Difference between amillennialism & preterism

Yahchristian · Jun 13, 2017

Biblewriter said:
Please elucidate.

We will have to agree on some basic points in order to have a meaningful discussion.

So...

1) Do you agree with me that the Jewish calendar is lunar based and each month starts with a New Moon? (Judaism 101)

2) Do you agree with me that a Synodic Month (New Moon to New Moon) is 29.530589 days? (NASA)

Yahchristian · Jun 13, 2017

Yahchristian said:
1) The Jewish calendar is lunar based and each month starts with a New Moon. (Judaism 101)

2) A Synodic Month (New Moon to New Moon) is 29.530589 days. (NASA)

Robert Anderson says on page 55 of his book "The Coming Prince"...

"The 1st Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (the edict to rebuild Jerusalem) was 14th March, B. C. 445. The 10th Nisan in Passion Week (Christ's entry into Jerusalem) was 6th The Coming Prince text by Sir Robert Anderson 55 of 158 April, A. D. 32."

And on page 56 he says...

"69 weeks of prophetic years of 360 days (or 69 x 7 x 360) 173,880 days."

So he tries to prove that it is exactly 173,880 days from Nisan 1, 445 BC to Nisan 10, 32 AD.

But rather than just calculate the number of days between two dates on the Jewish Calendar, he first tries to convert the Jewish dates into Gregorian dates, and then calculate the number of days between the two Gregorian dates.

But it is much easier to calculate the number of days using the original Jewish dates, Nisan 1, 445 BC and Nisan 10, 32 AD.

Here is the simple Math...

Each Jewish month starts with a New Moon.

There are 29.530589 days in a Synodic Month (New Moon to New Moon).

So there are 5888.1318 Synodic Months in 173,880 days (173,880 / 29.530589).

So there are 5888 Synodic Months plus 3 or 4 days (.1318 * 29.530589) in 173,880 days.

That means...

If the starting date was on Nisan 1, the ending date had to be on Nisan 4 or 5 (Nisan 1 plus 3 or 4 days). Not Nisan 10.

Robert Anderson was off by 5 or 6 days.

P.S.

Robert Anderson arbitrarily chose Nisan 1 as the starting date (the Bible states the month, but Robert Anderson chose the day). He could have just chosen Nisan 6 or 7 as the starting date, and then his calculation would have worked. I mean, if you are going to arbitrarily pick dates, you may as well pick one that works.

Gideon · Jun 13, 2017

LittleLambofJesus said:
Your welcome. There is much diversity in the preterist camp from what I have seen

Much diversity in all the camps if you ask me. :angel:

Biblewriter · Jun 13, 2017

parousia70 said:
I can not find any error in what BAB has posted above, from any post of yours or anyone else's, and certainly not in any scripture.

But, go ahead and use the scriptures he has cited to show us why they do not mean what he contends.
Should be quite simple for you to do, no?

You can start with supporting your contention that the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, was NOT shown to have been fulfilled by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13.

I have posted the hard proof of this in this forum more times than I can count. And I am not inclined to take the time to go through it all again. But first and foremost, it is a blatantly false accusation to claim that Dispensationalism denies the new covenant as promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, or that it was not fulfilled in Christ.

parousia70 · Jun 13, 2017

Biblewriter said:
first and foremost, it is a blatantly false accusation to claim that Dispensationalism denies the new covenant as promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, or that it was not fulfilled in Christ.

Im challenging YOU to back up YOUR DENIAL in post #36 where you said it was "simply factually incorrect".

Are you backpedaling away from that claim now?

Biblewriter · Jun 14, 2017

parousia70 said:
Im challenging YOU to back up YOUR DENIAL in post #36 where you said it was "simply factually incorrect".

Are you backpedaling away from that claim now?

Absolutely not. I clearly stated one outright lie in the post. I am simply tired of continually disproving what people keep saying anyway.

