cure-real
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 185

Thread: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

  1. #136
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    4,459

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by petepet View Post
    LOL don't worry everything at present is being attributed to the wrong people. I didn't say what has been put undeer my name. Its the Gremlins at work!!

    Jesus is ruling NOW (Matth 28.18; Acts 2.35) until everything is put under His feet at the second coming. You will notice that Jesus said nothing about a millennium. Did He just forget about it, or could it be that He simply didn't believe in it?
    I hope you don't mind me commenting on your discussion here. Have you ever noticed that very few prophecies discuss detail beyond second coming. Whether we are premill or amill, or even pre-trib, the important fact is that when Jesus comes we will be with Him forever and have our immortal resurrection bodies. Jesus focussed on what was most important, and did not give us details about the millenium or the New Jerusalem, or the events on the New Earth. Obviously just because he did not describe the post-second coming world, does not mean there will not be a post-second coming world.

  2. #137

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    How about the fact that Jesus was actually born there? It is absurd not to apply this to the Messiah. The jews fully understood what this meant:

    Mt 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. Mt 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,Mt 2:6 And thou Bethlehem, [in] the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel

    No one has expressed any dount about ir referring to the Messiah once the event had happened. What was being challenged was that it was a clear literal prophecy that was literally fulfilled in detail. I have demonstrated that it was not. I notice that Arc has not taken up my challenge that he justify his quotes from Matthew on the basis of the facts.

    The reason it wasn't clear is perhaps they were trying to assign some mystical and figurative interpretation to a prophecy that was to be literally fulfilled. A-mils make the same mistake today.
    NO what amills do is interpret in the light of the New Testament, and how the New Testament interpreted the old. They accept Paul's statement that the important Jerusalem is the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4.20 ff). They accept the statement in Hebrews that the possession of the land by Abraham's descendants would be in the new heaven and the new earth (Heb 11.10-14). They accept the fact that Jesus clearly knew nothing about any millennium and that the same was true of Paul. Its called believing the New Testament. Pre-mills are still living in the Old.


    The prophets didn't sit there like fortune tellers,that is true,it was God who was telling the future:

    Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
    But unfortunately for your case God didn't do it in the way you say.



    My God is able to tell the end from the beginning and he does so. However,I am glad you understand the prophetic law of double reference,it pretty negates the a-mil position that most of the prophecies have been fulfilled
    What a nonsense statement.Double reference does not mean that you can simply make it mean what you like. But at least you recognise that the prophecies were not quite as clear as some have claimed. The amills have the New Testament firmly on their side, for it says nothing about a millennium. Even Rev 20 when properly interpreted does not teach a coming millennium. It teaches one that is already occurring. .

  3. #138

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post

    I hope you don't mind me commenting on your discussion here. Have you ever noticed that very few prophecies discuss detail beyond second coming. Whether we are premill or amill, or even pre-trib, the important fact is that when Jesus comes we will be with Him forever and have our immortal resurrection bodies.
    This is unquestionably true.
    Jesus focussed on what was most important, and did not give us details about the millenium or the New Jerusalem, or the events on the New Earth. Obviously just because he did not describe the post-second coming world, does not mean there will not be a post-second coming world.
    This is unquestionably untrue. According to the records we have Jesus gave about one third of His time to teaching about the second coming. It is inconceivable, given His emphasis on the great events of the future, that if He had believed in it He would not have mentioned the millennium. If Jesus did not mention a post-second coming world on earth it quite clearly indicates that there will not be one. And the same applies to Paul. There really is no avoiding that fact.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    4,459

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by petepet View Post
    This is unquestionably untrue. According to the records we have Jesus gave about one third of His time to teaching about the second coming. It is inconceivable, given His emphasis on the great events of the future, that if He had believed in it He would not have mentioned the millennium..
    Inconceivable? The New Jerusalem and the New Earth are far more important and longer lasting than the millenium, and yet how many times does Jesus mention them? It appears Jesus did not focus on the events on this earth after the second coming, unless you have verses that can show me oitherwise?

    If Jesus did not mention a post-second coming world on earth it quite clearly indicates that there will not be one.
    Are you honestly proposing a doctrine that if an event is not mentioned by Jesus then it will not exist?

  5. #140

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Inconceivable? The New Jerusalem and the New Earth are far more important and longer lasting than the millenium, and yet how many times does Jesus mention them?
    Jesus constantly mentioned the new Jerusalem and the new Earth but not using that terminology.That terminology arises mainly from Revelation. But the ideas behind it are found eveywhere in the teaching of Jesus. All His references to the after-life assumed 'a new earth'. His emphasis was always on the fact that at His second coming the eternal destinies of men were decided. 'These will go into eternal punishement, but the righteous into life eternal.' (Matt 25.46). What is life eternal but the new Jerusalem and the new earth?

    'Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun under the Kingly Rule of their Father' (Matt 13.43). What is the kingdom of ther Father but the new Jerusalem and the new earth?

    'Not everyone who says to me 'Lord. Lord' will enter under the Kingly Rule of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in Heaven' (Matt 7.21). What is the Kingly Rule of Heaven in this context if it is not the new Jerusalem and the new earth?

    'And I say to you that many will come from the east and the west and will sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacon under the KIngly Rule of Heaven' (Matt 8.11). What is that if it is not the new Jerusalem and the new earth?

