22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[WPM]

Typical immature response. This is all you have in response? I guess you don't care about what is written in the NT in regards to OT prophecies? I can't take you seriously and will not waste any more of my time on a child like you.

Regardless, you have convinced me that you have a low level of maturity and discernment.

Are you not seeing a pattern with Premil responses? They are like this because they have nothing of biblical weight to support their position.

 

[Timtofly]

This is a strawman argument because it intentionally misrepresents the argument of Amils in order to make it easier to discredit it. It involves a picture being presented that doesn’t accurately reflect the beliefs of the one you are debating. By exaggerating, distorting, or fabricating someone’s position, it makes it much easier to present your own position as plausible and logical. But this type of underhand tactic only serves to prevent open, honest, profitable, rational and objective discussion.

Dispensationalists are quick to speak on behalf of their opponents and slow to listen to how their brethren actually understand the whole dynamic between Israel and the Church. They commonly disparagingly throw the “Replacement Theology” charge at those they disagree with, without any effort of trying to ascertain what they really believe. They also deem their opponents as believing in ‘Supersessionism Theology’ (from the Latin supersedere: ‘to be superior to’). Dispensationalists allege that their evangelical opponents believe (1) the Church has replaced ethnic Israel and that (2) God has no further future plans for the nation of Israel. They claim such without any factual or fair basis for doing so.

Dispensationalists create a straw man argument either through genuine ignorance, because they don’t really get what Covenant Theology teaches, or as a willful attempt to twist, smear and discredit their brethren who believe that God has only ever had one people from the beginning. Regardless, their charge is a logical fallacy. Despite being robustly challenged and repeatedly corrected, many continue to hurl this depreciatory slur in an attempt to justify their own partial teaching. It is employed by some to be deliberately provocative and by others to intentionally misrepresent their opponent’s position. When all is said and done, this only serves to expose the weakness of the Dispensational position, rather than carry any real, valid or accurate theological credence.

The teaching of the Church for most of its history has rejected the idea that there is any theologically distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Christ during the new covenant era. They believe there has only ever been one spiritual people from the start. These believers do not claim to hold to “Replacement Theology,” but rather ‘Remnant Theology’ meaning there is a continuity between God’s people in the Old and New Testament. Other terms describe the same position like ‘Continuity Theology’, ‘Inclusion Theology’ and ‘Expansion Theology’. Some use comparable expressions like ‘Addition Theology’ or ‘Fulfilment Theology’. Another lesser-used expression is ‘Messianic Fulfillment Theology’. Regardless of which one of these phrases is preferred, its advocates believe that the New Testament Church (assembly) is not a replacement of Israel, neither is it a new Israel, but it is an extension and continuation of true faithful Israel. This is supported by the fact that the inception of the new covenant didn’t mark the end of the Abrahamic lineage of faith but rather the enlargement of the same.

Then you accept the fact that the Millennium is an expansion of Israel after the Second Coming. Otherwise you have replaced Israel, and the Second Coming is the final word on the matter. That is the point you are missing.

Calling the Millennium, the here and now, is replacing the future with the present.

 

[WPM]

Then you accept the fact that the Millennium is an expansion of Israel after the Second Coming. Otherwise you have replaced Israel, and the Second Coming is the final word on the matter. That is the point you are missing.

Calling the Millennium, the here and now, is replacing the future with the present.

All you have is your opinions. Quoting Scripture seems to be anathema to you.

 

[Truth7t7]

Explain why Jesus is on earth, but then you change the scenario for your own personal opinion? Satan is loosed to be on the earth. Unless you are in the pit with Satan, then you only see Jesus on earth, when Satan was bound, at the same time his two buddies, the FP and beast were tossed into the LOF. The rest of Adam's flesh was killed. You purposely reject the first resurrection which is physical on the earth. Jesus was on earth for his first physical resurrection, not in a grave in outer space.

