Another Premillennial absurdity

[rwb]

The question below is perfectly applicable to the topic and to the very question you just now posed.

Since Christ confirms that they are Believers in Him, Born-Again thru the Spirit of God,
what is the 'crown of Life' that He is promising them, since they already have Eternal Life in Him?

Do not be afraid. Jesus loves you and His answer supplies to us confidence in the Scripture.

Since you acknowledge the first resurrection is the resurrection of Christ man must have part in while living to be saved, and overcome the second death, it is clear the first resurrection is not physical. Yet you also insist the first resurrection is physical??? That's contradiction! Until you can acknowledge the first resurrection is spiritual, it seems we are at an impasse. And I believe you may be forecasting your fear of truth onto me. I have great assurance and confidence that I have correct doctrine, because my doctrinal position does not force contradiction into the Word of God. Sadly we cannot say the same for the doctrine you espouse regarding the "first resurrection".

 

[David in NJ]

Since you acknowledge the first resurrection is the resurrection of Christ man must have part in while living to be saved, and overcome the second death, it is clear the first resurrection is not physical. Yet you also insist the first resurrection is physical??? That's contradiction! Until you can acknowledge the first resurrection is spiritual, it seems we are at an impasse. And I believe you may be forecasting your fear of truth onto me. I have great assurance and confidence that I have correct doctrine, because my doctrinal position does not force contradiction into the Word of God. Sadly we cannot say the same for the doctrine you espouse regarding the "first resurrection".

Good Morning,
Did your memory slip??? - Have a Cup of Truth to wake UP to = I always conferred the Gospel of Christ.
We are Born-Again by the Spirit of God thru the Death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[rwb]

Good Morning,
Did your memory slip??? - Have a Cup of Truth to wake UP to = I always conferred the Gospel of Christ.
We are Born-Again by the Spirit of God thru the Death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So are we born again SPIRITUALLY through the resurrection of Christ, Who is the "first resurrection"? Can you say you understand the first resurrection man must have part in to be saved is NOT PHYSICAL?

 

[David in NJ]

So are we born again SPIRITUALLY through the resurrection of Christ, Who is the "first resurrection"? Can you say you understand the first resurrection man must have part in to be saved is NOT PHYSICAL?

Please answer these questions - they are simple Yes/No questions

1.) Did the Lord Jesus Christ have a physical body?

2.) Do you have a physical body?

3.) Must a person have a physical body BEFORE they are Born-Again by the Spirit of God?

 

[Timtofly]

You really do not get it. Address these simple questions that destroy your sinless sinners nonsense.

1. So, according to you, turning your back on Jesus is not sin?
2. Embracing Satan and becoming a follower of him is not sin?
3. Mobilizing in Satan's army to destroy "the camp of the saints" is not sin?
4. Please show us one Scripture that teaches that believers in "permanent incorruptible physical bodies" marry and procreate on the earth after the second coming?

Ask me questions from God's Word, not your made up nonsense. You call my answers nonsense, because they are accordingly equal to your nonsensical questions.

You know your questions are nonsense, yet you avoid directly addressing Scripture.

I gave you Isaiah 65 and you turned literal words into your symbolic interpretation. Isaiah 65 is about multiplying and subduing the earth after the earth is restored, made new at the Second Coming. People age in Isaiah 65. People have offspring in Isaiah 65. People are constantly building new houses and vineyards as they spread out across the earth. Now you can take Isaiah 65 and turn the chapter into a symbolic application, and totally ignore what is written. The Pharisees ignored the prophets and totally missed the Messiah come to earth. Amil will totally reject the Millennium, for the whole 1,000 years, as they symbolically keep telling themselves it is not happening.

Sin is disobedience to God. Sin is not obeying Satan. Do you have a verse that states otherwise? Being obedient to Satan now is just an outward working of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. There are no humans in Adam's dead corruptible flesh in the Millennium. You yourself claim they are all destroyed at the Second Coming. Why do you claim one thing, then foist a totally opposite view on the Millennium? You blatantly refute your own teachings to make senseless questions. Nothing about Adam's current condition on humanity can be used as points after the Millennium. You have to establish from Scripture what they did in direct disobedience to God, that would allow sin into the world. Adam was the only one accused of doing that by Paul. Christ removes sin at the Second Coming. There is no sin nor a sin nature period in the Millennium. Most premill are dead wrong on that point.

