Premillennialism contradicts scripture (1 Corinthians 15:50-54) by having mortal flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom of God when Jesus returns.

[Spiritual Israelite]

You claim that often but all I can tell you is that is how I perceive it. So maybe try doing a better job of presenting your method of interpretation, like showing why the vice versa swapping only applies to certain parables.

How about you just accept that you don't understand what I believe, regardless of the reason for that, and stop trying to speak for me?

I mean, what are the rules you use when making a vice versa swap and why don’t these rules apply to mortal/immortal conditions?

Immortal means you can never die. How then can you change to be mortal when becoming immortal means you will live forever and never die? You're not making any sense. That isn't comparable to how someone who is not spiritually saved can become spiritually saved, which we all know is what happens when someone becomes saved.

I’m not talking for you

Yes, you are. And you're misrepresenting what I believe. Grow up and stop doing that. You don't tell me what I believe, I will tell you what I believe. And I'm telling you that you misrepresent what I believe often. So, please stop trying to talk for me as if you know what I believe because you don't for whatever reason.

but do you want me to quote some of your previous posts where you claim a tares can become wheat and wheat can become tares?

In real time, which is not the perspective in which we should look at the parable (you and I agreed about this, remember?) it's a fact that a child of the devil, whch is a lost sinner (1 John 3:8-10) can become a child of the kingdom. That's what happens every time someone becomes saved. Do you deny this?

That’s what I’m talking about with your vice versa swapping interpretations.

But, why would you compare going from being spiritually unsaved to saved with going from having an immortal body to having a mortal body? Those things aren't comparable.

I’m just looking at how the hermeneutics you use to prove a point in one argument can be used against you in another argument. Clearly you don’t seem to like it when I point it out.

No, I don't like you misrepresenting what I believe. We all believe that children of the devil (unsaved sinners) become children of the kingdom, but that has nothing to do with what this thread is about. That certainly has nothing to do with someone being able to go back and forth between having a mortal and immortal body. That's ludicrous. No one believes that is possible.

 

[grafted branch]

How about you just accept that you don't understand what I believe, regardless of the reason for that, and stop trying to speak for me?

Sure, I’ll admit I can’t make sense of your view, therefore I don’t know what you believe.

In real time, which is not the perspective in which we should look at the parable (you and I agreed about this, remember?) it's a fact that a child of the devil, whch is a lost sinner (1 John 3:8-10) can become a child of the kingdom. That's what happens every time someone becomes saved. Do you deny this?

No, I don’t deny that, but that has nothing to do with a parable that is written from God’s perspective, else the parable is not written from God’s perspective.

Yes, you are. And you're misrepresenting what I believe. Grow up and stop doing that. You don't tell me what I believe, I will tell you what I believe. And I'm telling you that you misrepresent what I believe often. So, please stop trying to talk for me as if you know what I believe because you don't for whatever reason.

Ok, everyone who is reading this post, I declare I have no idea what @Spiritual Israelite ‘s views are because to me those views seem to contradict each other. There, are you happy now?

Immortal means you can never die. How then can you change to be mortal when becoming immortal means you will live forever and never die? You're not making any sense. That isn't comparable to how someone who is not spiritually saved can become spiritually saved, which we all know is what happens when someone becomes saved.

Hold on, you said the parable of the tares is written from God’s perspective which means a tare can’t be saved from God’s perspective. From man’s perspective a tare can be saved, right?

Now apply that to mortals. From 1 Timothy 6:16 we know that God alone is immortal. Which means no human can be immortal without Christ and if salvation can be lost then so can immortality. Just as in the parable of the tares, a tare can be become wheat and vice versa from man’s perspective, so too can a mortal become immortal and vice versa from man’s perspective.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sure, I’ll admit I can’t make sense of your view, therefore I don’t know what you believe.

Okay, so please don't act as if you can speak for me then. No one wants others misrepresenting their view, right? Including you? So, please stop doing that.

