22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Spiritual Israelite]

You already know the answer, you're the one that asked me about it to begin with.

Yes, I asked you the question and you haven't answered it. Is there some reason why you don't want to answer the question? You believe that animal sacrifices will be performed in the future as a memorial of Christ's sacrifice, right? What is this belief based on? Where is it taught in scripture? If you're just speculating about this and don't have any scripture you can reference which teaches it, then just say so.

 

[WPM]

Here you give away the game. You speak of my "supposed supporting texts." From this we understand that, contrary to you accusation that I don't provide scripture, you admit that I do provide scripture. You simply believe that the scriptures I supply don't support my argument. Secondly, we understand from this that you have read my supporting texts and simply disagree with my interpretation. In your opinion (not in fact) the scriptures I provided don't support my view.

You can't, at one and the same time, claim that I don't provide scriptures and I do provide scriptures. And you can't, at one and the same time, claim that my scriptures don't support my point of view, and that I am attempting to conceal my point of view.

WPM, you seem a bit mixed up.

I have never seen a poster be so unconformable with their own views. It is obviously time to abandon them.

 

[RLT63]

Yes, I asked you the question and you haven't answered it. Is there some reason why you don't want to answer the question? You believe that animal sacrifices will be performed in the future as a memorial of Christ's sacrifice, right? What is this belief based on? Where is it taught in scripture? If you're just speculating about this and don't have any scripture you can reference which teaches it, then just say so.

Ezekiel 43:18-27

 

[Truth7t7]

What is the supposed future commandment to restore and build Jerusalem all about? Please elaborate on that.

Its my belief and opinion that a future temple and renewed animal sacrifice will take place as I have shown several times seen below, the wall and street are part of this future building

Below you see the word "Temple" and the word "Delusion" only two places in my KJV Holy Bible is the word "Delusion" used, both are in association with a "Temple" with 2 Thessalonians 2:4 showing future events that surround the future second coming of Jesus Christ

This "Temple" and "Delusion" are future unfulfilled

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12KJV
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Isaiah 66:1-4KJV
1 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

In Daniel 9:24-27 we see 70 literal "Future" weeks or 490 days.

When the "Future" call/commandment goes out in Jerusalem to build unto the Jewish Meshiach/Messiah that they wait for (They Denied Jesus Christ) this will start the 7 week period in preparing to build.

62 literal weeks will be in building, and Meshiach/Messiah will be cut off by the armies surrounding Jerusalem, this stops the building.

The 70th literal week will see (The Antichrist) revealed in making a covenant, and in the middle of this literal week he proclaims to be Meshiach/Messiah God to the Jews, and Jesus returned to the apostate church, to start a Millennium on earth.

The future 3.5 year tribulation starts at this time.

 

[The Light]

What does this even mean?

Read what it says.:)

When I read about a woman sitting on many waters while riding a beast with seven heads and ten horns, what does it mean to just read that and accept what it says?

Maybe this will help. Read what it says.
Revelation 17
7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

Obviously, no one takes the example I gave literally. I'm just illustrating the folly in what you said here since it does not apply to all of scripture.

But, do you always take scripture literally when the context is clearly literal rather than a case of obvious symbolism like in the example I gave?

I said read what the Word says and accept what it says. Now, does that mean that we will understand everything that we read. Of course, not. We need wisdom to understand many things. When something is read that you don't understand, just bypass it. Eventually it is likely that you will come across something that will give the explanation or the wisdom necessary for understanding. Making an incorrect conclusion will only throw you off the path of understanding.

 

[covenantee]

Your translation of verse 7 is in error. Your translator assumed that Paul was talking about two covenants, when in fact he was talking about two ministries, high priests of two distinct orders. Verse 7 should actually read,

Hebrews 8:7
"For if that first ministry had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second."
The word "covenant" is not in verse 7. In many translations it appears in italics, indicating that the word is not supported explicitly from the Greek Text. You are dealing with a mistranslation.

Where are you seeing that?

Of all English versions, not one translates it as "ministry".

The majority translate it as "covenant", the remainder as "testament" or "agreement".

Not "ministry".

In the Greek, the relevant words in Hebrews 8:7 are "that first", and the qualifying grammatical referent in Hebrews 8:6 is "covenant" or its equivalent, which is reflected in all of the translations.

