The Instigator
annanicole
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
general52
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible teaches a literal 1,000-yr future earthly reign by Jesus in Jerusalem

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
annanicole
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,683 times Debate No: 22297
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

annanicole

Con

My position is basically preterist or mostly preterist: the Bible does not teach a future earthly reign of 1,000 years (or any other duration) by Jesus Christ on David's throne in Jerusalem. Rather, Christ is reigning now on David's throne in heaven, and any position that implies that He will ever set foot on earth again is purely speculative. First round is acceptance, and each disputant may ask up to three questions each round which are to be answered by the other disputant in the next round.
general52

Pro

I will accept this debate. I will also say that the bible does teach a literal 1,000-yr future eartly reign by Jesus. I also would like to say everything in the bible is literal except for the poetry books, even though they still have incredibly important points to make.

I would like to first however make sure of something.

You say you are taking this debate from a preterist view point please define it. Or say that your view matches this

That you "regard the book of Revelation as a symbolic picture of early church conflicts, not a description of what will occur in the end times... [that] Preterism denies the future prophetic quality of most of the book of Revelation."

Would you also agree that "The preterist movement essentially teaches that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem and Israel."

Let this be a good debate. I am fairly passionate about the pro.
Debate Round No. 1
annanicole

Con

You asked if I "regard the book of Revelation as a symbolic picture of early church conflicts, not a description of what will occur in the end times... [that] Preterism denies the future prophetic quality of most of the book of Revelation?" Yes, the overwhelming majority of it. And do I believe that "all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem and Israel." Not all, but most.

I'll ask my questions first:

1. Was the church which Jesus said, "I will build ..." in the eternal purpose of God? That is, was it planned and prophesied? Or was it sort-of a "stop-gap" measure, a spiritual contingent, inaugurated because the Jews unexpectedly rejected Jesus Christ?

2. Is Jesus Christ reigning now as a de facto king on the Throne of David in heaven at the right hand of the Father?

3. You said, "I also would like to say everything in the bible is literal except for the poetry books." Alright, is "everything" mentioned in Rev 20: 1-7 literal, and, if not, what method do you use to separate the literal from the figurative?

My contention is, of course, that the church of Christ was eternally purposed by God. The kingdom of God was prophesied in Dan 2: 30-44 to be "set up" in the "days of those kings" - that is, the kings of the fourth worldwide empire - the Roman empire. That such a worldwide kingdom existed, first inaugerated by Pompeii in about BC 63 and continuing until about AD 476 is, I take it, an historical fact. I do not know if you'll take the position that the kingdom was prophesied, yet post-poned, but my contention is that a prophesy with a time element cannot be post-poned. If such is the assertion, then I submit that the prophesy simply failed, period.

1. Since the main proof-text of all millenialists seems to be Rev 20: 1-6, I will take note of the negative on that passage.

I have nearly met or heard of a milleniallist yet who takes the entire passage as literal, yet you take "everything in the bible is literal except for the poetry books." Alright, the passage (1) doesn't mention the 2nd coming of Christ, (2) doesn't mention any reign on earth at all, (3) doesn't mention us at all - it literally mentions the "souls of those who had been beheaded", and that cuts you out - so far, at least, (4) doesn't mention a bodily resurrection at all, (5) doesn't mention Christ on earth nor the nature of His reign, (6) doesn't mention Jerusalem or Palestine, and (7) doesn't mention the Throne of David or any other throne.

I'll be a little more emphatic on this point, since you believe "everything in the bible is literal except for the poetry books." We'll let John answer for us.

Query: What did you see, John?

John: "I saw the souls."

Query: Did you say you saw bodies, John?

John: "No, I said I saw souls."

Query: Which specific souls did you see, John?

John: "I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded."

Query: Did you mention seeing any other souls, John?

John: "No, I only said I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded and worshipped not the Beast - martyrs."

Query: What did they do, John?