BABerean2 · Jun 14, 2017

Biblewriter said:
But first and foremost, it is a blatantly false accusation to claim that Dispensationalism denies the new covenant as promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, or that it was not fulfilled in Christ.

How many sermons have you heard from Dispensational preachers on the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-34, by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13, and the direct application to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8 ?

How many pages were devoted to the above, in the books that you have written on the Bible?

.

Adstar · Jun 14, 2017

yedida said:
Could someone please tell me the differences between amillennialism and preterism (partial vs full as well)?
I've tried googling and found several websites, but truth be told, I got so lost in it that I quit still not really knowing any answers.
Thanks in advance.
Just dumb it down royally, please.

I am closer to the premillenialism belief..

That is the belief that Jesus shall rule the earth for 1000 years after His return with the saints..

parousia70 · Jun 14, 2017

Biblewriter said:
Absolutely not. I clearly stated one outright lie in the post.

Rather, you quoted the entire post, and responded by saying the post was "simply factually incorrect" I see now you have indeed backpedaled away and applied a caveat not present in your original claim.

I am simply tired of continually disproving what people keep saying anyway.

If you are only interested in preaching to the choir, it seems Christian Forums might not be the best place for you.

Copperhead · Jun 14, 2017

Adstar said:
I am closer to the premillenialism belief..

That is the belief that Jesus shall rule the earth for 1000 years after His return with the saints..

I think that explains it pretty well. There has been debate on pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, or pre-wrath regarding when believers are captured up, but that is minutia to some degree. But a actual millennial reign of the Messiah in which He rules the planet is not really in dispute scripturally unless one allegorizes the scripture to extremes.

Yahchristian · Jun 14, 2017

Copperhead said:
I think that explains it pretty well. There has been debate on pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, or pre-wrath regarding when believers are captured up, but that is minutia to some degree. But a actual millennial reign of the Messiah in which He rules the planet is not really in dispute scripturally unless one allegorizes the scripture to extremes.

True.

When you look at the big picture, the Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Post-Trib, and Pre-Wrath views all look basically the same.

In fact, all the popular eschatology views can be grouped into the three basic categories below...

parousia70 · Jun 14, 2017

Copperhead said:
But a actual millennial reign of the Messiah in which He rules the planet is not really in dispute scripturally unless one allegorizes the scripture to extremes.

One cannot find a "millennium" anywhere in the gospels or epistles or anywhere else in scripture (aside from Rev 20:1-6)

The Church for 20 centuries has rejected the notion of a literal and future "thousand years." The presbyterians, methodists, calvinists, lutherans, catholics and every mainstream group accepted Rev 20 as part of the pattern of symbols St. John uses. For sure, the OT never mentions a millennium. The gospels never mention a millennium. The epistles never mention a millennium.

Jesus, Daniel, and Paul knew nothing about a literal thousand years, and their statements show it. The just and unjust "come forth" at the same "hour" (Jn 5:27-29), and they both awake "at that time" (Dan 12:1-2). There is "A" resurrection, "both of the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15). These facts fully refute a literal millennium. The "thousand years" is a symbol in St. John's highly symbolic vision.

The bible proves the 1000 years is not literal: (unless, of course, you allegorize the following scriptures to the extreme)

Since the resurrection occurs at the second coming (1 Cor 15:23)...

And since the judgment occurs at the second coming (2 Tim 4:1; Rev 11:15-18)...

And since the New Heaven/Earth occurs at the "thief's coming," the "day of the Lord" (2 Pet 3:10/1 Thess 5:2)...

THEREFORE we know there is no literal historic millennium. The bible proves there is no literal earthly "millennium." The "thousand years" is a typological symbol in John's highly typological and symbolic vision.

parousia70 · Jun 14, 2017

Yahchristian said:
True.

When you look at the big picture, the Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Post-Trib, and Pre-Wrath views all look basically the same.

In fact, all the popular eschatology views can be grouped into the three basic categories below...

where's the one with the really long toes?

Edit: Found it!

