22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Truth7t7]

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion that I am intellectually dishonest. Am I now supposed to offer a personal defense?

I think I'll ask you the same question I recently asked someone else. Why do you say such things?

Much love!

It's your false claims, that I state your dishonest

You have no response and move towards false claims

It's my opinion that the false teachings of John N. Darby and C.I. Scofield better known as dispensationalism has you blind to biblical truth

It's my opinion that the scripture below is straight forward, the Kingdom of God has been taken from Israel and given to the Church, something very clear, simple, that you reject

Jesus is the originator of your proclaimed "Replacement Theology"

He took the Kingdom and replaced Israel with the Holy Nation of the Church

Jesus Is The Lord

Matthew 21:42-43KJV
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The Church, An Holy Nation!

2 Peter 2:9KJV
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, and I believe God will convert a remnant who choose to believe at the 2nd Coming of Christ, and rebuild a full nation out of them.

Where does scripture teach that a remnant will "choose to believe at the 2nd Coming of Christ"?

 

[marks]

LOL. The number of times the thousand years is referenced is not corroboration of your interpretation. Do you not know what corroboration means? He was talking about other scripture besides Revelation 20 that corroborates (supports) your interpretation of Revelation 20. We amils don't believe there is any scripture which corroborates the premil interpretation of Revelation 20.

What it does is provide internal emphasis within that passage. The kingdom is prophesied in many places, in this one place, its duration is given, over and over and over.

Yes I know what corroboration means, the only diffence between what I'm pointing to and what you seem to be requiring is exactly how many letters and words between the occurances of the terminology.

And what if Isaiah said "a thousand years"? Would you then believe? Or would you treat his words the same?

Much love!

 

[marks]

It's your false claims, that I state your dishonest

OK, got it.

Thank you!

 

[WPM]

And about the "one hour", any comments? Seriously. You brought this up, I responded, are you now just going to breeze past it?

Premils make it up as they go.

Or are we just going to be back to pejorative nonsense?

I've been studying this for years, and I only say that to say, I'm not just making this all up on the spot. Why do you say such things?

This is not coming across as a serious discussion.

Much love!

It is a figurative period like the thousand years. It means a short period of time. A thousand years represents a long period of time. At least Amils are consistent in their hermeneutics.

 

[marks]

At least Amils are consistent in their hermeneutics.

Well, at least that!



And if God were actually wanting to communicate that something would be a thousand, what then?

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As I said in a previous posts, his so-called "arguments" aren't valid arguments. They suffer from logical fallacies: strawman fallacy, and "putting words in my mouth" fallacy.

They absolutely are valid arguments against premil. All of them. Now, do all premils believe everything the same? No. So, maybe a few of his arguments don't apply to what you personally believe. So be it. Don't be so offended. He was making arguments against premil in general. You can't expect him to make arguments separately against every different variation of premil.

Remember our argument over what you believe? Did you think I was being mean to you for no reason? I'm sure you agree with me that no one likes to be told what they believe, myself included. Were you convinced that I was right about your beliefs? No?

I argued, based on what you said and how you expressed yourself, that you affirmed Replacement theology. You complained that I had no right to tell you what you believe. I acknowledge that.

Okay....

So now reexamine the original 22 reasons Paul M gave in this thread. How many of the 22 reasons suffer from the strawman fallacy and how man suffer from "putting words in my mouth" fallacy? I'd say all of them.

I'm sure you understand that not all premils believe everything the same just as is the case for amils. However, to think that none of the 22 reasons relates to what you believe? I highly doubt that. I will take a look at it and revisit this post to see if what you're saying here is true or not.

Edit: I just took a look at half of the 22 reasons and I believe most, if not all, of them apply to a vast majority of premils, including you. Your statement here makes me wonder if you even read the original posts. Let's just take the #10 reason for an example:

(10) Christ (who was "the truth"), Paul the Apostle (that Hebrew of the Hebrews) or none of the other NT writer taught a supposed future 1,000-year temporal visible earthly kingdom after the second coming and before the new heaven and the new earth. Their whole teaching depicted a current spiritual invisible heavenly eternal kingdom that was entered by faith. The final perfect visible manifestation of the kingdom is shown repeatedly in the NT to arrive when Jesus comes and destroys all enemies and banishes all imperfection forever. Premil mistakenly advocates another additional imperfect kingdom age, which is in fact a rerun of our current day, to support their faulty theology.

Are you saying that you disagree that this is an argument against your particular view? Do you think Paul or any of the other NT writers taught a 1,000 year temporal visible earthly kingdom after the second coming before the ushering in of the new heaven and new earth? If so, where? I know you might say Revelation 20, but that passage says nothing about an earthly kingdom. So, where else?

 

[Truth7t7]

What do you mean by that?