John: "Those souls lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Now, if you take the passage, Rev 20: 4-5 literally as it stands, it cuts you out of the millenium in the first place. You will not be living and reigning with Christ in any millenium and, interestingly enough, neither will the Apostle John - he died a natural death. If the beheaded can be figurative and mean "suffered greatly", then the a thousand years can be figurative and mean "an indefinate time-frame comprising completion."

2. A proposed 2,000-year gap between (1) the writing of the Apocalypse and (2) the beginning of the millenium contradicts the ordinary and literal "shortly come to pass" in Rev 1: 1, a phrase introduced before a sign or figure was ever utilized. And it likewise contradicts the "omega" verses, "Surely I come quickly ... " in Rev 22: 20-21. One would have to make "shortly" and "quickly" figurative and stretch them into two millenia in order to justify believing there is one millenium.

3. The 1,000-year literal reign implies that the first coming of Christ was a failure at least in the sense that pre-millennialists teach that Christ came the first time to set up an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem, but, because of the Jews' unexpected rejection of Him, He was crucified and returned to heaven - having not accomplished what He set out to do. Well, how do you know the Jews will not simply reject Him again? His rejection and death were not unanticipated:

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." (Isa 53: 7). The eunuch was reading this passage as Philip joined this carriage; Philip then applied it to Jesus.

""Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices. My flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave my soul in Sheol (the grave) nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption." (Psalm 16:9). Peter applied this verse to Jesus in Acts 2: 27.

The suffering and death of Jesus were not unexpected: both were prophesied, and New Testament writers confirm the application of the prophesies.

3. The pre-millennial theory contradicts certain OT prophesies regarding the church - it "postpones" them - but a prophesy with a stated time element cannot be postponed or else it was just an incorrect prophesy to start with.

"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Dan 2: 44)

The 1,000-yr reign kinda "puts that off" and thus delays fulfillment of a prophesy, even though a specific time element is involved.

4. The pre-millennial theory teaches, in effect, that God sort-of "pigeon-holed" the orginnal divine plan - an earthly reign in Jerusalem. He put it off and instead established the church until the Jews get ready to accept Christ as their earthly king the next time around. This ignores plain texts stating that the church was "the eternal purpose of God" and makes the Lord's church simply an accident (at worst) and a alteration of the plan (at best) - or more likely both: an alteration based upon an accident.

"And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph 3: 9-11).

5. The pro argument assigns Jerusalem as the appointed place to worship, but Jesus said the time would come when Jerusalem will not be the place of special worship significance (Jn 4: 21). The pro argument also assigns the kingdom to be "of this world" when Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world." (Jn 18: 36)

Furthermore, John said, "they lived and reigned WITH Christ a thousand years." This says nothing about any "thousand-year reign OF Christ." There is a vast difference between the two expressions: "They" ... they who? "Lived and reigned with Christ." Lived where? Reigned how, with whom, and where? These souls not only reigned with Him, the lived with Him. The two verbs "lived" and "reigned" are both limited by the thousand years. If the expression denotes time, then when the reign is over, and they ceased to reign ... the living would be over, and they would cease to live.

Thank you, and I am out of space.
general52

Pro

A.1 The church of Jesus exists to this day, there's a very specific reason why people refer to churches as the house of God. Paul talks about the church and it's unity a lot in his letters. Also the crucifixion of Christ was not unexpected it was prophesied

A.2 Christ is currently reigning as king in the same sense as He has always ruled, but not in the 1000 year rein sense.

A.3 It is a literal vision.

My first contention is simple
That 1,000 year reign is literal because the book of revelation says it is, in the court of law you never assume fraud or inaccuracy from a testimony unless the one testifying contradicts him or her self or other evidence that is more reliable shows a clear contradiction. You do claim contradictions but my re-butal will show how they fall short of their objective. The passages gives us reason to believe that the 1,000 year reign hasn't come yet because of the specific verses in context.

Beggining of book

Rev 1:
"1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.