But totally ignoring Scripture does not help the Amil nonsense that you keep using as some bully tactic to prove you are wrong yourself. Your questions cannot apply, until you can prove sin once again entered the world. Remember:

"for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed."

Does sin enter your own NHNE?

 

[Timtofly]

Try and divert away from these questions that expose your thesis all you want but it is showing everyone that your beliefs are vain imaginations. Your journey has finally come to a crunching halt.

Or your blatantly "opposite to your own teachings" questions will come to an end. You don't even accept a Millennium. Why would you force your version of a Millennium over God's Scriptural Millennium? There are no sinners, nor sin in the 1,000 year rule of Christ on earth. You have to establish from Scripture when God lets sin once again enter the world.

 

[WPM]

Sin is not obeying Satan. Do you have a verse that states otherwise? Being obedient to Satan now is just an outward working of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. There are no humans in Adam's dead corruptible flesh in the Millennium. You yourself claim they are all destroyed at the Second Coming. Why do you claim one thing, then foist a totally opposite view on the Millennium? You blatantly refute your own teachings to make senseless questions. Nothing about Adam's current condition on humanity can be used as points after the Millennium. You have to establish from Scripture what they did in direct disobedience to God, that would allow sin into the world. Adam was the only one accused of doing that by Paul. Christ removes sin at the Second Coming. There is no sin nor a sin nature period in the Millennium. Most premill are dead wrong on that point.

But totally ignoring Scripture does not help the Amil nonsense that you keep using as some bully tactic to prove you are wrong yourself. Your questions cannot apply, until you can prove sin once again entered the world. Remember:

"for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed."

Does sin enter your own NHNE?

You have to avoid these questions as they expose your teaching.

To say that people turning their backs on Christ, rejecting His commands, embracing Satan and then attacking the people of God is not sin and disobedience is the utmost folly. How can you expect any Christian to take you seriously? It sums up the deceit that you have bought into and promote. One has to have eyes to see to grasp the basics of Christianity. You clearly do not get it. It is a waste of time trying to convince you of the basics of the faith. If you do not get them they you do not get them.

To try and use Amil fundamentals to defend your own nonsense is ridiculous in the extreme. Your whole theological edifice has just crumbled.

 

[Timtofly]

You have to avoid these questions as they expose your teaching.

To say that people turning their backs on Christ, rejecting His commands, embracing Satan and then attacking the people of God is not sin and disobedience is the utmost folly. How can you expect any Christian to take you seriously? It sums up the deceit that you have bought into and promote. One has to have eyes to see to grasp the basics of Christianity. You clearly do not get it. It is a waste of time trying to convince you of the basics of the faith. If you do not get them they you do not get them.

To try and use Amil fundamentals to defend your own nonsense is ridiculous in the extreme. Your whole theological edifice has just crumbled.

So you finally see the folly of your absurd Amil based nonsensical questions?


You try to turn this on me, and apply the last 2,000 years of Adam's dead corruptible flesh onto a future Millennium. That is on you, not me. I have not once claimed the future Millennium is just the same old sin nature allowed under some Christian theocracy over a perfect utopian society.

You claim Daniel's 70 weeks were over at the Cross and all is perfect with the world, and sin has been removed. You have yet to prove that the binding of Satan did not happen at Armageddon when the beast and the FP were cast into the LOF. You have nothing to show what happened to Satan at Armageddon. Revelation 20:1-3 shows what happened to Satan at Armageddon. You deny Scripture, and make other claims contrary to Satan being bound and loosed. You deny these people are deceived by Satan, but claim they were already deceived sinners by nature, even though Adam's dead corruptible flesh was removed 1,000 years prior to these people being decieved by Satan. You have not proven that 1,000 years means 2,000 years. You certainly cannot prove that the Second Coming can happen between 3,000 and 30,000 years from the Cross.

