Search results

Please address what the texts above. The old covenant was finished at the cross, when the curtain ripped. it was rendered redundant. It was dead. All that they were waiting on was a decent outward visible burial in AD70.

I do not agree! The cross spelt the end of old covenant. The whole system became redundant. AD 70 was simply the fulfillment of the destruction Christ predicted would come on the nation, and proof their house had been left desolate. When Jesus died on the cross, He instituted the new covenant...

I do not agree. The old covenant came to an end at the cross, not in AD70. It was there that Jesus fully, effectively and eternally introduced the new covenant and removed the old. Granted, the old covenant apparatus was finally removed from view in AD70, just like a corpse is buried and removed...

You interpret the rest of Scripture through the lens of your faulty opinion of Revelation 20 instead of interpreting Revelation 20 through the lens of the rest of Scripture. That would render Premil obsolete.

... and you avoid the evidence that refutes your claim. That is the only way your arguments survives.

Premils like to pitch their tent in the OT or Revelation and employ the shadow and type to explain the clear explicit NT fulfillment. They prefer to explain away the clear with the obscure. There are countless battles that are identified in the OT. We accept them as a brute fact. We can tell...

I rest my case. I presented strong overwhelming compelling NT second coming evidence.

Not so! This is classic Premil - forcing a text to say what it is not saying. Amil is built on safer ground. Amil is built upon corroboration. Multiple strong and repeated Scriptures on each tenet of that position proves that doctrine. Let us discuss some of the water-tight support Amil enjoys...

.. yea, and this is not one of them. You know it!

It is NOT a second coming passage. Hello! It is an ancient Old Testament battle/event. John uses it as a symbolic type. Look at the plagues in Egypt. John employs these to impress New Testament truth. It doesn't mean the Old Testament details pertains to the end. You clearly have nothing. Yet I...

Stop avoiding. Where is the second coming mentioned in Ezekiel 38 and 39?

Answering a question with a question is a classic divergence! Address what I asked please.

You can only come up with that my forcing an ancient battle into the future where it does not belong. Where is the second coming mentioned in Ezekiel 38 and 39?

Your millennium seems pointless to me. I prefer the climactic detail of Scripture. When He comes it is all over. The Book is true! No one survives.

I have never heard this Premil view.

And this is exactly why Premil has lost a lot of credibility over the years. They keep moving the goal posts. They have to. When they are proven wrong they tweak to fit their error. There is no public apology or repentance. 2000 hype did a lot of harm to Premil. That is when I abandoned it. I...

Please address the difficulty i highlighted in your scheme re the millennium.

You keep repeating the same error. You are yet to disprove a literal reading of the text. There is no doubt it is an ancient battle. Are we still fighting with bows and arrows? I do not think so!!! Pretrib and Postrib Premillennialists identify this passage with Armageddon and the end of...

Ezekiel predicted an ancient OT battle that occurred many years ago. John spiritualizes that and applies it to the end. Simple! The literalist has to spiritualize this away, exposing the bias of their own position. This is how Premil operates.

Not true. The Jews did come back from exile. You need to read the OT and NT Scriptures. Gog and Magog do not exist today, unless you are going to spiritualize them too, like you do with other OT Scripture to fit your theology. The transport is ancient – “horses” (Ezekiel 38:4) and “chariots”...