No, I don’t deny that, but that has nothing to do with a parable that is written from God’s perspective, else the parable is not written from God’s perspective.

Right, that's what I've been saying. From God's eternal perspective, in contrast to the real time perspective, things aren't just changing all the time but are static. While children of the devil can become children of the kingdom in real time, that's not what the parable is about at all.

Ok, everyone who is reading this post, I declare I have no idea what @Spiritual Israelite ‘s views are because to me those views seem to contradict each other. There, are you happy now?

Yes, that's much better because, this way, you are making it clear that you're just sharing your opinion instead of acting like you can speak for me. Just think of yourself. Imagine if I was constantly misrepresenting your view for whatever reason. What would you think of that?

Hold on, you said the parable of the tares is written from God’s perspective which means a tare can’t be saved from God’s perspective.

And that is what you have said as well, right?

From man’s perspective a tare can be saved, right?

I don't know why I'm dealing with this. You're going to give me a headache. Anyway, from the eternal perspective that He has, He knows who will end up as wheat (children of the kingdom) and who would end up as tares (children of the devil) even though everyone is a child of the devil in the sense of being a lost sinner (1 John 3:8-10) before they become a child of the kingdom. So, in real time, a child of the devil can certainly be saved because a child of the devil is another way of referring to a lost sinner. But, from God's eternal perspective, He only sees the wheat (children of the kingdom) as wheat, regardless of them previously being children of the devil in real time.

Now apply that to mortals. From 1 Timothy 6:16 we know that God alone is immortal. Which means no human can be immortal without Christ and if salvation can be lost then so can immortality. Just as in the parable of the tares, a tare can be become wheat and vice versa from man’s perspective, so too can a mortal become immortal and vice versa from man’s perspective.

You obviously don't understand what the word immortal means.

immortal (adjective): living forever; never dying or decaying.

Once someone becomes immortal then they can never die. It is impossible. That is what the word immortal means. If someone can potentially die, then they are mortal. But when we are changed and put on bodily immortality at the last trumpet, we cannot possibly die after that because being immortal means you can never die. Understand?

 

[grafted branch]

You obviously don't understand what the word immortal means.

immortal (adjective): living forever; never dying or decaying.

Once someone becomes immortal then they can never die. It is impossible. That is what the word immortal means. If someone can potentially die, then they are mortal. But when we are changed and put on bodily immortality at the last trumpet, we cannot possibly die after that because being immortal means you can never die. Understand?

Ok, so let’s go back and look at the tares and wheat. It’s impossible for a wheat plant to ever become a tare plant. Just like it’s impossible for something that is immortal to become mortal.

But I can argue from man’s perspective it is possible for someone to loose immortality just like it’s possible for wheat to become a tare, even though the definition of the word “wheat” doesn’t have the same definition as the word “tare”. Understand?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ok, so let’s go back and look at the tares and wheat. It’s impossible for a wheat plant to ever become a tare plant. Just like it’s impossible for something that is immortal to become mortal.

But I can argue from man’s perspective it is possible for someone to loose immortality just like it’s possible for wheat to become a tare, even though the definition of the word “wheat” doesn’t have the same definition as the word “tare”. Understand?

No, you can't argue that someone who can never die can die. I showed you the meaning of the word "immortal", which is that you can never die, and you apparently ignored it. Whatever. I would like to get back to the topic of the thread now. I'm not going to talk about this here anymore. We talked about the parable enough already and that's not what this thread is about.

 

[grafted branch]

No, you can't argue that someone who can never die can die. I showed you the meaning of the word "immortal", which is that you can never die, and you apparently ignored it. Whatever. I would like to get back to the topic of the thread now. I'm not going to talk about this here anymore. We talked about the parable enough already and that's not what this thread is about.

By definition wheat is not a tare and by definition tares are not wheat, but that didn’t stop you from claiming they can become each other. Now you are claiming the definition of immortal prevents it from ever becoming mortal.

