The absurdity of Pretrib logic

[Spiritual Israelite]

Then cometh the end! There you have it. The second coming ushers in the end.

The KJV and other English translations have the end arriving when Christ comes.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Premillennial Twisting of God's Word Translation:

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh a thousand years of Christ reigning on earth, then cometh Satan's little season, and then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Exactly.
They were divided on most everything.
Heresy galore
Hmmmm...and you base your beliefs there in that chasm of heresy.

LOL. I don't base my beliefs on what the ECFs taught. Does everything you say have to be a lie? Can you never tell the truth? There was no consensus on these things then just as there still isn't now, so why would I put my trust in their teachings? So ridiculous. I base my beliefs on scripture only and not the teachings of fallible men.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Then cometh the end! There you have it. The second coming ushers in the end.

The end of what?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not being naive. I know the quote of which you speak... did he use the word "amillennial"? Or did he just say "pious believers"?
For all you know, these people could have been post millennial believers, or pre wrath believers... the point is, he did not specify who he was talking about, so for you to automatically say that it was only amillennials he was talking about is an assumption on your part.

LOL. Yeah, I'm sure none of the "many" who disagreed with him were amillennialists? You expect me to believe that? Come on. Yes, you are being naive.

And I also never said that amillennials were not Christian.

I never said that you said that.

All I simply said was that the ante-Nicene church fathers were chiliasts in their eschatology... just like WPM, you try to assume what I say... look back at what I said.

This is why I usually stay out of these types of discussions. It proves nothing and is a big waste of time. Christians disagreed on end times doctrine back then just as we still do today. We can't base our beliefs on what they taught as if there was a consensus in what they taught.

And I did not post the entirety of the ante-nicene church era, because this website only allows 8000 characters to be posted in a comment

Do not think of me as some stupid, uneducated idiot come who's going to just flood a comment with 20,000 or 30,000 characters in a post.

LOL. Calm down. I never said anything to indicate that you are "some stupid, uneducated idiot". Good grief. I just think you're being a bit naive (naive does not equate to stupid and uneducated) about what the ECFs believed, overall.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I cannot get you or any other Pretribber to actually address a single post or text. That is because multiple Scriptures forbid your error. For you to do that would force you to admit you have been misled.

It's all opinions from them and no exegesis of scripture whatsoever. No matter how many times we ask them to exegete scripture, they don't do it. They clearly never will. They know what happens when the scriptures are actually examined closely and in context. It always resulsts in disproving the weak pretrib rapture doctrine.

 

[Super Kal]

Spititual Israelite and WPM...

I want you to know that I don't see you guys as heretics or false teachers.

even though I myself am a premillennial, that's not what I base Christianity on. I believe that Jesus is God made manifest in the flesh, that He died for the sins of the world, that He was buried for three days and three nights, rose again, ascended into heaven, and is now at the right hand of the Father. That's what Christianity is... it is not premillennialism or amillennialism

I don't want to make it seem like I am trying to condemn or demonize you. WPM, I know I can get a little worked up and heated On controversial non essential doctrines like the Millennium and the Rapture, and on that, if I have come across like that to you, I do sincerely apologize.

I believe that we as Christians can agree to disagree on the non-essentials, but I do believe that all three of us can wholeheartedly agree on the foundations of Christianity, and that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no man can come to the Father except through Him.

 

[Super Kal]

LOL. Yeah, I'm sure none of the "many" who disagreed with him were amillennialists? You expect me to believe that? Come on. Yes, you are being naive.

I never said that he wasn't referring to amillennials... I only said that he does not specify who he is talking about... that does not make me naive, that makes me attentive to the text.

 

[WPM]

I never made the claim that the early church taught all those things, And were unified in the intricate details of chiliasm... I only said that they believed in a literal thousand year reign with Christ, and I provided the quotes which proved that they did.