All you have is: "casting doubt", inconsistencies, contradiction to your own teachings, and nonsensical questions that cannot apply to the context of the chapter of Revelation 20. They only apply to the contradictory nature of your own beliefs as argument points dealing in subjective opinion, instead of actual Scripture. Even if you use Scripture that applies to the here and now, it cannot work after the Second Coming when all the former things have been done away with and all have been made new, so that Jesus can bring current creation under subjection. That means subdued, not one's subjective reasoning.

1 Corinthians 15 does not mean Jesus reigns until Amil's subjective opinions are put in place. It does not even mean until Premil's subjective opinions are accomplished. One has to agree on Scripture, and you clearly don't agree with John, but use chapter divisions to make an erroneous assumption.

 

[WPM]

So you finally see the folly of your absurd Amil based nonsensical questions?


You try to turn this on me, and apply the last 2,000 years of Adam's dead corruptible flesh onto a future Millennium. That is on you, not me. I have not once claimed the future Millennium is just the same old sin nature allowed under some Christian theocracy over a perfect utopian society.

You claim Daniel's 70 weeks were over at the Cross and all is perfect with the world, and sin has been removed. You have yet to prove that the binding of Satan did not happen at Armageddon when the beast and the FP were cast into the LOF. You have nothing to show what happened to Satan at Armageddon. Revelation 20:1-3 shows what happened to Satan at Armageddon. You deny Scripture, and make other claims contrary to Satan being bound and loosed. You deny these people are deceived by Satan, but claim they were already deceived sinners by nature, even though Adam's dead corruptible flesh was removed 1,000 years prior to these people being decieved by Satan. You have not proven that 1,000 years means 2,000 years. You certainly cannot prove that the Second Coming can happen between 3,000 and 30,000 years from the Cross.

All you have is: "casting doubt", inconsistencies, contradiction to your own teachings, and nonsensical questions that cannot apply to the context of the chapter of Revelation 20. They only apply to the contradictory nature of your own beliefs as argument points dealing in subjective opinion, instead of actual Scripture. Even if you use Scripture that applies to the here and now, it cannot work after the Second Coming when all the former things have been done away with and all have been made new, so that Jesus can bring current creation under subjection. That means subdued, not one's subjective reasoning.

1 Corinthians 15 does not mean Jesus reigns until Amil's subjective opinions are put in place. It does not even mean until Premil's subjective opinions are accomplished. One has to agree on Scripture, and you clearly don't agree with John, but use chapter divisions to make an erroneous assumption.

Your sandcastle has fallen. Why can you not admit it.

• So, according to you, turning your back on Jesus is not sin?
• Embracing Satan and becoming a follower of him is not sin?
• Mobilizing in Satan's army to destroy "the camp of the saints" is not sin?
• Show us one Scripture that teaches that believers in "permanent incorruptible physical bodies" marry and procreate on the earth after the second coming?

 

[Timtofly]

Your sandcastle has fallen. Why can you not admit it.

• So, according to you, turning your back on Jesus is not sin?
• Embracing Satan and becoming a follower of him is not sin?
• Mobilizing in Satan's army to destroy "the camp of the saints" is not sin?
• Show us one Scripture that teaches that believers in "permanent incorruptible physical bodies" marry and procreate on the earth after the second coming?

First of all, you claim Jesus is not on earth. What does "turning one's back" even mean?

Being decieved by Satan leads one to disobey, but deception is not the same as being a sinner.

Thinking about breaking the law, does not equate to actually breaking the law. Show me the law that states, one cannot march across the earth in huge numbers. Did they literally attack the camp of the saints?

Kind of hard for the camp of the saints to have billions return and attack, if no one is born to do so. How do you get from point A to point B, if you don't allow 1,000 years of nature to happen?

If no one is born, then it is just the camp of the saints for 1,000 years and no offspring. There would not be any more humans magically appearing without procreation. Show me where these humans appear without procreation in Scripture.

Do you think the camp of the saints are still Adam's dead corruptible flesh? Why would they be saints if still dead in sin? You think they are bodiless souls or spirits? Are they religious "Christians" left behind on earth? Of course you don't accept a camp of the saints. You don't even accept a future Millennium where this camp of the saints will exist. You don't accept Jesus is even physically ruling with this physical camp of the saints. If there is no camp of the saints, what sin is committed about a place that does not even exist?

