Debate-Sid

[Ltanner09]

For those of you who don't spend much time on the Amill topic, I will begin a debate thread here for Sid to support his claims that the Amill belief leads to the denial of God's power.

Sid professes that Amill does not use a literal interpretation of scripture where prophecy is concerned.
This thread is created to give Sid the opportunity to prove his claim.

My position has been that pre mill applies gaps to numerous prophecies where none are taught, the 70 weeks being one and Ezekiel's Temple being another, as examples.

[Sid]

For those of you who don't spend much time on the Amill topic, I will begin a debate thread here for Sid to support his claims that the Amill belief leads to the denial of God's power.

Sid professes that Amill does not use a literal interpretation of scripture where prophecy is concerned.
This thread is created to give Sid the opportunity to prove his claim.

My position has been that pre mill applies gaps to numerous prophecies where none are taught, the 70 weeks being one and Ezekiel's Temple being another, as examples.



Why did God have no problem with literally to-the-letter fulfilling the prophesies He made in earlier times? . . . has He lost His touch?

That amill teaches that the millennium kingdom is really being fulfilled in the present church age is preposterous:

Can you tell me where the lambs lay down with the lions, swords are beaten into plowshares and the reapers overtake the sowers.

The millennium will be a time of health and healing. Isaiah 33:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2033:24;&version=49;); 29:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2029:18;&version=49;)

. . . it will also be a time of general peace and prosperity. Jeremiah 31:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2031:12;&version=49;); Ezekiel 34:25-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2034:25-27;&version=49;)

I seem to have a hard time believing we are living in the millennium kingdom.

[Sacre]

I have to agree with Sid. I'd recommend accepting it, so you can understand it ... rather then trying to find an argument for it fruitlessly.

[Ltanner09]

Sid wrote:
Why did God have no problem with literally to-the-letter fulfilling the prophesies He made in earlier times? . . . has He lost His touch?

Not sure what you're asking. Pre Mill teaches that many prophecies are yet to be fulfilled..such as the 70 weeks. Amill believes they have been, literally, fulfilled.

Pre mill teaches there will be a new covenant somewhere in the future, as prophecied in the OT.

Amill believes the new covenant prophecy WAS fullfilled by Christ. He stated that fact several times.

That amill teaches that the millennium kingdom is really being fulfilled in the present church age is preposterous:

Then when John states in REV 1:9 that he was in Christ's kingdom was he mistaken? Don't you insist that you use the bible literally? How could John be in Christ's kingdom if, as you claim, it's still future?

Can you tell me where the lambs lay down with the lions, swords are beaten into plowshares and the reapers overtake the sowers.

Sorry Sid, there is no verse in the entire bible that claims a lamb will lay down with a lion. Hope it's not a prophecy you're eagerly awaiting to be fulfilled.

On the other hand, "swords into plowshares" actually appears in the bible, twice.

Isa 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Mic 4:3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

The above is in direct contrast to that found in Joel:

Joe 3:10 Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.

In the Book of Joel, one verse refers to beating plowshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears, in a verse in which people are encouraged to rise up to defend themselves and their values. The same phrasing is used again in the Books of Micah and Isiah, with an opposite meaning, in verses which tell people to beat swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, referencing the need to return to peace. That peace is found now, in Christ.


The millennium will be a time of health and healing. Isaiah 33:24; 29:18

But where in those verses do you see Christ on an earthly throne from earthly Jeusalem,?

You listed Isa 33:24:

Isa 33:24 And the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity.

The verse you selected shows a people forgiven their iniquity, which can only be accomplished through Christ. That is not somewhere off into the future, it is ongoing when one comes to Christ.

Incredibly you post the next verse as a future prophecy, which you believe will be fulfilled after the 2nd coming.:

Isa 29:18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.


Isa 29:18 was fulfilled at Christ's first advent:

Mt 11:4 Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see:

5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

. . . it will also be a time of general peace and prosperity. Jeremiah 31:12; Ezekiel 34:25-27

Jer 31 is describing the peace that could be found at Christ's first advent, for those that would come to Him:
Notice the prophecy only a few verses from the one you listed:

Jer 31:15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

Fulfilled here:

Mt 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,saying,

18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.


I seem to have a hard time believing we are living in the millennium
kingdom.

You seem to be having a harder time showing a future, earthly one.

Since John stated that he was IN Christ's kingdom, when Revelation was written, then why does pre mill still wait for it to arrive?

When Christ says, over and over, that He is ushering in the New Covenant, then why does pre mill still wait for it?

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

I won't post the additional dozen verses that support the arrival of the New Covenant, nearly 2,000 years ago.

[Sid]

I seem to have a hard time believing we are living in the millennium
kingdom.You seem to be having a harder time showing a future, earthly one.


