22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Spiritual Israelite]

You need to be clear with your questions then. I never said or suggested that Jesus was a sinner.

You said He needs to be saved. Saved from what? He was sinless. Who else needs to be saved except for sinners?

But eventually you might come to understand that salvation is more than forgiveness. I realize how difficult it is for you to admit that Jesus was a man,

That is not difficult for me at all. He was a man AND is God. Why do you think He can only be one or the other? Do you not know that it says He would be called Emmanuel because that means "God with us"? You are terribly deceived. You are completely lacking in discernment.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What is very telling over this past few days is the complete silence of Premils when their fellow Premils are denying the Deity of Christ. This silence is deafening. It says it all. You can do is attack those who are attacking heresy and blasphemy.

Exactly. It shows where their priorities lie. Acting as if it's more important to defend their Premil doctrine than to defend the deity of Christ. What a sad state of affairs.

 

[RLT63]

What is very telling over this past few days is the complete silence of Premils when their fellow Premils are denying the Deity of Christ. This silence is deafening. It says it all. You can do is attack those who are attacking heresy and blasphemy.

I believe in the deity of Jesus. Most of the conversations I've had on this forum are about that subject. I strongly defend the deity of Christ and who have I attacked? You are the one doing the attacking

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There are several passages in the Old Testament that clearly indicate animal sacrifice will be re-instituted during the millennial kingdom. Some passages mention it in passing as the topic of the millennial kingdom is discussed, passages like Isaiah 56:6-8; Zechariah 14:16; and Jeremiah 33:15-18.

The passage that is the most extensive, giving the greatest detail, is Ezekiel 43:18-46:24. It should be noted that this is part of a greater passage dealing with the millennial kingdom, a passage that begins with Ezekiel 40. In Ezekiel 40, the Lord begins to give details of the temple that will exist during the millennial kingdom, a temple that dwarfs all other temples previously built, even Herod’s temple that was quite large, which existed during the earthly ministry of Christ.

But those passages talk about animal sacrifices as sin offerings. Why in the world would that happen in the future in light of Christ's "once for all" sacrifice? How do your reconcile your belief in future animal sacrifices with this passage:

Hebrews 10:5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, my God.’” 8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Does this passage give the impression that God would ever again desire animal sacrifices after the "once for all" sacrifice of His Son?

What is the purpose of these supposed future animal sacrifices? You said before they'd be as a memorial, yet there is no scripture which states such a thing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I believe in the deity of Jesus. Most of the conversations I've had on this forum are about that subject. I strongly defend the deity of Christ

Except here in this thread? Are you not strongly defending it here just because it's a Premil denying His deity and Amils are the ones defending it? You don't want to be seen agreeing with Amils on anything? Is that it?

 

[WPM]

I believe in the deity of Jesus. Most of the conversations I've had on this forum are about that subject. I strongly defend the deity of Christ

So, why does you or no Premil not join Amils in confronting Cady as he attacks this great fundamental truth? Why doid you turn on Amils doing that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is a disgusting and unchristian accusation, falsely made as C & Z are correct. Jesus was God's Firstborn. Proverbs 8:22-31

You refuse to be corrected, you jump to wrong conclusions and you accuse and abuse the brethren. God help you!

It's unChristian to deny the deity of Christ! I see we have another denier here. I'm glad we are exposing you frauds for the false teachers that you are. Would anyone else like to admit that they deny the deity of Christ?

How do you interpret these passages?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[Truth7t7]

I lean towards it being man rather than a man but…it’s not really any difference to me. I see it more like…count the number of men of the beast or…the number of men who take his mark.
Once again, for me, it’s not only one way or only the other way.

It doesn't matter what you think grace, the Greek scholar in Strongs has clearly shown (A Man) with its definition being a individual male "Human Being"

In Love, Jesus Is The Lord

Strongs (Of A Man) Revelation 13:18

Strong’s Definitions
ἀνήρ anḗr, an'-ayr; a primary word (compare G444); a man (properly as an individual male):—fellow, husband, man, sir.