I hope you can at least see why people are going to be questioning your hermeneutics and your view.

 

[grafted branch]

We talked about the parable enough already and that's not what this thread is about.

Back to the topic of the thread and immortal’s inheriting the kingdom.

A tare can’t be put in the barn unless it becomes wheat, wheat can’t be burned in the fire unless it becomes a tare.

A mortal can’t live forever unless they become immortal, an immortal can’t die unless they become mortal.

You see, if it’s possible for wheat to be burned then it’s possible for immortality to die, immortality just has to become mortal or put another way, the immortal clothing has to be removed. That is the same logic being used on both scenarios.

 

[Pierac]

Your a bunch of idiots.... all of you....

1Ti 6:16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Paul wrote this many many years after thousands of Christians were murdered or died... and somehow... your more special!!!

How do you not know these things?

You must be born again... not of flesh and blood... and it ain't happing at your death!

It's at your Resurrection... not your death...idiots... Read 1 Ti 6:16 again

 

[grafted branch]

Your a bunch of idiots.... all of you....

1Ti 6:16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Paul wrote this many many years after thousands of Christians were murdered or died... and somehow... your more special!!!

How do you not know these things?

You must be born again... not of flesh and blood... and it ain't happing at your death!

It's at your Resurrection... not your death...idiots... Read 1 Ti 6:16 again

We already discussed that verse …

Now apply that to mortals. From 1 Timothy 6:16 we know that God alone is immortal. Which means no human can be immortal without Christ and if salvation can be lost then so can immortality.

@Spiritual Israelite believes a person can lose their salvation, I personally don’t but that’s beside the point.

Edit: oops, if forgot I can’t say anything about @Spiritual Israelite ‘s view. You’ll have to ask him directly if you want his view on whether salvation can be lost or not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Back to the topic of the thread and immortal’s inheriting the kingdom.

A tare can’t be put in the barn unless it becomes wheat, wheat can’t be burned in the fire unless it becomes a tare.

A mortal can’t live forever unless they become immortal, an immortal can’t die unless they become mortal.

You see, if it’s possible for wheat to be burned then it’s possible for immortality to die, immortality just has to become mortal or put another way, the immortal clothing has to be removed. That is the same logic being used on both scenarios.

The wheat do not have immortal bodies until the end of the age arrives. You are not comparing like things here. So, please stop derailing this thread. This is about when Jesus returns and believers are changed to put on bodily immortality in the kingdom of God. Many Premils see Matthew 25:34 as being about believers with mortal bodies inheriting the kingdom, but they don't think about how they are contradicting 1 Corinthians 15:50 with that believe. Meanwhile, unbelievers are cast into the fire (Matt 25:41). Some other Premils think that other mortals besides the sheep and goats (who are they?) populate the earth at this point. But, there is no indication of such a thing in Matthew 25:31-46. So, these are the kinds of things I want to discuss in this thread.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your a bunch of idiots.... all of you....

How ironic for you to make that statement while misspelling "you're". Thank you for letting us know right off the bat that you are not someone to be taken seriously.

1Ti 6:16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Paul wrote this many many years after thousands of Christians were murdered or died... and somehow... your more special!!!

How do you not know these things?

You must be born again... not of flesh and blood... and it ain't happing at your death!

It's at your Resurrection... not your death...idiots... Read 1 Ti 6:16 again

Who are you talking to here exactly? Do you even know what this thread is about? Did you read the original post? Do you have any thoughts on it? In this thread, I'm talking about the relationship between the passages 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and Matthew 25:31-46. Do you believe they are both talking about the same kingdom of God that we will inherit with our changed, immortal bodies when Jesus returns? The point here is that no mortal flesh and blood (no mortals) will inherit the kingdom of God when Jesus returns. Do you agree?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We already discussed that verse …

@Spiritual Israelite believes a person can lose their salvation, I personally don’t but that’s beside the point.