Not "ministry".

 

[Truth7t7]

Read what it says.:)



Maybe this will help. Read what it says.
Revelation 17
7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.


I said read what the Word says and accept what it says. Now, does that mean that we will understand everything that we read. Of course, not. We need wisdom to understand many things. When something is read that you don't understand, just bypass it. Eventually it is likely that you will come across something that will give the explanation or the wisdom necessary for understanding. Making an incorrect conclusion will only throw you off the path of understanding.

Daniel's (Little Horn), Paul's (Man Of Sin), And John's (The Beast) A Literal Human Man,, That Will Be Present On This Earth At The Second Coming Of Jesus Christ

The figure mentioned above will be a "Future" literal human man, and he will be present on earth in a living human body to witness the "Future" second coming and final judgment as scripture clearly teaches below

Daniel's (Little Horn) Present On Earth At The Second Coming

Daniel 7:8-11KJV
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

Paul's (Man Of Sin) Present On Earth At The Second Coming

2 Thessalonians 2:3-8KJV
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

John's (The Beast) Present On Earth At The Second Coming

Revelation 19:19-20KJV
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

 

[The Light]

How about this:

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.......10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

I'm mainly asking you about what it says in verses 10-13, but I included verses 3 and 4 for context.

Do you accept this scripture for what it says?

Sure I accept what this scripture says.

What Peter was saying here is that in the last days there would be scoffers doing their own thing rather than what God wants and they mockingly ask "Where is the promise of his coming?" in relation to the second coming of Christ. So, Peter established early on that he was talking about things relating directly to the second coming of Christ.

That's part of it.

Then later he talked about global fiery destruction coming unexpectedly on the day of the Lord.

Exactly

After describing the destruction that will accompany the day of the Lord in verses 10-12, Peter said "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. We know from looking at verse 4 that "his promise" in verse 13 is a reference to the promise of His second coming.

2 Peter 3
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

You say it is the second coming that we are looking for. That's part of it. The word says Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat

The promise is contained in the Day of the Lord, not just the second coming. I'll explain below.

Peter indicated that we look forward to the new heavens and new earth in fulfillment of the promise of His second coming. That implies that the new heavens and new earth will be ushered in at His second coming. So, do you take that verse for what it says? I don't think so.

Ok. Let's read what it says. Peter does not indicate that we look forward to the new heavens and new earth in fulfillment of the promise of His second coming. He says we are Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.

Let's get to the meat of this. There is a difference between the second coming and the day of the Lord. You skipped the details that told what you needed to know. Here.

2 Peter 3
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

There. Read what it says. Be not ignorant of this one thing. That one day is with Lord as a 1000 years and a thousand years as one day. So the day of the Lord is 1000 years long. Oh no, you're not going to want to believe that, are you? Lets prove it. The problem is not me proving it. I can do that easy enough. The problem is getting you to accept the written Word of God.

Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

The following verses show that the

Rev 20
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


So we see a thousand year period AFTER the second coming. THEN we see the new heavens and the new earth which is AFTER the 1000 years.

Rev 21
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

So Peter telling you that a day is as a thousand year and a thousand years as a day when the heavens and earth are burnt up is confirmed by the Revelation of John.

 

[CadyandZoe]

There's nothing wrong with my attitude. When something as obvious as this is denied by someone, I call that out for what it is. Hebrews 8:6-13 is very obviously about the new covenant, so to deny that just shows your extreme doctrinal bias.

When someone makes an unsubstantiated claim like "the text is very obviously about . . .X" in an off-putting way, even after I have demonstrated several different ways that the person is mistaken, then what am I to conclude? heh? You definitely have an attitude problem. I understand why some Christians are misled by the translation, but I wonder about people who refuse to listen to the evidence.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Where are you seeing that?

Of all English versions, not one translates it as "ministry".

The majority translate it as "covenant", the remainder as "testament" or "agreement".

Not "ministry".

In the Greek, the relevant words in Hebrews 8:7 are "that first", and the qualifying grammatical referent in Hebrews 8:6 is "covenant" or its equivalent, which is reflected in all of the translations.

Not "ministry".

Most English Translations, if not all, have "covenant" as you point out. From where are they getting the term "covenant?" The term comes from verse 6. So let's take a look at verse 6.