When it concerns all your "aha! gotcha!" questions, one can differ on non-essential details and still be a premillennial

Just like in historicism... Historicists can differ in opinion when it concerns the interpretation of certain parts of Revelation, but it does not change the fact that they all hold the same overview of historicism... I know one historicist who makes the claim that the Beast of the Earth, or the false prophet, is the return of the Pope, while other historicists, like Doug Batchelor, has his interpretation that the beast of the Earth is actually the United States... I have also seen other historicists who claim that the first seal was the spreading of the gospel, and that was actually something that Irenaeus believed, and I have also seen other historicists say that the fulfillment of the first seal was Constantine conquering Rome... All different interpretations, but all acceptable within the realm of historicism

now, When it concerns the early church, they also had differing opinions on certain things in revelation... when it concerned the heavenly Jerusalem, the early church was undecided, they did not know if it was going to be a city that literally came down from heaven, or if it was just going to be a restored Jerusalem.

I know many premillennials out there who differ on what the first seal is... for example, I know a man named Richard H Perry who believes that the fulfillment of the first seal was the attack of the twin towers on 9/11/2001... I also know of a pre wrath individual named Nelson Waters, who believes that the fulfillment of the first seal will possibly be the pact of the future that is going to be held later this year in September...

Personally speaking, I believe that the first seal, the second seal, and the third seal have already been fulfilled:

the first seal being Obama, who was given a crown, a nation to rule, a bow, this is a reference to how sodomites and have taken the rainbow and perverted it to their own desires, and how Barack Obama made homosexual marriage legal in 2015, and conquering and going out to conquer, he conquered with a fake peace, Not to mention how the mainstream media in 2008 labeled Barack Obama as a messiah figure

The second seal being Donald Trump, when Donald Trump was elected in 2016, his presidency greatly divided people in the world, I have never seen such great division from one person, And the sword that's mentioned for the second seal is actually division, as Jesus said "I did not come to bring peace but a sword", he also said "I did not come to being bring peace but division", and Trump's first presidency did indeed that, it caused division, great division

The third seal being Joe Biden, and the hyperinflation that he created during his presidency, we have never seen inflation on this level in modern day history.

As much as I disagree with Taken and those who hold to a mid tribulation rapture, or a pre wrath rapture, we are still all premillennialists, and we all agree that there is a literal one thousand year reign with Christ on the Earth
I still stand by my statement that you have not read the early church... I showed you from their own writings that they were chiliasts, and yet you claimed that they were not. I then showed you Eusebius's own writings that proved that he was a preterist, and yet you asked where did they come from... I provided the source in parentheses, "Demonstratio Evangelica", I even provided the website which has these quotes, but apparently you missed that.

So your attempt to stump me back fired on ya... good try, though...
I would have fallen for that a few years ago, but not now

Ahhh. So they were not real Premils. After all, these are all the basic Premil tenets. They were in fact Chiliasts, a different animal altogether. Just as i thought! So, please do not call them Premils. If you had researched the subject thoroughly (as you claimed) you would have realized, the majority of Chiliasts agreed with Amil in their main tenets.

The early Chiliasts saw the future earth after the second coming as a perfect pristine unspoiled arrangement that was liberated from all the bondage of corruption. That meant they saw no sin or sinners, no decay or disease, no dying or crying, no devil or his demons on it. That runs consistent throughout their teaching. That is why they saw Christ reigning now over His enemies and not in the future, as modern Premils claim. They believed His enemies would be totally and utterly destroyed at His coming, thus allowing no room for sin and sinners, mortals and mortality, on the future earth.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I never said that he wasn't referring to amillennials... I only said that he does not specify who he is talking about... that does not make me naive, that makes me attentive to the text.

I think it's safe to say that a fair number of the "many" who disagreed with him were amillennialists. Regardless, this is no way to determine what scripture teaches. We need to be like the Bereans and study the scriptures for ourselves to see if what someone says, including any early church father, is true or not (Acts 17:10-11).