    'And those who were ready went in with Him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut'. It is the marriage feast which is the picture of the new Jerusalem (Rev 21.2).

    In the parable of the servants the cities that are to be allocated to the faithful servants require the new earth (Matt 25.14-30). Notice that the alternative was to be cast into outer darkness (verse 30).

    'All who are in the tombs will hear His voice (it takes a real stretch of the imagination to read into this two voices a thousand years apart), and will come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment' (John 5.28-29). One voice will speak at one time, and those who have been raised who believe will enter into the resurrection of life. This is simply another description of the New Jerusalem and the new earth.

    'In My father's house are many resting places, if it were not so I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you I will come again and receive you to Myself' (John 14.2-3). The disciples would have thought in terms of His promised second coming. Where then are these resting places if they are not in the new Jerusalem and the new earth?

    Jesus of course never mentions Jerusalem except in a bad way. To Jesus Jerusalem had no future (John 4.20-24). The concept of the new Jerusalem was of course put forward first by Paul (Galatians 4.20 ff). followed by Hebrews (12.22) and then Revelation (Rev 21-22). The concept of the new earth was introduced by Peter (2 Peter 3.13), and taken up in Revelation (Rev 21-22). They were unknown in Jesus' day. But after all what is important is not the terminology, but the fact. Jesus constantly spoke of our eternal dwellingplace, our eternal inheritance. He NEVER NEVER spoke of a millennium on this earth, or even gave the vaguest hint of one. He always saw the future as laying in eternity.

    It appears Jesus did not focus on the events on this earth after the second coming, unless you have verses that can show me oitherwise?
    Try the above for starters :-) But of course He did not mention events on THIS earth after the second coming because He knew that there would be none.

    Are you honestly proposing a doctrine that if an event is not mentioned by Jesus then it will not exist?
    I am certainly saying that where someone concentrates a large part of their teaching on the future and the resurrection and the after-life and does not mention something directly related to it like the so-called millennium, then yes that is proof that Jesus did not believe in it. When speaking of the future how could He have failed to mention it at some point? Can you imagine any pre-millennialist preaching a series of sermons on the future and the after-life, and not mentioning the millennium even once? It is inconceivable.

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    4,459

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by petepet View Post
    Jesus constantly mentioned the new Jerusalem and the new Earth but not using that terminology.That terminology arises mainly from Revelation. But the ideas behind it are found eveywhere in the teaching of Jesus. All His references to the after-life assumed 'a new earth'. His emphasis was always on the fact that at His second coming the eternal destinies of men were decided. 'These will go into eternal punishement, but the righteous into life eternal.' (Matt 25.46). What is life eternal but the new Jerusalem and the new earth?

    'Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun under the Kingly Rule of their Father' (Matt 13.43). What is the kingdom of ther Father but the new Jerusalem and the new earth?

    'Not everyone who says to me 'Lord. Lord' will enter under the Kingly Rule of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in Heaven' (Matt 7.21). What is the Kingly Rule of Heaven in this context if it is not the new Jerusalem and the new earth?

    'And I say to you that many will come from the east and the west and will sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacon under the KIngly Rule of Heaven' (Matt 8.11). What is that if it is not the new Jerusalem and the new earth?

    'And those who were ready went in with Him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut'. It is the marriage feast which is the picture of the new Jerusalem (Rev 21.2).

    In the parable of the servants the cities that are to be allocated to the faithful servants require the new earth (Matt 25.14-30). Notice that the alternative was to be cast into outer darkness (verse 30).

    'All who are in the tombs will hear His voice (it takes a real stretch of the imagination to read into this two voices a thousand years apart), and will come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment' (John 5.28-29). One voice will speak at one time, and those who have been raised who believe will enter into the resurrection of life. This is simply another description of the New Jerusalem and the new earth.

    'In My father's house are many resting places, if it were not so I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you I will come again and receive you to Myself' (John 14.2-3). The disciples would have thought in terms of His promised second coming. Where then are these resting places if they are not in the new Jerusalem and the new earth?

    Jesus of course never mentions Jerusalem except in a bad way. To Jesus Jerusalem had no future (John 4.20-24). The concept of the new Jerusalem was of course put forward first by Paul (Galatians 4.20 ff). followed by Hebrews (12.22) and then Revelation (Rev 21-22). The concept of the new earth was introduced by Peter (2 Peter 3.13), and taken up in Revelation (Rev 21-22). They were unknown in Jesus' day. But after all what is important is not the terminology, but the fact. Jesus constantly spoke of our eternal dwellingplace, our eternal inheritance. He NEVER NEVER spoke of a millennium on this earth, or even gave the vaguest hint of one. He always saw the future as laying in eternity..
    I see you can't come up with any specific references to the New Jerusalem or the New earth actually mentioned by Jesus. Jesus was not specific about all future events after the second coming, and so we cannot exclude the millenium just because Jesus did not clearly mention it, just like Jesus did not clearly mention the New Jerusalem or the New Earth.

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    170

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by petepet View Post
    LOL that is because they do not understand what I am saying.

    The problem is that most of you come with preconceived conclusion AND DO NOT READ WHAT YOUR OPPONENTS ACTUALLY SAY. You read what you want to see.

    I did not deny that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Micah. What I said was that Micah's prophecy was not literally fulfilled in the way he expected it to be. And that part of that fulfilment was different from what would be expected if we took the prophecy literally. And that is the point at issue.