BABerean2 · Jun 14, 2017

Anthony Hoekema on Amill. Eschatology

"Amillennialism: A Brief Sketch of Amillennial Eschatology" by Anthony Hoekema

Copperhead · Jun 14, 2017

Well, one has to keep in mind, that the church hadn't even gotten out of the 1st century before it was already in a lot of trouble theologically. Try reading the other 7 epistles, written by Jesus Himself, to the 7 churches outlined in The Revelation. There is a lot of theology that has been screwed up for the last 2000 years to hang your hat on the fence post that since much of the church hasn't viewed a millennial reign of Messiah, that to think there will be is a error.

I am one, that doesn't really base my views on what the historical church has thought. I look at the history of the church and see what the consensus has been, but scripture becomes the ruler I use to measure past church theology. Everything from the atonement to eschatology, the church, in general, has had a pretty shoddy track record. It got so bad that it led to the Reformation era. But some of the bad theology baggage didn't get dumped.

The Revelation is as much a part of the cannon of scripture as anything else. There are myriads of passages in the Old Testament that clearly show that God Himself (you do know that Jesus is part of the Trinity, right?) will reign on David's thrown, which expounds on Rev 20. And that physical Israel will dwell in safety under the kingship of the Messiah. That is all over the writings of the Prophets. That is the millennial reign.

I try to take the entire scripture and compare. I follow the principle outlined in the Mosaic Law that states than an issue can only be decided on the testimony of two witnesses. No less. And those witnesses for me are the OT and the NT. And in both, there is a clear testimony of a literal reign of Messiah on this earth

That is where much theology has gotten screwed up over the years. Much of the church really doesn't view the OT as valid any more. The Bereans didn't have that problem. Everything Paul taught them, they searched the scriptures (only the OT for them) to see if what Paul was saying was true. They were commended.

parousia70 · Jun 14, 2017

Copperhead said:
Try reading the other 7 epistles, written by Jesus Himself, to the 7 churches outlined in The Revelation.

Only by allegorizing those letters to the 7 churches to the extreme can one come up with your view.

For Sure, Jesus Promised His Thief's Coming would befall those 1st century people @ Sardis (Revelation 3:3), and that He would personally come and Kill the Prophetess and Her Children who dwelt at Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-25)

Again, only by extreme allegorization of those passages could one come to your conclusion.

The Revelation is as much a part of the cannon of scripture as anything else.

Indeed it is.

BABerean2 · Jun 14, 2017

Copperhead said:
Well, one has to keep in mind, that the church hadn't even gotten out of the 1st century before it was already in a lot of trouble theologically. Try reading the other 7 epistles, written by Jesus Himself, to the 7 churches outlined in The Revelation. There is a lot of theology that has been screwed up for the last 2000 years to hang your hat on the fence post that since much of the church hasn't viewed a millennial reign of Messiah, that to think there will be is a error.

I am one, that doesn't really base my views on what the historical church has thought. I look at the history of the church and see what the consensus has been, but scripture becomes the ruler I use to measure past church theology. Everything from the atonement to eschatology, the church, in general, has had a pretty shoddy track record. It got so bad that it led to the Reformation era. But some of the bad theology baggage didn't get dumped.

The Revelation is as much a part of the cannon of scripture as anything else. There are myriads of passages in the Old Testament that clearly show that God Himself (you do know that Jesus is part of the Trinity, right?) will reign on David's thrown, which expounds on Rev 20. And that physical Israel will dwell in safety under the kingship of the Messiah. That is all over the writings of the Prophets. That is the millennial reign.

I try to take the entire scripture and compare. I follow the principle outlined in the Mosaic Law that states than an issue can only be decided on the testimony of two witnesses. No less. And those witnesses for me are the OT and the NT. And in both, there is a clear testimony of a literal reign of Messiah on this earth

That is where much theology has gotten screwed up over the years. Much of the church really doesn't view the OT as valid any more. The Bereans didn't have that problem. Everything Paul taught them, they searched the scriptures (only the OT for them) to see if what Paul was saying was true. They were commended.

