22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[WPM]

Your translation is throwing you off because the translator has made an incorrect conclusion about Peter's intent, leading you to draw the same conclusion. Contrary to Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, while the Greek supports the translation they suggest, another, more likely meaning is the correct one.

The New Testament has employed the phrase stoicheia tou kosmou when speaking about religious practices.

An example of this usage is found in Colossians 2:8, 20-21.

Colossians 2:8
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

The Greek word for "world" here is "kosmos", which refers to any ordered system. For instance, we get our word "cosmetics" from "kosmos" referring to the products women use to give order to the face.

Later in the chapter, Paul lists a few things, by which he defines the particular "kosmos" he has in mind.

Colossians 2:20-23
If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

Paul helps us understand what he means by stoicheia tou kosmou. Verse 8 mentions philosophy and empty deception, and verses 20-23 mention decrees such as "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch, in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men.

In my view, Peter is not predicting the cessation of the elementary principles of the world, he is predicting the cessation of religious decrees and empty religious practices, which will burn up with the purge of Israel.

The surrounding language proves the Amil thesis. It is talking about the natural visible corrupted universe coming to an end when Jesus comes. Time also comes to an end. These forbid your attempt at explaining away the literal detail of 2 Peter 3. Premils have no answer to that. The duplicity of your position is further seen in how you literalize the spiritual truth in Revelation. The core issue is, your hermeneutics are messed up.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

There is no sense of objective analyze with the Premil approach to Rev 20. They force a literal interpretation upon the most symbolic of language. They seem to have no grasp of apocalyptic language. They also do not seem no understand the importance of corroboration (interpreting Scripture with other Scripture). That is why they have no corroboration. It is unbiblical! It cannot abide the truth!

Okay grammar man- parse REv. 20:6 and show me the most symbolic of language.

You claim this refers to Jesus, I showed you why it cannot! You ignore that. See I know symbolic language in teh bible and this passage ha snothing grammatically to inform us it should be read symbolically! But you say different so I await your grammatic evidence of the language that should tell me I should take this symbolic.

Still waiting for yhou to rebut the points i made about this verse and how it can't refer to Jesus being the first resurrection. Answer that first before we move on.

 

[WPM]

Creates a lot of disorder a lot of the time.

LOL.

 

[WPM]

Okay grammar man- parse REv. 20:6 and show me the most symbolic of language.

You claim this refers to Jesus, I showed you why it cannot! You ignore that. See I know symbolic language in teh bible and this passage ha snothing grammatically to inform us it should be read symbolically! But you say different so I await your grammatic evidence of the language that should tell me I should take this symbolic.

Still waiting for yhou to rebut the points i made about this verse and how it can't refer to Jesus being the first resurrection. Answer that first before we move on.

I addressed this, and (as is your form), you avoided it.

The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection - Christ's or the resurrection that occurs at the second coming? This is a pretty simply question.

Which is the foremost resurrection in time?
Which is the foremost resurrection in place?
Which is the foremost resurrection in order?
Which is the foremost resurrection in importance?

Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in time.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in place.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in order.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in importance.

The Christian has a meros or “part” in “the first resurrection.” The phrase “that hath part” proves we are looking at our positional involvement in Christ's first resurrection. That comes through being “in Christ.”

Many overlook the phrase "hath part." Whatever that refers to will seal this debate. The unfortunate thing for Premils is that it is present tense. So whatever resurrection it is speaking of, believers currently have their "part" in it. Whatever “the first resurrection” is, participation in it qualifies humans’ to escape the horrors of eternal punishment (the second death). In this experience Christians identify with Christ’s victorious resurrection.

The Greek for “that hath part” is echo méros. The Greek verb echo correctly interpreted “that hath” in the King James Version is written in the present tense and in the active voice. Therefore, we can view the relevance and vitality of “the first resurrection” as being both current and ongoing. Christ’s victory over death is not simply a past event that has no active bearing upon what we are today; it is ongoing reality in the lives of God’s people. The Greek word translated “part” in the text is the word meros meaning share, allotment or portion. This reading tells us that all those that have come to the joy of saving faith in Christ have become partakers in the resurrection life, and through this will escape the horrors of the second death – eternal wrath.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is an utterly naïve statement. Replacement Theology doesn't just "replace" things. It is a very specific kind of "replacement," which you seem unable to acknowledge.

Why would I acknowledge something that isn't true?

I get that you don't like the term. But you don't even understand what it means.

Yes, I do.

So I don't care what you don't like, and whether you don't like it being applied to you.

Look at how you talk, Randy. And you have the gall to complain about how Paul and I talk? Ridiculous.

