the dishonest one.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is because it teaches Christ returns AFTER the Millennium is over. We are discussing what the abbreviated terms mean regarding the Millennium and the return of Christ.

We're talking about how to identify who believes what. Obviously, amillennialists have some different beliefs from postmillennialists. So, the postmillennialist label is taken. So be it. Who cares? It's just labels.

Oh, I have and so have others. You just are so dedicated to your doctrine that you will reject any sound proof that it is wrong.

The next sound proof that you offer will be the first one.

 

[ewq1938]

LOL. Why do I have to know their names? How ridiculous. If the translation has "kingdom" instead of "kingdoms", isn't it safe to say that the translators of that translation find the word to be singular in that verse (Rev 11:15)? Of course.

No. You need to offer commentary by one or more of them so they can explain. The word is plural in the manuscripts.

I'm not making it up that you came across as if the word has to be plural without any possibility otherwise.

No, I did not come across like that. That was your own personal poor comprehension. It is plural in that verse in the manuscripts.

If you want to deny that, that's up to you. But, that would mean you're the dishonest one.

You, that's you and your false accusations and assumptions. I said kingdoms is plural in that verse according to the Greek and you turned that into me claiming every time the word is used in scripture it is plural which I never said. That is dishonest and instead of apologizing you double down on it. You are close to my ignore list. Continue these lies and it will happen without me saying anything.