Important things to highlight are "to show his servants" and "things which must shortly take place". Also at the end of the second verse we see past tense but in context, Christ is passing on what He saw and in the same fashion John is passing on what he see's to us in the book of revelations.
`Then at the end

Rev 22:18 "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.20 He who testifies to these things says, 'Surely I am coming quickly.' Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus! 21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

Obviously it is a vision. None of what John is seeing has happened yet. He is seeing in real time what "must shortly take place." and Christ is "coming quickly". Which means it hasn't happened yet. Not to mention we know then end is consistent because it just like most people do in a debate is it re-iterates it's objective with the end.
2nd Contention
This might be a youtube video but all I really need to do with my second contention is give examples that allow us to believe that end times prophecy is still being fulfilled.
youtube.com/watch?v=dN2c_uHJROQ&list=FL1XrOuCy0nWhy4cS1i51ezw&index=20&feature=plpp_video

[Rebuttal]
Starting from the top and working my way down.
In your first contention you mention a time period,
As far as I am concerned the only mention of time is the word "day's" which is only used once.
Daniel 2:44 "And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed;"

You begin your contention with special emphasis on "kings of the fourth worldwide empire"
I will ask my first question at this first point. Could you name for me the first, second and third empire? This is relevant because in order for Rome to be the fourth empire as you assume it is you need to have 1-3. Unless you can name 1-3 you can't claim Rome to be the 4th.
I would also like to say that to this day we have kings they may be figure heads. In fact today there are about 45 nations that call someone a monarch, they might not have the same influence today as they did but king's still techincally exist. This is relevant because this could mean we are technically in a time of kings.
I would also like to point out that Rome never actually had a "king" The roman empire had three stages the first known as the "Roman Kingdom" but even in the case of the Roman Kingdom the Senate had the power to Elect Kings.[1]It wasn't till Rome became corrupt in the third stage that all power really went to the emperor, and Rome only got weaker in its final stage. In fact the senators were elected by buisness owners Rome really was the early version of the United States. This is relevant because Rome might not actually count as an empire of kings. Not to mention Rome did not technically rule the world, it ruled the known world. The U.S has much more Global reach today.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org... (sry I used wikipedia the source for it seemed to be a book)

Later on you say
"You will not be living and reigning with Christ in any millenium" You are correct (possibly depends on when Christ returns and on how long a I live I could get deployed)
However my rebuttal to that whole bit is pretty much simply this I've gathered that you are a christian even if you hold a preterist view. I live with Christ now, in fact if you are a christian you do too, however He clearly is not physically here He lives with you spiritually. In the same way so can the spirits of the be-headed. In fact none of what you say in any of that really contradicts my position. I will clarify that Rev 20: 4-5 does not prevent me from living with Christ for a millenia in the new earth mentioned in Rev 21:1 and if we are following the chapter in left to right top to bottom, chronological order . Then the new heaven takes place after the reign of Christ and after the final defeat of Satan. So I do get to live with Christ (:
And then... Oh boy Time for Star Trek

You said
" A proposed 2,000-year gap between (1) the writing of the Apocalypse and (2) the beginning of the millenium contradicts the ordinary and literal "shortly come to pass" in Rev 1: 1"

Shortly and Nearly are not nearly the same, as specifically saying take a 5 minute(break), 30minute(lunch) or an 8 hour sleep. I'm sure you would agree.

So please follow this next comparison, We(humans) are linear beings which means we live.... and then die. We have a Past, Present, and Future. In the first or second episode of "Deep Space 9" the Commander runs into a race of creature that can't even comprehend a linear existence and almost kill him for mentioning one. They don't live like we do. If you are a Christian you have to acknowledge that God is infinite. He has to be our universe could not have been created by something with a beggining because then it could not have began anything else without first beggining itself and if it had a beggining what began it? We eventually reach the point as a Christian (or agnostic) that if there is a God it has to have no beggining.
Much like the race in "Deep Space 9" God is not a linear being like we are. Obviously He can comprehend a linear existence because He created it, but He does not adhere to it like we do. A short time to something that doesn't care about Past, Present, or Future could be a very long time to a linear being.
So that point doesn't contradict me ether.