You should understand what it means before denying that it applies to you.

I do understand what it means. Who are you to tell me if I understand something or not? I know that I do understand it and I know that what I believe and it's not replacement theology. You should just accept that, but instead you want to tell me what I believe instead of me telling you what I believe, which is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Double speak.

How so? All you do is make claims and do nothing to explain what you mean or back up your claims. How can I possibly take you seriously when that is the case?

That's exactly what it is. If you say you don't believe in RT but you act like you do. Am I expected to judge you by what you say or by what you do?

Tell me how exactly I believe in replacement theology.

I think it is fair, in a thread structured as a polemic against what I believe, to point out a major flaw in what you believe. If you don't believe RT then fine. Don't act like you do. Stop fooling yourself with the appellation "spiritual Israel", which signals your belief in RT.

How does that signal a belief in RT? I do not believe that spiritual Israel replaced the nation of Israel, but is its own entity apart form the nation of Israel, as Paul indicated in Romans 9:6-8. Do you understand that? Replacement theology is the belief that spiritual Israel has replaced the nation of Israel, but that isn't what I believe.

Your work is incomplete. You have yet to explain the rhetorical question and why Paul asked it.

Which rhetorical question are you referring to? Can you please try to be more specific when talking to me so that I don't have to try to guess as to what you're talking about?

It may seem that way, but once you answer my questions, then you will understand my interpretation.

Which questions?

 

[CadyandZoe]

In this belief, you are provably wrong. Revelation 21:1, is perfectly clear: The New heavens and the new earth come AFTER the Millennium.
There will be mortal life pretty much as usual, albeit for much longer and better, during the Millennium, Isaiah 2:1-4,Isaiah 65:18=25
It will be the Sixth Seal worldwide disaster, that will burn and devastate the earth. Isaiah 66:15-17, Malachi 4:1-3 But what will happen is just a 1 day strike and most people will survive by taking cover, as Revelation 6:15-17 describes.

It will be the true, righteous and faithful Israelites of God, who will inherit the holy Land. Psalms 37:20, Ephesians 3:6
The people of Israel and Judah, will be Judged and only the Christian believers will enter the holy Land. Ezekiel 20:34-38

I am taking my cues from the prophet Joel. If I am right, the prophet Joel predicts a moment in Israel's history when God will bring on them both famine and fires. This will eventually become an existential crisis. During that time, the call will go out to those living in Israel, to make the trip to Jerusalem to pray for God's mercy and help. And according to Joel, "Those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

In this way, by a test of faith, the Jewish believers will sort themselves out from among unbelievers. Only those who make the journey and remain in Jerusalem will survive into the Millennial period.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hands up those who will join me in ostracizing the poster of #2763 to #2770.
I refuse to respond to anything further he/she says.
It lowers the tone of Biblical discussion to the gutter level.

LOL. In other words, you have nothing to refute what I said, so you'd rather just stop talking to me than admit that.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What Jesus taught is perfect. Listen to him and your Amill 7days a week.


[Ronald ] And their is only one reason why you should hold to it- it is the most biblical without having to reinterpret Scripture, to pigeon hole Scripture to fit your agenda!]

Premill does this with Rev 20 when they contradict every other writer in the NT regarding the coming of the Lord at the end of the age. How you can say it's the most biblical is beyond me.

Nothing could be more unrealistic than unrepentant sinners surviving Jesus coming in the power and great glory of his Father.

Unrepentant sinners survive until Revelation 20:14. The millennial period is before that.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The surrounding language proves the Amil thesis. It is talking about the visible natural corruptible world coming to an end when Jesus comes. Time also comes to an end. These forbid your attempt at explaining away the literal detail of 2 Peter 3. Premils have no answer to that. The duplicity of your position is further seen in how you literalize the spiritual truth in Revelation. The core issue is, your hermeneutics are messed up.

Look again. Peter is talking about "The Day of the Lord", which is NOT a day when the world ends.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And their is only one reason why you should hold to it- it is the most biblical without having to reinterpret Scripture, to pigeon hole Scripture to fit your agenda!

You mean like you do with straightforward passages like Matthew 25:31-46, Matthew 28:18, John 5:28-29, Ephesians 1:19-23, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Cor 15:22-24, Acts 17:31 and 2 Peter 3:10-13. Passages like those, if taken literally, teach that Jesus has been reigning since His resurrection, that He will destroy all of His enemies on the day He returns, that the dead in Christ will all be resurrected when Christ returns, that all of the dead (saved and lost) will be resurrected at generally the same time, and that all people will be judged at the same time. So, who is reinterpreting scripture here? It appears to be Premils like yourself who are doing that.

