Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so a 1000 yr reign on this earth is false

[CadyandZoe]

The text tells us: David has been reigning on David's throne since the resurrection. He has the key of David now. Your fight is with the Book. Not Amils.

This why every reader should reject Premil. It butchers the Word of God.

No. Peter quotes David to prove that God would not allow his descendant to suffer decay, not to suggest that the resurrection is the same thing as ruling on David's throne.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why are you so flat footed on this?
Who is the Israel of God?
The Israel of God includes all gentiles who are born according to the promise of God, as in those who are new creations in Christ.

No. The Israel of God includes the descendants of Jacob who are born again.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Is that what the following says? That He will only defeat their rulers?

Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

I see no problem with that.

 

[Doug]

Please address what I said in my post.

what do you specifically want me to address please

 

[Doug]

The New Covenant was established at the cross. But contrary to what some people think, the entire New Covenant hasn't yet come to pass. Perhaps you have that in mind. At some point in our future they will say of the nation of Israel, "they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest." This is in our future.

yes Christ secured the new covenant but it wont be made til the future

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes, that is contradictory and I disagree with that, but I wasn't talking about that part of his argument. While that may be part of his argument, the main thing he is arguing is that Christ will not rule on this earth for a thousand years after He comes again.

One would expect the OP to stand as the "QED", the thing to be demonstrated. It isn't clear from the OP that the thing to be demonstrated was that Christ will not rule on this earth for a thousand years after he comes again.

 

[TribulationSigns]

yes Christ secured the new covenant but it wont be made til the future

False. If the new covenant wasn't confirmed or made strength at the Cross, but instead in the "future", then we are not saved today.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You skip over many critical passages such as the ones that say He is reigning now over all things (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-22). So, your order is incorrect.

My comments are restricted to the Passage at hand, quoted by the poster. He quoted 1 Corinthians 15 as proof that Christ's return is coterminous with the end. He imagines that the Second Advent marks a climactic end of history, after which believers will experience a New Heaven and Earth.

In opposition to his assertion, the passage from 1 Corinthians conveys a fundamentally different message. The Apostle Paul articulates that during the Second Advent, there will be a significant period in which Christ is tasked with overcoming his adversaries and reigning supreme over the nations. This reign is a crucial phase that precedes the ultimate handing over of the kingdom to God the Father. It is only after this transfer of authority that the end of all things will truly arrive.

It is this instead:

1. Christ raised from the dead
2. Christ rules over the nations, putting all his enemies under his feet
3. His followers raised from the dead
4. Christ hands over the kingdom to his Father.

When do you believe that the end of the age will come in relation to Christ's return?

It is not unreasonable to conclude that the defeat of death marks the end of the age. The last enemy is death. Therefore, I conclude that the subjugation of the rest of Christ's enemies takes place during this age.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No, it's not at all beside the argument that was being made. Read what he said again.

Non-preterist Amills do NOT say that Revelation 11:15 is already fulfilled as this liar tried to claim. We believe that Jesus will return at the seventh trumpet in the future and He will then "put down all rule and all authority and power" in the world and then hand the kingdom over to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:23-24).

Okay, thanks for the clarification, but doesn't Revelation 11:15 contradict a major tenet of Amillennialism? Consider the wording of the verse.

Logically speaking, John is saying that someone has come into possession of something, where the "someone" is Jesus and the "something" is the kingdom of this world. Most Christians, including those who hold the Amillennial position, would agree that Jesus fully possesses the kingdom of light today. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, Revelation 11:15 says that Jesus will come into possession of the kingdom of this world.

This raises an intriguing question: If the Second Advent indeed brings about the immediate establishment of the New Heaven and the New Earth, then why is it stated that Jesus will take possession of the kingdom of this world at the time of the Seventh Trumpet? The timing and significance of these events appear to be at odds, prompting deeper exploration into the implications of Christ's return and the transformations that follow.

