The absurdity of Pretrib logic

[WPM]

I dont remember off the top of my head the refrence but he is correct. Because people will die during the Millenium. Not many and not young unless they are cursed. That's what scripture says.

So they would have to be raised up at the last.

So, where does it teach that "people will die during the Millenium. Not many and not young unless they are cursed"?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So, where does it teach that "people will die during the Millenium. Not many and not young unless they are cursed"?

I'm sure he's referring to the tired old argument that Premils make about Isaiah 65:20 that supposedly proves there will be death after Christ returns even though that verse relates to the eternal new heavens and new earth where there will be no more death (Revelation 21:4) and "wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13).

Premils don't care that if Isaiah 65:20 is saying that people will die after Christ returns then no one will mourn their deaths since Isaiah 65:19 says "the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.". I guess people will be unloving and uncaring during this supposed future millennium?

 

[MA2444]

So, where does it teach that "people will die during the Millenium. Not many and not young unless they are cursed"?

Isaiah 65:20
“No longer will babies die when only a few days old.
No longer will adults die before they have lived a full life.
No longer will people be considered old at one hundred!
Only the cursed will die that young!.../NLT

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Isaiah 65:20
“No longer will babies die when only a few days old.
No longer will adults die before they have lived a full life.
No longer will people be considered old at one hundred!
Only the cursed will die that young!.../NLT

As I said. I knew you were referring to this.

So, was John wrong when he said there will be no more death in the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:4)? Because Isaiah 65:20 is about the new heavens and new earth, as established in Isaiah 65:17.

Also, will no one's death be mourned during this supposed future earthly kingdom that you believe in?

Looks like you prefer the NLT, so I'll quote from that.

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

Will people just be completely unfeeling and uncaring during that time to the point where they won't even mourn the deaths of friends and loved ones? That doesn't make any sense, right? Maybe you should consider that Isaiah 65:20 is figurative text that you shouldn't be taking literally because doing so results in nonsense like people not weeping or crying when someone dies.

 

[Berean]

What do you mean by this?

I wonder what is meant by the comment also???

It means I'm of the anointed.

I have no idea what he meant.

"Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God." - 1 Corinthians 1:21

Are you spirit-begotten, anointed with the holy Spirit, a member of the body of Christ ... shall I go on?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

"Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God." - 1 Corinthians 1:21

Are you spirit-begotten, anointed with the holy Spirit, a member of the body of Christ ... shall I go on?

Yes, I am. Thanks for asking.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I get my end times doctrine directly from scripture and so does he.

I doubt that. It isn't possible to believe the Amill doctrine according to scripture alone.

In context, the days of the Son of man referred to the days leading up to His second coming. Jesus compared the days leading up to the flood in Noah's day and the days leading up to Sodom being destroyed by fire in Lot's day to "the days of the Son of Man" that lead up to "the day the Son of Man is revealed".

You obviously didn't pay attention. The section you quoted describes the day that the son of man is revealed. The days, plural, of the son of man is the time period when Jesus rules on the earth, on David's thrown, for a thousand years. The DAYS of the son of man are depicted in Daniel chapter 7.

So, your claim that "the days of the Son of Man" refer to the thousand years time period is clearly false.

It isn't "clearly" false. It's clear that you can't see my point since you filter everything through your belief system.

 

[CadyandZoe]

If Luke 16:19-31 is a parable, then it's a true parable/story unlike the made up parables/stories that Jesus otherwise told. Regardless of what you want to call it, Luke 16:19-31 is about real people (Lazarus, the rich man, Abraham, Moses) in real places (One called "Abraham's bosom" and the other called hell or hades).

The story doesn't read like a true story. It is filled with fabulous language about spirits having the sense of touch, taste, and sight.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Where else do you get that?

It's everywhere in the New Testament.

 

[WPM]

Isaiah 65:20
“No longer will babies die when only a few days old.
No longer will adults die before they have lived a full life.
No longer will people be considered old at one hundred!
Only the cursed will die that young!.../NLT

That is talking about the NHNE.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The story doesn't read like a true story. It is filled with fabulous language about spirits having the sense of touch, taste, and sight.