The next one is only worse first of all what happened to Christ was 100% expected the first prophesy of the birth death and resurrection of Christ was in Genesis [2] and you can't forget the prophet Isaiah, the Jew's essentially had no choice but to crucify Christ, also what Christ did wasn't failure. Without Christ's curcifixion their wouldn't of been a great commision. Without that grace, I as a gentile would be condemned to hell. I am very greatful for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Even though I don't deserve it.
2.youtube.com/watch?v=HUs8f-lphec

You said:

"3. The pre-millennial theory contradicts certain OT prophesies regarding the church - it "postpones" them - but a prophesy with a stated time element cannot be postponed or else it was just an incorrect prophesy to start with."
Again your "time element" theory is not so rock solid day's is not so specific. I will die in day's does not mean I will die this week. 2 day's is a number of day's as much as 3000 day's.
Debate Round No. 2
annanicole

Con

Thank you for responding.

1. Was the church which Jesus said, "I will build ..." in the eternal purpose of God ... ?

Your answer: "The church of Jesus exists to this day ... also the crucifixion of Christ was not unexpected it was prophesied"

I know the church exists. I asked if it was planned and prophesied - or did was it brought about because the Jews rejected Christ? That was the question. Or was it brought about as a "contigent" - a response to the Jews rejection of Christ as an earthly ruler?

2. Is Jesus Christ reigning now as a de facto king on the Throne of David in heaven ...?

"Your answer: "Christ is currently reigning as king in the same sense as He has always ruled, but not in the 1000 year rein sense." So the Throne of David always existed, even before David existed? Was Christ ruling as king while here on earth - in the same sense as He has always ruled"?

3. You said, "I also would like to say everything in the bible is literal except for the poetry books." Alright, is "everything" mentioned in Rev 20: 1-7 literal, and, if not, what method do you use to separate the literal from the figurative?

You: "That 1,000 year reign is literal because the book of revelation says it is"

No, it says the opposite: the very first verse says that God "sent and signified it" - that's sign-i-fied. "Signified" means given in "signs" and "figures."

I have another question or two:

1. : "Know ye therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful of God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations." (Deut 7: 9). "Be ye mindful always of the covenant; the word which He commanded to a thousand generations." (I Chron 16: 15). Alright if literal, and if a "generation" is, say, 25 or 30 years, then can we literally plan on the world standing for a literal 25,000 or 30,000 more years (from the date of the prophesies)?

2. Has the kingdom as foretold by both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ (Mark 1: 14-15) yet appeared? It was "at hand", so has it appeared yet?

3. If the Jews rejected Jesus Christ the first time, how do you know they won't reject him again?

Alright, your questions: "Could you name for me the first, second and third empire?"

The Babylonian, MedoPersian (Darius and Cyrus), and Macedonian (Alexander the Great). Even Joseph of Arimethea, the wise men, and the dying thief knew the time was fulfilled during the days of the Roman government.

*First of all, your position is that everything in Rev 20 is literal. Thus, you have the devil being a literal serpent and a literal snake at the same time and, as such, cast into a literal pit with literally no bottom as well as a literal prison. Not only that, but you have Jesus being a literal lion (Rev 5: 5), a literal root (Rev 5: 5), a literal lamb (John 1: 36) - while Herod was a literal fox (Luke 13: 32). Don't you see that such descriptions are figurative? You have a question on the "literalness" of "a thousand generations", and I'd like to see the response.

*You said, "all I really need to do with my second contention is give examples that allow us to believe that end times prophecy is still being fulfilled." Why, people have been prognosticaing and speculating on that subject for 2,000 years, and, to date, every last one of them has been wrong. All one has to do is review William Miller's failed predictions in the 1840's and Russell/Rutherford Watchtower nonsense of later date, such as "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" from 1925. The great stock market lie is, "This time it will be different", and I'm inclined to think the same applies to speculative teachings. You say your goal is to give "... examples that allow us to believe that end times prophecy is still being fulfilled." No, you need to give examples that, by logic and reason and study, force one to "conclude", not merely "allow." I am "allowed" to think Joseph Smith was God's prophet and that the pope is Christ's vicar, but my study, powers of logic, and utilization of reason, force me to "conclude" otherwise.