Edit: oops, if forgot I can’t say anything about @Spiritual Israelite ‘s view. You’ll have to ask him directly if you want his view on whether salvation can be lost or not.

That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about inheriting BODILY immortality in the kingdom of God when Jesus returns, not about spiritual salvation that we experience in this lifetime. Is it too much to ask you to stay on topic?

 

[Pierac]

We already discussed that verse …

@Spiritual Israelite believes a person can lose their salvation, I personally don’t but that’s beside the point.

Edit: oops, if forgot I can’t say anything about @Spiritual Israelite ‘s view. You’ll have to ask him directly if you want his view on whether salvation can be lost or not.Sp

Spiritual Israelite... that's funny.... they make that crap up?

Perhaps they are speaking of the early years of Paul....
Similarly, Paul said in Romans 11:13–36 that the Gentiles being “in Christ” (and Christ was an Israelite in whom there was no guile and a legitimate son of Abraham) made them also to be children of Abraham and Israel as was Christ or any natural born Israelite. And since it was clearly understood by Paul that “all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26), this of necessity included the Gentiles who accepted Christ and were grafted into Israel. Thus, these Gentile converts were no longer reckoned as Gentiles. They were now “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).

Yea.... that was the old/new covenant...done away with...

But in 63 C.E., something very different occurred. A brand new revelation came to Paul...

“The mystery of Christ that in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as [the Spirit] now reveals it unto his holy apostles and prophets ... which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God.” Ephesians 3:4–5, 9, paraphrasing

“The mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints.” Colossians 1:26

“The mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is NOW revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” Ephesians 3:4–5

To be saved from 30 C.E. to 62/63 C.E., the Gentiles (though they did not have to be circumcised) were required to accept Christ and be grafted into Israel (Romans 11:11–25). All people had to become “Israelites” by their attachment to Christ who was the perfect Israelite. If people were not reckoned as “Israelites” (or children of Abraham), they could not be saved. But being “in Christ” made them “Israelites” and inheritors of the promises given to Abraham.

With “the Mystery,” however, being an Israelite ceased to be important. Now both Israelites and Gentiles are joined together to form “one new creation” [a new type of human] who is neither Jew, Greek, or whatever (Colossians 3:10–11) and both together as a new man have become joint heirs, joint bodied, and joint partakers of the promise IN CHRIST (Ephesians 3:6). But now, being “in Christ” does not make one an Israelite or an heir of Abraham. One is now an heir of Christ solely, and will receive all that Christ (as the divine Son of God) is entitled to, and not simply what Abraham is entitled to. Now, all people in Christ have become the “new man” and they now have a heavenly citizenship (not a citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel). Now we are all sitting in Christ on the very throne of God at the Father’s right hand (Ephesians 2:6; Colossians 3:1).

In truth, Christ became a Substitute for us in all requirements that God has ever made for mankind. Being “in Christ” in the Full and Complete teaching of “the Mystery” means we have met all the requirements of the Father in a perfect way. This is the Good News (the Gospel) that Christ told Paul (and Christ tells us) to teach to all the world.

How do they not know these things... yes... I know it's his name.... but now you know much more...

 

[Davidpt]

So IMO the word yathar could be referring to the saved remnant from among the nations who will be resurrected from the dead when the Lord returns,

Obviously, if they are the saved remnant among the nations that then equals they are among these.

Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

It is not even remotely reasonable, IMO, that any of these which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, can be meaning any of the ones meant in Revelation 20:9. Which presents a problem with your view since you have the ones meant in Revelation 20:9 already in an immortal bodily state and that only those accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, can be in that state when Christ returns and puts them in that state.

And that no one accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, could possibly mean anyone in Revelation 20:9 since that would contradict that they were accounted worthy to obtain that world, if in the end, after having already obtained that world, they are devoured by fire. Which raises another question.

How does one in an immortal bodily state get devoured by fire to begin with? To be devoured by fire in this manner surely means to die, something impossible for anyone in an immortal bodily state to do since that would contradict what Luke 20:36 plainly tells us--Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels. One way they might be equal to the angels at that point is, that angels can't die.