Hebrews 8:6

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.​

From this we can see that, indeed, "covenant" is one possible choice. The term "ministry" is also a viable option. I think "ministry" is a stronger candidate because the predicate for this statement comes from chapter 7 and the beginning of chapter 8, wherein Paul compares the ministry of Moses with the ministry of Jesus. Up and until 8:6 there was no mention of a covenant. The topic of Paul's discourse for the previous few paragraphs has been Jesus' role as our high priest, who offered his blood in the perfect temple in heaven. Paul concludes this section in verse 6, asserting that Jesus Christ "has obtained a more excellent ministry."

Now we come to verse 7. My English translation has:

Hebrews 8:7

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.​

As we see above, the translator has decided that Paul is making a transition in his argument. Paul is done comparing the ministry of Moses with the ministry of Jesus and he now intends to focus deeper on the ministry of Jesus, especially the New Covenant. It bears noting that the Old Covenant hasn't been mentioned yet. Perhaps one could argue that the Old Covenant is assumed since the law concerning the high priest is contained in the Old Covenant. But Paul doesn't mention the Old Covenant explicitly. Next we look at verse 8.

Hebrews 8:8

For finding fault with them, He says, [quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34] ​

Opps. What is the predicate for the pronoun "them?" If, as the translator supposed, Paul has concluded his remarks with regard to the Ministry of Moses in order to focus on the Ministry of Jesus, then why does Paul refer back to "them." If he has moved on to begin a discussion of the New Covenant, why refer back to those who ministered the old covenant? Doesn't it seem more reasonable to conclude that Paul hasn't finished his comparison? And if so, isn't Paul using Jeremiah 31:31-34 as proof that "they" weren't faultless?

Seems that Paul hasn't stop comparing the Ministry of Moses with the Ministry of Jesus. He quotes Jeremiah in support of his contention that the first ministry was imperfect. Next we look at Hebrews 8:13.

Hebrews 8:13

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.​

Jeremiah mentions a new covenant, which is apparently why the translator has picked up on that and used it to fill in the missing noun. But I want to focus on the phrase "whatever is becoming obsolete." Jeremiah explicitly says that the Old Covenant was broken. Why then does Paul suggest that it is growing old and becoming obsolete? I don't think that is what he means to say. Paul is not talking about the covenant per se, he is talking about the administration of the covenant. As of Paul's day, the Old Covenant was already broken, but the administration of the old covenant continued. Even after Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant in his blood, the animal sacrifices associated with the Old Covenant continued unabated. It wasn't until 70AD that the old administration had finally ceased.

Now, let's go back to verse 6 and 7 in order to make one final observation.

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

While we know that the translator was trying to be helpful by supplying the noun "covenant" in verse 7, unfortunately at the very moment the translator has drawn our attention to the covenant, he has diverted our attention away from the "better promises." The ministry of Jesus contains both a New Covenant AND better promises. What are the better promises? Among the better promises is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Both the New Covenant and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit are mentioned in the Jeremiah passage Paul quoted.

In conclusion I maintain that the focus of Hebrews 8 is not the New Covenant, though it is mentioned there; the focus of Hebrews 8 is the Ministry of Jesus which includes both the New Covenant and the better promises.

 

[WPM]

Ezekiel 43:18-27

Can you answer the rest of his questions?

 

[The Light]

How about this?

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Jesus clearly said that a singular hour (time) is coming when "all that are in the graves...shall come forth". All of the dead will be resurrected, in other words, once this coming time arrives. And then He proceeded to indicate the two different eternal realities that those who are resurrected will experience (life vs. damnation). Do you take this for what it says, which would mean that all the dead will be resurrected at generally the same time? You don't, do you?

Sure, I take it for what it says. But you are without understanding. There will be an hour when ALL that are in the graves will come forth those that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. Does that mean that others have not been raised before this time? The Word says that MANY of them that sleep in the ground shall be raised in Daniel 12. This is the coming of Jesus at the 6th seal after the great tribulation and before the wrath of God. Why does it not say ALL of them that sleep in the ground shall be raised?