*You say, "... your "time element" theory is not so rock solid day's is not so specific." No, "days" might not be specific, but "days of those kings" narrows it down to a certain time frame - and narrows it down quite a bit. Even millenialists know this, and many simply assert that old Pagan Rome will come back into existence so that Dan 2 can be fulfilled. Quite a few swore that Mussolini would be the next caesar in the 1930's - they "speculated" until he was hanged, then changed gears and speculated elsewhere. Even "Ronald Wilson Reagan" was the "666" at one time - pure silliness.

*You say, "I will die in days does not mean I will die this week." No, but if a true prophet said, "You will die in the days of the Shahs of Iran, you'd have to have died sometime between (1) the establishment of the Shahs of Persia/Iran and (2) 1979, when the Shah was overthrown and his monarchy dissolved. That's the specificity and the "time element" of it. If someone prophesied that I'd die "during the days of the Shah of Iran", and I was still living in, say, 1985, then that prophesy was simply a failed prophesy - that's all.

*Your response to the phrase "shortly come to pass" is "shortly and nearly are not nearly the same, ..."

Well, then "shortly" apparently doesn't mean "shortly", either: two thousand years isn't a "shortly" by anyone's stretch, and you must take "shortly" as literal because you said everything is literal. "...There be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9: 1) If it was "at hand" in the 1st century, and some of those standing right there with Christ would not die before it appeared, I'll ask, "Where are they, since your position is that it has not yet appeared?"

"Shortly" and "nearly" may not be the same - I never said they were, but they are related. But if you'd like to see "near" used in reference to the kingdom: "... The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." (Lk 10: 9) It was "near" or "nigh" in the 1st century, and you are still looking for it?

1. Joseph of Arimethea was a man "who also himself waited for the kingdom of God." (Luke 23: 51), and you're still waiting like Joseph?
2. It was "at hand" in the 1st century, and you're still looking for it?
3. It was to appear during the lifetime of those hearing the Lord in Mark 9: 1, and you're still waiting on it?
4. John was already in the kingdom, "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos" (Rev 1: 9).
5. Paul and the Colossians were already in the kingdom: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." (Col 1: 13). Yet is hasn't come yet?

*I said, "Now, if you take the passage, Rev 20: 4-5 literally as it stands, it cuts you out of the millenium in the first place." You replied: "You are correct (possibly depends on when Christ returns ...") No, it doesn't. You haven't been and aren't likely to be beheaded, so you certainly, not "possibly", aren't going to participate in any "millenium". That's precisely what John saw, nothing more and nothing less - literally.

1. It says, "they lived and reigned." Who?
2. "The souls of them that were beheaded" - martyrs - "lived and reigned."
3. Then, apostles like John and any other faithful Christians who lived in the past - yet were not beheaded, are cut out of it.
4. Also, anyone who is living when Christ returns is cut out of it, simply because he couldn't have been beheaded.
5. That leaves you out, and it leaves out 99%+ of the rest of Christianity, living or dead - even if there were any coming millenium.

Out of space, and I await your reply.
general52

Pro

This time around I will actually begin with answering questions and rebuttal.


Your first question and I would be glad to educate you (:

A.1
According to the Oxford English dictionary, a generation is all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively.
The dictionary then goes on in this manner
<SPECIAL USAGE>
-the average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children of their own.

So you are right about the word "generation" it is in "special" circumstances used as a measure of time but that does not mean it is always used as a measure of time.

