22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Truth7t7]

I identified "he".

You're afraid to.

Why?

You have washed out, your unidentified "prince" Is silent, Next!

Childish 6th grade guessing games!

 

[covenantee]

You have washed out, your unidentified "pgames! Is silent, Next!

Childish 6th grade guessing gamss!

Afraid of "he".

 

[Truth7t7]

Afraid of "he".

Childish, unconfident in your eschatology

"NEXT"!

 

[covenantee]

Childish, unconfident in your eschatology

"NEXT"!

Afraid of "he".

 

[Truth7t7]

Afraid of "he".

Name your "He" and your "prince", enough of your 6th grade antics

 

[covenantee]

Name your "He" and your "prince", enough of your 6th grade antics

Afraid of "he".

 

[Truth7t7]

Afraid of "he".

Grow Up, your 71 yrs old, tag your it!

 

[CadyandZoe]

I think you are convinced if you state something then it is a fact.

Well, get over it. This is the nature of the medium. My presentation takes account of the limitations of a discussion board. All I can do, with limited time and space is to summarize my opinion. If you can't find my position within the hundreds of posts I have provided in this thread, then you weren't paying attention.

In addition, You don't seem to understand that in a polemic thread such as the one you created, I don't need to prove you wrong. All I need to do is offer an alternative interpretation of any given passage, and if my interpretation is plausible, then I have disproven your objection. My task is not to make a case for premillennialism. My task is to answer your objections to it.

EPISODE 3 is what you impose on Scripture.

Empty words.

Q. Why must we “remember Lot's wife”? What befell her?

You are wrong about Lot's wife and the reason why Jesus brought it up. Lot's wife did not long for the awful iniquity back in Sodom as you suppose. Her heart longed for her other daughters, the ones that stayed behind. Her hesitation was born of her love for her family.

Jesus said "Remember Lot's wife" because hesitation will mean the difference between life and death.

 

[Truth7t7]

Well, get over it. This is the nature of the medium. My presentation takes account of the limitations of a discussion board. All I can do, with limited time and space is to summarize my opinion. If you can't find my position within the hundreds of posts I have provided in this thread, then you weren't paying attention.

In addition, You don't seem to understand that in a polemic thread such as the one you created, I don't need to prove you wrong. All I need to do is offer an alternative interpretation of any given passage, and if my interpretation is plausible, then I have disproven your objection. My task is not to make a case for premillennialism. My task is to answer your objections to it.


Empty words.

You are wrong about Lot's wife and the reason why Jesus brought it up. Lot's wife did not long for the awful iniquity back in Sodom as you suppose. Her heart longed for her other daughters, the ones that stayed behind. Her hesitation was born of her love for her family.

Jesus said "Remember Lot's wife" because hesitation will mean the difference between life and death.

You will closely note, your response is void of scripture and truth

 

[CadyandZoe]

Where are you getting the idea that "Paul's readers were expecting a message or a letter from one of the Apostles to the effect that the Day of the Lord has come"? I'm not seeing that at all. Instead, I see a warning from Paul that they should not believe any message or letter that is supposedly from one of the apostles (but isn't) saying that the day of the Lord has come because there were certain things that had to happen first.

Paul was not at all differentiating between the second coming of Christ and the day of the Lord in 2 Thess 2. He used those terms synonymously.

2 Thess 2:1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction

So, what Paul was indicating here is that "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him" will happen on "the day of the Lord" and he indicated "that day" (the day of the Lord when Jesus comes and we're gathered to Him) will not come until the rebellion (falling away) occurs first.

Negative. Think about the logic and flow of the passage. In chapter one Paul tells them that Jesus' coming will be hard to miss, since it is accompanied by angels and fire. If the Day of the Lord was synonymous with the coming of Jesus, then his readers should have NO doubt as to when the Day of the Lord has started. Let me repeat that. If the Day of the Lord and the coming of Jesus are coterminous, happening at the same time, then his readers should have no doubt as to when the day of the Lord is here.

But the Day of the Lord is not coterminous with the coming of the Lord, which is why Paul provides his readers clues and signs to observe as to when the Day of the Lord is imminent.

Summary:
Coming of the Lord -- No signs. Comes as a thief in the night.
Day of the Lord -- Signs. Watch for the man of lawlessness and hatred for the truth.

In my view, the Day of the Lord has three parts: a beginning, a middle and an end. As Paul says, the Day of the Lord can't begin until we see the man of lawlessness and hatred for the truth. The Second Advent takes place in the middle portion of the DOL. Because of this, his readers can look for signs that the Day of the Lord is about to arrive, while knowing that the day and the hour of the Second Advent is unknowable.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Of course you don't want to see the book of life, and those found left in Zion being in the (Eternal Kingdom) everybody left is "HOLY" the righteous, this destroys your claim made

Isaiah below is speaking of those that are in the (Eternal Kingdom) those that have been found written in the book of life that "was opened" the final judgement has passed

Psalm 69:20KJ
28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

Isaiah 4:3KJV
3 And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:

No, I don't see the eternal kingdom in Isaiah chapter 4. When the eternal kingdom is inaugurated, the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven. Isaiah isn't talking about the New Jerusalem. He is talking about the current Jerusalem.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You will closely note, your response is void of scripture and truth

So is yours. :)

 

[Truth7t7]

Negative. Think about the logic and flow of the passage. In chapter one Paul tells them that Jesus' coming will be hard to miss, since it is accompanied by angels and fire. If the Day of the Lord was synonymous with the coming of Jesus, then his readers should have NO doubt as to when the Day of the Lord has started. Let me repeat that. If the Day of the Lord and the coming of Jesus are coterminous, happening at the same time, then his readers should have no doubt as to when the day of the Lord is here.