 

[Doug]

False. If the new covenant wasn't confirmed or made strength at the Cross, but instead in the "future", then we are not saved today.

[Mat 26:28 KJV] 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Does your Bible translation say new TESTAMENT or new COVENANT? Christ shed his blood for the new testament which is somewhat distinct from a covenant.........Christ didnt shed blood to fulfill the new covenant.......a covenant didnt always require death, a testament does [Heb 9:16 KJV] 16 For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator......a testament requries blood [Heb 9:22 KJV] 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission...........Jesus had to shed his blood to allow God to be just in forgiving Israel in the new covenant,,,,,,,,,,,,the new covenant is only made for Israel.....[Jer 31:31 KJV] 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:.......the new covenant will be fulfilled when Israel is in their promised land [Eze 36:24 KJV] 24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

 

[CadyandZoe]

How about specifically addressing the points I made in that post instead of just sharing your opinion that I already know?

I appreciate your post, but I wanted to clarify a crucial point regarding the concept of martyrs. It's important to understand that martyrs, by definition, are individuals who endure suffering or are ultimately killed due to their unwavering beliefs. Therefore, when the passage refers to the martyrs coming to life, it signifies their resurrection from physical death. This is particularly relevant in the context of the book of Revelation, where it is noted that these martyrs were slain for refusing to accept the mark of the beast. Thus, their resurrection highlights the triumph of their faith even after facing the ultimate sacrifice.

Bottom line, Revelation 20 the first resurrection is physical.

 

[CadyandZoe]

1 Peter 2
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

That's the Church.

Peter is writing to a particular set of congregations populated by the Diaspora. He is talking to the descendants of Jacob who are living abroad.

 

[CadyandZoe]

When did I say that last days (plural) are the same as the last day? Never. The last day is the last of the last days. I showed, using scripture, that the last days refer to the time period between the first and second coming of Christ by citing Acts 2:16-21 and 2 Peter 3:3-4. So, the last day refers to the day Jesus returns.

I get that. But you were giving your understanding of Isaiah chapter 2, which speaks about a time when the mountain of the Lord will become the chief of the mountains. And I showed how this passage contradicts your position that the "last days" is the time between the Advents. This means that your interpretation of Acts 2:15 is also an error.

How does this contradict the Amill position? It does not.

Well, I guess you get points for efficiency by answering your own question. :)

It looks like you are revealing once again a lack of understanding of the Amill position which states that all things are currently under Christ's feet (Matt 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-22).

I wasn't aware that YOU were the designated spokesperson for the Amill position. My post was directed at you and your ideas. Right? Try to stay focused. Your claims were not demonstrated and it doesn't really matter if you meant to represent the Amill position or not.

 

[WPM]

No. Peter quotes David to prove that God would not allow his descendant to suffer decay, not to suggest that the resurrection is the same thing as ruling on David's throne.

Regardless of how you dress it up, the text forbids your doctrine. This is another evidence (of countless) of how Premil butchers the Word of God to say the opposite to what it says, in order to sustain its false teaching.

This is another reason for Premils to abandon Premil. There is so much Scripture that exposes it.

The text couldn't be clearer: "of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne [referring to Psalms 132:12]; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ."

 

[WPM]

Okay, thanks for the clarification, but doesn't Revelation 11:15 contradict a major tenet of Amillennialism? Consider the wording of the verse.

Logically speaking, John is saying that someone has come into possession of something, where the "someone" is Jesus and the "something" is the kingdom of this world. Most Christians, including those who hold the Amillennial position, would agree that Jesus fully possesses the kingdom of light today. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, Revelation 11:15 says that Jesus will come into possession of the kingdom of this world.

This raises an intriguing question: If the Second Advent indeed brings about the immediate establishment of the New Heaven and the New Earth, then why is it stated that Jesus will take possession of the kingdom of this world at the time of the Seventh Trumpet? The timing and significance of these events appear to be at odds, prompting deeper exploration into the implications of Christ's return and the transformations that follow.

