David in NJ
Well-Known Member
So you don't know! and you are here teaching!!!You deny these. You have to. That is what it is to be a online Premil. You are doing our work for us.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
So you don't know! and you are here teaching!!!You deny these. You have to. That is what it is to be a online Premil. You are doing our work for us.
It is you and your Premil brethren that has been avoiding. I have refuted your error repeatedly and you have no answer. Avoidance is the Premil MO. That is why it is crumbling before us. It cannot abide the Word.So you don't know! and you are here teaching!!!
i already told you i knowIt is you and your Premil brethren that has been avoiding. I have refuted your error repeatedly and you have no answer. Avoidance is the Premil MO. That is why it is crumbling before us. It cannot abide the Word.
Christ took dominion 2000 years ago when He ascended to the throne.Open: Adam given dominion (Genesis 1:26-28).
Close: The dominion of the last Adam (Revelation 20:4 - also see Revelation 3:21).
I think the reason why he is so frustrated is that his thread has backfired on him. His thesis went up in a puff of smoke. He has been unable to address and rebut one counter argument. That is is because is promoting an non-corroborative extra-biblical theory.Yes, Satan is certainly not pleased with the abundance of truth being shown by the Amils in this thread. But, I'm sure he really enjoys your false teaching.
<yawn>
You have nothing at all to refute our arguments. You don't even attempt to do so. All you are able to do is respond with this kind of useless nonsense.
Thanks!
We can and have supported our claims regarding Revelation 20:4 EXTENSIVELY and THOROUGHLY many times. Whether you agree with our support of our claims does not matter to us. It's your choice.
You're the only drama queen around here. Plus a mouthpiece for Satan (the two go hand-in-glove together) with his slurs, insults, false accusations, avoidance and deflections and superimposing the things you do onto others who you do them to - but you're never a mouthpiece for Jesus. I've yet to see that come through in your human 'wisdom'.Exactly! Talk about a drama queen.
In my first post I should have placedChrist took dominion 2000 years ago when He ascended to the throne.
- Is Jesus “the express image of his (God’s) person,” who is “upholding all things by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:2-3)?
- Do you believe that Christ has become "the ruler of God’s creation" (Revelation 3:14)?
- Do you believe that Jesus has already "spoiled principalities and powers ... made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it (the cross)" (Colossians 2:15)?
- Do you believe that Christ “is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:10)?
- Do you believe that “angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him” right now (1 Peter 3:22)?
- Do you believe that Christ is currently "the archon (or ruler) of the kings of the earth" (Revelation 1:5)?
- Is Jesus “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting” (1 Timothy 6:15–16)?
- Do you believe that “All things that the Father hath are” Christ’s (John 16:15)?
- Do you believe that the Father has indeed given Jesus “power over all flesh” (John 17:2)?
- Do you believe that “All things are delivered” unto Jesus of His “Father” (Matthew 11:27) and that He has “given all things into his (Christ’s) hand” (John 3:35 and John 13:3)?
- Do you believe that Jesus currently possesses “All power [Gr. exousia or authority] … in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18)?
- Do you believe that the Father has given Jesus “authority to execute judgment … because he is the Son of man” (John 5:26-27)?
- Do you believe that Christ currently “openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth" (Revelation 3:7)?
- When does Christ reign? After His enemies are subdued or until His enemies are subdued (1 Corinthians 15:25-28)?
- 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 and Ephesians 1:20-23 tells us that Christ “hath put (aorist active indicative) all things under his feet” and Hebrews 1:8 tells us that “thou hast put all things in subjection’ (aorist active indicative) under his feet.” How could anyone therefore deny He is sovereignly reigning over His enemies now? How could anyone then relate this fulfilment to an alleged future age after the second coming?
- Do you agree that when it says in Hebrews 2:8 “For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him” that this plainly speaking about everyone who is living or has ever lived, albeit, there are enemies still being born right up until the second coming that will be placed under His feet?
one another for almost everything you say, and who is another mouthpiece for Satan who thinks that quoting and twisting scripture and adherence to an ism is being a mouthpiece for Christ.
bosom buddy, You're both on ignore - for good.That's fine. Except not all Amils believe only OSAS is Biblical, and that NOSAS isn't. Some Amils believe NOSAS is also Biblical. You then end up with a false teaching in regards to Revelation 20:6. Even though the text plainly says that those that have part in the first resurrection are blessed and holy, that on such the 2nd death has no power, Amil combined with NOSAS just made John out to be a liar. Amil combined with NOSAS just made verse 6 conditional when there is no such conditions being implied.