    Always a good idea.


    I would have said to him that the Scribes interpreted Micah as referring to the Messiah, even though that was not what Micah said. On that basis he could try Bethlehem. But I would have pointed out also that the idea of the Messiah was unknown at the time of Micah, so that we could not be sure that they were right.

    I would also have pointed out that the king described would, having been born in Bethlehem, rule Israel. Thus if the king having been born did not rule Israel he would not be fulfilling the prophecy.

    Years later someone would have said to me, but Jesus is not literally ruling Israel. Like a good amillennialist I would have said, 'but He is ruling Israel from Heaven, for He has been made both Lord and Christ, and God's true people on earth who are those who believe in the Messiah are the true Israel. Thus He is ruling over Israel. But it would not be Israel as the Jews saw it.

    You see the difference between you and me is that you say that this was a reference which unquestionably referred to the Messiah, and was literally fulfilled, something which is patently not true.

    I say that we could not be sure that it referred to the Messiah until after it was fulfilled (because there is no mention of the Messiah), and that it has not been literally fulfilled in earthly terms (because Jesus did not sit on an earthly throne ruling Israel). Thus the prophecy has to be interpreted.

    It is NOT the clear literal prediction that you claim.

    Of course if you then try to say, oh but that rule is still future, I will then laugh and suggest to you that such a gap cannot possibly be read into Micah's prophecy. Micah's point was that the king would be born and then within a reasonably short period rule.




    Well i do not see the Jews as a reliable source. It was part of their attempt to read the Messiah into many parts of Scripture. They turned out to be right in this case BUT NOT BY TAKING MICAH LITERALLY.

    Micah did not mention the Messiah. Until the time came when the Messiah had been born in Bethlehem we could not be sure that it referred to the Messiah. Of course once He had been (which of course the Jews don't believe) we can say, see how God remarkably caused the Messiah to fulfil Micah's prophecy. I will say that along with you. But we can only say that after the event.

    You will notice that these Rabbis who spoke of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem dis not even believe in Him when He was. So they were not very reliable.

    What you appear not to understand is that while we both agree that in the end Micah's prophecy can be seen as fulfilled in Jesus, it is not necessarily apparent from the prophecy. Micah prophesied nothing about the Messiah. He knew nothing about the Messiah. And he certainly did not expect the king ruling over Israel to be ruling from Heaven over an Israel that was spread worldwide. Nor would he have agreed to a two thousand year gap.

    Thus it is not A CLEAR LITERAL PROPHECY as a result of which everyone knew exactly what was going to happen.

    Right, now you have chosen to select one prophecy which is fairly close, Now be honest and deal with all the others you cited, some of which do not even appear in the Old Testament. I have what I consider to be satisfactory explanations. But they have to be on the basis that the prophecies are not LITERAL.
    Mumbo jumbo. It is truly warped to say that Micah's prophecy was not seen as a Messianic prophecy untill AFTER it was fulfilled. MICAH'S PROPHECY: (Micah 5:2) = "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

    THE MESSIANIC ELEMENT HERE IS THAT THIS RULER WOULD BE 'FROM OF OLD, FROM ANCIENT TIMES'. THIS MUST BE A UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL, OR ELSE IT COULD APPLIED TO ALL MEN.

    YOU MUST ADMIT THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THE FIRST CENTURY JEWS ANSWERED HEROD MORE CORRECTLY THAN YOU WOULD HAVE. Regarding His birthplace they got it perfectly and literally right, and so in this case your argument fails completely.

    You imagine that the prophecy was not prophetic until after Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but the first century Jews saw it before hand. Using a literal interpretative means, a rational individual should conclude that a 'ruler whose origins are from old' would be born in Bethlehem.

    I think that you know that you are arguing only for the sake of argument.

    I want to emphasize that I do NOT deny that Jesus NOW rules over a spiritual Kingdom. I see Him returning at the end of this age to set up rule from Jerusalem ever all the earth, thus fulfilling literally ALL of the first AND second coming prophecies.

    Rather, it is YOU that denies literal KINGDOM AGE prophecies that relate to the second coming. When has Isaiah 2 been fulfilled?
    "The law will go out from Zion,
    the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
    4 He will judge between the nations
    and will settle disputes for many peoples.
    They will beat their swords into plowshares
    and their spears into pruning hooks.
    Nation will not take up sword against nation,
    nor will they train for war anymore."

    1 Corinthians 15: "24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

  8. #143

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    I see you can't come up with any specific references to the New Jerusalem or the New earth actually mentioned by Jesus. Jesus was not specific about all future events after the second coming, and so we cannot exclude the millenium just because Jesus did not clearly mention it, just like Jesus did not clearly mention the New Jerusalem or the New Earth.
    LOL You really do try it on. the concepts of the new Jerusalem and the new earth were used by Jesus. The actual terminology only came to be stressed 40 or so years after His death. He would clearly not just that terminology. Your remark is not very bright.

    With regard to the millennium I am not asking that Jesus would use that terminology for the same reason, but I would certainly have expected Him to mention the CONCEPT if it was true. It is thus not true. QED

  9. #144

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by arc111 View Post
    Mumbo jumbo.
    If I wished I could not get you excluded for a time. The moderators don't like people saying things like that.

