More biblical proof that supports Amillennialism

[WPM]

I dispute the idea Isaiah 65:18-25, refers to Eternity. That Prophecy simply cannot belong in the spiritual realm.

It is the AMill view which contradicts scripture. You fail to take note of how most of Prophecy is mixed and is distributed throughout the Bible. Isaiah 28:13

Quite the opposite. Let the Bible speak for itself- then you will grasp endtimes clearer.

 

[Timtofly]

What are you talking about?

Certainly.

He was a Prince prior to creation, as you stated.

He did not cease to be a Prince when He came.

Provide a verbatim quote of the verse containing the word "prince" in that passage.

I don't have to. If you don't think the Lamb has been the Prince since before creation, then you don't even understand your own post.

Your whole argument is that the Lamb has always been prince. If that is your point, it has nothing to do with the fact the prince to come has not happened yet.

Messiah was the part of the Cross. Prince is the part about a throne. The Cross is not a throne, and the throne is not the Cross. The 70 weeks will be finished with Jesus the Lamb sitting on a throne as Prince. That is what the Prince to come part is saying just like the Messiah was the cut off part.

If you claim the throne is in heaven, then you will have to place the Cross as happening in heaven and not on earth. Do you have proof the Cross event happened in heaven and not on earth? You are failing to equate that the Throne will be set up on earth, just as literally as the Cross was on earth.

The 70 weeks pertain to events on earth, not in heaven.

 

[Timtofly]

Imaginations? That is what it is to think billions of wicked turning their backs on Christ, rejecting His commands, embracing Satan, and then attacking the people of God is not sin and sinners. That is delusionary.

Isaiah 65?

The inclusion of the phrase “Accursed an hundred years old sinner” is simply a solemn reminder to the reader that the fate of the unbeliever is starkly different to that being depicted for the believer on the new earth. In the midst of his joy at the revelation of the new earth the Old Testament prophet compares the bliss, blessing and perfection of the glorified new earth and the horror of the fate of the wicked in hell. The solemn thought is: the eternal horror and hopelessness that will be the lot of the wicked is not just for a short time, it is forever. There is no sense that the wicked are on the new earth here. Isaiah is not describing more of the same as Premil teaches. The new earth is not a repeat or rehash of this corruptible age. This must be forced into the text.

The writer is simply making a comparison (in the midst of his joy at the thought of the new earth) between the bliss and perfection of the glorified new earth and the horror of the fate of the wicked in the lake of fire. There is no sense that the wicked are on the earth here.

The sinner will indeed be accursed in eternity. Throughout Scripture God concentrates on the elect, and often attaches a postscript in regard to the wicked. That is all we are looking at in the phrase: “sinner old hundred years is cursed.” Their condition is eternally sealed and irreversible - it is hopeless.

There is no record of death on the new earth for the elect in the original Hebrew; only for the wicked who are experiencing eternal wrath in the Lake of Fire. Here is a notable difference between Amil and Premil, Amils believe the wicked are all judged when Jesus comes and banished into a lost eternity, Premil on the other hand (amazingly) rewards the wicked at the end (especially those who fight against Jerusalem at the end) by allowing them to inherit the new earth. The gorge between these two views couldn't be further.

The result of the fall and the damage of the curse continue on, however, not on the new heavens and new earth. The wicked have their own eternal abode – the Lake of Fire. The wicked will remain in the awful ongoing reality of the curse for time and for eternity. This is too terrible to even contemplate. This text is definitely not saying there will be mortal sinners on the new earth after the coming of Christ, as some argue. It is just saying sinners will remain accursed (even a hundred years after the appearing of the new heavens and earth). It could easily have said a thousand years or a million years. In short: They will remain accursed for all eternity.

So what is the meaning of Isaiah 65:20? It is simply presented in such a way as to indicate that there will be no ageing or death during the eternal state. It cannot in any way indicate that righteous children will die in eternity – a fact that few would deny. Such an absurd notion would obviously disregard plain truth, and contradict repeated Scripture to the contrary. This assumption is reinforced by the introductory language of same passage in question, which says, “there shall be no more thence an infant of days.” This seems to be worded in such a way as to in some way explain the great mystery of eternity. It appears to be contrasting what we on earth would deem long-life to what in eternity would be considered mere infancy. Scripture tells us, death is totally and finally destroyed at the Second coming for the believer.

As we have already stated, we can be assured Scripture never in any place contradicts itself. Therefore, it is either our understanding that is limited or the original Hebrew that is imperfect. We know it can’t be the latter. Common-sense alone tells us there must either be infants after Christ’s coming or else no infants. There are plainly no in-betweens. Such an absurd notion is impossible. The language of Isaiah 65:20 seems to be used in order to impress the idea that there will be no more growing old and no dying during this time. Anyway, if a natural child was to literally live to be a hundred years old then it would no longer be a child. So, it seems to be a hyperbole statement used to underscore the spiritual truth that there will be no more death or sorrow.