Your response is complete confusion

 

[Truth7t7]

Then you accept the fact that the Millennium is an expansion of Israel after the Second Coming. Otherwise you have replaced Israel, and the Second Coming is the final word on the matter. That is the point you are missing.

Calling the Millennium, the here and now, is replacing the future with the present.

Jesus returns in fire and final judgement, dissolving this earth by fire (The End)

There won't be a Millennium on this earth as you Falsely believe and teach

 

[Timtofly]

If you would take the time to actually read your Bible instead of running your mouth off you might actually see what I am pressing at. Romans 9:6-13: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

What this is saying is, those who are not saved have no right to consider themselves as true Israel. The apostle here identifies two Israels; one elect and believing, the other lost and unbelieving. One is true spiritual Israel (“the children of God”/“the children of the promise”), the other is unbelieving and merely “children of the flesh.” Basically: national theocratic Israel was a political entity in which a believing spiritual remnant – true Israel – abode. It is only those Jews who belong to the remnant that are true Israelis in God’s eyes.

Jesus also exposed those who boast that they are Jews but who are not. He exposed them as those “which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9, 3:9). This demonstrates that biology alone is insufficient to class one as a real Jew. Natural Jews must be followers of Jesus Christ to be legitimate and acceptable spiritual Jews in God’s eyes. It is important that believers recognize the difference between national Israel and true Israel in both testaments or they may become confused with the unfolding of God’s plan in the New Testament.

This verse is distinguishing between Isaac, and the rest of Abraham's offspring.

By the time Paul wrote this, Israel has been scattered throughout the world for 800 years.

The covenant was broken, but nothing in these verses imply the church replaced the natural seed.

The church is not grafted into Israel. The church was always grafted in by faith throughout the OT, and Gentiles could come by faith just as could Abraham's seed, because Abraham was a Gentile called out, even though a direct descendant of Noah, because Noah was the Father of all Gentiles.

You are missing the point that God does not include Ishmael into Israel, nor Esau into Israel even though they are the seed of Abraham. Especially if you claim Abraham was implied as being Israel. Or if you imply Abraham is the true church, and only those from physical Abraham can be the church, because they are grafted in physically. How literal do you want to take this allegory?

Paul in Romans 9 is not saying the church is this particular Israel you think it is. Paul was only pointing out the historical mess of Abraham's genetic decisions and the natural course of Abraham's offspring. Isaac was not even a son of God, because he was the promised child. Isaac was only a son of God by faith.

Amil are great at painting the OT Gentiles as so far bound in sin they could never get saved, to produce this emotional need to have Satan literally bound at the first coming. Paul started off Romans 9, that even Israel itself was also so bound up in sin, it could never be freed just like every other Gentile nation.

"That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"

Israelites had to be adopted into God's family including Abraham, and God's family was not automatic for any Israelite. Isaac had to live and have offspring so Jesus had a family to physically be born into. But all of Abraham's offspring had to accept the adoption of God, just like all other Gentiles.

One can only be a Spiritual Jew if they are a direct descendant of Judah, and born again of the Holy Spirit. One can only be a Spiritual Israelite, if they are a direct descendant of Jacob, and born again of the Holy Spirit. Being born of the Holy Spirit does not make one a Jew nor an Israelite. Just like being a physical descendant of Abraham does not make you a spiritual son of God.

That is the difference between the first birth, physical and the second birth, spiritual. The first resurrection is also only physical, not spiritual.

A spiritual birth does not change your physical status. Nor can a physical birth change your spiritual status. Two separate phenomenon. So the first resurrection in Revelation 20 has nothing to do with a spiritual application whatsoever. Those granted a physical resurrection are blessed and never have to face the second death. Not because they had a physical resurrection. They had a physical resurrection because they were already spiritually reborn by God, or they would still be in sheol waiting for the second death.