But the Day of the Lord is not coterminous with the coming of the Lord, which is why Paul provides his readers clues and signs to observe as to when the Day of the Lord is imminent.

Summary:
Coming of the Lord -- No signs. Comes as a thief in the night.
Day of the Lord -- Signs. Watch for the man of lawlessness and hatred for the truth.

In my view, the Day of the Lord has three parts: a beginning, a middle and an end. As Paul says, the Day of the Lord can't begin until we see the man of lawlessness and hatred for the truth. The Second Advent takes place in the middle portion of the DOL. Because of this, his readers can look for signs that the Day of the Lord is about to arrive, while knowing that the day and the hour of the Second Advent is unknowable.

The day of the Lord has 3 parts and it's a different event than the coming of the Lord?

Youre eschatology is way out in left field, laughable!

 

[Truth7t7]

No, I don't see the eternal kingdom in Isaiah chapter 4. When the eternal kingdom is inaugurated, the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven. Isaiah isn't talking about the New Jerusalem. He is talking about the current Jerusalem.

You live in a fairy tale dream of denial

 

[CadyandZoe]

There are only 2 peoples on this earth in God's eyes - the redeemed and the wicked.

While this is true, it isn't what John is saying in Revelation 19. The soldiers of the armies die, not all those who live on the earth.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You avoid so much biblical evidence from other posters in order to facilitate your speculations. Your fly-by evasive replies do not cut it. They expose how bereft you are of biblical evidence. Address the arguments presented to you please.

I do address them. Try improving your arguments.

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL. I'm convinced that I could tell you that 2 + 2 = 4 and you'll find a way to make 2 + 2 = 5.

It does not say the slaves are great and small, it says "all people" include free and slave, great and small. You clearly do not read scripture carefully.

I don't think you read the scriptures carefully enough. Allow yourself to picture what is being presented. John describes a war between two armies. We expect casualties and deaths among the soldiers. What we DON'T see is Jesus' army moving house to house, killing everyone on earth. You are reading that into the text.

Why did you not address anything I said about 2 Peter 3:10-13? I pointed out how Peter talked to his readers as though what he was writing about in 2 Peter 3:10-13 could happen in their lifetimes, but your view makes that impossible. Can you please address that?

How does my view make it impossible?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Again, your battle consists of your opinions. That is all we are getting from you. That is all you can give us. You have nothing biblically to rebut the Amil arguments here. This is such a one-sided discussion. Why not just admit you were wrong? That is better than explaining away literal text of passage after passage and denying the obvious.

Once again, you don't seem to understand the nature of your own thread. You have not challenged me to rebut the Amil arguments. You have challenged me to give an answer for your objections to Premillennialism. Don't you understand the difference in approach and focus?

You and the others are presenting scriptures for my review. You say these passages mean 'x', I say they mean 'y'. That's all I am required to do.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Is that your understanding of this passage which talks about destruction accompanying the day of the Lord as well?

1 Thess 5:1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.

By interpreting scripture with scripture, we can conclude that the destruction that Paul said will come on people suddenly at the arrival of the day of the Lord from which "they will not escape" will be by fire. So, do you see the sudden destruction that Paul talked about as occurring 1000+ years after the return of Christ just like how you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12?

Yes, of course. Remember, I am allowed to interpret the Old Testament the way the author's intended. Peter and Paul are giving you summary statements of a larger picture, one that you will not allow yourself to see.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I think you are misunderstanding. They were not to be unsettled at some alleged letter that was supposed to come from them regarding the DOL had already come.

Now in regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to meet Him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come.

As far as the Apostles are concerned there is no difference between his coming and the day of the Lord.
Chap1 clearly has those who reject the Gospel being banished from his coming presence on the day we are glorified in him.
This also happens in chap 2...,highlighted below.

6 And you know what restrains him now [from being revealed]; it is so that he will be revealed at his own [appointed] time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness [rebellion against divine authority and the coming reign of lawlessness] is already at work; [but it is restrained] only until he who now restrains it is taken out of the way. 8 Then the lawless one [the Antichrist] will be revealed and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of His mouth and bring him to an end by the appearance of His coming. 9 The coming of the [Antichrist, the lawless] one is through the activity of Satan, [attended] with great power [all kinds of counterfeit miracles] and [deceptive] signs and false wonders [all of them lies], 10 and by unlimited seduction to evil and with all the deception of wickedness for those who are perishing, because they did not welcome the love of the truth [of the gospel] so as to be saved [they were spiritually blind, and rejected the truth that would have saved them]. 11 Because of this God will send upon them a misleading influence, [an activity of error and deception] so they will believe the lie, 12 in order that all may be judged and condemned who did not believe the truth [about their sin, and the need for salvation through Christ], but instead took pleasure in unrighteousness.

Let me summarize the two chapters this way.

Summary:
Coming of Jesus -- no signs; comes like a thief in the night.
Day of the Lord -- signs; preceded by a man of lawlessness and hatred for the truth.

For this reason, we understand that the coming of Jesus and our gathering to him is not synonymous [interchangeable] with The day of the Lord. In my view, the day of the Lord is a long era of time, which has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Paul is describing the conditions located just before the beginning of the DOL. The DOL can't come, he says unless certain conditions exist first. The coming of Jesus and our gathering to him takes place during the middle of the DOL, when Jesus returns to receive his everlasting dominion.