    It is truly warped to say that Micah's prophecy was not seen as a Messianic prophecy untill AFTER it was fulfilled. MICAH'S PROPHECY: (Micah 5:2) = "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

    THE MESSIANIC ELEMENT HERE IS THAT THIS RULER WOULD BE 'FROM OF OLD, FROM ANCIENT TIMES'. THIS MUST BE A UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL, OR ELSE IT COULD APPLIED TO ALL MEN.
    It could be applied to all Davidides. And that is the point. Micah is simply indicatinmjg the rising of a Davidide.
    YOU MUST ADMIT THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THE FIRST CENTURY JEWS ANSWERED HEROD MORE CORRECTLY THAN YOU WOULD HAVE.
    Not more correctly. My answer was much more precise and accurate. But they had been caught on the hop. And you see like you they made assumptions. Our argument is not whether this could be applied to the Messiah, or even whether God had Jesus in mind (we can both agree on the latter). It is whether the whole prophecy was literally fulfilled, and was specifically a prophecy about the Messiah. There is nothing in what Micah says that refers it to the Messiah, and the whole was not literally fulfilled. This is how we apply it once it had been fulfilled.

    You can show me nothing in what Micah said that specifically refers to the Messiah, and the important point is that for the prophecy to be literal Jesus had to sit on the throne of Israel duiring His lifetime after He was born. That is the literal meaning of Micah's words. And ikt did not happen.
    Regarding His birthplace they got it perfectly and literally right, and so in this case your argument fails completely
    .

    They got it right by luck. But it was purely theoretical. They did not believe in the Messiah who waqs born in Bethlehem. My argument still stands strong.
    You imagine that the prophecy was not prophetic until after Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but the first century Jews saw it before hand. Using a literal interpretative means, a rational individual should conclude that a 'ruler whose origins are from old' would be born in Bethlehem.
    No it was prophetic. Just not PATENTLT a prophecy about the Messiah. When it was fulfilled it turned out to be a prophecy about the Messiah. That is not the point we are discussing. The point we are discussing is whether the prophecy was patently one about the messiah and whether it was literally fulfilled in accordance with the prophet's expectations. (incidentally the same question that we dicuss about Zechariah 14)

    Yes and that is precisely what I said. It meant that a Davidide who would rule over Israel would be born in Bethlehem which was the family home of the Davidides. Micah did not see himself as prophesying something that no one would know. He was pointing out to the inhabitants of Bethlehem that as the home of the Davidides their town would be the one from whom a great ruler would come. His emphasis was on the fact that he 'will rule my people Israel'. THAT DID NOT LITERALLY HAPPEN
    I think that you know that you are arguing only for the sake of argument.
    Far from it, I am trying to get you to look at prophecy correctly. I notice that you are dodging all your other examples which give you no grounds at all for your arguments, clinging to your desperate last straw.

    Now be a man. Lets start with the prophecy, 'he will be called a Nazarene'. Have you found it yet?

    And what about the quotation which refers to Zechariah, but which you say was applied to Jesus? Explain how that prophecy specifically refers to the Messiah. And why Matthew said it was from Jeremiah.

    That will do for starters.

    I want to emphasize that I do NOT deny that Jesus NOW rules over a spiritual Kingdom. I see Him returning at the end of this age to set up rule from Jerusalem ever all the earth, thus fulfilling literally ALL of the first AND second coming prophecies.
    But your final sentence is not what Micah was prophesying. That is you taking Micah's prophecy and making it fit into your scheme. It is NOT TAKING IT LITERALLY. Micah literally meant that the king would be born in Bethlehem and would then during his lifeime rule on the throne of Israel. Literality is what you claimed for it. So you have now admitted that I was right.

    Rather, it is YOU that denies literal KINGDOM AGE prophecies that relate to the second coming. When has Isaiah 2 been fulfilled?
    "The law will go out from Zion,
    the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
    4 He will judge between the nations
    and will settle disputes for many peoples.
    They will beat their swords into plowshares
    and their spears into pruning hooks.
    Nation will not take up sword against nation,
    nor will they train for war anymore."
    The Instruction (torah) went out from Jerusalem when the Gospel reached out to the world from Jerusalem. It has resulted in much peace among men , and it will finally be fulfilled in the new heaven and the new earth in which dwells righteousness. It is a prophecy of the final triumph of God's word.
    1 Corinthians 15: "24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."
    Well that is correct. No mention of a millennium or earthly reign. After the final resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous and his judgment on all evil AT His second coming, He will hand over to God the Father the kingdom that He has established, the kingdom of His own beloved Son to which we all belong (Colossians 1.13). Until His second coming He must continue to reign until He has triumphed through raising HIS PEOPLE FOM THE DEAD. Then death will have been defeated.

    In all that there is no reference to an earthly kingdom except for that which is on earth NOW the kingdom of His beloved Son into whcih we have all been transferred. I agree with that wholeheartedly

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    170

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by petepet View Post
    If I wished I could not get you excluded for a time. The moderators don't like people saying things like that.



    It could be applied to all Davidides. And that is the point. Micah is simply indicatinmjg the rising of a Davidide.