Reformed theology certainly has a right to change one's physical standing, but only in the age to come, which starts at physical death, not some assumed future resurrection. That is the error of Amil, waiting for a single future resurrection, when the Cross was already the age to come, and the OT redeemed were physically resurrected out of their graves, and out of Abraham's bosom. Not just spiritually, but that first physical resurrection. They are currently in Paradise as the angels, not procreating, but enjoying that age to come. Jesus explained this to Nicodemus in John 3, who was supposed to be an expert in the OT. Many today still don't understand this point. If Revelation 20 is not a clear teaching to more obscure OT text, that is probably why John 3 is an issue for Amil as well.

 

[Truth7t7]

This verse is distinguishing between Isaac, and the rest of Abraham's offspring.

By the time Paul wrote this, Israel has been scattered throughout the world for 800 years.

The covenant was broken, but nothing in these verses imply the church replaced the natural seed.

The church is not grafted into Israel. The church was always grafted in by faith throughout the OT, and Gentiles could come by faith just as could Abraham's seed, because Abraham was a Gentile called out, even though a direct descendant of Noah, because Noah was the Father of all Gentiles.

You are missing the point that God does not include Ishmael into Israel, nor Esau into Israel even though they are the seed of Abraham. Especially if you claim Abraham was implied as being Israel. Or if you imply Abraham is the true church, and only those from physical Abraham can be the church, because they are grafted in physically. How literal do you want to take this allegory?

Paul in Romans 9 is not saying the church is this particular Israel you think it is. Paul was only pointing out the historical mess of Abraham's genetic decisions and the natural course of Abraham's offspring. Isaac was not even a son of God, because he was the promised child. Isaac was only a son of God by faith.

Amil are great at painting the OT Gentiles as so far bound in sin they could never get saved, to produce this emotional need to have Satan literally bound at the first coming. Paul started off Romans 9, that even Israel itself was also so bound up in sin, it could never be freed just like every other Gentile nation.

"That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"

Israelites had to be adopted into God's family including Abraham, and God's family was not automatic for any Israelite. Isaac had to live and have offspring so Jesus had a family to physically be born into. But all of Abraham's offspring had to accept the adoption of God, just like all other Gentiles.

One can only be a Spiritual Jew if they are a direct descendant of Judah, and born again of the Holy Spirit. One can only be a Spiritual Israelite, if they are a direct descendant of Jacob, and born again of the Holy Spirit. Being born of the Holy Spirit does not make one a Jew nor an Israelite. Just like being a physical descendant of Abraham does not make you a spiritual son of God.

That is the difference between the first birth, physical and the second birth, spiritual. The first resurrection is also only physical, not spiritual.

A spiritual birth does not change your physical status. Nor can a physical birth change your spiritual status. Two separate phenomenon. So the first resurrection in Revelation 20 has nothing to do with a spiritual application whatsoever. Those granted a physical resurrection are blessed and never have to face the second death. Not because they had a physical resurrection. They had a physical resurrection because they were already spiritually reborn by God, or they would still be in sheol waiting for the second death.

Reformed theology certainly has a right to change one's physical standing, but only in the age to come, which starts at physical death, not some assumed future resurrection. That is the error of Amil, waiting for a single future resurrection, when the Cross was already the age to come, and the OT redeemed were physically resurrected out of their graves, and out of Abraham's bosom. Not just spiritually, but that first physical resurrection. They are currently in Paradise as the angels, not procreating, but enjoying that age to come. Jesus explained this to Nicodemus in John 3, who was supposed to be an expert in the OT. Many today still don't understand this point. If Revelation 20 is not a clear teaching to more obscure OT text, that is probably why John 3 is an issue for Amil as well.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the promises and covenant made to Abraham, the Church is the Israel of God, children of the promised seed, it's that simple

The promises made to Abraham have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, read it again and again

Jesus Christ is the promised seed, and his children are the Church

Galatians 3:16-29KJV
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

(Two Israel's Are Seen Below)

(1) Israel The Church, Children Of The Promised Seed

(2) National Ethnic Israel (Flesh)

The Church is the Israel of God, children of the promised seed

They which are the children of the flesh (Ethnic Israel) these are not the children of God

Romans 9:6-8KJV
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all (1)Israel, which are of (2)Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus returns in fire and final judgement, dissolving this earth by fire (The End)

There won't be a Millennium on this earth as you Falsely believe and teach

There will be a Millennium despite your false teaching directly against God's Word.