Does this mean that the solution is, abandon NOSAS, now there is no conflict with Amil's interpretation of Revelation 20:6? No, that is not the solution since one would be denying something Biblical, that NOSAS is also true. The solution is Premil, since Premil has no issues like this. Premil does not need to add or take away from the text like Amil combined with NOSAS needs to.
Per Premil no one could possibly have part in the first resurrection then lose it the next minute, such as Amil combined with NOSAS falsely teaches.
I'm going to be honest with you here. This is not the forum for you. You should spend time on a forum discussing Christian behavior. This is an end times forum where end times scriptures are discussed and debated. You don't debate at all. You just make claims and act like that's enough. You don't exegete any scripture or make any coherent arguments at all to support your claims.
This forum is a place where beliefs that equate with what labels or "isms" like amillennialism and premillennialism teach. You act like these labels or "isms" are evil or something. No, they just provide an easier way of describing what someone believes in a general sense. Of course, not all Amils believe everything the same and not all Premils believe everything the same. But, those labels tell you some things about what someone believes, such as their understanding of the timing of the thousand years in Revelation 20. There's nothing wrong with using labels for that purpose.
Notice that perfection and the removal of the bondage of corruption arrives when Jesus comes in the NHNE not some imaginary sin-cursed goat-infested death-blighted in between this age and the age to come.
That is forced into the sacred text by Premil.
- Nowhere in Scripture depicts time continuing on the earth after the second coming.
- Nowhere in Scripture depicts sin and sinners continuing on the earth after the second coming.
- Nowhere in Scripture depicts crying and dying continuing on the earth after the second coming.
- Nowhere in Scripture depicts war and terror continuing on the earth after the second coming.
- Nowhere in Scripture depicts Satan and his minions continuing on the earth after the second coming.
- Nowhere in Scripture depicts mortals continuing on the earth after the second coming.
- Nowhere in Scripture depicts the bondage of corruption continuing on the earth after the second coming
I largely agree with you. Labels are not meant to obscure or replace substance; they are simply a rough shorthand for identifying a set of beliefs. Used properly, they actually aid discussion by bringing clarity rather than hiding anything. They invite light and examination instead of confusion.
Scripture presents God as a God of order, not disorder (1 Cor. 14:33). From the beginning, God entrusted Adam with naming and ordering creation—an act grounded in the fact that we are made in His image. Naming and ordering were not arbitrary; they were part of faithful stewardship.
For that reason, being reflexively opposed to naming or defining beliefs can actually undermine clarity rather than promote humility. The issue is not whether things are named, but whether they are named truthfully and carefully, always subject to Scripture.
You're the only drama queen around here. Plus a mouthpiece for Satan (the two go hand-in-glove together) with his slurs, insults, false accusations, avoidance and deflections and superimposing the things you do onto others who you do them to - but you're never a mouthpiece for Jesus. I've yet to see that come through in your human 'wisdom'.
Just because some, calling themselves Amill don't understand eternal security one in Christ possesses doesn't make Amillennialism a false teaching. It simply means they, like you, are not certain that Christ has given them eternal life from the moment they were born again.
In this verse (6) John is showing us there are others who are not numbered with martyred saints who are also eternally secure in Christ. Which is why he writes they are blessed and holy, have part in the resurrection life of Christ (first resurrection) and have overcome the second death. IOW ALL who remain faithful unto death in Christ, are eternally secure, and have no fear of the second death, even if they are not martyred for their faith.
Revelation 20:6 (KJV) Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Your problem is not with Amill David! Your problem is (1) you lack belief in the FACT that God saves to the uttermost all who come to Christ for eternal life, (2) you continue to cling to Premillennialism even though your doctrine has repeatedly been shown to be full of contradiction and confusion. You think if you can prove Amillennialism is not truth, then you've proven Premillennialism is truth! So you just keep trying to find ways to fight against biblical truth while ignoring all the inconsistencies in the doctrine(S) you think might be biblical. You're tossed to and fro with every new wind of doctrine because you refuse to believe what you cannot physically see.