    Not more correctly. My answer was much more precise and accurate. But they had been caught on the hop. And you see like you they made assumptions. Our argument is not whether this could be applied to the Messiah, or even whether God had Jesus in mind (we can both agree on the latter). It is whether the whole prophecy was literally fulfilled, and was specifically a prophecy about the Messiah. There is nothing in what Micah says that refers it to the Messiah, and the whole was not literally fulfilled. This is how we apply it once it had been fulfilled.

    You can show me nothing in what Micah said that specifically refers to the Messiah, and the important point is that for the prophecy to be literal Jesus had to sit on the throne of Israel duiring His lifetime after He was born. That is the literal meaning of Micah's words. And ikt did not happen.
    .

    They got it right by luck. But it was purely theoretical. They did not believe in the Messiah who waqs born in Bethlehem. My argument still stands strong.


    No it was prophetic. Just not PATENTLT a prophecy about the Messiah. When it was fulfilled it turned out to be a prophecy about the Messiah. That is not the point we are discussing. The point we are discussing is whether the prophecy was patently one about the messiah and whether it was literally fulfilled in accordance with the prophet's expectations. (incidentally the same question that we dicuss about Zechariah 14)

    Yes and that is precisely what I said. It meant that a Davidide who would rule over Israel would be born in Bethlehem which was the family home of the Davidides. Micah did not see himself as prophesying something that no one would know. He was pointing out to the inhabitants of Bethlehem that as the home of the Davidides their town would be the one from whom a great ruler would come. His emphasis was on the fact that he 'will rule my people Israel'. THAT DID NOT LITERALLY HAPPEN


    Far from it, I am trying to get you to look at prophecy correctly. I notice that you are dodging all your other examples which give you no grounds at all for your arguments, clinging to your desperate last straw.

    Now be a man. Lets start with the prophecy, 'he will be called a Nazarene'. Have you found it yet?

    And what about the quotation which refers to Zechariah, but which you say was applied to Jesus? Explain how that prophecy specifically refers to the Messiah. And why Matthew said it was from Jeremiah.

    That will do for starters.



    But your final sentence is not what Micah was prophesying. That is you taking Micah's prophecy and making it fit into your scheme. It is NOT TAKING IT LITERALLY. Micah literally meant that the king would be born in Bethlehem and would then during his lifeime rule on the throne of Israel. Literality is what you claimed for it. So you have now admitted that I was right.



    The Instruction (torah) went out from Jerusalem when the Gospel reached out to the world from Jerusalem. It has resulted in much peace among men , and it will finally be fulfilled in the new heaven and the new earth in which dwells righteousness. It is a prophecy of the final triumph of God's word.


    Well that is correct. No mention of a millennium or earthly reign. After the final resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous and his judgment on all evil AT His second coming, He will hand over to God the Father the kingdom that He has established, the kingdom of His own beloved Son to which we all belong (Colossians 1.13). Until His second coming He must continue to reign until He has triumphed through raising HIS PEOPLE FOM THE DEAD. Then death will have been defeated.

    In all that there is no reference to an earthly kingdom except for that which is on earth NOW the kingdom of His beloved Son into whcih we have all been transferred. I agree with that wholeheartedly
    Your views of prophetic interpretation are entirely foreign to me in that your method apparently demands than NO word of prophecy can literally mean what it says.

    This is again, mumbo jumbo to me. It strips scripture of so much truth that not much would be left. I could hypothetically allegorize the resurrection, the second coming, hell and heaven using your method. Hence the danger of it. I reject your interpretative methods as pure error.

    And btw, I have discussed this same subject at length with an old CofC elder. He held pretty much the same erroneous views that you do.

    There is no point in discussing any other prophetic texts if you stubbornly refuse to admit that Micah's prophecy was literally fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. I will concede that nothing will change your view, not the very words of Christ, not the scriptures, and certainly not me. Your subjective view of interpretation disallows you to see.

    I can't take anythink else that you say regarding prophetic interpretation seriously.

  11. #146

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by arc111 View Post
    Your views of prophetic interpretation are entirely foreign to me in that your method apparently demands than NO word of prophecy can literally mean what it says.

    This is again, mumbo jumbo to me. It strips scripture of so much truth that not much would be left. I could hypothetically allegorize the resurrection, the second coming, hell and heaven using your method. Hence the danger of it. I reject your interpretative methods as pure error.

    And btw, I have discussed this same subject at length with an old CofC elder. He held pretty much the same erroneous views that you do.

    There is no point in discussing any other prophetic texts if you stubbornly refuse to admit that Micah's prophecy was literally fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. I will concede that nothing will change your view, not the very words of Christ, not the scriptures, and certainly not me. Your subjective view of interpretation disallows you to see.

    I can't take anythink else that you say regarding prophetic interpretation seriously.
    Of course you won't deal with the others because you know you can't. You have looked at them and don't know the answers. So you hide behind excuses.

    All interpretation of prophecy is subjective. You have only used this example because you thought it gave you the strongest case. And you are chagrined because I have demonstrated that you can't take it hyper-literally.

    As a matter of interest have you noticed that the king of whom Micah spoke was to defeat the Assyrians? The answer is no because you don't bother about context. At least I look at the whole of Scripture rather than just picking out the little bits that suit me.

    I am perfectly prepared to accept that a prophecy is literally fulfilled if you can produce one and give evidence that it was completely fulfilled, not just the bit that you take out. But I am confident that you cannot do that. For God's method was to present pointers to the future without making them too clear.