 

[WPM]

And I also never said that amillennials were not Christian. All I simply said was that the ante-Nicene church fathers were chiliasts in their eschatology... just like WPM, you try to assume what I say... look back at what I said.

But they were not. They were mainly Amil. Have you indeed deeply researched this, or is that what you have been told?

 

[WPM]

The concept of Jesus gathering His bride pretrib causes them great tribulation...lol

This epitomizes how infantile Pretribbers act.

 

[WPM]

I told you. Quit avoiding.

Where in Revelation does it teach "the 1 year Day of the Lord"?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ahhh. So they were not real Premils. After all, these are all the basic Premil tenets. They were in fact Chiliasts, a different animal altogether. Just as i thought! So, please do not call them Premils. If you had researched the subject thoroughly (as you claimed) you would have realized, the majority of Chiliasts agreed with Amil in their main tenets.

The early Chiliasts saw the future earth after the second coming as a perfect pristine unspoiled arrangement that was liberated from all the bondage of corruption. That meant they saw no sin or sinners, no decay or disease, no dying or crying, no devil or his demons on it. That runs consistent throughout their teaching. That is why they saw Christ reigning now over His enemies and not in the future as modern Premil claim. They believed His enemies would be totally and utterly destroyed at His coming, thus allowing no room for sin and sinners, mortals and mortality, on the future earth.

So, those Chiliasts believed that the thousand years was literal and that it had begun with Christ's resurrection? And it would end with Him ushering in the eternal new heavens and new earth at His return as Amils believe?

 

[WPM]

So, those Chiliasts believed that the thousand years was literal and that it had begun with Christ's resurrection? And it would end with Him ushering in the eternal new heavens and new earth at His return as Amils believe?

No, they believed the millennium was future. But the early Chiliasts integrated the thousand years into the start of the NHNE, considering it a perfect, sin-free, wicked-free, mortal-free, curse-free, Satan-free, and corruption-free porch-way into eternity. But they didn't seem to derive their thousand years from Rev 20, but rather Christ-rejecting Judaic material. That is why Satan's little season was not part of their millennial expectancy.

 

[Davidpt]

After living and reigning with Christ a thousand years, do they get beheaded after that? When are they beheaded? Is the fate for faithful saints really beheading after one thousand years of living and reigning with Christ? Remember they are beheaded for being faithful unto death!

Amils need to deal with their own nonsense per the following below involving their own view instead of creating new nonsense for Premil that is not even logical to begin with. As if any saints will be being beheaded after Christ has returned. What a bizarre question that was. It's hard to believe you were once Premil. No wonder you are no longer Premil. You were clueless about that view even while you were Premil. That aside.

Something for Amils to consider here. Obviously, they are not beheaded during the thousand years nor are they beheaded during satan's little season. What does that leave left? It means they are beheaded before the thousand years even begin. So, unless you or some other Amil can convincingly show that they are beheaded during the thousand years, Amil can not be the correct view in the meantime.

Let's not forget that they have already been beheaded, thus have already been martyred, before satan is ever released from the pit. This at least tells us that when they are initially beheaded, thus initially martyred, it is before satan is released from the pit. Therefore, any saint being martyred after satan is released is not a valid option for any view including Amil.

And that presents a major problem for Amil since the 42 month reign of the beast precedes the 2nd coming, and that during it's 42 month reign, saints are being martyred left and right. Except Revelation 20:4 already shows saints are martyred before satan is released from the pit, therefore, not one single saint can or will be martyred after satan is released from the pit. Therefore, Amil is not true, it cannot work. It contradicts what is already recorded in Revelation 20:4, that any and all martyring of saints precede satan being released from the pit. Look at Revelation 20:7-9. Does it look like any saints are being martyred at the time?

 

[WPM]

Amils need to deal with their own nonsense per the following below involving their own view instead of creating new nonsense for Premil that is not even logical to begin with. As if any saints will be being beheaded after Christ has returned. What a bizarre question that was. It's hard to believe you were once Premil. No wonder you are no longer Premil. You were clueless about that view even while you were Premil. That aside.