Strong’s Definitions
ἄνθρωπος ánthrōpos, anth'-ro-pos; from G435 and ὤψ ṓps (the countenance; from G3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being:—certain, man.

Revelation 13:18KJV
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I had the same problem with animal sacrifices but the premillennial view is that chapters 40-48 are about a future temple during the millennium. If you don't believe that and you are amillennial I don't have a problem with that. There are more important things to be concerned with than trying to prove I'm right just to be right.

well I would certainly look at the verses that convinced you the temple is built, not during the first part of the 7 years, but during the thousand years. I wouldn’t argue, just maybe ask questions.
I mean if one tiny verse could make me give up thinking the first resurrection is prior to the 7 years, who knows what else I might see!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

It doesn't matter what you think grace, the Greek scholar in Strongs has clearly shown (A Man) with its definition being a individual male "Human Being"

Meh. I see both in what I read, a man - the antichrist AND an unholy “trinity.”

 

[RLT63]

But those passages talk about animal sacrifices as sin offerings. Why in the world would that happen in the future in light of Christ's "once for all" sacrifice? How do your reconcile your belief in future animal sacrifices with this passage:

Hebrews 10:5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will, my God.’” 8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Does this passage give the impression that God would ever again desire animal sacrifices after the "once for all" sacrifice of His Son?

What is the purpose of these supposed future animal sacrifices? You said before they'd be as a memorial, yet there is no scripture which states such a thing.

Already been addressed. All I can say is that if Satan is chained up his chain is too long. Amills think about that. Everyone have a good evening.

 

[The Light]

First of all, I could be wrong and I am willing to be corrected. But I see a strong correlation between the events of 70AD and the seals.

I don't see that correlation CadyandZoe.
Have you ever noticed the difference in these two verses?

Luke 21
12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

Matthew 24
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

If you read in Luke 21 it talks about false Christs, war with nations rising against each other, famines and pestilences and then says BUT BEFORE ALL THESES.

If you read in Matthew 24 it also talks about false Christs, war with nations rising against each other, famines and pestilences and then says THEN THEY SHALL THEY DELIVER YOU UP.

So Luke talks about the events of 70 AD when the scripture says BUT BEFORE ALL THESE. It is going back to events in 70 AD that happen before the false Christs, wars, famines and pestilence. But Matthew talks about future events that will happen in the end of the age when the Abomination of Desolation will be set up. The point is that Matthew never talks about 70 AD. Also, notice the events in Luke of the destruction of Jerusalem happen before the false Christs, wars with nations rising against nations, famines and pestilence. So Jerusalem is destroyed before these events.

Also notice that those four events (false Christs, wars with nations rising against nations, famines and pestilence) are the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse, the first four seals. Also, the 5th seal is great tribulation and the 6th seal is the same coming of Jesus that you see in Matthew 24.

Conclusion should be that those seals are not open. Those seals are the 70th week of Daniel.

Also if you know, I would like to know what your pastor says about the rapture. He seems a brilliant teacher from the little exposure that I have had from him. I going to look back through his videos and see if I missed it, but if you know, let me know.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Already been addressed.

Where?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Already been addressed. All I can say is that if Satan is chained up his chain is too long. Amills think about that. Everyone have a good evening.

His chain hasn't been long enough to allow him to prevent many millions of people from being saved in the New Testament era, which is completely different than what he was able to do in the Old Testament era. But, Premils don't think about that. They think nothing changed in relation to Satan after Christ's death and resurrection. But, it most certainly did.