"Be ye mindful always of the covenant; the word which He commanded to a thousand generations." (I Chron 16: 15)

These are the two verses that follow

16 The covenant which He made with Abraham,
And His oath to Isaac,
17 And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute,
To Israel for an everlasting covenant,

In context we can understand that a thousand generations does not have to be 20-30 years in fact it can just be a next generation in the family. Abraham, Issac, and Jacob all lived at one time together but they each can be another generation. If God is truely creator of earth and all of mankind then we all are apart of the thousand generations the commandments apply forever, they will even apply in the New Earth. Sin might be removed but that wouldn't make it ok to break a commandment. Not to mention these verses don't actually conflict with with Christ reining for a 1000 years.

A.2
You have carried the idea it seems that the kingdom of God can exist only on earth, even though we both full well know that their is a heaven, I hope you have gathered that from scripture if not then I just don't know what kind of Christian you are. The kingdom of God has always existed but our time to choose Him or reject Him hasn't ended yet and the real 1000 year rein of Christ will signal our last chance to choose.

A.3
It won't matter if the Jews rejected Christ this time, in fact the only number I am certain of accepting Christ are the 144,000 described Rev 14:4 after that I figure it becomes a matter between the and Christ. However if you want to try to theorize that someone could actually stand against the armies of heaven and make a difference I'm not going to touch you there, you try. I refuse to bow down to any man as an American I believe all men are created equal, and I am a soldier in the U.S army but their is no way I would try to fight the armies of heaven, God and Christ are a force I will bow down to.



Ok your first part of your rebuttal I'm just going to quote it:
"*First of all, your position is that everything in Rev 20 is literal. Thus, you have the devil being a literal serpent and a literal snake at the same time and, as such, cast into a literal pit with literally no bottom as well as a literal prison. Not only that, but you have Jesus being a literal lion (Rev 5: 5), a literal root (Rev 5: 5), a literal lamb (John 1: 36) - while Herod was a literal fox (Luke 13: 32). Don't you see that such descriptions are figurative? You have a question on the "literalness" of "a thousand generations", and I'd like to see the response"

Starting from the top and working my way down I realize I didn't stop you in my first rebuttal but when I say I interpret scripture literally what I mean is I do this. I Observe, Interpret, Apply and then Principalize that is my method of bible study but the most important step is observation. I do want to point out I never gave my Christian view a specific title because it doesn't have one I get what I believe from that process and the ministers as well as friends and family. Observation is the most important step to understand whats going on and anyone can realize that a serpant is a metaphor there for Satan. I'm sorry you assumed I was a total idiot who doesn't understand devices of poetry. Those metaphors do have literal meaning however Christ was really sacrificed like a lamb "literally" and Herod was cunning and sneaky like a fox "literaly".
Is it really hard to comprehend that I can respect poetry and take something literaly?

I just want to touch on your rebuttal to my second contention, my view of revelations does not allow me to be certain of every prophecy in revelations except for a few such as the rapture and Christ's reing. The rapture is however the 7th trumpet and I do have reason to believe that, the next trumpet could very well be the 7th. But saying the next one is the 7th doesn't mean it will happen tomorrow or in 50 years. If I can however show that what revelation points out isn't describing something that has happened, or won't necessarily start inside a specific time frame we have reason to believe that those prophecy's will take place if we believe that Christ really is God. That he will fulfill His prophecy's.

The faith of a preterist sadly sounds really weak it's a view that sounds like it doubts the ability of God to fulfill of His prophecy's. Which is something I'm sorry about.

The last rebuttal of yours I will refute is this

*Your response to the phrase "shortly come to pass" is "shortly and nearly are not nearly the same, ..."

I actually said "Shortly and Nearly are not nearly the same, as specifically saying take a 5 minute(break), 30minute(lunch) or an 8 hour sleep. I'm sure you would agree."

Maybe a made a grammatical error and the comma doesn't belong there if thats the case then I am sorry. But I said that shortly and nearly as in nethier one of them are the sa
me as taking a 5 minute(break), 30minute(lunch) or an 8 hour sleep. I'm sure you would agree.

Then you totally ignored my explanation of God's view of time, I suppose the Title "Star Trek" may of bored you but it is a relevant example because it gives a look at what a race without a linear existence is like. Which is the case with an infinite God, I think an even athiest would agree if God was truely infinite He wouldn't have to adhere to a linear existence.