Now you are off into your imagination, and none of that post applies to our conversation.

You are totally avoiding the point they are deceived after Satan is loosed, and deception changes one's thinking. If you fail on that point, you base your eschatology on error.

And seeing how you use vague general sweeping statements without corroboration, you should stop being hypocritical and complaining that is what others do.

Isaiah 65 is not talking about the eternal condition of Saints and Sinners.

Isaiah 65 is about how people multiply across the earth after the Second Coming. Obviously you have your own imagination on what Isaiah 65 says.

Of a righteous child disobeyed, they are stoned to death. Stoning will not happen in the Millennium, as that was OT law. However a dead sinner is still dead, and no longer living on earth. No one lives period the second they disobey God. They are notvgiven mortal bodies to live out their life in sin. Sin will not be allowed to even start. You call sin disobedience. In Revelation 20, disobedience is death not sin. But you have yet to produce a list of laws to break in the Millennium. So you cannot even define what they are disobeying.

 

[WPM]

Now you are off into your imagination, and none of that post applies to our conversation.

You are totally avoiding the point they are deceived after Satan is loosed, and deception changes one's thinking. If you fail on that point, you base your eschatology on error.

And seeing how you use vague general sweeping statements without corroboration, you should stop being hypocritical and complaining that is what others do.

Isaiah 65 is not talking about the eternal condition of Saints and Sinners.

Isaiah 65 is about how people multiply across the earth after the Second Coming. Obviously you have your own imagination on what Isaiah 65 says.

I refer you back to my last posts that responds to this. You have nothing to rebut what I wrote.

 

[covenantee]

I don't have to. If you don't think the Lamb has been the Prince since before creation, then you don't even understand your own post.

Your whole argument is that the Lamb has always been prince. If that is your point, it has nothing to do with the fact the prince to come has not happened yet.

Messiah was the part of the Cross. Prince is the part about a throne. The Cross is not a throne, and the throne is not the Cross. The 70 weeks will be finished with Jesus the Lamb sitting on a throne as Prince. That is what the Prince to come part is saying just like the Messiah was the cut off part.

If you claim the throne is in heaven, then you will have to place the Cross as happening in heaven and not on earth. Do you have proof the Cross event happened in heaven and not on earth? You are failing to equate that the Throne will be set up on earth, just as literally as the Cross was on earth.

The 70 weeks pertain to events on earth, not in heaven.

Complete hallucinatory gibberish. If someone else can decrypt this, please do. I can't.

 

[covenantee]

I don't have to.

There you have it, dear readers. The headline declaration in Timtofly's hermeneutic:

"I don't have to."

Thanks for the guffaws.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It means that during the Millennium, people will still die. They will marry and have children and there will be animals, etc.
Isaiah 65:18-25 is a Prophetic description of the thousand years that Jesus will rule the physical world.

Isaiah 65:17 refers to Eternity: stated as an assurance of that final reality.

Your 'hyperbole stakemen', above is complete nonsense and make a mockery of Bible Prophecy.

Isaiah 65:19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more.

So, people will die, but no one will mourn their deaths? Speaking of "nonsense" and making "a mockery of Bible Prophecy". Please explain how that makes any sense.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Complete hallucinatory gibberish. If someone else can decrypt this, please do. I can't.

It's impossible. I gave up on him months ago. Not worth the trouble, in my opinion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I dispute the idea Isaiah 65:18-25, refers to Eternity. That Prophecy simply cannot belong in the spiritual realm.

It is the AMill view which contradicts scripture. You fail to take note of how most of Prophecy is mixed and is distributed throughout the Bible. Isaiah 28:13

Do you see any similarities in the following verses:

Isaiah 65:19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more.

Revelation 21:4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

Clearly, these verses are referring to the same thing. Do you agree that Revelation 21:4 is referring to eternity?

 

[WPM]

It's impossible. I gave up on him months ago. Not worth the trouble, in my opinion.

Bro, I totally understand. He doesn't seem to grasp the countless contradictions in his position.

 

[WPM]

Now you are off into your imagination, and none of that post applies to our conversation.

You are totally avoiding the point they are deceived after Satan is loosed, and deception changes one's thinking. If you fail on that point, you base your eschatology on error.

And seeing how you use vague general sweeping statements without corroboration, you should stop being hypocritical and complaining that is what others do.

Isaiah 65 is not talking about the eternal condition of Saints and Sinners.

Isaiah 65 is about how people multiply across the earth after the Second Coming. Obviously you have your own imagination on what Isaiah 65 says.

Of a righteous child disobeyed, they are stoned to death. Stoning will not happen in the Millennium, as that was OT law. However a dead sinner is still dead, and no longer living on earth. No one lives period the second they disobey God. They are notvgiven mortal bodies to live out their life in sin. Sin will not be allowed to even start. You call sin disobedience. In Revelation 20, disobedience is death not sin. But you have yet to produce a list of laws to break in the Millennium. So you cannot even define what they are disobeying.