Once a person comes to understand that the Book of Revelation cannot be in chronological order, much of the millennial confusion goes away.

The 7th trumpet is when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of God and Christ "forever", and "the time of the judgment of the dead" follows right after, in Revelation 11:15-18.

The premill doctrine only works by ignoring this text.

How many of the cults are built around a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth?

.

.

Adstar · Jun 15, 2017

Copperhead said:
I think that explains it pretty well. There has been debate on pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, or pre-wrath regarding when believers are captured up, but that is minutia to some degree. But a actual millennial reign of the Messiah in which He rules the planet is not really in dispute scripturally unless one allegorizes the scripture to extremes.

I believe in Post tribulation.. Second coming Rapture.. But rapture timing is a different issue to the millennium.. A lot of rapture believers believe Christians who are raptured will be going to heaven and will remain there for ever..

Those who deny the millennial rule of Jesus on earth have to use a lot of symbolic interpretation of scriptures.. And the belief that we are currently in a symbolic 1000 years period and that satan is somehow bound and the Saints are ruling on earth is to me ludicrous... Any objective observer of this world should know satan is not chained up down some bottomless pit... He is here with us on earth messing around with people right left and centre..

Biblewriter · Jun 15, 2017

BABerean2 said:
How many sermons have you heard from Dispensational preachers on the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-34, by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13, and the direct application to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8 ?

How many pages were devoted to the above, in the books that you have written on the Bible?

.

Actually, I discussed the Jeremiah passage you refer to on three pages of my book. But that is beside the point. You pretend that this promise was completely fulfilled at the cross, totally ignoring the clearly stated words that "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD." Jeremiah 31:34

It is simply irrational to even pretend that this promise has been fulfilled. So while it is a blatant lie to claim that we deny that the New Covenant is based on the cross, we deny and absolutely and resolutely deny, that it has been completely fulfilled, as long as there is a singly member of "the house of Judah" that does not "know the Lord."

While we deny your interpretation that when the prophecies say "Israel," they men "the church," there are some scriptures that seem to imply this. We correctly point out that not even one of these scriptures actually says this. but we agree that some of them seem to imply it.

But there is not even one scripture, anywhere in the entire Bible, that gives even the slightest excuse to even imagine that the word "Judah" means "the church." This is a fatal flaw in your entire system of interpretation. For, in order for your system to be correct, Every prophetic reference to, not only Israel and Jerusalem, but also Judah, Ephraim, and each of the twelve tribes, ALL have to actually mean "the church," and ALL the references to the cities of Jerusalem Sodom, and Samaria, and to the physical land of Israel and the many places specifically mentioned there, ALL have to actually mean heaven. The entire system of interpretation built on this concept, simply does not work.

BABerean2 · Jun 15, 2017

Adstar said:
And the belief that we are currently in a symbolic 1000 years period and that satan is somehow bound and the Saints are ruling on earth is to me ludicrous... Any objective observer of this world should know satan is not chained up down some bottomless pit... He is here with us on earth messing around with people right left and centre..

Are there wicked angels who are chained in the pit of hell now? If so, why is the idea ludicrous?

2Pe_2:4　 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Jud_1:6　 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Satan is only bound in one respect in Revelation 20.
He is bound from deceiving the nations, because of the Gospel.
Who bound Satan and when was he bound?

Mat_12:29　 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

Mar_3:27　 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

Col_2:15　 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

The Apostle Paul continued his ministry during the time that he was in chains.

A mean dog who is chained can still kill you if you get close enough to it.

Where is the beast now?

Rev 11:7　 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.　

If the beast ascends out of the bottomless pit to make war upon the witnesses during the tribulation period, then where is he now?

.

Difference between amillennialism & preterism

Active Member

Active Member

Member

Senior Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Senior Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Newbie

Active Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Newbie

Newbie

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Similar threads