Which proves another point in regards to Amil being incorrect, not correct instead, that Revelation 20:9 is paralleling Revelation 19:19-21. If they are correct that means the beast and false prophet would be among the ones devoured by fire in Revelation 20:9. Why is it then that Revelation 19:20 records that the beast and false prophet are taken while fully alive and cast into the LOF while fully alive? Which then contradicts, how can anyone devoured by fire like that still be alive after having been devoured by fire? Therefore, making it totally pointless to devour them with fire to begin with. Thus Revelation 19:20 contradicts that Revelation 20:9 parallels Revelation 19:19-21.

 

[WPM]

Obviously, if they are the saved remnant among the nations that then equals they are among these.

Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

It is not even remotely reasonable, IMO, that any of these which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, can be meaning any of the ones meant in Revelation 20:9. Which presents a problem with your view since you have the ones meant in Revelation 20:9 already in an immortal bodily state and that only those accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, can be in that state when Christ returns and puts them in that state.

And that no one accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, could possibly mean anyone in Revelation 20:9 since that would contradict that they were accounted worthy to obtain that world, if in the end, after having already obtained that world, they are devoured by fire. Which raises another question.

How does one in an immortal bodily state get devoured by fire to begin with? To be devoured by fire in this manner surely means to die, something impossible for anyone in an immortal bodily state to do since that would contradict what Luke 20:36 plainly tells us--Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels. One way they might be equal to the angels at that point is, that angels can't die.

Which proves another point in regards to Amil being incorrect, not correct instead, that Revelation 20:9 is paralleling Revelation 19:19-21. If they are correct that means the beast and false prophet would be among the ones devoured by fire in Revelation 20:9. Why is it then that Revelation 19:20 records that the beast and false prophet are taken while fully alive and cast into the LOF while fully alive? Which then contradicts, how can anyone devoured by fire like that still be alive after having been devoured by fire? Therefore, making it totally pointless to devour them with fire to begin with. Thus Revelation 19:20 contradicts that Revelation 20:9 parallels Revelation 19:19-21.

Again, this exposes the confusion of Premil. You explain away multiple climactic passages by your fixation with, and misunderstanding of, Revelation 20. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine. Take this passage out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing in the inspired pages to support all its main tenets.

This is demonstrated by the fact, there is not one single second coming passage in the Bible that teaches 1000 years (or any significant period of time) follows this great glorious event where sin and death continue. Amils have a problem with, and are opposed to, this loose form of hermeneutics and questionable mode of exegesis.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Paul made it very clear that mortal flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Yes, he did. This is why Amillennialism is in error. If the Kingdom of God is something to be inherited, then it is something that is not currently present.

But, Premillennialism contradicts this by having "the righteous" with mortal flesh and blood bodies that are represented by "the sheep" inheriting the kingdom of God when Jesus returns.

This is nonsense. The righteous live among mortal flesh and blood bodies already.

Notice here that "the righteous" who are represented by "the sheep" inherit "eternal life" in the kingdom of God prepared since the creation of the world. Since they are inheriting eternal life, that means they must have immortal bodies since only those with immortal bodies could inherit eternal life. And, again, Paul clearly taught that only those with immortal bodies can inherit the kingdom of God.

This is also nonsense. You and I are inheriting eternal life, and we don't have immortal bodies.

 

[WPM]

Yes, he did. This is why Amillennialism is in error. If the Kingdom of God is something to be inherited, then it is something that is not currently present.

This is nonsense. The righteous live among mortal flesh and blood bodies already.

This is also nonsense. You and I are inheriting eternal life, and we don't have immortal bodies.