It's not that you don't know what, or should I say WHO, the first resurrection is! It's been explained to you ad nauseum! There is no doubting you mentally understand how we must have part in Christ before we die to overcome the second death, and that is how man has part in the first resurrection. But you so desperately want to believe what you THINK MIGHT be truth, and the only way for you to do that is to fight against TRUTH! You will never have spiritual understanding until you stop fighting against the Word of God!
Lizbeth,the Resurrection occurs ONLY on the Last Day, which is His 2nd Coming = John 6:37-40
And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing,
but should raise it up at the last day.
And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life;
and I will raise him up at the last day.”
When GOD Speaks Twice, it is best to stop throwing dice at scripture!!!
What happens BEFORE the 1,000 years = the First Resurrection = Rev 20:4-6
Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands.
And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years were complete.
This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection!
The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
LOVE your post and i AGREE with much of it = Thank You and Good MorningWe might be talking past each other brother, I often don't understand what you are getting at. But it is true that there are lot of scriptures rolling around in my head like dice that haven't come to rest yet. Only God will be able to make sense of it all for me, if He will....my own mind is not up to the task. But I believe we need to understand Rev through the lens of all the scrips that came before it, rather than try to work backwards from a wrong understanding Rev. Eg, Daniel 7 spoke of these things in Rev 20 long before Rev was given...and Jesus told the apostles that they would sit on thrones judging the tribes of Israel. Understanding that I have is that things that were prophesied belong to Israel and concerned Israel first. The early church was living in the last days of Israel and the old covenant back then before judgment came in 70 AD.
Jesus was the firstfruits....I believe it is His resurrection that we have a part in....along with the OT saints who were resurrected back then at the same time.
They actually do! What happens to the righteous when Jesus appears? What happens to the wicked when He appears? In Matthew 25:33 Christ (the king) sets “the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.” He then sentences them, and eternally separates them. The sheep are the believers, the goats are the unbelievers. Jesus confirms this in this final sentencing of all mankind in Matthew 25:34, 41&46, declaring: “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world … then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels … and these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”Why in the world do you keep bringing goats up? Do you think Premils cannot read that the goats go away into everlasting punishment when Christ returns? You might then argue, there you go then, no one to populate Premil's millennium. That might be true if the goats represent all the lost in general. Except they obviously don't. Meaning anyone that comprehends how context works.
Yesterday I was here earlier on but then my house turned into grand central and I couldn't get back to it but a few seconds at a time here or there, but largely the insults looked to come from you.
People had excellent arguments from Scripture and reason, yet you STILL have not addressed the substance of any of them. You just went on a weird copy paste rampage and then started in with over the top expressions of misplaced authority and insults.
You destroyed your own thread
@Hazelelponi Those who love God, love His Word which His inspired prophets and apostles wrote, and seek to fully understand what the authors who penned the scriptures meant in each and every verse.
Do you believe it's important to do that?
I do - because words in the Bible and what the authors who penned the scriptures meant by them are not, and were not ever meant to be defined by abstract extra-biblical statements plucked not out of scripture, but out of the minds of fallible human beings with theological biases.
Statements like these:
In both the LXX and NT:
ζωὴ can denote ordinary creaturely life, not only eternal life.
ζάω can be used figuratively or theologically, not only for bodily animation.
Lexicons define ranges of meaning, not iron rules. Treating ζάω as “always bodily life” and ζωὴ as “always spiritual life” is itself an example of illegitimate semantic restriction, the very error being alleged. ..
etc etc
ALL statements like the above FAIL to ascertain what the authors who penned the Bible meant by words LIKE the words brought up in this thread - and what they meant in each and every verse of scripture where they used the words.
