The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Timtofly]

I sincerely believe the opposite is true. Premill does that. Amill uses many NT scriptures to corroborate their interpretation of Rev 20.
Premill struggles to do this.

No they just reinforce the first century. They don't deal with the future at all.

 

[Timtofly]

This is totally wrong. I ignored nothing. You have yet to highlight where the second coming is actually mentioned in his quote. I wonder why??? It is simply not there. If it was, you would quickly (and without complaint) highlight it. All we get is avoidance of the obvious. This sums up your position. You impose upon history and the writings of the ECFs what suits your theology, not what they actually said. I mentioned three points in my last post that forbid your analyze and you sidestepped everyone of them. You have to! That is your form! Your claims are a misrepresentation of Irenaeus. I suspect you know it. That is so because the other quotes reinforce my thesis. You carefully sidestep them as well. That is how you engage! The reader can easily see that.

It is the historic data (facts) that is against your faulty bias Premil claims. You seem to like arguing for arguments sake. You are clearly out of your depth on this subject.

For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy’s head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head,—which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: “You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon;” — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind “the dragon, that old serpent” and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down. Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 23, 7).​

Most sane theologians relate Genesis 3:15 to the cross of Calvary. They identify the injuring of Christ’s heel with the cross and the crushing of Satan’s head to the same. Once again, the defeat of sin and death are carefully identified with the binding of Satan. Irenaeus once again highlights the successful mission of Christ in addressing the sin issue and its awful consequences death. Sin was “deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men].”

The ancient writer relates the trampling down and bruising of the devil’s head to the victory of Christ’s ministry. The work of Christ is seen here by Irenaeus as causing a serious impairment of the devil’s strength, movement and ability. He is a crippled foe. He is impaired in his strategies. Satan had to be defeated for man to receive new life. The writer here shows this victory as a past event. He supports his contention by employing Genesis 3:15, which predicted the injuring of Satan at the cross: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

In keeping with the rest of his writings, Irenaeus shows Christ taking back off Satan at the 1st Advent what Adam forfeited at the beginning. This sentiment permeates through the different writings of Irenaeus. The references to “dragon” and “serpent” here are clear and overt references to Revelation 20:2.

The bruising of Satan’s head by Christ broke the unchallenged sway of the devil over the nations. Jesus destroyed the incredible lordship that Satan had on the human race and plundered his house of countless souls. Since the cross, numerous Gentiles have been set free from their blindness and bondage. They have been delivered into the kingdom of God. In doing this, Christ destroyed the claims, authority and ownership that Satan had over the nations. Jesus made a way of escape for the Gentiles out of the kingdom of Satan. The power and influence Satan once had over the Gentiles was assaulted through the earthly ministry of Christ. This curtailed the devil, allowing the free-flow of the Gospel across the world. Christ battered Satan’s house, damaged his authority, limiting the scale of his influence. He indeed destroyed the overwhelming claims and ownership that Satan had over the Gentile people.

This shows that Satan’s ability to function has been impaired. He was injured at the cross, his head is now bruised. His movement is curtailed. He is incapacitated. His power and that of his deluded minions is restricted through the preaching of the Gospel and the advance of the kingdom of God. Satan’s power and his movement has been restrained, albeit not completely.

So you are saying the antichrist was defeated in the first century at the Cross?

A thousand years is used to describe a long indeterminate period of power and government.

So 1,000 years could actually be 40,000 years?

At the Second Coming, Jesus could reign for 40,000 years before handing the kingdom back to God?

How does that make it better for Amil?

 

[covenantee]

Sorry, but you don't seem to understand what RT is! I'm not an advocate of RT. I used to be, unconsciously, but no longer am. So yes, I do know the difference.

I do *not* believe in only one nation, namely that of Israel! I believe God promised Abraham a "multitude of nations," which includes, of course, Israel.

Yes, the faithful and obedient in Christ in every nation, who comprise the holy nation in 1 Peter 2:9, include the faithful and obedient in Christ in Israel.

And the faithful and obedient in Christ in every nation, who fear God and work righteousness in Acts 10:34-35, include the faithful and obedient in Christ in Israel.

 

[WPM]

lol! God produced apartheid everybody! He created many nations and many tongues!
The problem with that is, God made use of nations and ethnicities/races. They represent diversity. So you must be anti-diverse, and thus a bigot?

