Is Amillennialism a denial of the power of God?

[Sid]

It seems that God had no problem literally fulfilling prophesy in the Old Testament.

. . . now amillennialism teaches that Bible prophesy will only be fulfilled symbolically.

Isn't that a denial of the power of God and the Scriptures?

. . . could we look at amillennialism as a fulfillment of 2 Timothy 3:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=5&version=9&context=verse)?

[CoreIssue]

Denial or an elevation of Man? :scratch:

[Sid]

Denial or an elevation of Man? :scratch:


Probably both.

Amill/post-trib gives us the Dominionist/Kingdom Now delegations.

. . . making the world a better place to be lost in.

[CoreIssue]

Denial or an elevation of Man? :scratch:


Probably both.

Amill/post-trib gives us the Dominionist/Kingdom Now delegations.

. . . making the world a better place to be lost in.
Transfer of power. :not:

[Ltanner09]

Maybe Sid can give an example of whatever it is that he's claiming.

Didn't see him participate in any of the debates in the other threads, so it appears his posts here are simply attacks on amill without a shred of substance. Not saying I'm surprised, at all.

I would guess an attack on pre mill, on this board, would get someone banned.

[kay-gee]

Being that pre-mill only came into vogue about the middle of the 19th century, it is the new kid on the block, not amill, which has been since the time of apostles. Not good to be hasty!

all the best...

[CoreIssue]

Being that pre-mill only came into vogue about the middle of the 19th century, it is the new kid on the block, not amill, which has been since the time of apostles. Not good to be hasty!

all the best...
You don't know what you are talking about, KG.

It was out of favor with Rome, but most assuredly there from the beginning, before Amil.

Really should study before you make those kind of pronouncments.

[CoreIssue]

Maybe Sid can give an example of whatever it is that he's claiming.

Didn't see him participate in any of the debates in the other threads, so it appears his posts here are simply attacks on amill without a shred of substance. Not saying I'm surprised, at all.

I would guess an attack on pre mill, on this board, would get someone banned.
Amusing. You and others who have made claims of escapism and such against Pre-Mill never have been banned for it. You ARE posting here right now, correct? So not banned.

Hope life is treating you well Lynn. Just no point in cranking up another debate to repeat what has already been said.

You and Sid have fun.

[Ltanner09]

Amusing. You and others who have made claims of escapism and such against Pre-Mill never have been banned for it. You ARE posting here right now, correct? So not banned.

Read Sid's post, Core. He ties amill with a denial of God and scripture.

While I disagree with the pre mill theory, I've never stated such a position was a denial of God.

[CoreIssue]

Amusing. You and others who have made claims of escapism and such against Pre-Mill never have been banned for it. You ARE posting here right now, correct? So not banned.Read Sid's post, Core. He ties amill with a denial of God and scripture.

While I disagree with the pre mill theory, I've never stated such a position was a denial of God.
Again, you discuss it.

But already you are misquoting and changing context. Sid didn't say that.

Enough. Not getting drawn in.

Sid, all yours.

[Ltanner09]

But already you are misquoting and changing context. Sid didn't say that.

Enough. Not getting drawn in.

Sid referenced 2 TIM 3, and related it to amill. Don't have to be a rocket scientist to see his claim.

I'm sure Sid will be along and agree to debate anything biblical.

[Sid]

Sid, all yours.


Thank you.


I find that the fulfillment of Bible prophesy is one of the most compelling reasons to accept the Bible as the very Word of God.

Now we find that amills reject vast segments of the Bible as literal prophesy because that literal interpretation would present fatal flaws to their doctrines of the end times, the church and salvation itself.

Once amills started copy 'n paste interpretations of the Scriptures, it is amazing what confusion they can conjure up.

[Ltanner09]

Now we find that amills reject vast segments of the Bible as literal prophesy because that literal interpretation would present fatal flaws to their doctrines of the end times, the church and salvation itself.

Then you haven't read through the debates between Core and I. It is pre mill that applies gaps where none are spoken of, doing major damage to scripture.

It is pre mil that denies that the New Covenant spoken of has yet to take effect, even though Christ repeatedly announced it's fulfillment.

It is pre mill that teaches a return to animal sacrifices, where none is taught.

But I'll be fair and give you an opportunity to prove your claim. Pick a topic and debate it with me without interference from anyone else here (no offense Core.....you have been the only one here who has taken up the offer on more than one occasion).

What say you Sid? You continually attack the amill belief but have yet to debate one issue here, choosing to hit and run.

Pre Mill cannot debate an issue without placing phantom gaps or sticking with the literal interpretation of scriptures.

I'll even save you some leg work and start a debate thread.

[Sid]

It is pre mill that teaches a return to animal sacrifices, where none is taught.




You do realize that the Temple Mount Faithful (http://www.templemountfaithful.org/) are ready to resume Temple Sacrifice?

. . . do you realize that DNA testing (http://www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php) has been used to confirm priests in the line of Aaron?

. . . or the red heifer (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/15/) will be ready soon?



Many scholars of Bible Prophesy look at the necessity for the Third Temple since that is where the a/c will perform the abomination of desolation.

Revelation 20 will be a literal 1K years. . .

There is a difference between tribulation and the Great Tribulation.