ALL such statements about lexicon etc - derived from outside the Bible - fail, in respect of the words mentioned in this thread to provide a COMPETE list of all the verses using the word zao in the New Testament in order to prove which verses are NOT referring to being alive but rather to the spiritual life [zoe] which is the source of it,
and fail to provide adequate reason for switching the meaning in some verses only - even though the word zao (being alive) never refers (in the verses in the Bible where they appear) to the zoe (life) that is the source of being alive,
and fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the word zoe in order to prove which verses using the word are using it NOT in reference to life, but in reference to being alive,
and fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the words égersis; anístēmi; and egeírō and anástasis (the words used in reference to the resurrection) (i.e whenever the words are used in reference to the resurrection because the words égersis; anístēmi; and egeírō are not always used in reference to the resurrection: Sometimes they are used for rising up as in "get up!", or being raised up as a leader, or rising from sleep in a normal sense),
but whenever the above words are not being used in a normal sense, they are referring to the resurrection - in each verse.
So statements about lexicon etc that fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the words égersis; anístēmi; and egeírō and anástasis where the words are referring to the resurrection, are not derived from the verses where the words appear - hence they are not derived from the Bible
- they are derived from extra-biblical sources produced by the fallible minds of humans and simply accepted and believed by other humans who are not prepared to take the time and effort to search for and read each and every verse and the passage and context in which it was used by the person who penned the scripture.
and so in the same way and for the same reasons, they also fail to provide a COMPLETE list of all the verses in the New Testament using the words zoopoieo and suzōopoiéō and make a comparison between them all in order to prove which verses are NOT referring to the quickening of the human body (but to the quickening of the human spirit instead, as they claim).
It's a complete failure on the part of many churches and theological institutions NOT TO look IN the Bible where those words appear - in each and every verse where those words appear - to see what the authors who penned the scriptures were talking about in those verses / in that passage
- instead of listening to and repeating the intellectual generalizations and definitions created in fallible human minds (which are often based not on what the authors who penned the scriptures were talking about and what they meant by the word) but on extra-biblical theological biases.
Those who love God, love His Word which His inspired prophets and apostles wrote, and seek to fully understand what the authors who penned the scriptures meant in each and every verse.
Indeed, whoever loves God enough WILL love His inspired Word enough to look for each and every New Testament verse using each word when it comes to these subjects, comparing the verses with one another to ascertain if what the authors who penned the verses were talking about, and what they meant by the words, is what those who have never bothered to do this, SAY the words mean.
Failure to do so = not interested enough in what the authors who penned the scriptures, who were inspired by God to write what they did, meant and were seeking to convey.
HalleluYAH Lizbeth = this TRUTH is KEY to understanding RevelationJesus was the firstfruits....I believe it is His resurrection that we have a part in....along with the OT saints who were resurrected back then at the same time.
Rev 20 is highlighting how since the first resurrection of Jesus, Hades has been defeated. The redeemed go immediately upon death into the presence of Jesus to reign with Christ until the second coming.Except you don't realize that Christ can be the first resurrection, and then when one is bodily raised 2000 years later, that it still makes them having part in the first resurrection. But for some bizarre reason Amils think that can only be true if a spiritual resurrection pertaining to the here and now is the only way one can have part in the first resurrection. And that when the saved are bodily raised, that does not equal having part in the first resurrection.
Spiritual resurrection pertaining to the here and now equals having part in the first resurrection.
A bodily resurrection in the future does not equal having part in the first resurrection.
Apparently then a spiritual resurrection pertaining to the here and now trumps a bodily resurrection in the future. As if a spiritual resurrection is going to allow one to live for ever and ever. Who needs to be bodily raised, right? No wonder that John only mentioned 2 resurrections in Revelation 20, except neither are meaning the bodily resurrection of the saints. And that is because a spiritual resurrection pertaining to the here and now apparently trumps a bodily resurrection in the future.
As you can see here. I can even fully agree with you that Christ is the first resurrection, and do agree He is. And still Amil makes no sense, since Amil implies that only a spiritual resurrection pertaining to the here and now equals having part in the first resurrection. While a bodily resurrection in the future does not equal having part in the first resurrection. Wow.
But if Amils were to admit that a bodily resurrection in the future equals having part in the first resurrection, the first resurrection being Christ's, why then can't Revelation 20:4-6 be pertaining to the bodily resurrection in the future? Is it because it might make Premil true in that case? I think so. IOW, doctrinal bias on Amil's part.