Daniel 12
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

How about this:

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

This indicates that God has set a singular day (not multiple days) when He will judge the world (all people everywhere, everyone) by the man he has appointed, which obviously is Jesus. Do you take that verse for what it says? It doesn't seem so.

Sure, I take the verse for what it says, but again you are without understanding.
There will come a day when judgement is set for all. That will be in the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord lasts 1000 years. Here in Revelation 20 we some are raised from the dead, but the rest of the dead lived not until the 1000 years were finished.

Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Don't forget this.
2 Peter 3
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So at the very least, we have dead raised at the 6th seal when Jesus returns for the harvest at the end of the age. Shown above in Daniel 12.
We have dead raised at the 7th trumpet at the end of wrath in Revelation 11

Revelation 11
18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

And we have dead raised at the end of the 1000 years.
Revelation 20
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I agree. I hope you take your own advice some day.

Already have.

And I hope you realize at some point how silly it is to talk about accepting what scripture says as if all of it is written in literal and straightforward text. Clearly, that is not the case.

Whoa Cochise. I never said take scripture literally. I said read what it says and believe what it says.

But, even when it is written straightforwardly, you don't always accept it as it is written, as I showed earlier.

You only think you showed that I don't accept what is written. You need to gain understanding and you will only get that be reading what the Word says and accepting what the Word says. If you don't understand what is written move on and come back to it another day. God Bless.

 

[RLT63]

Can you answer the rest of his questions?

I answered the question.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Since abandoning Premillennialism I have engaged in many debates/discussions on the matter of the second coming, end-times and the here-after. These are some of the major weaknesses I find in the Premillennialism doctrine, and are strong reasons why I believe the dogma should be rejected.

I want to list some of the issues that forced me to eventually abandon Premillennialism and embrace Amillennialism. My main reason for abandoning Premil was the severe lack of corroboration. I had a major issue with that! What is more: I had multiple problem-texts as a Premil that showed the coming of Christ to be climactic and all-consummating. I have presented a lot of these questions in discussions over the years (since 2000) on boards like this and have failed to get any satisfactory corroboration for these questions. What I normally get is either blatant avoidance of the issues or "Revelation 20 says." This is so frustrating because Revelation 20 does not corroborate Revelation 20. Amils on the other hand tend to use the biblical premise "what saith the Scripture." The only conclusion I could arrive at is that the Premil interpretation of Revelation 20 is in error, it conflicts with numerous Scripture, and enjoys NO other serious scriptural support.

(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, one chapter in the Bible – Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine. Take this passage out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing in the inspired pages to support their main tenets. Amils have a problem with, and very much disagree with this form of hermeneutics and exegesis of many Scriptures.

(2) Premil hangs its doctrine on a very precarious frayed thread: that of Revelation 20 following Revelation 19 chronologically in time. To hold this, it has to dismiss the different recaps (or different camera views pertaining to the intra-Advent period) that exist throughout the book of Revelation, divorce it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.

(3) The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night. Revelation 20 does not remotely say what Premil attribute to it. Many extravagant characteristics, events and ideas are inserted into Revelation 20 that do not exist in the said chapter.

For example:

· For years, it has been the Premil mantra that Jesus will be ruling in majesty and glory with a rod of iron for 1000 years on planet earth after the second coming. But this can be found nowhere in Revelation 20 or any other passage in Scripture?
· Premillennialists argue that salvation will continue on after the second coming. But where does it say that? The second coming brings a close to the day of salvation. Scripture makes clear: now is the day of salvation. It also shows the completion of the great commission ushers in the end of the world (Matthew 28:19-20). Scriptures tells us that “the longsuffering of our Lord” that marks the period before Jesus comes as a thief in the night “is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). There is no more salvation after that.
· They argue that the old covenant arrangement will be fully restarted in a future millennium, even though Revelation 20 makes no mention of such teaching.
· Premillennialists speak about the restoration of an elevated position for ethnic Israel on their future millennial earth. But a careful study of Revelation 20 teaches no such thing.
· They insist that glorified saints and mortal sinners will interact in a future millennium, even though Revelation 20 makes no mention of such a belief.
· They present their future millennium to be perfect pristine paradise of peace and harmony when in fact it ends up the biggest religious bust in history, as billions of wicked as the sand of the sea overrun the Premil millennium. Their age is just 'more of the same'. There is more sin and sinners, more death and disease, more war and terror, more of the devil and his demons. The idyllic setting of the lamb enjoying sweet communion with the wolf, the bullock eating straw with the lion, the little kid-goat lying peaceably beside the leopard, the cow and the bear grazing happily together is quickly broken as the slaughter truck roar up from the temple. The Zadok priests quickly jump out and drag the unsuspecting animals aboard who had been lulled into a false-sense of security by Christ’s rod of iron rule. As the truck speeds off the millennial peace and harmony is broken forever by the bloody intent of the Zadok priests. When they arrive in Jerusalem they pointlessly slit the throats of the lambs, goats and bullocks because they are somehow needed as sin offerings, even though Jesus had made the final sacrifice for sin thousands of years previous.