The Rapture and the Second Coming are two seperate concepts.

The church isn't Israel.

The church age isn't the millennium kingdom.

. . . deny the literal fulfillment of Bible Prophesy and and marinate in a morass of confusion.

[kay-gee]

Great stuff Sid. Now let's have the scriptures please!

all the best...

[Willy]

It is pre mill that teaches a return to animal sacrifices, where none is taught.




You do realize that the Temple Mount Faithful (http://www.templemountfaithful.org/) are ready to resume Temple Sacrifice?

. . . do you realize that DNA testing (http://www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php) has been used to confirm priests in the line of Aaron?

. . . or the red heifer (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/15/) will be ready soon?



Many scholars of Bible Prophesy look at the necessity for the Third Temple since that is where the a/c will perform the abomination of desolation.

Revelation 20 will be a literal 1K years. . .

There is a difference between tribulation and the Great Tribulation.

The Rapture and the Second Coming are two seperate concepts.

The church isn't Israel.

The church age isn't the millennium kingdom.

. . . deny the literal fulfillment of Bible Prophesy and and marinate in a morass of confusion.

... it also appears they have been practicing ...:tiphat:

http://www.templeinstitute.org/preparing_for_passover_offering.htm

[Ltanner09]

Well, Sid, I had expected more in the way of biblical references on your claim that Amill denies the power of God.

Sid wrote:
You do realize that the Temple Mount Faithful are ready to resume Temple Sacrifice?

Do you have any biblical references to what these sacrifices would now accomplish? Christ is the only acceptable sacrifice. Wouldn't turning to an alternate sacrifice deny God's power?

. . . do you realize that DNA testing has been used to confirm priests in the line of Aaron?

Are you claiming that one can reject Christ and be a priest? Wouldn't that be a denial of God's power?

. . . or the red heifer will be ready soon?

The link you provided leads to an article written in 1997. The life span of a heifer is 22 years. Other than an old article dealing with a heifer, now past it's prime, do you have anything biblical to support your claim that amill denies the power of God?

There have been several red heifers over the centuries, but that doesn't signal a rebuilding of another temple. The New Testament clearly describes what the Temple now is.....with Christ as it's cornerstone.

[Sid]

Sid wrote:
You do realize that the Temple Mount Faithful are ready to resume Temple Sacrifice?Do you have any biblical references to what these sacrifices would now accomplish? Christ is the only acceptable sacrifice. Wouldn't turning to an alternate sacrifice deny God's power?


Amillennialism is a gateway to replacement theology and anti-Semitism.

Is God finished with the Jews?

. . . when did He cancel the everlasting covenant? Genesis 17:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=17&verse=7&version=49&context=verse)

[Ltanner09]

Sid wrote:
Amillennialism is a gateway to replacement theology and anti-Semitism.

And that statement is further proof that you have no idea what amill believes.

Is God finished with the Jews?

Before attacking a view, Sid, you really should study it beforehand.

God isn't finished with the Jew, in fact many still come to Christ. If He was finished with the Jew how could they receive salvation?

. . . when did He cancel the everlasting covenant? Genesis 17:7

Sid, since when was Abraham a Jew?

Ge 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

The promise is to children of God, of which Abraham was one.

Ga 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

[Sid]

Sid wrote:
Amillennialism is a gateway to replacement theology and anti-Semitism.And that statement is further proof that you have no idea what amill believes.


What's the matter?

. . . can't accept the full implications of believing that there will be no earthly millennium?

Tell me with a straight face that we are in the MK now.

Not accepting Rev 20:1-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2020:1-6&version=49) as literal prophesy provides the fatal flaw to amillennialism.

. . . don't accept that and you can make up your theology as you go.

[Ltanner09]

I replied to this answer on the debate thread. No sense in you ignoring my questions on two threads.

[Sid]

I replied to this answer on the debate thread. No sense in you ignoring my questions on two threads.



When was Isaiah 2:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%202:%204;&version=49;) fulfilled?

[Ltanner09]

When was Isaiah 2:4 fulfilled?

I already answered that question, it is fullfiled in Christ...and I listed the relevant verses..

Other than asking redundant questions, do you have any pre mill opinions which are supported by scripture?

So far, in day 3 here, you offer nothing. I kind of expected this from someone who attacks the amill belief. yet has no knowledge on what that belief holds. I'm not even sure you have a handle on the pre mill belief as you have yet to connect one pre mill opinion with one biblical verse.

[Sid]

When was Isaiah 2:4 fulfilled?I already answered that question, it is fullfiled in Christ...and I listed the relevant verses..



You have provided no compelling justificiation as to why Isaiah 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%202;&version=49;) will not be literally fulfilled. . .

. . . a future, literal, physical millennium kingdom is indicated by the Scriptures.

To reject the literal earthy, millennium with physical blessings is accompanied by liberal amounts of confusion. . .



The Millennium is really the Church Age.




The Church is really Israel.




Tribulation is really the Great Tribulation.




The Rapture and the Second Coming describe the same event.


Taking literal meanings from the prophesies of Daniel, Isaiah and Revelation helps one understand the 'whys' of current events circling around Jerusalem and it becomes easy to see the pieces of the puzzle of Bible prophesy fit a little closer by the day.