So much for the rhetoric, which you seem to love...

I've answered this so many times I can't count. It is the qualifications for Salvation that renders ethnic and national differences of no consequence. But these differences matter to God. He mentions them in the book of Revelation, which you should be careful not to omit from recognition!



No it isn't. Read the passage, and take it at face value. It is speaking about the "children of Judah and the children of Israel!" That is not the international Church. The multitudes of Israelites were depicted as numberless so as to trust God for multiplication, rather than trying to obtain it apart from God.



No, this was speaking of the Jewish People, who were temporarily discarded as if they no longer belonged to God's family. You try to keep them without a family. But God accepts them once again.

Since you and I see the Scriptures very differently, there is no sense in debating it. Your mind is made up. I would keep an open mind myself except that what you are actually doing is changing the meaning of words like "children of Israel." You turn that into "the international Church." You render "nation" into "many nations." Sorry, I'm not buying.

This is another cop-out. You cherry-pick what you respond to, twist what exposes your error and duck around the overall message. That is the only way your thesis survives. Amils reject the apartheid you promote under the new covenant. The New Testament makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time.

I refer you back to the avoided Scriptures that forbid your man-made teaching. You should have listened better when you were in the Lutheran Church.

Your theology is anti-scriptural!!!

 

[WPM]

It is in the very quote we keep quoting from Irenaeus! He 1st talks about the "binding of the strong man," which in the Scriptures is different than the event later known as "the binding of Satan." One is a principle by which a demon must be bound by a stronger man so that people can be liberated from him. Jesus liberated all believers from Satan's condemnation when he forgave our sins and rose from the dead.

But this was not the *event* known as the "binding of Satan," which we read takes place at the 2nd Coming. And that's why Irenaeus places this event, ie the "binding of Satan," at the 2nd Coming, where Antichrist is destroyed.

So in the quotation Irenaeus first deals with the binding of the strong man principle by which Christ liberated us from death, which was at his 1st Coming. But then he advances to the event called the "binding of Satan," which he places at a completely different time, namely at the defeat of Satan and his Kingdom, when Antichrist is defeated.

I'm surprised that you can't see this? It's right there in the quotation! One deals with deliverance from death and the other deals with the imprisonment of Satan at the end of the age. Satan's "binding," as applied by Irenaeus at Jesus' 1st Coming, is clearly *not* the same event as the "binding of Satan" at the end of the age. But he uses the principle of the "binding of the strong man" to show that Christ had power over the devils to deliver us from death and to deliver people from demon possession.

I'm not going to deal with 50 different passages in each post. You skip over things you apparently don't understand, and you need to understand the argument before filibustering with unnecessary quotations.

1. Irenaeus makes no mention of the second coming. Where is it? Please stop avoiding this!
2. Irenaeus makes it abundantly clear here that “the foe [Satan] was conquered.” He was not describing some future event. He was looking at a past victory which has resulted in an incredible ongoing spiritual victory for God’s people.
3. This is reinforced by the idea that he teaches that the said victory would be evidenced by Satan being subject to the power of man – the New Testament Church. This has been an ongoing reality for 2000 years. This is long been fulfilled. One just has to observe the gospels to see that. Satan is under the feet of the Church as they spread the good news of the Gospel throughout the nations. Through the binding of Satan, the Church has gained power over Satan. The ancient patriarch relates the binding of the devil to the bruising of Satan’s head. He shows, that through this Satan was subjected “to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down.” Various Scripture support this. In Luke 9:1 Jesus “called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils.” In Luke 10:17 the disciples testified: “Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” He responded: “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you” (Luke 10:18-19).

 

[WPM]

Sorry, but you don't seem to understand what RT is! I'm not an advocate of RT. I used to be, unconsciously, but no longer am. So yes, I do know the difference.

I do *not* believe in only one nation, namely that of Israel! I believe God promised Abraham a "multitude of nations," which includes, of course, Israel.

Not true. You are an out-and-out advocate of RT and religious apartheid.

The NT did supersede the OT, yes.

Yes, what Israel had has now been passed on to many European and other nations.

So the kingdom of priests given to Israel has been given to many nations.

· Who are the European "Christian" nations that you speak about?
· Maybe you could name these "entire nations" that "have [supposedly] professed the Gospel, and ... can be considered to have been part of 'the Church'"?
· What is the criteria for becoming one of these?
· Where do you get this in the NT?