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

1 John 3:8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.

Acts 26:16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

 

[RLT63]

Except here in this thread? Are you not strongly defending it here just because it's a Premil denying His deity and Amils are the ones defending it? You don't want to be seen agreeing with Amils on anything? Is that it?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't read every post in this thread. You need to switch to decaf or something. You don't have to attack other Christians 24 hours a day you might even find they agree with you about a lot of things.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Here is the verse in question (I think I had said verse 10, but it's verse 12):

Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

You're trying to tell me that the ten horns who have not yet received a kingdom will only be in power for literally 60 minutes once they do "receive power as kings one hour with the beast"? What could they possibly achieve in only 60 minutes? Is this your final answer? Are you sure you want to just assume that it's being literal there?

I’ve said, to me, it’s not outside the realm of possibility. I’m not as certainly certain as you are that I understand it all.
So my final answer is exactly as I said. I don’t think it’s an absolute impossibility.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’ve said, to me, it’s not outside the realm of possibility. I’m not as certainly certain as you are that I understand it all.
So my final answer is exactly as I said. I don’t think it’s an absolute impossibility.

I'm not even denying that it's outside the realm of possibility, but how possible is it really? Seems like only a remote possibility to me.

Do you really think it's reasonable that the ten kings "would receive authority as kings along with the beast" for a literal 60 minutes? What could they even do in that short amount of time?

You know it's not going to make you have to change all of your beliefs if you acknowledge that the "one hour" is just a figurative representation of an indefinite amount of time, right? Not sure why you want to cling so hard to your apparent belief that every time reference, even in a highly symbolic book like Revelation, must be taken literally.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

How can you not know? You haven't seen any of the posts where we have rebuked CadyandZoe for his denial of the deity of Christ?

I haven't read every post in this thread.

I can't imagine that you've missed all of the posts regarding this particular issue.

You need to switch to decaf or something.

I will never apologize for being passionate about the truth. And I don't even drink coffee. If you do, then maybe you need to switch to caf.

You don't have to attack other Christians 24 hours a day you might even find they agree with you about a lot of things.

Exaggerate much? I'm not on here 24 hours a day or anywhere near that. Of course I agree with everyone here on some things. Well, not everyone. Anyway, I will defend the truth, especially a fundamental truth like Christ's deity, passionately every time. And I will never apologize for it.

Just because you seemingly are not very passionate about what you believe doesn't mean you need to tell others to "switch to decaf". Maybe you need to switch to caf.

 

[RLT63]

How can you not know? You haven't seen any of the posts where we have rebuked CadyandZoe for his denial of the deity of Christ?

I can't imagine that you've missed all of the posts regarding this particular issue.

I will never apologize for being passionate about the truth. And I don't even drink coffee. If you do, then maybe you need to switch to caf.

Exaggerate much? I'm not on here 24 hours a day or anywhere near that. Of course I agree with everyone here on some things. Well, not everyone. Anyway, I will defend the truth, especially a fundamental truth like Christ's deity, passionately every time. And I will never apologize for it.

Just because you seemingly are not very passionate about what you believe doesn't mean you need to tell others to "switch to decaf". Maybe you need to switch to caf.

I don't know what Cadyandzoe may be talking about but if they don't believe Jesus is God you are right to correct them. But Amillenielism is not the only possibility. It's a valid view but so are others. If switching to caf means attacking everyone who has a different view than I do about the end times no thanks

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't know what Cadyandzoe may be talking about but if they don't believe Jesus is God you are right to correct them.

He is making it very clear that he doesn't believe Jesus is God. Why are Amils the only ones calling him out on it? That's disappointing.

But Amillenielism is not the only possibility. It's a valid view but so are others.

I never said otherwise. I was a Premil once. But, once I studied things closer, I became quite convinced that Amillennialism is true. As you can tell. And, again, I won't apologize for being passionate about that. If you're not passionate about this subject, so be it. Doesn't mean it's wrong that I am.

If switching to caf means attacking everyone who has a different view than I do about the end times no thanks

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm not talking any differently than many of the Premils do here. So, do you believe they are attacking Amils when they talk to us?