To embrace amillennialism is to lack a consistent system of Bible interpretation, a Biblical worldview, and have no appreciation of the continuing significance of the Jewish people.

The original OP still stands:

It seems that God had no problem literally fulfilling prophesy in the Old Testament.

. . . now amillennialism teaches that Bible prophesy will only be fulfilled symbolically.

Isn't that a denial of the power of God and the Scriptures?

. . . could we look at amillennialism as a fulfillment of 2 Timothy 3:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=5&version=9&context=verse)?

[Ltanner09]

Let me help you out. Sid.

As I stated in another thread, Jerusalem (in Israel) is never mentioned in the book of Revelation.

In addition, neither is an earthly throne. The only throne seen in the entire book of Revelation is heavenly. The only Jerusalem seen in the entire book of Revelation is heavenly.
Christ is never seen on earth, but in heaven.

Yet, pre mil places the throne, the city and Christ all on earth.....AND they use the Book of Revelation as evidence.

[Sid]

Tell me with a straight face that we are in the MK now.



Watching current events, Bible prophesy's sordid picture of the endtimes become clear:




Israel reborn as a nation.




Current events revolving around Jerusalem.




Israel surrounded by hostile nations.




The world [violence, crime, immorality] and the churches [apostasy, compromise, spiritual decline, religious deception] are circling the drain.




The Roman Empire revived as a powerful European confederacy [the European Union].




We are watching the beta testing of worldwide government, religion and economy.




The king of the east [China] could field a 200M man army.




Alliances similar to Ezekiel 38 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2038;&version=49;)'s invasion of Gog and Magog.




The hostility of Islam and their Imam Mahdi fit the prophesies of the a/c and his religion.




Technology [nuclear, chemical and biological weapons] is currently available to destroy the earth, make events in Jerusalem viewable by the whole world [satellite TV], control the world economy [data processing and the internet] and implant the MOTB [Mark of the Beast][RFID].




The Amillennial school of Bible [mis]interpretation is innocent of understanding the undeniable march of Bible Prophesy.

[CoreIssue]

Let me help you out. Sid.

As I stated in another thread, Jerusalem (in Israel) is never mentioned in the book of Revelation.

In addition, neither is an earthly throne. The only throne seen in the entire book of Revelation is heavenly. The only Jerusalem seen in the entire book of Revelation is heavenly.
Christ is never seen on earth, but in heaven.

Yet, pre mil places the throne, the city and Christ all on earth.....AND they use the Book of Revelation as evidence.
Just tossing in a comment since this statement is either totally avoiding reality or so totally non literal you refuse to see it.
Revelation 11
I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. 2But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.
This the Temple on the earth which is ONLY located in Jerusalem. The only Holy City is Jerusalem.

Don't go there with it does not say Jerusalem unless you back off the Church is Israel because Church is NEVER literally and directly called Israel.

So, most assuredly Jerusalem and Israel are spoken of in Revelation.

Spin away, Lynn, just had to toss this one in because your statement was so blatantly erroneous.

Later, but not here. ;)

[Ltanner09]

Ah Core, you took the bait....and I thought Sid would.

See pre mill (pre trib) insists the church is not in the trib because "church:" isn't mentioned, although all of the characteristics of the church are.

But when it comes to Jerusalem, although it isn't mentioned by name, pre mill (pre trib) sees it there because the characteristics are seen.

Pre Mill (pre trib) uses one set of standards for interpreting Jerusalem and ignores that standard when interpreting the church.

Sid wrote:
Watching current events, Bible prophesy's sordid picture of the endtimes become clear:

Amill doesn't need the media to grasp scripture.

[CoreIssue]

Ah Core, you took the bait....and I thought Sid would.

See pre mill (pre trib) insists the church is not in the trib because "church:" isn't mentioned, although all of the characteristics of the church are.

But when it comes to Jerusalem, although it isn't mentioned by name, pre mill (pre trib) sees it there because the characteristics are seen.

Pre Mill (pre trib) uses one set of standards for interpreting Jerusalem and ignores that standard when interpreting the church.

Sid wrote:
Watching current events, Bible prophesy's sordid picture of the endtimes become clear:Amill doesn't need the media to grasp scripture.
OK. A second comment since you took MY bait.

By definition demand Jerusalem is mentioned.

YOU cannot claim the same since saint and the terms you demand mean Church apply to all saints from all time. NEVER are they limited to Church.

Now kick in such as the Twelve Tribes and you have saints defined within the confines of the Israel covenant.

YOU can never post a verse directly defining Church as Israel or Israel as Church. You have to parse, assume and theorize.

I do not have to for Israel or Jerusalem in Revelation. I do not have to for saints in Israel or any other time period, the Bible spells it out.

So thanks for confirming indeed physical Israel and a physical Temple are in the Trib, which means future since none of the events of Revelation have LITERALLY taken place yet.

Case proven. I don't need to say more.

Have fun, Sid.

[Sid]

Sid wrote:
Watching current events, Bible prophesy's sordid picture of the endtimes become clear:Amill doesn't need the media to grasp scripture.


If one is intellectually honest, current events confirm the truth of Bible Prophesy. . .

Deny reality and the ***literal*** reading of Bible Prophesy and amillennialism almost makes sense.