True stories can contain figurative text. Is the book of Revelation just one big made up story in your mind because it contains a lot of symbolism?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I doubt that. It isn't possible to believe the Amill doctrine according to scripture alone.

LOL

You obviously didn't pay attention. The section you quoted describes the day that the son of man is revealed. The days, plural, of the son of man is the time period when Jesus rules on the earth, on David's thrown, for a thousand years. The DAYS of the son of man are depicted in Daniel chapter 7.

You are the one not paying attention. What I quoted described BOTH the days of the Son of Man AND the day the Son of Man will be revealed. And you know it. You are dishonest. But, let me show you again in case you somehow, some way missed it the first time.

Luke 17:22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. 23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. 24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. 25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

So, any objective, unbiased person (which disqualifies you) can read this and easily see that Jesus compared "the days of Noah" directly to "the days of the Son of man". And the days of Noah referred to the days leading up to the flood. And Jesus also compared "the days of Lot" to "the days of the Son of man" in a similar way. And He was referring to the days leading up to Lot going out of Sodom when fire came down and destroyed the city. So, when referring to "the days of the Son of man" Jesus was OBVIOUSLY referring to the days leading up to His second coming just as "the days of Noah" led up to the flood and "the days of Lot" led up to the day Sodom was destroyed by fire.

 

[CadyandZoe]

True stories can contain figurative text. Is the book of Revelation just one big made up story in your mind because it contains a lot of symbolism?

Fabulous language is typical of fables such as Aesop's' fables for instance. The story of Lazarus and the rich man is a fable.

 

[MA2444]

That is talking about the NHNE.

Not all of it, you better study that chapter some more.

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL

You are the one not paying attention. What I quoted described BOTH the days of the Son of Man AND the day the Son of Man will be revealed. And you know it. You are dishonest. But, let me show you again in case you somehow, some way missed it the first time.

Luke 17:22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. 23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. 24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. 25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

So, any objective, unbiased person (which disqualifies you) can read this and easily see that Jesus compared "the days of Noah" directly to "the days of the Son of man". And the days of Noah referred to the days leading up to the flood. And Jesus also compared "the days of Lot" to "the days of the Son of man" in a similar way. And He was referring to the days leading up to Lot going out of Sodom when fire came down and destroyed the city. So, when referring to "the days of the Son of man" Jesus was OBVIOUSLY referring to the days leading up to His second coming just as "the days of Noah" led up to the flood and "the days of Lot" led up to the day Sodom was destroyed by fire.

You missed the point entirely.

Jesus says that in the days of Noah, they ate, drank, married, and were given in marriage. Likewise, also as it was in the days of Lot; they ate, drank, bought, sold, planted and built. In other words, whether we consider the days of Noah or the days of Lot, human activity was regular and gave no indication concerning a coming disaster. In any case, the disaster signaled God's judgment, ordinary human activity was interrupted or destroyed, and a new age began.

Jesus likens the days of the son of man to the days of Noah and the Days of Lot. In order to properly understand his analogy we must remember that the coming of Jesus marks the end of this age and the beginning of a new age Jesus calls "the days of the son of man." Since the days of the son of man follow the arrival of the son of man, then the return of Jesus marks the beginning, not the end of the days of the son of man. Refer to the illustration below.

Noah:
Regular human activity --> flood --> beginning of a new age.

Lot:
Regular human activity --> fire from the sky --> beginning of a new city.

Jesus returns:
Regular human activity --> Jesus' coming on the clouds --> beginning of the days of the son of man.

The critical aspect you miss is the fact that Jesus is borrowing vocabulary from Psalm 8 and Daniel 7. When the Lord returns the days of the son of man begin, and specifically, this marks the beginning of the millennial period when Jesus will rule the earth from Jerusalem, ruling over the nations with a rod of iron.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not all of it, you better study that chapter some more.