    Micah's prophecy was not literally fulfilled, at least not by Jesus. Yes Davidic
    kings were born in Bethlehem, and Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but that was not the gist of Micah's prophecy. Micah was not trying to demonstrate that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Had his aim been that he would have worded it differently. He assumed that a Davidic king would be born in Bethlehem. What he was predicting was that a king would arise from Israel (born in Bethlehem) who would be king over them, and would deliver them from the Assyrians (Micah 5.5-6). And it would be at a time when Jews were scattered among the nations (Micah 5.8). Tough that for anyone who wants to throw it far into the future (which was not Micah's intent).

    If you resolutely ignore the context how can I take anything you say seriously? And your problem is that all the citations you made are similar to this one. If you take them in context problems arise. That is why you are afraid to deal with them.

    You may hide in your little hole. I hope you will find blessing there. But you will never really understand the Scriptures.

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    170

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by petepet View Post
    Of course you won't deal with the others because you know you can't. You have looked at them and don't know the answers. So you hide behind excuses.

    All interpretation of prophecy is subjective. You have only used this example because you thought it gave you the strongest case. And you are chagrined because I have demonstrated that you can't take it hyper-literally.

    As a matter of interest have you noticed that the king of whom Micah spoke was to defeat the Assyrians? The answer is no because you don't bother about context. At least I look at the whole of Scripture rather than just picking out the little bits that suit me.

    I am perfectly prepared to accept that a prophecy is literally fulfilled if you can produce one and give evidence that it was completely fulfilled, not just the bit that you take out. But I am confident that you cannot do that. For God's method was to present pointers to the future without making them too clear.

    Micah's prophecy was not literally fulfilled, at least not by Jesus. Yes Davidic
    kings were born in Bethlehem, and Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but that was not the gist of Micah's prophecy. Micah was not trying to demonstrate that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Had his aim been that he would have worded it differently. He assumed that a Davidic king would be born in Bethlehem. What he was predicting was that a king would arise from Israel (born in Bethlehem) who would be king over them, and would deliver them from the Assyrians (Micah 5.5-6). And it would be at a time when Jews were scattered among the nations (Micah 5.8). Tough that for anyone who wants to throw it far into the future (which was not Micah's intent).

    If you resolutely ignore the context how can I take anything you say seriously? And your problem is that all the citations you made are similar to this one. If you take them in context problems arise. That is why you are afraid to deal with them.

    You may hide in your little hole. I hope you will find blessing there. But you will never really understand the Scriptures.
    For yout information, I didn't procede to look at the others because if you cannot accept this one from Micah, then obviously you will reject the rest. Jesus said that not one jot of His word would be broken, and we are cautioned that every idle word that we speak will be judged.

    YHVH Himself said that these words of prophecy (speaking through Matthew) were fulfilled. And they were fulfilled literally. From His birth to 30 pieces of silver to being called a Nazarene. And actually, WHETHER THE JEWS UNDERSTOOD TO BE FULFILLED BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY WERE OR NOT, IS NOT THE CRITERIA. We today are supposed to have the Spirit of God indwelling us, to aid us in our understanding. Obviously there will be some divergence of opinion due to 'the darkened mirror' into which we look, we still have more illumination that the rest.

    Seeing that you so off-handedly reject obvious literal prophetic fulfillment, then let us refocus on the second coming. Why should texts like Matt 24:31 not be interpreted to have already past? Do you not believe that everything mentioned in Matt 24 was seen by 'that generation'?



    As Paul said, "If any man would remain ignorant, let him be so". ...

    I am not hiding, you are just to blind to see.

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    5,798
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    [QUOTE=petepet;2718743]
    Quote Originally Posted by shepherdsword View Post



    The Scripture did not say that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. It said that a great ruler would be.
    Let's look at what the bible says as opposed to what you say:
    Mt 2:1 . Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Mt 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Mt 2:3 When Herod the king had heard [these things], he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Mt 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. Mt 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, Mt 2:6 And thou Bethlehem, [in] the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

    We can see very clearly that the Jews understood where the Messiah would be born. Trying to spin it any other way to prop up some false picture of scripture is total folly.


    And as that great ruler was to come from the house of David, whose lands were in Bethlehem it was not too difficult to work out.
    The Jews understood that the promised "the ruler of Israel" would be the Messiah.The clear prophetic reference to this was literally fulfilled. I can't believe that you are so presumptuous as to think that you have shown the utter "folly of applying these prophecies to Jesus" How can you be so blind as to think that?
    Who are you related to brother? Are you accountable to anyone? Do you submit to anyone? Do you have anyone in your life that you respect enough to correct you?

    Why did Joseph go to Bethlehem?. It was becase he was of the house and lineage of David. So it is not such a remarkable prophecy after all.
    The amazing aspect of the prophecy is that it was spoken long before it was fulfilled. Why did Joseph go to Bethlehem? Because God in his amazing ability to turn the heart of kings laid it on Augustus's heart to tax all of his empire. This insured that Joseph would go to Bethlehem.It also insured Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. Totally amazing,praise God,not only did it fulfill the prophecy it proved this verse at the same time:
    Pr 21:1 . The king's heart[is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.