So far, you have given no compelling reason to change the true meaning of hundreds of unfulfilled prophetic passages: under your system of prophetic interpretation, much of God's plan for the immediate future is dismissed or ignored.

Amillennialism is a reason why those who embrace it don't possess a Biblical worldview, a sense of urgency and waste their time and resources kingdom building.


Once you start spiritualizing Scripture and giving spiritual meanings to literal promises merely to fit your agenda, there has been no limit to the confusion you can conjure up.


Amillennialism is long on speculation and short on Scripture. Adherents are spinning Church age [we're in the millennium now] fantasies out of thin air. This system of eschatology is a false vision not only of the present, but also of the future.

[Ltanner09]

Sid wrote: So far, you have given no compelling reason to change the true meaning of hundreds of unfulfilled prophetic passages: under your system of prophetic interpretation, much of God's plan for the immediate future is dismissed or ignored.

So far you haven't produced any verses refuting my claims and you certainly haven't posted any verses supporting your claims.

Amillennialism is a reason why those who embrace it don't possess a Biblical worldview, a sense of urgency and waste their time and resources kingdom building.

Sid, this is a debate. Are you going to debate or simply make false claims against amill?

Once you start spiritualizing Scripture and giving spiritual meanings to literal promises merely to fit your agenda, there has been no limit to the confusion you can conjure up.


Amillennialism is long on speculation and short on Scripture. Adherents are spinning Church age [we're in the millennium now] fantasies out of thin air. This system of eschatology is a false vision not only of the present, but also of the future.

Ironic that you state amill is short on scripture when you didn't post one biblical verse in your post.

I will repeat my question.

Since John stated he was in Christ's kingdom (REV 1:9) then why do you believe the kingdom is yet to come?

You also stated there were hundreds of unfulfilled prophecies. I suspect if you start listing them you'll find out how wrong you are.
Other than misquoting scripture you aren't doing much to present the pre mill position.

[Sid]

Sid wrote: So far, you have given no compelling reason to change the true meaning of hundreds of unfulfilled prophetic passages: under your system of prophetic interpretation, much of God's plan for the immediate future is dismissed or ignored.So far you haven't produced any verses refuting my claims and you certainly haven't posted any verses supporting your claims.


If we are in the millennium now, how come everything is so hosed up?

Until you make a case for taking Rev 20:1-6 as *NOT* literal prophesy, under your copy 'n paste system of Bible interpretation, anything can be literal, anything can be figurative. . . just depends on what agenda you are grazing towards.

The Bible becomes whatever you want it to be, a do-it-youself system of religion is yours for the making.

[Ltanner09]

If we are in the millennium now, how come everything is so hosed up?

Until you make a case for taking Rev 20:1-6 as *NOT* literal prophesy, under your copy 'n paste system of Bible interpretation, anything can be literal, anything can be figurative. . . just depends on what agenda you are grazing towards.

The Bible becomes whatever you want it to be, a do-it-youself system of religion is yours for the making.

Seems Sid won't or can't answer my question on REV 1:9 where Christ's kingdom was in existence at that time, which I take literally.

If Sid takes it literally he has to concede that pre mill is wrong. Sid's alternative is to make REV 1:9 spiritual or to simply disregard it..

I do take REV 20: 1-6 literally but nothing there shows Christ on an earthly throne or an earthly kingdom ruled from national Israel.

But, John was in Christ's kingdom in the 1st century, which kingdom was not in national Israel nor was it from an earthly throne.

I find it interesting that pre mill insists on on interpreting scripture literally and claims that amill "spiritualizes" it, yet it is pre mill that struggles with a literal interpretation while amill can clearly dispell the pre mill theory through a literal reading.

Let me try and pose a question to Sid that he'll answer.

The OT believers expected a new covenant (Jer 31:31)
When do you see this fulfilled and please use scripture to support your reply.

[Sid]

I find it interesting that pre mill insists on on interpreting scripture literally and claims that amill "spiritualizes" it, yet it is pre mill that struggles with a literal interpretation while amill can clearly dispell the pre mill theory through a literal reading.


When does this [Isaiah 65:17-24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2065:%2017-24&version=49)]take place and where?

[Ltanner09]

After presenting verses on my position and asking Sid to present verses on his position I get no reply, but I do receive another question.

Sid asks:
When does this [Isaiah 65:17-24]take place and where?

So how does this work Sid? You ignore my questions and you continue to ask questions of your own?
For someone who always attacks amill, I expected a real debate with loads of biblical verses on your behalf. All I get are questions from you without any replies to mine.

You ask when Isa 65:17-24 takes place and where.
I'll assume you have no clue as you offered no opinion of your own.
I'll even add verse 25, where you stumbled on the lamb/lion question.

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.

22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.