I'm going to just point out something you missed in my case.

You talked a lot about my literal view of revelaiton 20 but I want to point out you never actually attacked my first full contention which was my first contention what I said in round one was not a conention I just wanted to make it clear I understood what pro was. I didn't make an actualy contention because you said "First round is acceptance" so I figured I probably should do nothing more than accept the debate. I did ask a question but you didn't "have" to answer if you didn't want to count that first round.

The fact that you dropped my actual first contention.

The most important part of my first conention is this

"in the court of law you never assume fraud or inaccuracy from a testimony unless the one testifying contradicts him or her self or other evidence that is more reliable shows a clear contradiction. You do claim contradictions but my re-butal will show how they fall short of their objective."

Nothing you offer truely contradicts the passages of the book Revelation the only thing you have is your interpretations of prophecy.

In your own words you said to me
"No, you need to give examples that, by logic and reason and study, force one to "conclude", not merely "allow."

You said this in response to my second contention where I offered alternatives to your prophecy's. Even you have not "force[d] one to 'conclude'," that your interpretations are the sole accurate ones of the prophecy's dealing with time. But what "I" have been able to do is shoot holes in your interpretations of those time elements and leave you unable to respond back to the part in my first contention which breaks down how revelation tells us that what is prophesied is yet to come and that, that is the only actual certain time constraint if it's even a constraint of Revelation. I will admit though Revelation won't create converts but it isn't supposed to, Christ is fulfilled prophecy is only a helper.

Please see my first contention.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by snamor 3 years ago
snamor
It seems that general doesn't understand the dispensational distictives that must be accepted in order to arrive at his position. annanicole understands them and attempted to engage general on this level. Questions about the church being prophesied and the Jews rejecting Jesus strike at the heart of the millenial issue and contradict the dispensational understanding. Daniel's prophesy does date the timing of the kindom to the Roman empire. General was unprepared to discuss any of these extremely relevant arguments. If I could vote, annanicole won on all levels.
Posted by general52 5 years ago
general52
I suppose I should of looked up more scripture as well, theres certain things I remembered but wasn't sure where it was.
Posted by RBaker 5 years ago
RBaker
If pro would have rebutted con's initial premise-"...the Bible does not teach a future earthly reign of 1,000 years (or any other duration) by Jesus Christ on David's throne in Jerusalem. Rather, Christ is reigning now on David's throne in heaven, and any position that implies that He will ever set foot on earth again is purely speculative."-then con's position would have not gained any traction.
Zech 14:4 "In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.
That this is Jesus is evident-12:10 "...so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn." Jn 19:36-37 "For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, "NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN." And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED." Acts 1:11-12 "They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away."
Nowhere in Scripture is David's throne said to be in heaven but only ever described as the throne of the kingdom of Israel on earth.
Ez 43:7-"He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever."
Jesus will physically return "and He will rule them with a rod of iron and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. And He who sits on the throne said, Behold, I am making all things n
Posted by general52 5 years ago
general52
I won't complain about the outcome but hopefully my final statment is atleast readable I didn't proof read, I decided foolishly to wait till 11pm to start and I have work tomorrow. O'well. It was a good debate you taught me a handful of words, I actually had to look preterist up before beggining the debate I hadn't heard the actual belief name before though I had come across this idea before.
Posted by RBaker 5 years ago
RBaker
This should be fairly easy for pro to refute.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
"He will again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end." Nicene Creed. So you're correct that it's not 1,000 years. It's never-ending according to at least the Nicene Creed.
Posted by annanicole 5 years ago
annanicole
Well, I could take the "pro", but I don't think I'd fare very well.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
I was hoping you were pro then I could debate.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
i agree with all your points except the last.....isnt jesus supposed to come back to earth to judge the dead.......and since the devil is on the earth.....and since jesus is supposed to cast him out then doesnt that mean jesus will come to earth to expel satan???
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
annanicolegeneral52Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Bad arguments on both sides, but Pro spelled begin wrong.