Many Christian nations have now entered into the promise God made to Israel that they would be a kingdom having a priesthood.

It is actually you who is the true Replacement Theology holder. In your theology “the Christian nations” (whoever they are) have replaced natural Israel as theocracies. This is erroneous and incongruous. I reject your Replacement Theology.

You have got this all wrong. Once again, you present no Scripture to support your claims. The born again Church alone abiding amongst the nations have now entered into the promise God made to Israel that they would be a kingdom having a priesthood of Christ, sharing his salvation with others. Salvation has always been an individual thing, not a national thing.

 

[Timtofly]

It is in the very quote we keep quoting from Irenaeus! He 1st talks about the "binding of the strong man," which in the Scriptures is different than the event later known as "the binding of Satan." One is a principle by which a demon must be bound by a stronger man so that people can be liberated from him. Jesus liberated all believers from Satan's condemnation when he forgave our sins and rose from the dead.

But this was not the *event* known as the "binding of Satan," which we read takes place at the 2nd Coming. And that's why Irenaeus places this event, ie the "binding of Satan," at the 2nd Coming, where Antichrist is destroyed.

So in the quotation Irenaeus first deals with the binding of the strong man principle by which Christ liberated us from death, which was at his 1st Coming. But then he advances to the event called the "binding of Satan," which he places at a completely different time, namely at the defeat of Satan and his Kingdom, when Antichrist is defeated.

I'm surprised that you can't see this? It's right there in the quotation! One deals with deliverance from death and the other deals with the imprisonment of Satan at the end of the age. Satan's "binding," as applied by Irenaeus at Jesus' 1st Coming, is clearly *not* the same event as the "binding of Satan" at the end of the age. But he uses the principle of the "binding of the strong man" to show that Christ had power over the devils to deliver us from death and to deliver people from demon possession.

I'm not going to deal with 50 different passages in each post. You skip over things you apparently don't understand, and you need to understand the argument before filibustering with unnecessary quotations.

Not only that but the end of Adam.

“You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon;” — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind “the dragon, that old serpent” and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down. Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life

He does not imply the last days here, but the latter days. Also that Adam was totally free of Satan and death, not just those born from above. Adam has not been made new.

But if Irenaeus was using Scripture to point out any fulfillment, it was taken out of context. Psalm 91 is not a Messianic prophecy chapter. That was a promise given at the time of David. All this victory was given to David and Israel a thousand years prior to the birth of Jesus. They could have taken advantage of that power in the OT.

So who exactly was Irenaeus pointing to as it was not about Jesus defeating Satan in any context. I don't think Amil can use this as proof Irenaeus was teaching their doctrine. But the defeat of antichrist is only implied one place in Scripture. No other verse claims antichrist will be defeated, but to avoid all antichrist as they are only up to no good.

This is a similar argument that Daniel 9 and Gabriel's 70 weeks have all been fulfilled. There was not a new creation at the Cross. God stepped into time at that moment and was the eternal Lamb. That was the point of the physical act. Yet God ushered in the fulness of the Gentiles, and placed the promise of a "new Adam" on earth and the end of the 70th week on hold.

This new Adam is total, all humanity. Not just those who accept the second birth. Irenaeus was not talking about the man of Christ the second Adam. Pretty sure it was the defeated Adam, as Christ was never defeated. Why Amil place this in the first century or an ongoing phenomenon baffles all logic. Irenaeus never said this is one soul at a time, being set free.

Even though Irenaeus was using Scripture out of context it was certainly not to promote Amil. Amil don't claim those 1,000 years prior to the Cross had total victory over a bound Satan. As a premillennialist, I don’t give Satan that much credit, that he ever had free reign. I don't think Irenaeus does either, but that Satan is somewhat responsible for death and a defeated Adam. The binding of the strong man was a comparative symbolism, a parable about those people's thoughts.

"And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 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."

"But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 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."

Yes, Satan and the demons were greatly thwarted during the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. Who denies that point? Jesus also confounded the "strong man" Pharisees in their house, and they hated Jesus for that ability.

 

[Truth7t7]

It is the qualifications for Salvation that renders ethnic and national differences of no consequence. But these differences matter to God.

Your Zionist claim is "False"!