24 And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.

25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

The Jerusalem you ask about isn't earthly, it is heavenly:

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Ga 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

So, Sid....where do you place Isa 65....and please use scripture as your reference.

[Ltanner09]

I'll assume Sid's next question will deal with the following verse. (I'm also assuming Sid will have no opinion of his own).

Isa 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

The above is a pre mill favorite. A top 10, in fact.

How can a child die at 100?

Pre mill believes in an expansion of one's lifetime in a future millennium kingdom.

But Jesus explains this so that a (ahem) child could understand it

Mt 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Even someone 100 years old becomes as a child in Christ.

Those in Christ are called "children" in over 100 verses.

[Ltanner09]

Tell you what, Sid. Unless you can post a bible verse and state your pre mill opinion on it, then this debate is done.

The best you can muster is a series of anti amill one liners, sans any biblical reference and without any pre mill opinion offered from your end. Just more of the same on this board from members who attack amill, but can't debate (Core being the only exception).

If one holds the pre mill belief, then there should be no problem proving their position through scripture. It appears that the members here simply agree with whatever they're taught but cannot (or will not) explain WHY they believe as they do. Certainly they choose not to debate their beliefs here.

Sid's been attacking amill for quite some time so I decided to call him on his beliefs. Apparently his debating skills are limited to a question or two without any answers to questions posted by amill.

He hasn't offered one rebuttal to any of my amill arguments and I've listed the relevant scriptures for him to review.

So, Sid...if you believe amill is a denial of God's power, at least indicate (through scripture) why you believe it.
If you can't then it gives the appearance that you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

[Sid]

A

So, Sid....where do you place Isa 65....and please use scripture as your reference.

Isaiah 65 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2065&version=49)

Not Heaven. There is no death, birth, building homes and such in Heaven.

Not in the past. Never happened.

Not in the present.

What does that leave? The future before Eternity, on this earth.

And don't try to leverage the New Heaven and Earth statement. The Hebrew word also means a remade, refreshed and renewed earth.


More. . . (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=19176&postcount=1)

[kay-gee]

Fess up Sid my friend, the jig is up!

all the best...

[Ltanner09]

Sid, you have to copy and paste Core's reply to the same question, from another thread, to answer my question?

Isa 65 is simple, no one can take away things given to us by Christ. There is no death as eternal life comes from Christ. When Christ stated "let the dead bury the dead" He was talking the spiritually dead.

No one can be in Christ and experience spiritual death.

[Ltanner09]

Sid, still waiting for your take on REV 1:9.

Amill believes we're in Christ's kingdom (what you believe to be a future MK).
John stated he was in that kingdom in REV 9:1.

Jesus stated that His kingdom was not of THIS world.

oh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Acts 2 tells us Jesus was has received His promised throne, which is in heaven:

Ac 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

Jesus was to rule in the midst of His enemies:

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

2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.


Christ's reign from heaven is seen in 1 COR 15:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Christ's return doesn't signal the BEGINNING of His reign, it is the time He delivers the kingdom up to the Father.

Christ's return isn't followed by a 1,000 year earthly reign and none is seen nor implied in 1 COR 15.

Christ now rules His kingdom from His throne which is in heaven.
John knew it.
Amill knows it and Christ, along with NT writers, taught it.

[Sid]

Christ's return isn't followed by a 1,000 year earthly reign and none is seen nor implied in 1 COR 15.





But you have to spiritualize Revelation 20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2020&version=49) to deny that Millennial Kingdom will be ***LITERAL***

. . . once you start denying the literal meaning of the Bible, you might as well subscribe to the liberal theology of the Jesus Seminar.

[Ltanner09]

But amill does see the MK as literal, just not earthly....with an earthly throne from Jerusalem.

I just listed verses from John, Acts, Psalm and 1 COR and you ignore them and you keep waving REV 20 around....which shows nothing in the way of an earthly reign from an earthly throne.

If you disagree with the verses I posted then explain away. That's what a debate is supposed to be.

[Ltanner09]

Tell you what, Sid. Since you're not grounded enough to debate I'll wait for your explanation of REV 1:9, something I've been asking you for a week to explain.

Until you do I'll steer clear of posting on this thread.

[Sid]

But amill does see the MK as literal, just not earthly....with an earthly throne from Jerusalem.

I just listed verses from John, Acts, Psalm and 1 COR and you ignore them and you keep waving REV 20 around....which shows nothing in the way of an earthly reign from an earthly throne.

If you disagree with the verses I posted then explain away. That's what a debate is supposed to be.


Rev 20 is all I need to show that the MK will be literal and on this earth.

. . . you can take all your symbolic, allegorical and figurative interpretations and all I hear is flatulence.

Smooze around as you may, you still haven't made a case that the MK won't be literal.

Or that the present church age really is the MK.