(4) Premillennialists interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts numerous explicit climactic Scriptures. Premillennialists have to insert “a thousand years” in passage after passage where it does not exist. This is called adding unto Scripture, something forbidden in the Word of God (Deuteronomy 12:32 and Revelation 22:18).

(5) Premil is always explaining away the clear and explicit New Testament Scripture (the fuller revelation) by the shadow, type and vaguer Old Testament. It uses indistinct or misunderstood Old Testament Scripture to negate and reject clear and explicit New Testament Scripture that teaches otherwise. We Christians have the benefit of the New Testament to explain what is difficult or obscure in the Old Testament. Christ has superseded the old covenant arrangement and now fulfils the new covenant arrangement as predicted. The New Testament is the greater revelation. The interpretation placed on the Old Testament by Christ and the New Testament writers override all other opinions and interpretations of man. As Augustine wrote: “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.”

(6) Many testify that they are Premillennial because they take the Word of God literal, yet, when you put their theology to the test an opposite picture unfolds. Premillennialism spiritualizes the literal passages and literalizes the spiritual passages. Their hyper-literalistic approach to highly-figurative Revelation is a case-in-point. Their own hermeneutics actually forbids their beliefs. As Kim Riddlebarger says: “Their own hermeneutics will not bear the weight that is assigned to it … they cannot make good on their own stated hermeneutics”

I will tell you how to refute a pretrib rapture as it just happened to me that made me have to discard it after 16 years. When the apostle talks about the dead rising first and we who remain being caught up then, if this is the first resurrection and it’s a pretrib gathering, it cannot fit with the verses in Revelation 20 that say: “this is the first resurrection” because it states that those who refused the mark are IN the first resurrection.
It cannot be reconciled.
I will wait to see if anyone who is pretrib has seen and dealt with it in a way that reconciles it but it appears to me to be irreconcilable.

My next step has to be looking into some variation of midtrib…I’ve never looked into midtrib at all.

 

[covenantee]

From this we can see that, indeed, "covenant" is one possible choice.

It is the grammatically correct choice, as I've explained.

And with which all English translations, without exception, are in agreement.

 

[WPM]

I will tell you how to refute a pretrib rapture as it just happened to me that made me have to discard it after 16 years. When the apostle talks about the dead rising first and we who remain being caught up then, if this is the first resurrection and it’s a pretrib gathering, it cannot fit with the verses in Revelation 20 that say: “this is the first resurrection” because it states that those who refused the mark are IN the first resurrection.
It cannot be reconciled.
I will wait to see if anyone who is pretrib has seen and dealt with it in a way that reconciles it but it appears to me to be irreconcilable.

My next step has to be looking into some variation of midtrib…I’ve never looked into midtrib at all.

There is one literal first resurrection where Christ defeated the grave. The Bible makes it clear that Christ is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

 

[CadyandZoe]

It is the grammatically correct choice, as I've explained.

And with which all English translations, without exception, are in agreement.

All three of them are. That's my point.

 

[CadyandZoe]

There is one literal first resurrection where Christ defeated the grave. The Bible makes it clear that Christ is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

Christ is the firstborn, not the first resurrected.

 

[covenantee]

All three of them are. That's my point.

There are about 61 English translations in agreement, which is all of them.

 

[The Light]

What are you talking about? I referenced Matthew 24:37-39. If you look at the verse just prior to that then you can see that Jesus indicated that no one knows the day or hour the coming of the Son of man will occur.