You better stop being dishonest while trying to act as if Isaiah 65:20 is not related to the new heavens and new earth when it obviously is.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 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. 19 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. 20 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.

When you see the flow of this passage it's very obvious that it all relates to the new heavens and new earth. So, is John wrong when he says there will be no more death on the new earth in Revelation 21:4?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You missed the point entirely.

Jesus says that in the days of Noah, they ate, drank, married, and were given in marriage. Likewise, also as it was in the days of Lot; they ate, drank, bought, sold, planted and built. In other words, whether we consider the days of Noah or the days of Lot, human activity was regular and gave no indication concerning a coming disaster. In any case, the disaster signaled God's judgment, ordinary human activity was interrupted or destroyed, and a new age began.

Jesus likens the days of the son of man to the days of Noah and the Days of Lot. In order to properly understand his analogy we must remember that the coming of Jesus marks the end of this age and the beginning of a new age Jesus calls "the days of the son of man." Since the days of the son of man follow the arrival of the son of man, then the return of Jesus marks the beginning, not the end of the days of the son of man. Refer to the illustration below.

Noah:
Regular human activity --> flood --> beginning of a new age.

Lot:
Regular human activity --> fire from the sky --> beginning of a new city.

Jesus returns:
Regular human activity --> Jesus' coming on the clouds --> beginning of the days of the son of man.

The critical aspect you miss is the fact that Jesus is borrowing vocabulary from Psalm 8 and Daniel 7. When the Lord returns the days of the son of man begin, and specifically, this marks the beginning of the millennial period when Jesus will rule the earth from Jerusalem, ruling over the nations with a rod of iron.

Wow. Doubling down on the lie. I showed clearly that Jesus compared the days of the Son of man to the days of Noah that led up to the flood and the days of Lot that led up to Sodom destroyed and all you do is respond with this utter nonsense. You are self deluded and there's nothing I can do about it. That's your choice. It's sad to see.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Wow. Doubling down on the lie. I showed clearly that Jesus compared the days of the Son of man to the days of Noah that led up to the flood and the days of Lot that led up to Sodom destroyed and all you do is respond with this utter nonsense. You are self deluded and there's nothing I can do about it. That's your choice. It's sad to see.

Do you remember our conversation earlier when you complained that I didn't present scripture to prove my point? Do you get it yet? You have now given up on speaking to me because in your opinion I am deluded and there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. I discovered that about you and WPM a long time ago. There is your answer.

You and WPM are not willing to be convinced.

 

[WPM]

Do you remember our conversation earlier when you complained that I didn't present scripture to prove my point? Do you get it yet? You have now given up on speaking to me because in your opinion I am deluded and there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. I discovered that about you and WPM a long time ago. There is your answer.

You and WPM are not willing to be convinced.

Lol. You taunt us for opposing you for not being "willing to be convinced."

How about you? We could say the same about you.

Until you present some compelling biblical evidence you should desist from such unobjective rhetoric.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you remember our conversation earlier when you complained that I didn't present scripture to prove my point? Do you get it yet? You have now given up on speaking to me because in your opinion I am deluded and there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. I discovered that about you and WPM a long time ago. There is your answer.

You and WPM are not willing to be convinced.

LOL. You, someone who denies the deity of Christ, can't expect to convince anyone of anything. The context of "the days of the Son of man" are very obvious. There is no convincing needed here. It is extremely obvious to any unbiased person that Jesus compared the days of the Son of man directly to the days of Noah and the days of Lot. The days of Noah led up to the flood. The days of Lot led up to Sodom being destroyed. The days of the Son of man lead up to the second coming of Christ. This is extremely obvious. To try to say they are the days following the return of Christ is a case of taking what Jesus said completely out of context and would make Him comparing the days of the Son of man to the days of Noah and days of Lot completely pointless. Why would I think you could convince me that some other interpretation besides the obvious one is true?

Why should I take any more time arguing about something as obvious as this? It would be like taking a lot of time explaining to someone that 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not going to do that.