You have no Scripture denying a future Millennium.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus Christ fulfilled the promises and covenant made to Abraham, the Church is the Israel of God, children of the promised seed, it's that simple

The promises made to Abraham have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, read it again and again

Jesus Christ is the promised seed, and his children are the Church

Galatians 3:16-29KJV
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

(Two Israel's Are Seen Below)

(1) Israel The Church, Children Of The Promised Seed

(2) National Ethnic Israel (Flesh)

The Church is the Israel of God, children of the promised seed

They which are the children of the flesh (Ethnic Israel) these are not the children of God

Romans 9:6-8KJV
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all (1)Israel, which are of (2)Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Only by adoption. If you reject God's adoption, then you are not part of God's family.

This is about salvation, not eschatology.

The majority of Israel throughout the last 3,000 years have rejected God's adoption. This has nothing to do with you all rejecting God's Millennium written specifically in Revelation 20.

 

[Truth7t7]

There will be a Millennium despite your false teaching directly against God's Word.

You have no Scripture denying a future Millennium.

There Will Be No 1,000 Year Millennial Kingdom Upon This Earth, Jesus Christ Returns In Fire And Final Judgement, Dissolving This Existing Earth By Fire, Immediately After The Tribulation

This Existing Heaven And Earth Will Be (Replaced) By The New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, A New Creation, At The Return Of Jesus Christ

(Behold, I Make All Things New)

2 Peter 3:10-13KJV
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.

Revelation 21:1-5KJV
1 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.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Matthew 24:29-30KJV
29 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:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

1 Corinthians 3:13KJV
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Luke 17:29-30KJV
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.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9KJV
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Malachi 3:2KJV
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

Psalm 46:6KJV
6 The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.

Psalm 50:3KJV
3 Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.

Psalm 97:5KJV
5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.

Isaiah 66:15KJV
15 For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

Zechariah 14:12KJV
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Nahum 1:5-6KJV
5 The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.
6 Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

Revelation 20:9KJV
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.

 

[Truth7t7]

Only by adoption. If you reject God's adoption, then you are not part of God's family.

This is about salvation, not eschatology.

The majority of Israel throughout the last 3,000 years have rejected God's adoption. This has nothing to do with you all rejecting God's Millennium written specifically in Revelation 20.

Revelation 20:1-6 Isnt A Millennial Kingdom On This Earth, Dont Be Deceived

Can you find the things claimed by those teaching a Literal 1,000 year Millennial Kingdom On This Earth in Revelation 20:1-6 below?

1.) Physical Earthly Kingdom?
2.) Physical Earthly Throne?
3.) Physical Mortal Humans?

The Above Claims (Don't Exist)

Revelation 20:1-6 Is 100% In The Lords (Spiritual) Angel, Heaven, Devil, Satan, The Souls, The Dead, God, Christ

100% Spiritual Realm, No "Literal" Time

2 Peter 3:8KJV
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.

Revelation 20:1-6KJV
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
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.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

 

[Marty fox]

You said:


"And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."

This is God gathering all of these people to battle:

"For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty."

"That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 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."

The 6th vial is bringing all of earth together. There are not 2 different "all the kings of the earth" battles. There is only one.

The 5th vial prepares the kings of the east to arrive.

The 7th vial causes all the cities on earth to collapse. They are all emptied and all are forced to Armageddon. The empire of Satan, Babylon has been destroyed. But no battles were fought in Revelation 16. The scene of the battle is described in Revelation 19. That is the great day of God Almighty, when He sends Jesus to the Valley of Megiddo, the place of the battle known as Armageddon.