Imaginations? That is what it is to think billions of wicked turning their backs on Christ, rejecting His commands, embracing Satan, and then attacking the people of God is not sin and sinners. That is delusionary.

 

[Timtofly]

Imaginations? That is what it is to think billions of wicked turning their backs on Christ, rejecting His commands, embracing Satan, and then attacking the people of God is not sin and sinners. That is delusionary.

I pointed out after they were consumed by fire, they were dead sinners just like Adam a was a dead sinner the instant he disobeyed God.

 

[WPM]

I pointed out after they were consumed by fire, they were dead sinners just like Adam a was a dead sinner the instant he disobeyed God.

Oh, so when did they become sinners?

 

[Timtofly]

Oh, so when did they become sinners?

Upon the point of death just like Adam.

 

[WPM]

I pointed out after they were consumed by fire, they were dead sinners just like Adam a was a dead sinner the instant he disobeyed God.

Whilst we know from Scripture that Adam ate of that forbidden fruit, we equally know that he didn't physically die on that same day. This warning wasn’t therefore just talking about bodily death. In fact, Genesis 5:5 tells us, “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” It couldn’t also have been his soul that would die otherwise life would immediately become extinct. The soulish man lived on. This must have been referring to a spiritual death which would separate man from that perfect communion he enjoyed with God. If spiritual death was the first death man experienced, the next death that he experienced, which was a direct result of the first, was physical death. The fall left mankind in a hopeless ruined state facing a certain two-fold death. Left to his own devices, man was destined for “the Lake of Fire” and eternal spiritual and physical death.

 

[WPM]

Upon the point of death just like Adam.

Oh, so they were sinners after all, as I alleged? When did that happen? When they decided to reject Jesus? When they followed the lie of the devil? As they were thought evil against Jesus and the camp of the saints? When they were corralled in their billions from the 4 corners of the earth?

 

[Timtofly]

Whilst we know from Scripture that Adam ate of that forbidden fruit, we equally know that he didn't physically die on that same day. This warning wasn’t therefore just talking about bodily death. In fact, Genesis 5:5 tells us, “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” It couldn’t also have been his soul that would die otherwise life would immediately become extinct. The soulish man lived on. This must have been referring to a spiritual death which would separate man from that perfect communion he enjoyed with God. If spiritual death was the first death man experienced, the next death that he experienced, which was a direct result of the first, was physical death. The fall left mankind in a hopeless ruined state facing a certain two-fold death. Left to his own devices, man was destined for “the Lake of Fire” and eternal spiritual and physical death.

That is your interpretation and the understanding of fallen sinners who refuse to accept they are physically dead.

You should stop using the word mortal.


Mortal: late Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin mortalis, from mors, mort- ‘death’.

Latin is who introduced the word. When Paul used the word it meant death.

Yes, God was longsuffering or made Adam suffer long in a state of death for over 900 years.

Adam was never allowed back into the Garden. At least not until the Cross.

You still will never get that Adam went from a permanent incorruptible physical body to a temporal corruptible physical body. That is the process of Death reversed by the Cross. That permanent incorruptible physical body is waiting the soul to shed this flesh for God's intended physical body.

You think when Adam's dead flesh is shed that is death? For those in Christ it is Life everlasting. Those in sheol have been in a state of death since they were in the womb 7 months. They were never alive. But stick with the second the soul exits the body, if that is your belief system. Once it happens you will be convinced.

 

[Timtofly]

Oh, so they were sinners after all, as I alleged? When did that happen? When they decided to reject Jesus? When they followed the lie of the devil? As they were thought evil against Jesus and the camp of the saints? When they were corralled in their billions from the 4 corners of the earth?

When they died.

When did they die?

Before they were consumed with fire or after?

 

[WPM]

When they died.

When did they die?

Before they were consumed with fire or after?

1. So, according to you, turning your back on Jesus is not sin?
2. Embracing Satan and becoming a follower of him is not sin?
3. Mobilizing in Satan's army to destroy "the camp of the saints" is not sin?

 

[Timtofly]

1. So, according to you, turning your back on Jesus is not sin?
2. Embracing Satan and becoming a follower of him is not sin?
3. Mobilizing in Satan's army to destroy "the camp of the saints" is not sin?

Disobedience to God is a sin. But you have not shown they disobeyed God. You only speculate based on the fact they were consumed with fire. You don't seem to accept that God may have taken their life before they even disobeyed.

Show me the verse they turned their back on Jesus, who by the way, you claim is not even on the earth, to receive such a gesture.

Is following Satan a sin? If he is disobeying the law, and you disobey the law, that would be an act of disobedience.

Thinking about killing is currently a sin. Again a verse that states they were thinking about killing. Can people wage a battle without destroying personal or public property? Do you know where this battle was going to take place? The intent to battle is not breaking a law, unless their is a law against thinking about doing battle.

Are you going to capitulate and acknowledge Jesus is ruling on a throne in Jerusalem, and this battle will do Him as God, great harm?