No theology of man amil. pre-mil post mil etc.etc. is perfect. all have flaws and all have heretrics in the past who staunchly suppoted them. But a Dispensational hermeneutic which is based on a literal/historical/grammatical method of undersataniding Scripture and follows the golden rule of interpretation:

The common sense Golden Rule of Interpretation
Posted on March 30, 2014


“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

I have found after 49 years of walking with the Lord that this method causes the least harm to the Word of God.

That supposed "golden rule of interpretation" is common nonsense and is not supported by scripture itself. It makes a mockery of what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16, which is that "the natural man" cannot comprehend the deeper things taught in scripture and we need the help of the Holy Spirit to understand those things. But, you act as if everything is just spelled out for us without any need of the Holy Spirit's help to interpret it. Tell that to Paul.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Unrepentant sinners survive until Revelation 20:14. The millennial period is before that.

Can you explain how any unrepentant sinners will survive the return of Christ in light of what is taught in passages like this:

2 Thess 1:6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

 

[WPM]

Unrepentant sinners survive until Revelation 20:14. The millennial period is before that.

Revelation 19 forbids your theology!

Revelation 19:11-16, “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall shepherd them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

A plain reading of the passage before us reveals that Christ is coming back with wrath to execute judgment and destroy all those left behind. He is not going to reward men for their rebellion by leading them unto the glorified new earth. Neither is Christ coming to engage in some ill-fated war against evil for a thousand years – that is not remotely in the text. The King of kings and Lord of lords will not have to fight for victory. He already won that decisively at the cross.

Christ is seen pouring out His wrath without mixture upon the nations as He smites them in His fury with “a sharp sword” that comes “out of his mouth.” What is the result of this act? It shall “smite the nations” that have missed the catching away. This is what awaits the nations. They are going to be smitten. The word for “smite” in this text is the Greek word patasso, which means to strike with a weapon or to smite fatally. It means to smite down, cut down, to kill, slay.

Let us be clear: Heis coming to smite down the nations, not corral them into some sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted millennial age. It says that “he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” This is not a pretty sight. This is not loose talk by God. This is not something that the nations should look forward to. What awaits the nations that have rejected Christ is utter destruction and devastation. The nations left behind are totally destroyed. Christ destroys them by the very utterance of His mouth.

The two words interpreted “fierceness” and “wrath” here are thumos and orge which are regularly employed in the New Testament to mean ‘fierceness, indignation, wrath and vengeance’. The word orge carries the additional meaning of ‘violent passion’. Clearly the Lord is not happy with those left behind. Like those left behind in Noah’s day and Sodom they face an awful end, as they receive the reward of their rejection of Christ.

Revelation 19:17-18 continues, “I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 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. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. The loipoy (or remaining ones) those left behind were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.”

Please see that the wicked are destroyed by the sword of His voice. This is complete wholesale total destruction - for those left behind. There are no survivors!

The feasting part of the marriage supper of the Lamb is a symbolism depicted the destruction of the wicked. Why can this not be a symbolic depiction of the return of Christ and the events that accompany it (including the destruction of the wicked)?

The first part of the narrative outlines a detailed account of the assignment given to “the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven” by the heavenly messenger. The “fowls” are instructed to “come and gather” themselves “together unto the supper of the great God” in order that they would “eat”:

1. The flesh of kings,
2. The flesh of captains,
3. The flesh of mighty men,
4. The flesh of horses, them that sit on them,
5. The flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

This passage powerfully and solemnly reveals the full extent of the devastation that is to be focused upon the wicked on the day of God’s wrath. In perfect keeping with the rest of Scripture, this narrative graphically shows us that the destruction that occurs will be immediate, absolute and total and that, at this stage – after “the marriage of the Lamb” (Rev 19:7) – everyone left behind will be completely consumed; the birds of heaven filling themselves with “the flesh of all men.” Significantly, the suffix “both free and bond, both small and great” is added in order to fully impress the enormity and all-inclusive nature of this feast.

The whole thrust of this reading surrounds a climactic end to the world. Like the rest of Scripture, it records the complete rescue of the saints in the “marriage of the lamb” and the complete destruction of the wicked when the fowls consume the entire wicked left behind. The passage makes no allowance for goats-survivors in this great destruction passage or mortals squeezing into a supposed future millennium. This reading seems to fit in with the scriptural pattern of an all-consummating Coming - all the wicked being consumed.

 

[WPM]

Look again. Peter is talking about "The Day of the Lord", which is NOT a day when the world ends.