Chapters 17 and 18 describe the rise and fall of Satan's empire during that 42 months. But all mankind including Satan (the dragon), the FP, and the beast all show up at Armageddon. Their defeat is described in Revelation 19. All humanity is killed. The FP and beast cast into the LOF. Satan is bound for 1,000 years. Revelation 20 points out the end of the symbolic usage of the dragon, and tells us it is Satan. Then 1,000 years later Satan is loosed, not as a dragon, but as a deceiver like in the Garden of Eden after the end of the first Day of The Lord. The first 1,000 years of life on earth, Genesis 2.

The beast does not destroy his own empire Babylon. This is the verse:

"And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found."

It was an earthquake that brought down every city, an empire known as Great Babylon. It was Jerusalem again that was divided up into 3 parts.

The cup of wine from the wine press is either the end of 42 months, or just the end without 42 months. No 42 months, means no Babylonian empire. But the beast does not destroy his own empire. An earthquake does. Even Revelation 17:13-14 declare it is Jesus that does the honors of war:

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

Still only one battle where Jesus ends all of humanity in one place, Armageddon.

That last battle is not fought several times. Only one final last battle.

You are mentioning a lot of presumptions here but what does the bible actually say?

Revelation 17:16-17
16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You get called out for your lying and what do you do? Tell more lies. Who are you to tell him or anyone else that they don't care what the Bible actually says? You're coming across as if you're saying it's not possible for someone to care what the Bible says unless they agree completely with you. That's ludicrous.

I didn't lie about you or Paul M. I told you an unpleasant truth, one that you didn't want to hear.

The unpleasant truth, which you did not want to hear is this. Amillennialism is built on the Amillennial eisegesis of the Old testament. Both you and Paul have approvingly repeated the following precept, or some variation of it: "The Old is in the New Revealed, the New is in the Old Concealed." So I know you both are victims of this obfuscation tactic.

The essential framework for proper Biblical study is Authorial intentionalism, the view that an author's intentions should constrain the ways in which a text is properly interpreted. There is no other reliable hermeneutic than that. Given this feature of proper Biblical study, one can perhaps immediately see the fatal flaw in the precept. When one expects to find the New Testament concealed in the Old Testament, one is no longer looking for the author's intended meaning.

This is why I say that you and Paul are not interested in what the Old Testament says. You both employ an error prone hermeneutic, whereby those who study and believe the Amillennial doctrine, wear "New Testament glasses" when reading the Old Testament.

Both Paul M and you have asked me the question, "where is that found in the New Testament?", which is a symptom of one accustomed to the precept. In essence, there is nothing of any interest in the Old Testament. Why read concealed truth when revealed truth is better? Right?

No, they would say that we all need help from the Holy Spirit just as Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. Do you think people can understand the Bible, especially the deeper things, without help from the Holy Spirit?

Yes, I think people can understand the Bible without the help of the Holy Spirit. Since God wants human beings to understand the truth about his will for mankind, he superintended the production of the Bible so that anyone who is able to read can gain access to the truth. Because the unbeliever is able to read and understand the Bible, he stands condemned and he is without excuse. If the Bible was near impossible to understand without the Holy Spirit, then the unbeliever is without guilt. But, on the contrary, the Bible is comprehensible and therefore it stands in judgment over all mankind.

The Holy Spirit's effort is directed at the heart, dealing with the will of mankind.

 

[CadyandZoe]

We're equating spiritual Israel with the church, but not with the nation of Israel.

As I said earlier, what you just said is the core tenet of Replacement theology. Why equate the church with anything other than Jesus Christ? Why not call it "spiritual Christians?" Or Spirit filled believers?" The answer is as obvious as the nose on your face. Equating Israel with the Church is to consider Israel to be the same as the church. The appellation, "spiritual Israel" is simply short hand for "the universal Christian Church has succeeded ancient Israel as God's true Israel and that Christians have succeeded the ancient Israelites as the people of God."