Something for Amils to consider here. Obviously, they are not beheaded during the thousand years nor are they beheaded during satan's little season. What does that leave left? It means they are beheaded before the thousand years even begin. So, unless you or some other Amil can convincingly show that they are beheaded during the thousand years, Amil can not be the correct view in the meantime.

Let's not forget that they have already been beheaded, thus have already been martyred, before satan is ever released from the pit. This at least tells us that when they are initially beheaded, thus initially martyred, it is before satan is released from the pit. Therefore, any saint being martyred after satan is released is not a valid option for any view including Amil.

And that presents a major problem for Amil since the 42 month reign of the beast precedes the 2nd coming, and that during it's 42 month reign, saints are being martyred left and right. Except Revelation 20:4 already shows saints are martyred before satan is released from the pit, therefore, not one single saint can or will be martyred after satan is released from the pit. Therefore, Amil is not true, it cannot work. It contradicts what is already recorded in Revelation 20:4, that any and all martyring of saints precedes satan being released from the pit. Look at Revelation 20:7-9. Does it look like any saints are being martyred at the time?

Read what he wrote, not what you think he wrote. If you would just listen a little bit more then you might grasp a little bit more truth.

 

[WPM]

Amils need to deal with their own nonsense per the following below involving their own view instead of creating new nonsense for Premil that is not even logical to begin with. As if any saints will be being beheaded after Christ has returned. What a bizarre question that was. It's hard to believe you were once Premil. No wonder you are no longer Premil. You were clueless about that view even while you were Premil. That aside.

Something for Amils to consider here. Obviously, they are not beheaded during the thousand years nor are they beheaded during satan's little season. What does that leave left? It means they are beheaded before the thousand years even begin. So, unless you or some other Amil can convincingly show that they are beheaded during the thousand years, Amil can not be the correct view in the meantime.

Let's not forget that they have already been beheaded, thus have already been martyred, before satan is ever released from the pit. This at least tells us that when they are initially beheaded, thus initially martyred, it is before satan is released from the pit. Therefore, any saint being martyred after satan is released is not a valid option for any view including Amil.

And that presents a major problem for Amil since the 42 month reign of the beast precedes the 2nd coming, and that during it's 42 month reign, saints are being martyred left and right. Except Revelation 20:4 already shows saints are martyred before satan is released from the pit, therefore, not one single saint can or will be martyred after satan is released from the pit. Therefore, Amil is not true, it cannot work. It contradicts what is already recorded in Revelation 20:4, that any and all martyring of saints precedes satan being released from the pit. Look at Revelation 20:7-9. Does it look like any saints are being martyred at the time?

The beast was operating long before John in the book of Revelation. The beheading has been happening since the first of resurrection. This is an ongoing reality.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, they believed the millennium was future. But the early Chiliasts integrated the thousand years into the start of the NHNE, considering it a perfect, sin-free, wicked-free, mortal-free, curse-free, Satan-free, and corruption-free porch-way into eternity. But they didn't seem to derive their thousand years from Rev 20, but rather Christ-rejecting Judaic material. That is why Satan's little season was not part of their millennial expectancy.

It's strange that they apparently ignored Satan's little season. But, they believed that sin and death would end forever once Christ returned just as amils do, right?

 

[WPM]

It's strange that they apparently ignored Satan's little season. But, they believed that sin and death would end forever once Christ returned just as amils do, right?

Agreed! This only come with the later Premils. We start to see this with writers like Lactantius in AD270, who (notably) relied mainly upon the heretics for his beliefs.

 

[The Light]

Where in Revelation does it teach "the 1 year Day of the Lord"?

What verse in Revelation does it say that Moses struck the rock three times, Noah escaped in an ark and water was changed to wine.

I'm betting you have no answer. Crickets. Not a verse one.