Says who? Where is your evidence?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am not dogmatic on whether this earth will be regenerated by fire or whether it will be a brand spanking new earth. What I do believe fervently is that the new heavens and a new earth (in whatever form God chooses) will appear at the coming of Christ. It will involve (at very least) the burning up of the crust of our current earth. The corruptible earth that we currently live on, and the sinful age we presently exist in, are coming to a definite notable finale.

This earth is depicted in Scripture as gradually decaying to such a stage that it needs replaced. The surface of this earth is likened unto a well-worn overcoat that needs replaced with a brand-new spotless garment. This is shown to occur at the second coming. Christ is not going to replace the current tattered coat with another decayed coat, as many imagine, with their faulty theology. No! But rather a new perfected garment. Death and decay will soon come to an end. But this does not negate the continued existence of the same the earth. It will be an ongoing trophy of God's glorious regenerational renewal.

The second coming is all-consummating and ushers in the complete end of all things old/temporal and wicked and introduces the beginning of all things new/eternal and righteous. The second coming witnesses the total destruction of the world/wicked and a general resurrection/judgement. The wicked and the righteous are judged in total and that each receives their eternal destiny at that time. The conflagration that occurs here coincides with the replacement of this corrupt sin-cursed world with a new earth eternal righteous state. Christ is coming back to earth, but it will be to a new regenerated earth. Like the sinner this earth has received its emersion in water, it is now awaiting its baptism of fire.

Just like in Christ we become a new creation – “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17), yet we remain the self-same entity, so it is with this current earth when He appears. I wish that had meant that my old nature was completely eliminated and that I became completely brand new, although, in a spiritual sense I did – even though my physical appearance remained exactly the same. So, it did not mean that the core "us" did not continue. It did! But our spiritual outward covering was forever changed. We are now clothed with His perfect righteousness. That will be realized in all it literal and physical fullness at the second coming. This is a strong reason to think the earth is going to undergo similar.

The Greek is fairly strong and would suggest a destruction of the old corruptible state of fallen creation and an introduction of the new eternal state. This does not necessarily mean that this earth will disappear; it could mean that through fiery regeneration this present earth will be brought back to its former condition. In this cosmic renewal, everything that is outside of God and possesses any vestige of the fall will be either burnt up or changed.

Every vestige of the fall is removed when Christ comes – never to arise again. A new earth will come-forth that is totally renewed and eternally free of corruption. When man fell all creation fell with him, when man is glorified, all of creation will be glorified with him. Creation is delivered from the curse by the fiery conflagration that regenerates this current earth and renews it to the state it was before the fall - free from, sin, wickedness, the wicked, death and wars (the awful plagues that continue to blight the Premil millennium).

Earth will last forever

Scripture tells us that we are coming back to earth, but I believe it will be a regenerated earth (Malachi 4:1-3, I Corinthians 15:50, 2 Peter 3). It will be an earth totally purged of all corruption. The new heavens and a new earth (in whatever form God chooses) will appear at the coming of Christ. It will involve (at very least) the burning up of the crust of our current earth. This current earth will be totally changed / regenerated – making it a new curse-free environment. The earth will be restored to its previous pristine condition. These passages would sway me towards the position that this earth will remain forever – only in a new condition.

Job prophesied that the Lord would stand on this earth at the end of the age. Job 19:25-26: “For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” There is no other earth than this present one that Job would have been familiar with.

Psalm 37:9-11 says, “For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”

Psalm 37:22 says, “For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off.”

Psalm 25:12-13 says: “What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose. His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.”

Christ confirmed this in Matthew 5:5 saying, “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”

Another strong reason to believe that this current earth will be regenerated is the fact that different old testament scriptures tell us that this earth will last forever. These passages would suggest the continuation of this earth in some form.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 says, “the earth abideth forever.”

Psalm 78:69 says, “the earth which he hath established forever.”

Psalm 93:1b says, “The world also is established, that it cannot be moved.”

Psalm 96:10 says, “the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.”

Psalm 104:5 says, “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever.”

This literally means “So that it will not totter forever and ever." The word totter means, to refrain from moving out of place.

I agree with how you see it. As you showed, there are scriptures which indicate that the earth will last forever. We can't just ignore those.

It says the meek shall inherit the earth. When? When Jesus returns. For how long? It wouldn't be much of an inheritance if we only inherit the earth for a short time. It will be forever. So, it doesn't make sense to think that this earth will be completely annihilated and replaced by an entirely separate new earth since that would contradict these scriptures which indicate that the earth will last forever. It has to be that this earth will be changed and renewed (drastically) and we will then dwell on the (new, renewed) earth forever.

I look at is as the earth being changed in a similar way that our bodies will be changed, as described in 1 Cor 15:50-54. Scripture even refers to the heavens and earth being changed.