Romans 2:11KJV
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

 

[Truth7t7]

I totally agree with that. The Lutheran Church I was raised up in probably believed that because we were never told a thing about Israel still having promises still to be fulfilled to them as a nation and as a people. I was probably, by default, a Replacement Theologian, which is why I don't think it's an insulting term. I would wear it proudly if that's what I still believed. But I don't. And I certainly don't have contempt for those who do.

No such thing as "Replacement Theology" it's a propaganda phrase created by dispensationalism in distracting from biblical truth

Your claims of National restoration of Israel is a Zionist fairy tale dream Randy, found no place in scripture

Matthew 21:42-43KJV
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, the faithful and obedient in Christ in every nation, who comprise the holy nation in 1 Peter 2:9, include the faithful and obedient in Christ in Israel.

And the faithful and obedient in Christ in every nation, who fear God and work righteousness in Acts 10:34-35, include the faithful and obedient in Christ in Israel.

And you don't see a problem with this? You acknowledge "many nations," and then you turn it into "one nation," based on one questionable verse from Peter, who likely was addressing the one nation Israel, and not redefining it as the International Church!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Irenaeus was not talking about the man of Christ the second Adam. Pretty sure it was the defeated Adam, as Christ was never defeated. Why Amil place this in the first century or an ongoing phenomenon baffles all logic. Irenaeus never said this is one soul at a time, being set free.

I'll tell you how I deal with it, although we're pretty much on the same page with respect to Irenaeus referring to the imprisonment of Satan at the 2nd Coming? Here is the passage:

You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon;” — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind “the dragon, that old serpent” and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down. Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life.

The verse in bold is speaking, I believe, of Adam in the Garden, where he fell and was conquered. And so, Jesus, at his 1st Coming and at his Cross, recovered Adam and gave him "new life."

Irenaeus is looking at the whole scope of biblical history, from the Serpent in the Garden who caused Man to fall to the Serpent who is bound at the 2nd Coming of Christ. Irenaeus squarely puts the binding of Satan, or the defeat of the Serpent, at the 2nd Coming, when Antichrist is defeated.

He quotes Rev 20, which speaks of the binding of the Serpent, or Satan. This takes place after Rev 19 and its account of the destruction of Antichrist's Kingdom.

In Rev 11 we read that the kingdoms of the world will become the Kingdom of Christ. And so, we know Irenaeus is speaking of the fall of Satan's Kingdom and the rise of Christ's Kingdom. That's when Satan is bound. He is the Serpent who caused Man's problem in the beginning and he will be put to rest when Christ returns.

But the redemptive act took place, as Irenaeus notes, when Christ delivered Man from the power of sin and death, when he received redemptive life, or the guarantee of spiritual perpetuity. This he did at his 1st Coming and at the Cross. Christ proved to be the "stronger man," being able to pin Satan down while he releases the prisoners from their dungeon of condemnation.

None of this means, in Irenaeus' words, that Satan will be bound in a bottomless pit until Christ returns and sets up his Kingdom. As you note, the strong man released man from death at his 1st Coming. But this is just an expression indicating Christ is dominant over Satan. He may not have yet put Satan in prison, but he showed himself dominant by forgiving human sin and granting them eternal life and resurrection from the dead, when the time comes.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Not true. You are an out-and-out advocate of RT and religious apartheid.

Your attempt at reconciliation with your fellow Christian lasted about 2 or 3 days! No, you obviously don't understand what apartheid is, if you think it has to do with a multiplicity of nations and ethnicities. I suppose you think the UN is guilty of apartheid?

When you learn to treat fellow Christians in a respectful manner, I can get beyond the mean rhetoric to more seriously and more fully answer your questions.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is another cop-out. You cherry-pick what you respond to, twist what exposes your error and duck around the overall message. That is the only way your thesis survives. Amil reject the apartheid you promote under the new covenant. The New Testament makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time.

I refer you back to the avoided Scriptures that forbid your man-made teaching. You should have listened better when you were in the Lutheran Church.

Your theology is anti-scriptural!!!

Yes, there is one Body for Christ, and many nations participate and are members of that Body. God created that--not me.

Let me just say that God knew, when He created these nations, that not every member in each nation would qualify to be His People. Many would be cut out.

But this didn't stop God from making Israel, or from making the UK, the US, and any number of countries who have been "Christian" at one time or another. Any of these so-called "Christian" nations can backslide, like Israel did, and be cut off, if only temporarily.