 

[WPM]

First of all, you claim Jesus is not on earth. What does "turning one's back" even mean?

Being decieved by Satan leads one to disobey, but deception is not the same as being a sinner.

Thinking about breaking the law, does not equate to actually breaking the law. Show me the law that states, one cannot march across the earth in huge numbers. Did they literally attack the camp of the saints?

Kind of hard for the camp of the saints to have billions return and attack, if no one is born to do so. How do you get from point A to point B, if you don't allow 1,000 years of nature to happen?

If no one is born, then it is just the camp of the saints for 1,000 years and no offspring. There would not be any more humans magically appearing without procreation. Show me where these humans appear without procreation in Scripture.

Do you think the camp of the saints are still Adam's dead corruptible flesh? Why would they be saints if still dead in sin? You think they are bodiless souls or spirits? Are they religious "Christians" left behind on earth? Of course you don't accept a camp of the saints. You don't even accept a future Millennium where this camp of the saints will exist. You don't accept Jesus is even physically ruling with this physical camp of the saints. If there is no camp of the saints, what sin is committed about a place that does not even exist?

Of course, I do not accept a future millennium. Of course, Jesus is not on the millennial earth for its duration. Why do you keep saying that? I am Amil. We have been in Rev 20 since the first resurrection.

Is Jesus on your millennial earth?
Are all the resurrected saints on your millennial earth?

 

[David in NJ]

So are we born again SPIRITUALLY through the resurrection of Christ, Who is the "first resurrection"? Can you say you understand the first resurrection man must have part in to be saved is NOT PHYSICAL?

3 simple questions for the pure in heart (Yes or No answers)

1.) Did the Lord Jesus Christ have a physical body?

2.) Do you have a physical body?

3.) Must a person have a physical body BEFORE they are Born-Again by the Spirit of God?

 

[rwb]

3 simple questions for the pure in heart (Yes or No answers)

1.) Did the Lord Jesus Christ have a physical body?

2.) Do you have a physical body?

3.) Must a person have a physical body BEFORE they are Born-Again by the Spirit of God?

David, if you want me to answer your questions, I will be happy to if/when you decide to answer the questions I've asked you. Otherwise the discussions are one sided, and typically not very beneficial.

 

[WPM]

David, if you want me to answer your questions, I will be happy to if/when you decide to answer the questions I've asked you. Otherwise the discussions are one sided, and typically not very beneficial.

If you look back, he will not address the core issues or the Amil rebuttals. He just goes off in an irrelevant tangent attempting to filibuster the topic of conversation.

 

[David in NJ]

David, if you want me to answer your questions, I will be happy to if/when you decide to answer the questions I've asked you. Otherwise the discussions are one sided, and typically not very beneficial.

i agree
In order for me to answer your question, i need to know how you view Scripture.

As you can see, these are not deep theological questions and are basic to our understanding of the Gospel.

So, i promise you, upon the answer of these three simple questions i will fully move to give you my BEST, in answering your more deep & profound question(s).

OK

 

[rwb]

If you look back, he will not address the core issues or the Amil rebuttals. He just goes off in an irrelevant tangent attempting to filibuster the topic of conversation.

Yes, I do notice this.

 

[rwb]

i agree
In order for me to answer your question, i need to know how you view Scripture.

As you can see, these are not deep theological questions and are basic to our understanding of the Gospel.

So, i promise you, upon the answer of these three simple questions i will fully move to give you my BEST, in answering your more deep & profound question(s).

OK

I doubt any poster here would not answer 'yes' to all three questions.

 

[WPM]

I doubt any poster here would not answer 'yes' to all three questions.

Exactly bro. He knows that. He is just unwilling to address your simple questions/arguments because that would expose his Premillennialism.

 

[rockytopva]

It is nice for me to attend rapture believing churches as they show themselves as a more pure Christian congregation…

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. - 1 John 3:2-3

 

[David in NJ]

It is nice for me to attend rapture believing churches as they show themselves as a more pure Christian congregation…

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. - 1 John 3:2-3

My favorite passage of Scripture = 1 John 3:1-3

Don't forget the Opening:
v1 "Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called sons of God!"