    Micah was not giving it as a prophecy of where the Messiah would be born. He was giving it in order to encourage the people of Bethlehem, reminding them that though small, great kings came from there.
    The gospel of Matthew has already shown how untrue this position is
    Micah was not trying to be A NOSTRADAMUS
    True,he was being a true prophet of God that was telling God's plan before it actually happened. Tainting such revelation of God by comparing it to Nostradamus is an abomination.


    .
    Even though it is true that God worked things so as to make what he said happen.
    Can you see the contradiction in your position? On one hand you say Micah wasn't telling the future,just encouraging Bethlehem and on the other you say God went ahead and made it happen.



    Nor did Jesus rule Israel in the ordinary way. He ruled the Israel of God from Heaven. Thus the prophecy was NOT literally fulfilled. It was fulfilled in the way amills claim
    No it is not. Jesus was raised up to sit on the throne of David. David's throne was never on the right hand of the Father and THAT is where Jesus is ruling from now. When Jesus returns again he will sit on the earthly throne of David in the same way all of the rest of the line of David did...a literal physical throne from which he will rule the whole earth.



    Because he was a son of David. The logic that brought Joseph there was the same logic used by Micah. But the remainder of his words ere not fulfiled literally
    Jesus was not a son of David through the line of Joseph. The Lord swore by Jeremiah to Jehoiakim ,that no one of that line would ever sit on the throne of Israel again.However the legal right remained with that line. Jesus,as Joseph's eldest son(by adoption) has the legal right and yet he wasn't related to David through the kingly line of Solomon that ended with Jehoiakim. He was related to David through the line of Nathan,another of David's son's. The prophecies surrounding Jesus are more complex and amazing that you seem to think.

    Jer 36:30 Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.



    But Isaiah 7.14 does not refer this to Jesus. It simply says a virgin will be with child and he will be called Emmanuel. It does not even apply it to the Messiah or to royalty. The application of it to Jesus IN CONTEXT requires some considerable skill in interpretation. He was not called Emmanuel. He was called Jesus. It is only 'clear' to you because others have done the explaining.
    It is clear to me because the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and TOLD him what the prophecy in Isaiah referred to: NOTICE,THIS INTERPRETATION IS ONE GIVEN IN THE NT BY THE ANGEL OF THE LORD(I don't want you to miss this point)

    Mt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

    Here we have the word of God stating that an angel told Joseph what the prophecy in Isiah meant.




    Lol you'd better be careful with those eyes. As one of the dumber ones I have pointed out above why you are wrong.
    Well,you stated that I was wrong. The so called "evidence" you used to "point" this out has shown to be false.


    We are not inconsistent in our interpretation, unless of course you consider the New Testament to be inconsistent.
    I think the word of God is in total harmony. It is your position that is inconsistent and false. As has been proven.

    Perhaps it woul be better for premills if the New Testament had never been written. It certainly knows NOTHING of a so-called millennium. And it inteprets as amills do.
    If you are blind enough to ignore clear prophecies concerning Jesus and also ignore the New testament's defining those prophecies with precision,as Matthew did with Micah's and Isiah's then you are blind enough to miss the millennium as well.

    We interpret along New Testament lines.
    LOL..this is where I have to laugh,I mean you calling your wresting and twisting the prophecies concerning Jesus' first coming as an "interpretation"
    Everything you have said about the prophecies concerning Jesus' birth can be defined with one word...GARBAGE.

    We accept with Paul that old natural Jerusalem belongs to the old ideas and that it is the heavenly Jeriualem which belongs to the people of God (Galatians 4.20 ff).. Thus we see prophets speaking of Jerusalem as referring to the people of God, as indeed Zechariah does himself (2.7). We recognise that old Jerusalem has been left behind.
    You keep saying "We". Are there others here on this board who agree with your position on the prophecies concerning Jesus's birth?

    And we see the Temple as referring to the same people of God as Paul regularly does. We take seriously Jesus' words that 'neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will men worship the Father' because 'they worship Him in Spirit and in truth' (John .20-24).

    It is premills who want to have Jesus coutermanding His own words in some fictitious millennium.
    I stand by what revelation teaches concerning the millennium and not to some mythical position that denies the scriptures own interpretation of it's prophecies.
    I guess there are some who are fools enough to even try to debate Gabriel's interpretation of Daniel's vision.

    .

    I love it. Come on lets have this long list of prophecies that are literally fulfilled. I've already demonstrated the folly of Arc's position.
    You have demonstrated nothing but your own scriptural ignorance. I suggest you go back and see the numerous places where the NT itself defines what the OT prophecies were referring to. They contradict you in numerous places.

    And by the way amils can point to a good number of prophecies which will be literally fulfilled in accordance with the amill position.
    Show us some.

    These vague and wild statements of yours are simply using false and improper methods to discredit amills by depending on wild and untrue statements.
    LOL! I am vague and wild!...OH THE IRONY! Here we have some outlandish poppycock trying to be passed off as an interpretation of the prophecies in Micah and Isiah and when I show how clearly those prophecies are defined by the new testament itself I am being "wild and vague"!

    These facts alone show the error of the pre-mill position.
    What "facts" are those? Are you referring to your statement that Jesus' promised birthplace wasn't Bethlehem? Or is it that Jesus wasn't promised to be born of a virgin? Well,we have all seen what the new testament itself says about these prophecies. Maybe it would have been better for your position if the new testament was never written!