[Ltanner09]

So thanks for confirming indeed physical Israel and a physical Temple are in the Trib, which means future since none of the events of Revelation have LITERALLY taken place yet.

Case proven. I don't need to say more.

I would debate you on this, Core....but you've already locked several debate threads before you took the 3 count. :)

[Sid]

I would debate you on this, Core....but you've already locked several debate threads before you took the 3 count. :)


Please, the only reason Core keeps you around is for comic relief.

[Ltanner09]

Well, since Sid doesn't have the capacity to debate like an adult and cannot form an opinion through scripture, my work on this topic is done.

Thankfully others will see these threads for study purposes and can see for themselves that Sid, in addition to not understanding amill, doesn't have a solid grasp on pre mill either.

[Sid]

Well, since Sid doesn't have the capacity to debate like an adult and cannot form an opinion through scripture, my work on this topic is done.

Thankfully others will see these threads for study purposes and can see for themselves that Sid, in addition to not understanding amill, doesn't have a solid grasp on pre mill either.



You sure you aren't Catholic?

You have some of their favorite apologetics techniques down pat:



This is how modern RC apologetics propagates itself: ignore the other side, ignore replies, challenges, and just keep repeating the same mantra over and over again.

--James R. White

Amillennialism is just one of the portals of their BAD THEOLOGY.

[CoreIssue]

Anyone who has actually studied the old documents can see Pre-Trib among the earliest teachings.

Catholics controlled history via the Roman Emporer so their chosen theologians dominated. Argue with them and risk death, prison or exile.

But it does not make all the writings go away.

[Ltanner09]

Anyone who has actually studied the old documents can see Pre-Trib among the earliest teachings.

Core, I think we've discovered through debating that you cannot use literal interpretations without including hidden meanings behind your pre trib/pre mill theory.

The 70 weeks debate was one. God gave Israel a prophecy of 490 years (70years x 70) in which time the prophecy would be complete. Within that prophecy there is no literal gap, dispensationalists place one there.

Believing Jews were fully aware that the prophecy included the death of Christ, who put an end to sins, finished the transgression, brought in everlasting righteousness, et al.

But you need to place a gap to adhere to pre mill.

The confirming of the covenant was to be included within the 490 contiguous years, no gap. No gap is mentioned either in Dan 9 nor in Christ's teachings.

You need to insert a gap or your doctrine fails.

Christ did tell the Jews when they saw the abomination (spoken by Daniel) they were to flee to the mountains. Jesus explained the abomination was the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies, not a talking statue. That explanation is in Luke and is the same discussion as in Matt and Mark. Fleeing to the mountains was the escape provided.

But you need to place a gap, of nearly 2,000 years for the abomination, or your theory fails.

Jesus said the things warned about would happen in "this generation", the very generation listening to Him speaking while the Temple was still standing.

Pre mill needs to change the literal meaning of "this generation" to THAT generation, a generation 2000 years in the future.

Jesus stated the end would come after the gospel was preached in all the world (oikoumene). land, i.e. the (terrene part of the) globe; specially, the Roman empire:--earth, world.

Col 1:23 states the gospel was preached to every creature under the sun.

MORE damaging proof comes from Col 1:5,6, where it is stated the gospel was preached to the whole WORLD:

Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
Col 1:6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

World=KOSMOS:
probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world.

Now, on 2 scriptural statements, the entire world is said to have heard the gospel.

But you dismiss this. You absolutely have to, or your theory fails.
Again, you cannot remain literal in your interpretations.

You need to believe that America needs to hear the gospel before Christ's kingdom comes.

Of course the end, that Jesus was speaking of, wasn't the end of the world, but the end of the age, which included Temple worship and all of it's sacrifices.

That fact is lost on the dispensationalists, who believe Jesus was speaking of His 2nd coming.....when the disciples were simply asking about the ushering of His kingdom. They were never aware that there WOULD be a 2nd coming, so why in the world would they ask about it?

We've tried debating using your literal interpretations and you keep locking threads (I'm still confused about your tribulation/temptation argument in REv 3:10).

A non-biased moderator, refereeing the debate, would never side with you on that topic.

So, I get Sid, who can do nothing but attack amill with nothing more than rants and raves without debating scripture. Waving REV 20 around like a pre mill flag and refusing to engage in dialog over it is useless.

[Ltanner09]

Just a reminder, Core:

From the CTZ intro page:
What makes us different from most other Christian based forums is that we promote honest legitimate discussion about Christianity and the Bible. The Bible makes it clear we are to have an answer for our faith and that we are to discern thru study if our faith is valid. Many believers latch onto a 'faith' and fail to study it out to see if its logical to believe what they believe.

Where we are different is that if you do participate in our debate forums you are going to be held accountable for those claims and need to be prepared to answer your beliefs.

We don't agree on many topics and we agreed to debate them.
Debating isn't locking threads when it appears there's a dead end, or when you think the debate should end..
We agreed that if there WAS a dead end we would end the debate,.

Confusion on my part arose in one debate (MATT 24) when you ended and I kept going.
You had challenged me that *I* would not be able to finish debating the entire chapter. You stopped, I kept going.

Of course then you created a poll. tsk tsk.

That's like one political party starting a poll and asking their constituents to vote their preference of parties.

[Sid]

So, I get Sid, who can do nothing but attack amill with nothing more than rants and raves without debating scripture. Waving REV 20 around like a pre mill flag and refusing to engage in dialog over it is useless.


Making up theology when Rev 20 should be taken literally is precisely where amill's treadmarks lead off into the ditch.

Amill is a wad of macrame of allegory, symbols, metaphors and spiritual interpretations. . . why can't you just deal with what is written?

[CoreIssue]

So, I get Sid, who can do nothing but attack amill with nothing more than rants and raves without debating scripture. Waving REV 20 around like a pre mill flag and refusing to engage in dialog over it is useless.


Making up theology when Rev 20 should be taken literally is precisely where amill's treadmarks lead off into the ditch.

Amill is a wad of macrame of allegory, symbols, metaphors and spiritual interpretations. . . why can't you just deal with what is written?
He cannot, Sid. And that is why I will not rejoin a fruitless debate with him.

Lynn will actually straight faced tell you the word meaing of a Greek or Hebrew word cannot come from a literal dictionary, that its meaning must be established by reading the Bible.

But in what sanity can one claim to be able to read the Bible to get any meaning if they do not use true word meanings?

Have fun. Bailing on you now.

[Sid]

But in what sanity can one claim to be able to read the Bible to get any meaning if they do not use true word meanings?




Amill is what you get when you the Bible says Israel and claim it really means church. . .

. . . confuse the Second Coming with the Rapture.

. . . confuse normal everyday tribulation with the Great Tribulation.

. . . confuse the millennial kingdom with the present church age.


To embrace amillennialism is to lack a consistent system of Biblical interpretation, Biblical worldview and appreciation for the continuing significance of the Jewish people.

. . . like an onion, amillennialism is confusion in layers.

[CoreIssue]

Just a reminder, Core:

From the CTZ intro page:
What makes us different from most other Christian based forums is that we promote honest legitimate discussion about Christianity and the Bible. The Bible makes it clear we are to have an answer for our faith and that we are to discern thru study if our faith is valid. Many believers latch onto a 'faith' and fail to study it out to see if its logical to believe what they believe.

Where we are different is that if you do participate in our debate forums you are going to be held accountable for those claims and need to be prepared to answer your beliefs.

We don't agree on many topics and we agreed to debate them.
Debating isn't locking threads when it appears there's a dead end, or when you think the debate should end..
We agreed that if there WAS a dead end we would end the debate,.

Confusion on my part arose in one debate (MATT 24) when you ended and I kept going.
You had challenged me that *I* would not be able to finish debating the entire chapter. You stopped, I kept going.

Of course then you created a poll. tsk tsk.

That's like one political party starting a poll and asking their constituents to vote their preference of parties.
Good quote.

But good debate isn't the personal attacks and refusal to answer direct questions. That is what got the threads locked. YOUR refusal to stop jumping away and refusal to answer direct questions.

And here you go with the diversions and such again.

Lynn, when you refuse to even use the actual word meanings there is no way to discuss anything with you. You cannot even grasp the total absurdity of your demands that your doctrinal positions constitute word meanings that you demand be used as factual.

That isn't allowed here. You must actual submit a factual source of word meanings, in example. That would be the dictionary meanings, not the Amil doctrinal spin.

Simple rule of debate is you cannot use what is under debate as a proof for what is under debate. You don't get it.

Debate Sid but remember our rules. Bye.

[Sid]

It is pre mill that applies gaps where none are spoken of, doing major damage to scripture.




Apparently you are talking about the seventieth week of Daniel. . aka Jacob's trouble, wrath, judgment, indignation, punishment, hour of trial, hour of trouble, destruction and darkness.

It will be a period of 7 years, the last half called the Great Tribulation. It is a time when judgement will be poured out on the nation of Israel and the earth generally.

Since amill can't deal with the literal truths of Bible prophesy, they claim that God is finished with the Jews and where the Bible says Israel, it really means church.

. . . misdefining key terms is just the start of the confused theology of amillennialism.

[Ltanner09]

Apparently you are talking about the seventieth week of Daniel. . aka Jacob's trouble, wrath, judgment, indignation, punishment, hour of trial, hour of trouble, destruction and darkness.

It will be a period of 7 years, the last half called the Great Tribulation. It is a time when judgement will be poured out on the nation of Israel and the earth generally.

But of course you can't point to a 7 year tribulation period anywhere in scripture. Revelation speaks of 5 periods of 3 1/2 years and you choose 2 of them to equal 7. That's a poor presentation of what you believe to be facts.

Since amill can't deal with the literal truths of Bible prophesy, they claim that God is finished with the Jews and where the Bible says Israel, it really means church.

Amill doesn't teach that God is finished with Jews, but, in fact, He welcomes them. Seems your professed knowledge of amill is still lacking.

You need to re-read the debates between Core and I to see who uses the literal interpretations as opposed to the creative style. Pre Mil cannot stick with literal.
One example is that most pre mill claim that Revelation is a chronological book of future events.
But, that would result in 17 1/2 years of tribulation, using 3 1/2 years on 5 separate occasions, chronologically.

Pre mill cannot debate Matt 24 as literal as "this generation" becomes "that generation". The list goes on and on.

[CoreIssue]

Side question, Tanner, not to disrupt your debate with Sid. Lay out the the verses for your 5 periods of 3.5 years.

As for literal from our debate, it ended because you refused to be literal. Good grief, you even rejected the literal meanings of key words for you doctrinal definitions. Just adding that for lurkers, not to crank up a debate with you again. Really gets annoying hearing your false claims of such issues.

[Ltanner09]

Core wrote:

Side question, Tanner, not to disrupt your debate with Sid. Lay out the the verses for your 5 periods of 3.5 years.


Re 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Re 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Re 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Re 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

You will somehow claim the time periods above are a 7 year trib. You will claim it's chronological yet concurrent but dance around the verses (REV 12:1-5) which speak to the birth of Christ.....which make this book anything but chronological.

As for literal from our debate, it ended because you refused to be literal. Good grief, you even rejected the literal meanings of key words for you doctrinal definitions. Just adding that for lurkers, not to crank up a debate with you again. Really gets annoying hearing your false claims of such issues.

Core, you pulled the plug on the debate over our differing interpretation of REV 3:10.

You claimed trials=tribulation. It doesn't.

You claimed "kept from" (tero ek) meant a removal from earth, it doesn't.

And when I started proving your theory wrong, you removed me from the thread. That isn't debating.

[CoreIssue]

Core wrote:

Side question, Tanner, not to disrupt your debate with Sid. Lay out the the verses for your 5 periods of 3.5 years.
Re 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
Hello! Same passage and same 3.5 years. First half of the Trib. Yeesh!

Jews in the Temple with the Two Witnesses at the gate, a very well know custom of ancient Israel when the Temple is in use.

But of course you DENY there will be a future Temple at the same time you reference a passage talking ABOUT the future Temple.

And future physical earthly Temple it is. There is nothing else this can refer to.
Re 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Re 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Hello again!!! Dual prophecy! Woman, Israel, believing Christians, fled in 70 AD and survived, but was not protected anywhere for 3.5 years. Satan tried to kill baby Jesus, tempt him in the desert and destroy him on the cross, but failed and Christ was taken to Heaven at his Resurrection.

Also referring to Mid Trib where Israel flees from Satan, cast down at Mid in the First Woe/First Trumpet, and is protected for 3.5 years during the reign of the False Trinity.
Re 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Yep. Talking about the same 3.5 years following the 3.5 of the Two Witnesses.

If you read the complete passage you see the FP is included where he sets up the AoD, which most assuredly is a Mid and Daniel confirms it is at Mid with 3.5 years to follow. States this is when is demon comes out of the earth, the Pit.

That is further anchored with this setting the time of the death of the Two, at the end of their 3.5 year ministry, being when the Second Beast of the FP rises from the Pit.
Revelation 11
7Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them.
Only ONE Beast, the Second, rises from the Pit. And most assuredly it is tied to the 13:5 on timing.

Not my problem if you cannot see the time line stated. 3.5 years of the Temple in use with the Two Witnesses present followed by 3.5 years of AC in the Temple with the Two Witnesses gone.

Pefect harmony with the 70th Week of Daniel. 3.5 years with invasion and AoD at Mid ending 3.5 years later.

That is all I have to say.
You will somehow claim the time periods above are a 7 year trib. You will claim it's chronological yet concurrent but dance around the verses (REV 12:1-5) which speak to the birth of Christ.....which make this book anything but chronological.
No, which says you do not understand using historical flash backs in a chronological presentation to establish context and meaning. A simple and frequent tool used in presentations to set facts and reasons in place.
As for literal from our debate, it ended because you refused to be literal. Good grief, you even rejected the literal meanings of key words for you doctrinal definitions. Just adding that for lurkers, not to crank up a debate with you again. Really gets annoying hearing your false claims of such issues.Core, you pulled the plug on the debate over our differing interpretation of REV 3:10.
Yep. Because you refused to lay out the passage dealing with the passage itself, line by line and word by word.

Instead you insisted on going elsewhere and tried to force other contexts as defining this context.

Useless trying to debate someone who cannot even deal with a passage for what it says in and of itself.

And don't go off on you cannot read a passage for what it says without citing another passage. Even in those passage you played games with word meanings and such to defend your doctrine.

That is the bottom line. You use your doctrine in place of word definitions, rules of grammar and all the rest. Then have the stunning audacity to call it literal reading.

Enough said on that.

You claimed trials=tribulation. It doesn't.
Nope. As with other issues you do not even quote correctly. I said something different.

You claimed "kept from" (tero ek) meant a removal from earth, it doesn't.
I posted the Greek word meanings. You insisted that we had to use your doctrinal definitions instead. Absurd claim and demand.

You have never gotten it through your head in debate you cannot use what you are debating meaning your doctrine, as proof of you doctrine.

So I will not go through the exercise of posting the definitions again.
I posted word definitions to give actual meanings because I understood that rule of debate.
And when I started proving your theory wrong, you removed me from the thread. That isn't debating.
No, I actually shut you down when you refused to answer direct questions which you could not deal with.

As you are again doing here with Sid and looking very bad in the doing.

Sorry, Sid, for jumping in. But hard to not address Tanner's amazing claims of logic and literal.

I will TRY to stay out now.