Hebrews 1:10 He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”

Obviously, this "change" will be a major one. The change will be so drastic that it will be as if the earth was annihilated and replaced by another earth.

Anyway, I don't see that this issue as being very important and worth spending too much time debating. Either way, we will be dwelling on a new earth for eternity that is much different than the earth as we know it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Says who? Where is your evidence?

I believe that no one would interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 in such a way that it's not referring to the end of the world if it wasn't for doctrinal bias. It's interesting how Premils throw their literal rules of interpretation out the window when it comes to passages like that one.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This generation seems to have lost the fundamentals of logic. One can not prove a negative. The onus is on those who make positive affirmations to prove their assertions.

So, why do you never do that? Your posts rarely contain any scriptural support. You can't be expected to be taken seriously when that is the case. You should do something to back up your claims.

What is the Rhetorical question, and why was it asked?

What rhetorical question are you talking about?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, I did. And I also thought about what I read. Jesus is critical of those who are slow of heart to trust and believe everything that the prophets have spoken. If these men were ignorant or didn't understand what they read, then Jesus' was being unfairly critical. This is common sense.

Here is the passage yet again:

Luke 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.

You're trying to tell me that they understood all of the Old Testament scriptures, yet this passage indicates that Jesus had show them and explain to them the OT passages that were about Him. So, what you're saying blatantly contradicts what this passage indicates. Yes, they SHOULD have understood, but they didn't because of their lack of faith in what the prophets had spoken. If they had more faith in the scriptures that God inspired, then God would have showed them what they meant. But, since they didn't, then they needed Jesus to explain and interpret for them the scriptures that referred to Him. If they understood what they read, as you are falsely claiming, then there would not have been any need for Jesus to explain it to them. Can you not understand that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Lazarus was not raised to a mortal Adam dead flesh body either.

Yes, he was. Otherwise, why is he not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 where Paul gives the order of bodily resurrections unto incorruptible bodies?

Lazarus has had a permanent incorruptible physical body since he came out of that grave.

Where is your evidence to support this claim? I guarantee you have none because scripture never teaches this and this concept contradicts scripture.

He went to Paradise with all the OT redeemed.

In Matthew 27, all those in Abraham's bosom came out of their grave with a permanent incorruptible physical body, just like those alive at the Second Coming will be changed into. Those currently in Paradise are waiting glorification, the joining of the spirit with the body and soul.

If you read 1 Corinthians 15, you should see that Paul indicates that no one besides Christ has an incorruptible body yet and no one else will until Christ's second coming at the last trumpet. Your claims about Lazarus and those who were referenced in Matthew 27, contradict what Paul taught.

Just all those people living in a future 1,000 years, when you place them in the here and now.

LOL. That, of course, has nothing to do with the term "replacement theology".

How does cattle on the thousand hills in the OT relate to 1,000 years in Revelation 20, a still future event? Talk about using the OT to interpret the NT.

You know that I was just pointing out that the word "thousand" is sometimes used figuratively in scripture and I was not relating that verse directly to Revelation 20.[/quote]

 

[WPM]

I believe that no one would interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 in such a way that it's not referring to the end of the world if it wasn't for doctrinal bias. It's interesting how Premils throw their literal rules of interpretation out the window when it comes to passages like that one.

This is one of many examples of butchering the text and rejecting a literal interpretation. Pick a direction and you will see how troubling premillennialist hermeneutics are. Think of how many passages teach a clear an explicit climatic coming of Christ and they dismiss them. Think about how many passages that teach the end of time, corruption, sin, sinners, and Satan, and yet they dismiss them. Think about how many passages to teach a general resurrection and a general judgment and they dismiss them. It is horrible hermeneutics. I couldn't live with myself rejecting so much clear and explicit truth. And what do they have a response? "What saith Revelation 20." That is it! They have zero corroboration for their faulty opinion of that much to debated symbolic passage.

 

[WPM]

Here is the passage yet again:

Luke 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.

You're trying to tell me that they understood all of the Old Testament scriptures, yet this passage indicates that Jesus had show them and explain to them the OT passages that were about Him. So, what you're saying blatantly contradicts what this passage indicates. Yes, they SHOULD have understood, but they didn't because of their lack of faith in what the prophets had spoken. If they had more faith in the scriptures that God inspired, then God would have showed them what they meant. But, since they didn't, then they needed Jesus to explain and interpret for them the scriptures that referred to Him. If they understood what they read, as you are falsely claiming, then there would not have been any need for Jesus to explain it to them. Can you not understand that?

Excellently put!