There is no mortals left to populate your supposed future millennium. Revelation 10:5-7 says of the Second Advent and the concluding last trumpet, “And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.”

Revelation 11:15 makes reference to the seventh angel with the last trump, again being in complete agreement with consistent New Testament teaching (including the conclusion of the second parallel in Revelation 10) on this single, final, all-consummating nature of the Second Advent, saying, “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.”

The next verse, verse 18 then reveals how the Second Advent ushers in the general judgment, saying, “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 (1) give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest (2) destroy them which destroy the earth. And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.”

One cannot help but note the finality attached to the sounding of the seventh trumpet. This is particularly striking when you then compare this to the trumpet passages that connect to the second coming of the Lord. The link is unquestionable.

Whichever way you look at it, there is an unquestionable finality surrounding the echo of the seventh trumpet. This corresponds with the conclusiveness associated with second coming passages elsewhere in Scripture. Let us look at some of the all-consummating detail.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Jeremiah passage is quoted virtually verbatim in Hebrews 8:8-12.

Yes, I understand that.

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

There has never been a time when evangelism was deemed unnecessary because they all know him.

It became and becomes true and fulfilled for every Jew who received and receives salvation through Christ's New Covenant and Blood.
Which began 2,000 years ago at Calvary.

The prophet conveys a profound and expansive message that goes beyond mere individual salvation. Although it is indeed true that every Jew who embraces Jesus Christ will find salvation, Jeremiah extends this promise even further. He asserts that every member of the house of Jacob and the house of Israel, reaching from the least to the most prominent among them, will ultimately accept Him. This significant aspect of the covenant, however, has yet to be fulfilled.

 

[WPM]

I get that. But you were giving your understanding of Isaiah chapter 2, which speaks about a time when the mountain of the Lord will become the chief of the mountains. And I showed how this passage contradicts your position that the "last days" is the time between the Advents. This means that your interpretation of Acts 2:15 is also an error.

Well, I guess you get points for efficiency by answering your own question. :)

I wasn't aware that YOU were the designated spokesperson for the Amill position. My post was directed at you and your ideas. Right? Try to stay focused. Your claims were not demonstrated and it doesn't really matter if you meant to represent the Amill position or not.

You have no idea when the last days occur, when they started and when they finish, what they relate to and what happens in them. This is 101 Christianity.

A future millennium is not the beginning of the last days. The earthly ministry of Christ is. The last days are now and the last day is the climactic second coming. The Old Testament prophecies of “the last days” relate to the period following the Messiah’s first appearance when He introduced the kingdom of God to this earth and opened up the Gospel to the nations. Christ’s earthly ministry ushered in the period of the last days. This is confirmed in different New Testament passages.

Hebrews 1:1-2 declares, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.”

The last days commenced with the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ of which this passage provides indisputable proof. The Incarnation inaugurated the final era of God’s great plan of salvation for mankind.

Hebrews 9:26 also says, “now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

1 Peter 1:19-20 also confirm that, “Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world … was manifest in these last times for you.”

Peter declared in Acts 2:16-17, alluding to the happenings on the day of Pentecost,“this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”

John twice testified in I John 2:18, “it is the last time (eschatos hōra or last hour).”

2 Timothy 3:1-9 highlights the stark decline that exists before the Second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is certainly not speaking of period following the return of Christ. 2 Timothy 3:1 testifies: “in the last days perilous (or hard to bear, troublesome, dangerous, harsh, fierce, savage) times shall come.” Christ’s return brings an end to all this rebellion and wickedness. He comes to ushering eternal righteousness.

2 Peter 3:3-13 speaks of the sceptics who are mocking and scoffing as to the actuality of the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It reads: “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?” (v4). If the last days relate to a future millennium, why would they be scoffing at an event that already occurred? They are mocking an impending future event. They are mocking the very idea of the second coming. Manifestly the “last days” occur before the coming of Jesus. It relates to the period we are now in.