[Ltanner09]

Core, you asked me to list the verses that speak to the 3 1/2 year time periods.
I did.
I figured you would show how they can be chronological. You didn't.

[Ltanner09]

I wrote:

You claimed trials=tribulation. It doesn't.

Core replied:
Nope. As with other issues you do not even quote correctly. I said something different.

I just re-read that debate. The debate was pre trib vs post trib.

You used REV 3:10 in your defense of pre trib. As I stated in the debate that verse is silent on tribulation. You insisted temptation/trial=tribulation.

It became the center of the entire debate.
Now you're claiming it wasn't?

Further we discussed "keep from" (tero ek). You claimed it was a removal from the earth, as you claim the tribulation is worldwide.

But it isn't worldwide:

oikoumenh oikoumene oy-kou-men'-ay

feminine participle present passive of 3611 (as noun, by implication, of 1093); land, i.e. the (terrene part of the) globe; specially, the Roman empire:--earth, world.

It is the exact same word and definition used in MATT 24, the gospel being preached in all the WORLD.

oikoumenh oikoumene oy-kou-men'-ay

feminine participle present passive of 3611 (as noun, by implication, of 1093); land, i.e. the (terrene part of the) globe; specially, the Roman empire:--earth, world.

It is regional.

It was at this point you closed the thread.

Maybe you need to re-read that thread yourself.

"Keep from trials/temptation" is not removal from the earth to avoid tribulation. Not remotely close.

[CoreIssue]

How convenient, again, you only site the word earth and only quote part of the meaning. The phrase is all/whole earth. And here is the meaning of ALL.
Strong's Number: 3650 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=3650&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin o&lo�a primary word Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3650&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Holos5:174,682 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech hol'-os Adjective Definition


all, whole, completely

King James Word Usage - Total: 112 all 65, whole 43, every whit 2, altogether 1, throughout + (1223 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1223&version=kjv))&version=kjv 1And here is the WHOLE meaning of world/earth.
Strong's Number: 3625 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=3625&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin oijkoumevnhfeminine participle present passive of (3611 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3611&version=kjv)) (as noun, by implication of (1093 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1093&version=kjv))) Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3625&version=kjv#Legend) Entry Oikoumene5:157,674 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech oy-kou-men'-ay Noun Feminine Definition


the inhabited earth

the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
the whole inhabited earth, the world
the inhabitants of the earth, men


the universe, the world

Your inability to do honest and complete debate got the thread locked.

I only replied again, here to show how dishonest your parsing and redefinition of words are.

And tereo ek does mean 'from, out of, away.' You cannot be on the earth and be out of the place.

Done until you want to do honest posting for a change.

Now, same challenge as before that you totally failed. Post Revelation 3:10 and go through it word by word, giving Greek definitions for the words and elaborate on what the passage says FOR ITSELF.

You cannot do that. You leap to other verses, force your doctrinal meanings on them and pretend that defines Revelation 3:10.

And deal with the fact that even in YOUR doctrinal claim there NEVER was a time all the Christians were ever removed from the Roman Empire or even the area of Jerusalem totally.

THAT nonsense is what got the threads locked because it isn't honest debate. It is you demanding you are right, period.

PROVE your case without just stating your doctrine as if it is proof.

[kay-gee]

Except that the fact that the church exists, means that it was kept from the tribulations of the first century under Nero etc...

Offering a possibilty...Please don't jump down my throat.

all the best...

[CoreIssue]

Except that the fact that the church exists, means that it was kept from the tribulations of the first century under Nero etc...

Offering a possibilty...Please don't jump down my throat.

all the best...
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Revelation and the portions mentioned of Matthew 24 are prophetic. They have not happened yet.

Further, you are totally wrong. The Church was NOT kept from the persecutions of Nero. They suffered terribly.

Even further, Revelation was NOT written during the time of Nero, but after, around 90-95 AD.

The promise was written to individuals, not a corporate body where part could perish as long as some remain.

And kept from means not even there to subject to persecution. It does not mean protected within. You cannot even get the meaning of the words correct to make such a claim.

I have posted the meaning of tero ek multiple times. You refuse to accept it. Instead you invent a definition that does not exist in the Greek language.

I have posted the meanings. You just declare with no offering of any proof. So there is nothing to debate with you because your personal opinion is proof of nothing without evidence to back it, which you never offer.

[kay-gee]

Oh well

all the best

[Ltanner09]

Core, again you're talking about trial/temptation and claiming they are the same as tribulation. Let's get out the eraser and go slowly from the top.

Re 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

kept from temptation.
peirasmoV peirasmos pi-ras-mos'

from 3985; a putting to proof (by experiment (of good), experience (of evil), solicitation, discipline or provocation); by implication, adversity:--temptation, X try.

The question would be if temptation is the same as tribulation.

qliyiV thlipsis thlip'-sis

from 2346; pressure (literally or figuratively):--afflicted(-tion), anguish, burdened, persecution, tribulation, trouble.

They are not the same.

Nothing in REV 3:10 indicates anyone would be removed to avoid tribulation.

Start here and let me know where you disagree.

It ain't hard.....show where temptation and tribulation are the same.

[Ltanner09]

Kay Gee, the church did suffer terrible persecution under Nero.
But, the church is never promised to be kept FROM persecution or tribulation.