    Blessings

    and Popcorn


    "You can make the scriptures say whatever you want if you torture them long enough"

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Strawberry Plains, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    10,844
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by petepet View Post
    LOL You really do try it on. the concepts of the new Jerusalem and the new earth were used by Jesus. The actual terminology only came to be stressed 40 or so years after His death. He would clearly not just that terminology. Your remark is not very bright.

    With regard to the millennium I am not asking that Jesus would use that terminology for the same reason, but I would certainly have expected Him to mention the CONCEPT if it was true. It is thus not true. QED
    [QUOTE=petepet;2718743]
    Quote Originally Posted by shepherdsword View Post
    The Scripture did not say that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. It said that a great ruler would be. And as that great ruler was to come from the house of David, whose lands were in Bethlehem it was not too difficult to work out. Why did Joseph go to Bethlehem?. It was becase he was of the house and lineage of David. So it is not such a remarkable prophecy after all. Micah was not giving it as a prophecy of where the Messiah would be born. He was giving it in order to encourage the people of Bethlehem, reminding them that though small, great kings came from there. Micah was not trying to be A NOSTRADAMUS. Even though it is true that God worked things so as to make what he said happen. Nor did Jesus rule Israel in the ordinary way. He ruled the Israel of God from Heaven. Thus the prophecy was NOT literally fulfilled. It was fulfilled in the way amills claim

    Because he was a son of David. The logic that brought Joseph there was the same logic used by Micah. But the remainder of his words ere not fulfiled literally

    But Isaiah 7.14 does not refer this to Jesus. It simply says a virgin will be with child and he will be called Emmanuel. It does not even apply it to the Messiah or to royalty. The application of it to Jesus IN CONTEXT requires some considerable skill in interpretation. He was not called Emmanuel. He was called Jesus. It is only 'clear' to you because others have done the explaining.

    Lol you'd better be careful with those eyes. As one of the dumber ones I have pointed out above why you are wrong. We are not inconsistent in our interpretation, unless of course you consider the New Testament to be inconsistent.

    Perhaps it woul be better for premills if the New Testament had never been written. It certainly knows NOTHING of a so-called millennium. And it inteprets as amills do.

    We interpret along New Testament lines. We accept with Paul that old natural Jerusalem belongs to the old ideas and that it is the heavenly Jeriualem which belongs to the people of God (Galatians 4.20 ff).. Thus we see prophets speaking of Jerusalem as referring to the people of God, as indeed Zechariah does himself (2.7). We recognise that old Jerusalem has been left behind.

    And we see the Temple as referring to the same people of God as Paul regularly does. We take seriously Jesus' words that 'neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will men worship the Father' because 'they worship Him in Spirit and in truth' (John .20-24).

    It is premills who want to have Jesus coutermanding His own words in some fictitious millennium.

    I love it. Come on lets have this long list of prophecies that are literally fulfilled. I've already demonstrated the folly of Arc's position.

    And by the way amils can point to a good number of prophecies which will be literally fulfilled in accordance with the amill position. These vague and wild statements of yours are simply using false and improper methods to discredit amills by depending on wild and untrue statements.

    These facts alone show the error of the pre-mill position.
    No doubt, some may just be using your now-proven--by-your-searching-wrong book to prove their pre-mill view!

    [QUOTE]you said:
    But having once been pre mill and having written a book on it from the pre mill position I have a pretty good knowledge of most of the arguments. But i recognised their weaknesses and so went to the Bible to find out what it was really saying Pre-mill demands too may assumptions that can simply not be true...[/QUOTE]
    My favorite scripture: Malachi 3:16

    "Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name!" (Every time we speak of the Lord, or even THINK of him--its written down in a book of remembrance!)

  15. #150
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    3,241

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by petepet View Post
    If I wished I could not get you excluded for a time. The moderators don't like people saying things like that.
    They also don't like posters saying things like, "your remarks are not very bright".

    My advice to all of you is to (1) not take disagreement personally and (2) major on what you are for scripturally and what you believe and why versus majoring on rebutting each other's points. Rebuttal is great, but attitude will leak out when someone's rebuttal rubs you the wrong way if you don't stop and cool down before hitting "send". And my brothers, attitude is leaking out of your posts. Please take this as a friendly warning to cool down in here.
    The Rookie

    Twelve is the number of government. Thus, it is quite apropos that I am on my way towards wielding the power of twelve bars - each bar like, say, a tribe.....or a star.....or, maybe an apostle. A blue apostle. Like apostle smurfs. Does anyone remember smurfs? And all the controversy about them being from the devil? It's probably bad that I juxtaposed "apostle" and "smurf" in the same sentence. But then, I probably lost you at "blue apostle". Yes, my friends, this is what "rare jewel of a person" is actually implying. "Rare Jewel of a Person" really means, "Potentially Insane".

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Questions for Partial Preterists
    By Cyberseeker in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jun 15th 2011, 02:20 AM
  2. We are all partial Preterists !?!?
    By Amos_with_goats in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Feb 7th 2011, 08:03 PM
  3. Question for Partial Preterists Re: Near/Far Prophecy
    By AtlGatekeeper in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Oct 25th 2010, 03:40 AM
  4. Are there any Partial Preterists here?
    By soulsurvivor316 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: Jun 30th 2009, 01:46 AM
  5. Discussion Amils and Partial Preterists-can I pick your brain?
    By Saved! in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: Dec 11th 2008, 05:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •