More biblical proof that supports Amillennialism

[covenantee]

I pointed out sin will be gone after the Second Coming, and for the next 1,000 years. You seemed to think that not possible.

Scripture points out that sin is now put away.

See the difference between what you point out and what Scripture points out?

 

[Timtofly]

You repeatedly contradict yourself. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

How so? You seem to quote me, but not quote me.

Who is speaking as you allege other than yourself?

You are the one who claimed I had something to do with how the millennium turned out? Do you not even realize your own snide comments?

 

[Timtofly]

You deny that your millennium is saturated with billions of wicked sinners as the sand of the sea even who turn their backs on Christ, reject His commands, embrace Satan, and then prepare to fight the people of God even though Revelation 20 teaches that. However, you then quote Isaiah 65:17-21 support for your claims, even though it exposes your theology: “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.”

Here you have 100 years old sinners operating in your supposed future millennium. This is more proof that your claims don't add up. Whatever way you look at your arguments they all contradict each other.

They are not 100 year old sinners. Where does the verse you quoted explicitly say that?

First it says:

"but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed."

There are no sinners in your version after the Second Coming.

Why all of a sudden are they sinners in the Scripture in Revelation 20?

Your own teachings refute this made up accusation. If sin remains in the Millennium then you have to also claim there is sin and death in the NHNE. They are both post the Second Coming.

You cannot use Isaiah 65 for the NHNE if you are going to interpret it with a continuation of sin and death where billions of humans are going to rebel at any point.

They are not even deceived by Satan nor decide to change the status quo until after the millennium is over. So no one is sitting there watching the clock, and saying, "Satan is almost here, now we can overthrow Christ because it was prophecied that we are a bunch of wicked sinners plotting to rebel once we learn who this Satan character is".

Was Eve hoping to be decieved by the Serpent as well in your vain imaginations? Plotting to make Adam disobey God for years before the serpent entered the Garden?

Where does the verse you quoted explicitly say that?

The contrast was between a child being 100, and a person dying at 100. You make it say sinners get to live 100 years in sin and then killed. What the verse says is that children are the most likely to disobey. But they only get one chance. If they disobey at 10, they are dead. If they disobey at 50, they are dead. After they are dead, they are a sinner.

Adam was not a sinner prior to disobeying God. He was a sinner when placed in the body of death, the mortal temporary corruptible body of flesh. A child in the Millennium who disobeys, dies physically. They are dead, so they don't keep living in their dead corruptible flesh, because they are not given another physical body. They are the dead in Death that is emptied into the LOF after the Millennium.

The child shall die an hundred years old. Would you say that is literal and all children die and become sinners at 100? How does that make sense? It is saying that at 100, one is still a child. Because it is contrasted with a person who does die at or before 100.

If you claim there is death, rebellion, sin and sinners in the Millennium because we claim this chapter as describing the Millennium, then you also have to have death, rebellion, sin, and sinners in the NHNE, just the same old earth with a new title.

You cannot interpret it one way for your version of the future and another way for everyone else.

You refuse to give your own explanation, because your version won't work for you either. There is an iron rod rule in the Millennium. Disobedience will not be tolerated. One offence will net you instant death. That is why death is the last enemy, not sin nor even disobedience. Both will be nonexistent. Because there is only one chance to mess up, under the iron rod rule. Will people be tempted by death, to allow your interpretation to be a realization? Certainly Satan does not tempt any one, being locked up. But this verse claims Death is riding around on a horse:

"And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death."

Now you have a verse to back up your nonsensical view of the millennium. Since you insist sin and death still exist after the Second Coming, you are the one talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You claim one reality for your future, and another reality for Revelation 20. Even in mocking, it is still hypocritical. Then you accuse the other side of doing the thing only you do.

 

[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?

Context is not your enemy.

We live in mortal bodies of death where even our righteousness is considered filthy rags, ie sin.

After the Second Coming how many sinners are alive? Don't you argue the point, they are all dead? Are you that hypocritical in your argument where hypocrisy is just natural for you, and you cannot even see it?

Those questions would result in instant death. That fire comes from heaven and consumed them before they reached there destination, does not give you a clue that the iron rod rule is a reality? You still have not posted the law that exist in the Millennium that they disobeyed. Your questions only make sense if they were in Adam's dead corruptible flesh prior to the Second Coming.
Did you forget all of Adam's dead flesh died at the Second Coming?

Show me the future Law that says one cannot follow Satan. Remember, that they don't even know who Satan is, even more so than people today, who think he is just a character in a book.

Are they turning their back on Jesus, as they don't even make it to Jerusalem to confront Jesus?

Was the camp of the saints destroyed? Is there a law that states one cannot mobilize an army? Is there a law that states one can not even think about an army of destruction?

Is asking philosophical questions a sin? Do you confess them if so?

 

[Timtofly]

Scripture points out that sin is now put away.

See the difference between what you point out and what Scripture points out?

So all on earth today have no sin, because as you claim, it was "put away"?

All have been sin free for 1993 years?

I agree that sin was put away even before creation. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world put sin away before sin was "a thing". All were covered by the Atonement and written in the Lamb's book of life, before creation.

Why are you so against it being totally removed for 1,000 years set aside as Holy unto God? It is still the end of the world.

Have we past the point of the end?

 

[covenantee]

So all on earth today have no sin, because as you claim, it was "put away"?

Scripture declares it. I simply affirm what Scripture declares.

Why are you so against what Scripture declares?

Old Covenant sacrifices could not put away sin and thus needed to be continuously repeated.

But Christ's one New Covenant Sacrifice ended that repetition forever, by putting away sin forever.

Hebrews 10 expresses it as "take away":

Hebrews 10
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

 

[WPM]

They are not 100 year old sinners. Where does the verse you quoted explicitly say that?

First it says:

"but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed."

There are no sinners in your version after the Second Coming.

Why all of a sudden are they sinners in the Scripture in Revelation 20?

Your own teachings refute this made up accusation. If sin remains in the Millennium then you have to also claim there is sin and death in the NHNE. They are both post the Second Coming.

You cannot use Isaiah 65 for the NHNE if you are going to interpret it with a continuation of sin and death where billions of humans are going to rebel at any point.

They are not even deceived by Satan nor decide to change the status quo until after the millennium is over. So no one is sitting there watching the clock, and saying, "Satan is almost here, now we can overthrow Christ because it was prophecied that we are a bunch of wicked sinners plotting to rebel once we learn who this Satan character is".

Was Eve hoping to be decieved by the Serpent as well in your vain imaginations? Plotting to make Adam disobey God for years before the serpent entered the Garden?

Where does the verse you quoted explicitly say that?

The contrast was between a child being 100, and a person dying at 100. You make it say sinners get to live 100 years in sin and then killed. What the verse says is that children are the most likely to disobey. But they only get one chance. If they disobey at 10, they are dead. If they disobey at 50, they are dead. After they are dead, they are a sinner.

Adam was not a sinner prior to disobeying God. He was a sinner when placed in the body of death, the mortal temporary corruptible body of flesh. A child in the Millennium who disobeys, dies physically. They are dead, so they don't keep living in their dead corruptible flesh, because they are not given another physical body. They are the dead in Death that is emptied into the LOF after the Millennium.

The child shall die an hundred years old. Would you say that is literal and all children die and become sinners at 100? How does that make sense? It is saying that at 100, one is still a child. Because it is contrasted with a person who does die at or before 100.

If you claim there is death, rebellion, sin and sinners in the Millennium because we claim this chapter as describing the Millennium, then you also have to have death, rebellion, sin, and sinners in the NHNE, just the same old earth with a new title.

You cannot interpret it one way for your version of the future and another way for everyone else.

You refuse to give your own explanation, because your version won't work for you either. There is an iron rod rule in the Millennium. Disobedience will not be tolerated. One offence will net you instant death. That is why death is the last enemy, not sin nor even disobedience. Both will be nonexistent. Because there is only one chance to mess up, under the iron rod rule. Will people be tempted by death, to allow your interpretation to be a realization? Certainly Satan does not tempt any one, being locked up. But this verse claims Death is riding around on a horse:

"And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death."

Now you have a verse to back up your nonsensical view of the millennium. Since you insist sin and death still exist after the Second Coming, you are the one talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You claim one reality for your future, and another reality for Revelation 20. Even in mocking, it is still hypocritical. Then you accuse the other side of doing the thing only you do.

Wow. It seems like i hit a raw nerve there. This comes across as a dissertation trying to prove black is white.

 

[WPM]

So all on earth today have no sin, because as you claim, it was "put away"?

All have been sin free for 1993 years?

I agree that sin was put away even before creation. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world put sin away before sin was "a thing". All were covered by the Atonement and written in the Lamb's book of life, before creation.

Why are you so against it being totally removed for 1,000 years set aside as Holy unto God? It is still the end of the world.

Have we past the point of the end?

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?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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?

It's pretty disturbing to see someone on a Christian forum like this who doesn't even know what sin is. We need to pray for this guy.

 

[covenantee]

I agree that sin was put away even before creation. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world put sin away before sin was "a thing".

Whatever you're agreeing with is certainly not Scripture. There is no Scripture that agrees with you, otherwise you could have quoted it.

All were covered by the Atonement and written in the Lamb's book of life, before creation.

"All" includes sinners, so you're claiming that all sinners were "written in the Lamb's book of life, before creation".

There is no Scripture that agrees with you, otherwise you could have quoted it.

 

[WPM]

It's pretty disturbing to see someone on a Christian forum like this who doesn't even know what sin is. We need to pray for this guy.

Yes! This is what false teaching produces. One error leads to another. It is sad to observe. The only thing these arguments do is push objective observers into the Amil camp.

 

[WPM]

So all on earth today have no sin, because as you claim, it was "put away"?

All have been sin free for 1993 years?

I agree that sin was put away even before creation. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world put sin away before sin was "a thing". All were covered by the Atonement and written in the Lamb's book of life, before creation.

Why are you so against it being totally removed for 1,000 years set aside as Holy unto God? It is still the end of the world.

Have we past the point of the end?

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]

Scripture declares it. I simply affirm what Scripture declares.

Why are you so against what Scripture declares?

Old Covenant sacrifices could not put away sin and thus needed to be continuously repeated.

But Christ's one New Covenant Sacrifice ended that repetition forever, by putting away sin forever.

Hebrews 10 expresses it as "take away":

Hebrews 10
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

It was put away prior to creation.

"Of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Revelation 13:8

Forever does include Genesis 1:1.

 

[Timtofly]

Wow. It seems like i hit a raw nerve there. This comes across as a dissertation trying to prove black is white.

So sin continues in your NHNE if black is white?

Do you not address the Scripture at any point in this argument you have created in your mind to point out my mindset?

You have proven that you can say one thing while meaning something totally different. But sure if you call that, you thinking black is white, then go for it.

 

[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?

We are not addressing my mindset. We are addressing Scripture. Sin is disobeying a law. Have you posted the laws that will be in force in the Day of the Lord?

If Satan is allowed to deceive humanity, did God break His own laws?

 

[Timtofly]

It's pretty disturbing to see someone on a Christian forum like this who doesn't even know what sin is. We need to pray for this guy.

Or just continue to talk about him, as if they are not around.

I would prefer you not to pray for me, as that would be hypocritical to do while spreading rumors on an open forum.

 

[covenantee]

It was put away prior to creation.

"Of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Revelation 13:8

Forever does include Genesis 1:1.

So the Lamb was slain twice, first prior to creation, and then again at Calvary.

Right.

What does the word "now" mean in Hebrews 9:26?

Provide just one name, date, source, and verbatim quote of any recognized Christian exegete past or present who claims that the Lamb was slain prior to creation.

Just one.

 

[rwb]

So the Lamb was slain twice, first prior to creation, and then again at Calvary.

Right.

What does the word "now" mean in Hebrews 9:26?

Provide just one name, date, source, and verbatim quote of any recognized Christian exegete past or present who claims that the Lamb was slain prior to creation.

Just one.

What he always omits is that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth according to promise. That does not mean what he seems to imagine that Christ must be twice slain. In keeping this promise ordained in heaven before creation, Christ must still literally be born a man, and literally die on the cross to fulfill the promise ordained in heaven from the foundation of the world. The Covenant planned and ordained in heaven is not of force before the death of the testator (Christ, the Son of God). The blood of Christ according to promise had to literally be poured out, and that did not happen from the foundation of the earth, only the promise.

Hebrews 9:16 (KJV) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Hebrews 9:17-18 (KJV) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

 

[WPM]

So sin continues in your NHNE if black is white?

Do you not address the Scripture at any point in this argument you have created in your mind to point out my mindset?

You have proven that you can say one thing while meaning something totally different. But sure if you call that, you thinking black is white, then go for it.

You purport to be a literalist, but you make it up as you go. Here are 100 years old sinners in your millennium and you do not know what to do with them because you want your millennium to be sinless and devoid of sinners. So, you explain them away. How convenient! Amils see billions of sinners in their millennium.

 

[WPM]

We are not addressing my mindset. We are addressing Scripture. Sin is disobeying a law. Have you posted the laws that will be in force in the Day of the Lord?

If Satan is allowed to deceive humanity, did God break His own laws?

So, what are the laws that must be obeyed in your liberal disobedient anything-goes millennium where billions are deceived yet they amazingly remain perfect and sinless?