James 5:3 also alludes to the last days and places that period before Jesus return. He to shows the last days to be a time of greed and folly. The return of Christ brings an end to such rebellion.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Regardless of how you dress it up, the text forbids your doctrine. This is another evidence (of countless) of how Premil butchers the Word of God to say the opposite to what it says, in order to sustain its false teaching.

This is another reason for Premils to abandon Premil. There is so much Scripture that exposes it.

The text couldn't be clearer: "of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne [referring to Psalms 132:12]; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ."

I understand why you might resort to an emotional appeal. I get that. But a sober look at the passage will reveal that Peter's reference to resurrection supports David's contention that God would not allow his son's body to suffer decay. And because Christ did not suffer decay, being resurrected, he is able to sit on David's throne. But Peter is not claiming that being resurrected is the same thing as sitting on David's throne.

In fact, Peter says that Jesus Christ was raised up to sit at the Father's right hand, which, by definition, means that Jesus is sitting next to the Father's throne. Jesus is described as sitting at the right hand of God, indicating His exalted status and authority.

Even so, according to Luke 1:32-33, God will give Jesus the throne of his father David, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will have no end.

 

[WPM]

My comments are restricted to the Passage at hand, quoted by the poster. He quoted 1 Corinthians 15 as proof that Christ's return is coterminous with the end. He imagines that the Second Advent marks a climactic end of history, after which believers will experience a New Heaven and Earth.

In opposition to his assertion, the passage from 1 Corinthians conveys a fundamentally different message. The Apostle Paul articulates that during the Second Advent, there will be a significant period in which Christ is tasked with overcoming his adversaries and reigning supreme over the nations. This reign is a crucial phase that precedes the ultimate handing over of the kingdom to God the Father. It is only after this transfer of authority that the end of all things will truly arrive.


It is not unreasonable to conclude that the defeat of death marks the end of the age. The last enemy is death. Therefore, I conclude that the subjugation of the rest of Christ's enemies takes place during this age.

1 Corinthians 15:21-26 declares: “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 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. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”

1 Corinthians 15:50-54 continues: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.”

The prime focus of these passages is “the resurrection of the dead” and the termination of death. This is the time when corruption is finally banished from the earth forever. This is the occasion when the redeemed "inherit the kingdom of God." This is the much-anticipated arrival of the new creation in all its visible, glorious, perfect and eternal glory.

But when does this happen?

Both of these passages demonstrate that this occurs at the “coming” (or parousia) of the Lord, which is described as “the last trump.” It also confirms that this ushers in “the end.” This is the closing curtain of time, sin, corruption and mortality. We are now into eternity. No one could therefore argue with any validity that death is not finally and eternally destroyed at the second coming, the time here denoted as “the end.”

Only the perfected inherit the coming earth

These texts demonstrate that for one to inherit the age and state to come, glorification is necessary: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” The kingdom age to come (after this age) is perfect. It is incorrupt. Every vestige of the Fall is removed. No mortal can inherit/inhabit or possess this great incorrupt state. It is solely the domain of the glorified. It is eternal. It is not governed by time, as our age is. Time indeed shall be no more when Jesus returns.

This eliminates the oft-stated Premillennial claim that the unsaved can in fact inhabit the new earth. Regardless of whether one is saved or not, if they aren’t glorified, they cannot inherit the new earth. No mortal shall inhabit it.

It is plain to see from these texts: for man to be able to inherit the new glorified earth – which is totally free of the curse – he must be adequately prepared for it. The eternal state is indeed a prepared place for a prepared people.

Man’s whole sinful makeup must be completely changed in order to allow him to grace it. Every vestige of the Fall must be divested before entering into that new arrangement. This is accomplished by way of glorification. The invisible inner man is not only changed (as in conversion), but Paul speaks of a complete bodily change. Whilst we have “earthly” bodies now, at the Lord’s coming we will have new “spiritual” bodies. Our current bodies that are corruptible must be changed into incorruptible ones, so that no trace of the curse remains. Paul presents glorification as the means by which this supernatural metamorphous occurs.