Believers are promised they WILL NOT suffer from God's wrath.

Core's problem, in using REV 3:10 to show believers "kept from" anything, centers on "tribulation".

The word in question is temptation, used in that verse. Core needs to show temptation and tribulation are the same, but they are not.

Since there are at least a dozen biblical verses stating believers will experience tribulation, we should expect no difference in the book of Rev.

The Lord's Prayer includes the statement "deliver us from temptation" but that does NOT mean "deliver us from tribulation".

[CoreIssue]

Tanner, you have one chance left here. Give the definition of the actual word used in the passage, not the root word 3985.

And don't quote me any more until you can quote accurately. I have never said tribulation was the center of what the Church will be kept from. I said, as the verse states, testing, which comes in a number of forms, including tribulation.

Now, give the definition for Peirasmos, which is used in the passage, not Peirazo, which is not.

Your dishonest debate tactics end now.

[CoreIssue]

KG, John wrote Revelation over 20 years after 70 AD. And even if he did not, tell me when there was an earthquake so great the mountains and islands of the world collapsed, in example.

You cannot. There is no way to put Revelation into the past.

[Ltanner09]

Tanner, you have one chance left here. Give the definition of the actual word used in the passage, not the root word 3985.

Core, I don't care about threats. I can only assume you intend to ban me because we disagree. few of your 1,200 members post here anyway.

And don't quote me any more until you can quote accurately. I have never said tribulation was the center of what the Church will be kept from. I said, as the verse states, testing, which comes in a number of forms, including tribulation.

You used REV 3:10 in defense of the church being raptured pre trib. It was the center of our debate and you raised the verse as a point of debate, not me. You claim TRIBULATION is stated in 3:10, it isn't.

Now, give the definition for Peirasmos, which is used in the passage, not Peirazo, which is not.

Core, either you're not reading my posts or you simply want to ban someone who's pointing out your error.

I posted the definition of Peirasmos in my previous post:
peirasmoV peirasmos pi-ras-mos'

from 3985; a putting to proof (by experiment (of good), experience (of evil), solicitation, discipline or provocation); by implication, adversity:--temptation, X try.

Read post #53.

Either I'll receive an apology or I'll be banned.


Your dishonest debate tactics end now.

guess I can expect the latter, then.

[Ltanner09]

Core, quite frankly no one in Christian circles debates as you do.

In this case you have the power and authority to ban, close threads, lock threads and do whatever you wish. It is your board.

While it is your board, it is, in fact, your church....your assembly of believers and you are it's pastor.

Your site purports 1,200 members, of which no one engages in debates.

That indicates that either no one is learning anything here, with enough knowledge to discuss topics such as we have entered into...or else everyone depends on you to do the debating.

I honestly wonder if you started this board to be a leader, to which no one could argue with you without the fear of being banished, by you, if they do.

We don't have to agree on issues, but we should be able to argue our differences without veiled threats, simply because you have the power to flex your muscles here.

You have, and I have given you, every opportunity to prove my theory wrong on this board through the process of debating. You accuse me of providing verses that don't apply and definitions that aren't within the verses we discuss.

No matter which road we travel, you choose not to debate and insert your authority to end them.

This isn't the CoreIssue I knew on Raptuready.

Then again, at that time you lacked the power.

[Ltanner09]

Core, if you wish to debate me on any topic, in an unbiased forum you can find me here:

http://bibleforums.org/forum/

You start the thread, but you can't lock it :)

[InTheWind]

There is no more point in this discussion, tanner your the same as all the other people that come here and try and preach their beliefs. When they are challenged to answer questions they dodge around and go back to preaching. Then in every case they start making accusations and calling people names and cutting down the board.
It`s apparent you aren`t going to change your views or even debate fairly. And to prove that Coreisse doesn`t go around locking threads I will lock it.
Core could go too the board you gave the link to and your tactics would be the same, difference would be you could get away with the rudeness there. But not here.

[CTZonEdit]

Core, quite frankly no one in Christian circles debates as you do.

Maybe another voice will get you to see something but at this point I really doubt it.

What I see is that Core is the only one who actually points out the nonsense you keep talking about.

Perhaps he is the only one capable of seeing through your BS. Ever thought of that? Sorry to be brash but you just dont seem to get it with any debate I have seen you participate in here, ever.

And now you want to cry about other boards because you can say whatever you want and get away with it. Well not here. The reason RR became a cesspool is because the Mods did nothing and everyone could say whatever without being challenged. Just like any other "christian" website out there. They are fruitless. When people were challenged at RR then the challenger was often modded for not playing nicely with the fool that did not have a clue. It was too nicey-nicey, to political, and too tolerant.

You come here and get challenged, knowing the rules of the board and then whine and cry about it and act like you are the victim. You are not here to learn but to preach it seems, which violates the board rules.

You dont even see the logical error of your ways, so what is the point in continuing to debate you Tanner? You cant even use a dictionary properly so please tell us what is there left to debate on? I mean really!

You dont follow logic.
You dont follow rules of grammar.
You dont listen.
You dont learn.

You just preach and make up your own rules that you are right with no logical foundation other than your own personal biblical revelations. That is not proof Tanner.

It is utterly pointless to continue to debate with you because you dont understand logic, reason, or basic literary concepts.