You can see how long Israel has been cut off! But that doesn't mean God can't restore them. If they were once committed to the Law of God they can, in the future, come to commit themselves to Christianity. And I believe it will happen. As well, I believe God will, at Christ's Return, restore many Christian nations, since He promised to Abraham both the nation of Israel and a multitude of nations who share the faith of Abraham.

These promises have never been revoked. In fact, Paul asserts that they are still in effect.

 

[covenantee]

And you don't see a problem with this? You acknowledge "many nations," and then you turn it into "one nation," based on one questionable verse from Peter, who likely was addressing the one nation Israel, and not redefining it as the International Church!

No problem at all, nothing questionable, nothing to do with merely one nation of Israel, and everything to do with every nation of the International Church.

If you have Scripture proving otherwise, please present it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No problem at all, nothing questionable, nothing to do with merely one nation of Israel, and everything to do with every nation of the International Church.

If you have Scripture proving otherwise, please present it.

Prove what? That the International Church isn't a single nation?

 

[covenantee]

Prove what? That the International Church isn't a single nation?

Peter describes the holy nation in a previous verse:

1 Peter 2:5
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Explain how this refers to the Christ-rejecting nation of Israel, which was about to be, and would be, utterly destroyed.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Peter describes the holy nation in a previous verse:

1 Peter 2:5
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Explain how this refers to the Christ-rejecting nation of Israel, which was about to be, and would be, utterly destroyed.

That verse does not describe the International Church as a "nation." We have a new priesthood, that of Christ, and our sacrifices are not like Israel's sacrifices under the Law. As Christians we have this calling, which Israel has temporarily lost due to their rejecting Christianity.

 

[covenantee]

That verse does not describe the International Church as a "nation." We have a new priesthood, that of Christ, and our sacrifices are not like Israel's sacrifices under the Law. As Christians we have this calling, which Israel has temporarily lost due to their rejecting Christianity.

1 Peter 2:5 begins with "Ye...are..." "Ye" refers to the Church.
1 Peter 2:9 begins with "Ye are..." "Ye" still refers to the Church.

Thus it is the Church that is described in 1 Peter 2:9 as a holy nation.

It is not the condemned nation of Israel that is described as a holy nation.

 

[WPM]

Yes, there is one Body for Christ, and many nations participate and are members of that Body. God created that--not me.

Let me just say that God knew, when He created these nations, that not every member in each nation would qualify to be His People. Many would be cut out.

But this didn't stop God from making Israel, or from making the UK, the US, and any number of countries who have been "Christian" at one time or another. Any of these so-called "Christian" nations can backslide, like Israel did, and be cut off, if only temporarily.

You can see how long Israel has been cut off! But that doesn't mean God can't restore them. If they were once committed to the Law of God they can, in the future, come to commit themselves to Christianity. And I believe it will happen. As well, I believe God will, at Christ's Return, restore many Christian nations, since He promised to Abraham both the nation of Israel and a multitude of nations who share the faith of Abraham.

These promises have never been revoked. In fact, Paul asserts that they are still in effect.

Where does it mention "Christian nations" in the Bible? This seems to be another invention of your.

 

[WPM]

Your attempt at reconciliation with your fellow Christian lasted about 2 or 3 days! No, you obviously don't understand what apartheid is, if you think it has to do with a multiplicity of nations and ethnicities. I suppose you think the UN is guilty of apartheid?

When you learn to treat fellow Christians in a respectful manner, I can get beyond the mean rhetoric to more seriously and more fully answer your questions.

It is not my aim to be disrespectful. I am here to engage with those who want to address the issues. It is hard to interact with you due to the tactics you employ. You are constantly avoiding the historic data or twisting it to suit your theological purposes. If the facts don't support what you are advocating then you just force them to agree with your opinion. I will always call that out when you do it, even though you do not appreciate it.

There are so many posts and so much strong historic evidence you have skipped around above that disallows your thesis. You then transpire to repeat your faulty opinions even though i have just showed you strong evidence to the contrary, which you have ignored. This is very frustrating.

Add this to the fact that you are simply not objective in your analyze. The word objective means: “dealing with facts as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.”

Rather than acknowledging the obvious, you always seem to try and put a slant on it in order to change the evident historic meaning.