Our “earthly” bodies will be changed to “spiritual” bodies that are completely devoid of sin and corruption. The saints will undergo the same simultaneous transformation that creation experiences. The creature is thus then adequately prepared to inherit the new incorrupt glorified earth. Both can now live in perfect harmony in God’s new eternal order. This arrangement will never again be blighted by the bondage of corruption. Man and creation enter into a new irreversible eternal arrangement.

Then [Gr. tote]

Let us zoom in on the end of this passage: “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then [Gr. tote] shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (1 Corinthians 15:54-55).

Here is irrefutable evidence of when “death” is finally defeated and “swallowed up in victory.” It occurs when the redeemed are glorified. It is realized “when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality.” This exposes the Premillennialism paradigm. It forbids its actual possibility. This passage proves that it happens at the second coming of Christ.

Premillennialist writer Alexander Reese confirms the meaning of the Greek word tote in The Approaching Advent of Christ, whilst referring to another parallel second coming passage in Matthew 13:43, saying, “Then (tote, at that time) shall the righteous shine forth.”

So, it is "then" (tote) at the last trump, and not till then, that death is finally defeated. The glorification of the saints at the second coming sees “death” being “swallowed up in victory.” It is here that “death” finally loses its “sting” and the “grave” loses its “victory.” Why? Because “the last enemy” is here eternally “destroyed.” There is no allowance for some supposed future millennium.

The deliverance of the righteous and the destruction of all rebellion

As Jesus comes and rescues ‘the just’ in the twinkling of an eye He also destroys ‘the unjust’. These passages distinctly describe the end. Those “in Adam all die.” The second coming is shown to be the termination of all rebellion. It is the time “when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." But equally, “in Christ shall all be made alive.” This is the time “when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” It is clear that everything is tied up at the end (“His coming”).

The phrase “he shall have delivered up” comes from the single Greek word paradidomi meaning surrender, yield up, intrust, or transmit. This is what happens to the kingdom when Christ comes. He surrenders it to His Father, He yields it up.

The converse phrase “he shall have put down” comes from the single Greek word katargeo meaning: bring to nought, none effect, or abolish.

This is what happens to “all” existing “rule and all authority and power” when Jesus Comes. The rule of man comes to an end and now it becomes the rule of God.

After telling us that Christ’s coming sees the termination of the wicked and their evil operations, the writer tells us that Christ’s reign over His enemies must continue until this climactic point. Whilst “all power” is now assuredly given unto Christ “in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18) through His life, death and resurrection, and whilst through this victorious work “he hath put all things under his feet” in a sovereign manner, we have not yet seen the final subduing of wickedness.

God’s purpose is that the entire creation will be regenerated. That is, the whole universe will be freed from the curse of corruption and degeneration. In intent is to bring a whole new order when He returns that will be marked by righteousness and eternality. A new regenerated creation will welcome a freshly perfected redeemed people. We are therefore looking at universal regeneration.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The passage that was referenced in relation to his comment was this one.

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

You think Paul's point here is that believing Jews don't cease to be Jews? It seems to me that his point is that, despite most Israelites having rejected His Son, God did not cast away the Israelites that he foreknew and Paul used himself as evidence for that. Later, he talked the remnant of believers in his day that included him. Believing Jews not ceasing to be Jews has nothing to do with what he said there.

I agree; the main point of Romans 11:1ff is that God has not cast away his people, the Jews. At the same time, however, the point would be moot if a Jew didn't live Jewishly and abandoned everything distinguishable about being Jewish. The Jewish people who maintain their Jewishness while at the same time receiving Jesus Christ as both Lord and Savior are the remnant. These are similar to those whom God kept for himself.