What are you talking about? The righteous are going to inherit the regenerated earth - the new heavens and new earth, not some imaginary semi-glorious/semi-corrupt kingdom that is half-liberated and half-bound. This undesirable mongrel earth you promote is equally filled with righteousness and unrighteousness, sin and sinlessness, glorified saints and mortal rebels, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror. This concept is totally unknown to Scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, he did. This is why Amillennialism is in error. If the Kingdom of God is something to be inherited, then it is something that is not currently present.

That is complete nonsense. Why do you make no differentiation between the spiritual kingdom of God we're in now due to having been born again (born of the Spirit) and the future coming of the kingdom of God in its fullness that we will inherit with immortal bodies?

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Tell me, do you not believe that anyone has been born again and entered into the kingdom of God as a result?

This is nonsense. The righteous live among mortal flesh and blood bodies already.

I'm not talking about right now. Do you think 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 is referring to the present time? No, it's talking about a future time when the last trumpet sounds and we then inherit the kingdom of God with immortal bodies. I'm saying that at that time, when it comes, no mortal flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of God. That's not nonsense at all, that makes total sense. So, how do you interpret 1 Corinthians 15:50-54? Do you think the last trumpet has already sounded? If not, then do you think anyone with a mortal flesh and blood body will be allowed to inherit the kingdom of God at that time?

This is also nonsense. You and I are inheriting eternal life, and we don't have immortal bodies.

Say what now? Are you saying you believe that Matthew 25:31-46 has already occurred?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Obviously, if they are the saved remnant among the nations that then equals they are among these.

Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

It is not even remotely reasonable, IMO, that any of these which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, can be meaning any of the ones meant in Revelation 20:9. Which presents a problem with your view since you have the ones meant in Revelation 20:9 already in an immortal bodily state and that only those accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, can be in that state when Christ returns and puts them in that state.

And that no one accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, could possibly mean anyone in Revelation 20:9 since that would contradict that they were accounted worthy to obtain that world, if in the end, after having already obtained that world, they are devoured by fire. Which raises another question.

How does one in an immortal bodily state get devoured by fire to begin with? To be devoured by fire in this manner surely means to die, something impossible for anyone in an immortal bodily state to do since that would contradict what Luke 20:36 plainly tells us--Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels. One way they might be equal to the angels at that point is, that angels can't die.

That is the question I have about his view as well. To be immortal means you can't die, so how can immortals be destroyed by fire as Revelation 20:9 describes?

Which proves another point in regards to Amil being incorrect, not correct instead, that Revelation 20:9 is paralleling Revelation 19:19-21. If they are correct that means the beast and false prophet would be among the ones devoured by fire in Revelation 20:9. Why is it then that Revelation 19:20 records that the beast and false prophet are taken while fully alive and cast into the LOF while fully alive? Which then contradicts, how can anyone devoured by fire like that still be alive after having been devoured by fire? Therefore, making it totally pointless to devour them with fire to begin with. Thus Revelation 19:20 contradicts that Revelation 20:9 parallels Revelation 19:19-21.

Do you just forget everything that Amills ever tell you? We do not believe the beast (first beast) and the false prophet (second beast) are individual human beings, so what you're saying does not apply to what we believe. You just insist on misrepresenting Amill over and over again and it seems that you will never stop doing that.

 

[Davidpt]

Again, this exposes the confusion of Premil. You explain away multiple climactic passages by your fixation with, and misunderstanding of, Revelation 20. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine. Take this passage out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing in the inspired pages to support all its main tenets.

This is demonstrated by the fact, there is not one single second coming passage in the Bible that teaches 1000 years (or any significant period of time) follows this great glorious event where sin and death continue. Amils have a problem with, and are opposed to, this loose form of hermeneutics and questionable mode of exegesis.

And you equally explain away passages that tend to prove Premil, thus disprove Amil. Such as Matthew 19:28. Such as Revelation 3:9. Such as Revelation 3:21 in light of Revelation 20:4, 6, and Matthew 25:31. So on and so on. And I didn't even need to bring the OT up and I still provided Scriptures that you have to explain away per Amil.