You need to understand what you are reading. The Lord says immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven. This coming of the Lord is at the 6th seal BEFORE the wrath of God. Will the believers know when the Lord is coming before the day of the gathering from heaven and earth? Yes.

1 Thes 5
5 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.

2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

So the believer will know when He is coming prior to His coming at the 6th seal. And note when the day of the Lord comes, we are not appointed to wrath. That means there is a rapture before the day of his wrath. So the believers will not be on the earth when the trumpets of wrath occur. The very day Lott left Sodom destruction came.

Now the subject changes in Matthew 24. He's telling you to learn the parable of the fig tree.
Matthew 24
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

The fig tree has two harvests btw. He shifts to telling us about Noah. He tells us they were eating and drinking and giving in marriage UNTIL the day Noah entered the ark. We know Noah entered the ark 7 days before the flood. Does the word say that they were eating and drinking until the flood came or until the day Noah entered the ark.

Matthew 24
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

So is the believer going to know when the Lord is coming when it is like the Days of Noah. No, he won't. The Goodman will not know when the bridegroom is coming.

Matthew 24

42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

You are gleaning something from that text that Jesus was not intending to convey. And you're doing it because of doctrinal bias.

Sorry brother. That's just not something that I do. The text determines my doctrine, not the other way around. This is why I believe in two raptures and not one like the pretrib teaches. It is why I know that the tribulation of over before the wrath of God. In other words, tribulation is not wrath. I believe what I believe because of the text. And the fig tree does have two harvests. One will occur when it is like the days of Noah where Noah is in the ark 7 days before the flood and one will occur when it's like the days of Lot where the very day Lot leaves Sodom destruction comes.

In Matthew 24:37-39, He was talking about the coming of the Son of Man. You think that passage is about a pre-trib rapture? He had shortly before that indicated that His coming would be AFTER the tribulation of those days. He wasn't talking about some other coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:37-39 than what He had just talked about in verses 27-31.

The subject has changed to the parable of the fig tree. The fig tree has two harvests.

Can't you see that your interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts a lot of other scripture?

Other scripture teaches that Jesus has been reigning since He was resurrected (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-22, Rev 1:5-6), that believers have been priests since then as well (1 Peter 2:9, Rev 1:6), that all believers will be changed to have immortal bodies at the same time (1 Cor 15:50-54), that all unbelievers will be destroyed when Christ returns (Matt 24:35-39, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12), that there is one judgment of all people at the same time (Matt 13:36-43, Matt 13:47-50, Matt 25:31-46, Acts 17:31), and that there is a singular hour/time coming when all of the dead will be raised (John 5:29, Daniel 12:1-2). Your interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts all of the scriptures which teach those things.

My interpretation of Revelation 20 is to believe exactly what the Word says. The Word says that there is a resurrection after 1000 years and also before that. Revelation 20 does not contradict other scriptures. You just lack the understanding at this point to see that there is more than one resurrection. How many times do I hear that the Word say we will be raised on the last day. Which last day? The last of the fulness of the Gentiles. The last day, the end of the age at the 6th seal. The last day at the end of the trumpets of wrath or the last day after the 1000 years?

Why are you not acknowledging that the wrath of the Lamb is at hand already as of the sixth seal? You're not recognizing that the book of Revelation has several parallel sections in it and it is not meant to be interpreted chronologically from beginning to end the way you do.

I guess you think that the seals and the trumpets are the same thing. They are not. The six seals are the very things that Jesus talks about in Matthew 24. The four horsemen of the apocalypse, the first four seals are the beginning of sorrows in Matthew 24. The fifth seal is the great tribulation and the 6th seal is the coming of Jesus for the gathering from heaven and earth. THEN THE THE WRATH OF GOD BEGINS. So the trumpets are not the seals. The seventh seal has to open before the trumpets can begin. Read what it says.

So, you're saying you have no problem with Jesus being cut off during the 70th week as I said. But, you believe it was only a few days into the 70th week, which I would disagree with. Does this mean that you believe a few days of the 70th week are fulfilled and the rest is unfulfilled?

I believe that the Messiah is cut off after the 69th week just as the Word says. We know it's a few days after. You may not understand that because there is so much false teaching and fabrication going on that you may think that the 70th week is over. But that's impossible according to the Word.