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Please tell us how you interpret this passage. Do you recognize that Paul is contrasting two Israels here, one of which consists of "the children by physical descent" and the other of which consists of "God's children" who are "the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring"?

No, Paul is not contrasting two Israel's here. He answers his rhetorical question, which should be the basis for a proper interpretation of the passage. Before I give you my interpretation, first tell me which word of God do you think Paul has in mind? Until we answer THAT question, we won't understand anything he is trying to say from that point forward.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes, I understand them. I'm not sure that you do, though.

I don't think you do. In fact, I know you don't. You already admitted to your use of a faulty and worthless hermeneutic with regard to the Old Testament. And all of those names for Jesus come from the Old Testament.

In order to believe the OT as written we need the NT and the Holy Spirit's help to understand what is written.

The error of your statement is clearly seen once we consider the fact that Jesus, Paul, James, John and other New Testament author's quoted the Old Testament to PROVE their assertions. These men would NOT have cited the OT, often times quoting it verbatim, if they believed what you believe about it. Why do we quote scripture to each other, if we didn't believe our reader wasn't able to read it and understand it? Why does the author of Acts refer to the Bereans as "noble-minded" for searching the scriptures? They compared the scriptures with what Paul said because they rightly assumed that the OT could be understood.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Who is spiritual Israel replacing, keeping in mind that he's not saying that there is only one Israel which is the church. He (and Amils in general) is saying that there is spiritual Israel, which is the church, but then there is also the separate entity of national Israel.

This category distinction is not found in the Bible.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The disciples that Jesus personally chose clearly misunderstood the OT as written.
Jesus had to open their minds to understand it. Therefore You should allow the NT to open yours.

Lk 24
25 Then Jesus said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to trust and believe in everything that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and [only then to] enter His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and [throughout] all the [writings of the] prophets, He explained and interpreted for them the things referring to Himself [found] in all the Scriptures.

Jesus was critical of their unbelief; not their ignorance. They understood the OT, they simply didn't believe it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

If you would take the time to actually read your Bible instead of running your mouth off you might actually see what I am pressing at. Romans 9:6-13: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

What this is saying is, those who are not saved have no right to consider themselves as true Israel. The apostle here identifies two Israels; one elect and believing, the other lost and unbelieving. One is true spiritual Israel (“the children of God”/“the children of the promise”), the other is unbelieving and merely “children of the flesh.” Basically: national theocratic Israel was a political entity in which a believing spiritual remnant – true Israel – abode. It is only those Jews who belong to the remnant that are true Israelis in God’s eyes.

Jesus also exposed those who boast that they are Jews but who are not. He exposed them as those “which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9, 3:9). This demonstrates that biology alone is insufficient to class one as a real Jew. Natural Jews must be followers of Jesus Christ to be legitimate and acceptable spiritual Jews in God’s eyes. It is important that believers recognize the difference between national Israel and true Israel in both testaments or they may become confused with the unfolding of God’s plan in the New Testament.

I don't agree with your interpretation. Meditate on Paul's rhetorical question. Your interpretation does not address his rhetorical question.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Pauls clear prophecy of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, proves a 'caught up'. The question is: Where to?
As Jesus has come down from heaven at that time, He does not just go back to heaven with the Christians, as the pre-tribbers like to believe. He is on His way to Jerusalem, the place He will rule from for the next thousand years.
It will be a horizontal transportation as demonstrated by Philip; Acts 8:39 and in Matthew 24:31

The Resurrection of everyone takes place at the end of the Millennium. Some will receive immortality, most will be annihilated.

Paul says we are caught up together in the air, which is not exactly a horizontal move. It isn't heaven, though, I agree. Jesus tells us we will meet where the eagles fly.

 

[WPM]

I don't agree with your interpretation. Meditate on Paul's rhetorical question. Your interpretation does not address his rhetorical question.

What question? Also, I referenced 3 texts that forbid your hypothesis.