You understand that we agree on that, right? All Amils, including you and I, believe that the bodily resurrection of all of the dead in Christ will occur on the last day after the thousand years. The difference is that you see that as the first resurrection and I don't. I've actually never seen an Amil claim that is the first resurrection before.

Do you think I disagree with this? I'm starting to wonder if you know what I believe or not. You know what Amils all agree on, don't you? We all believe that all of the dead, saved and lost, will be bodily resurrected after the thousand years.

I don't follow them, either. I never said I did.

Again, "the rest of the dead" not being alive again until the thousand years are finished are not part of the first resurrection. That part is a parenthetical statement. When it says "this is the first resurrection", it's referring back to those referenced in verse 4.

How can those who have part in the first resurrection reign with Christ for a thousand years if they don't even have part in the first resurrection until after the thousand years? Think about it. You are in error because of not recognizing that the first sentence in Revelation 20:5 is parenthetical.

Yes we disagree, you believe Jesus Christ in his resurrection long above represents the words "First Resurrection" in Revelation 20:4-6 I disagree

On the last day (Two Resurrections) will take place, the righteous "First Resurrection" and the wicked "Second Resurrection" or "Second Death" it's that simple

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Truth7t7]

What it does is provide internal emphasis within that passage. The kingdom is prophesied in many places, in this one place, its duration is given, over and over and over.

Yes I know what corroboration means, the only diffence between what I'm pointing to and what you seem to be requiring is exactly how many letters and words between the occurances of the terminology.

And what if Isaiah said "a thousand years"? Would you then believe? Or would you treat his words the same?

Much love!

It's your apparent mis-intrrpretation of the words (Thousand Years) as you desire to see the "Literal" and not the "Symbolic"

Revelation 20 (Thousand Years) is showing nothing more than the location is in the Lord's eternal spiritual realm where there is no literal time, one day is a thousand years, and not upon this earth as you believe and teach in error

Is it a literal day or a literal thousand years below?

It's neither, it's teaching that the Lord's eternal spiritual is outside of earthly time "Be Not Ignorant"

2 Peter 3:8KJV
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What it does is provide internal emphasis within that passage.

What does that mean?

The kingdom is prophesied in many places, in this one place, its duration is given, over and over and over.

Where is a temporary kingdom established after the return of Christ prophesied?

Yes I know what corroboration means, the only diffence between what I'm pointing to and what you seem to be requiring is exactly how many letters and words between the occurances of the terminology.

What are you talking about? So, you clearly don't know what corroboration means. Where is the scripture which supports your interpretation of Revelation 20? I don't believe it exists.

And what if Isaiah said "a thousand years"? Would you then believe? Or would you treat his words the same?

Would I believe what? What you believe Revelation 20 means? Not if it contradicted other scripture as I believe your interpretation of Revelation 20 does. I would believe it was figurative in Isaiah as well in that case.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes we disagree, you believe Jesus Christ in his resurrection long above represents the words "First Resurrection" in Revelation 20:4-6 I disagree
al
On the last day (Two Resurrections) will take place, the rughteous "First" and the wicked "Second" it's that simple

You're not addressing my argument at all. Can you please answer the following question. How can the first resurrection occur after the thousand years when the text indicates that those who have part in the first resurrection reign with Christ during the thousand years?

In other words, how does your view line up with what this verse says:

Revelation 20:6 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.

Also, you do understand that I agree that both the saved and the lost will be bodily resurrected on the last day, right? So, there's no point in you saying that to me as if I disagreed with that. What I disagree with is that being bodily resurrected is required in order to have part in the first resurrection.

 

[marks]

What are you talking about? So, you clearly don't know what corroboration means. Where is the scripture which supports your interpretation of Revelation 20? I don't believe it exists.

You are looking for a parallel passage in a different book, so that you can find the teaching repeated somewhere else in the Bible. I'm saying the repetion is there, only, not, within the same passage.

I have to remember, you don't know me, how can you know the extend of my vocabulary? I remember being tested on vocabulary when I was 8 years old, they said I had a college level vocabulary. I've always loved reading. Anyway, enough about me. Really, enough.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Would I believe what? What you believe Revelation 20 means? Not if it contradicted other scripture as I believe your interpretation of Revelation 20 does. I would believe it was figurative in Isaiah as well in that case.

As I suspected. Thank you for your honesty. So corroboration wouldn't matter then, whether it's a different book, or different chapter, or different verse.

Much love!

 

[Truth7t7]

What it does is provide internal emphasis within that passage. The kingdom is prophesied in many places, in this one place, its duration is given, over and over and over.

"Wrong"

No Millennial Kingdom is seen in Revelation 20, nor is a literal time upon this earth given as you claim

Pre-Mills do nothing more than lay a phony claim on the words "Thousand Years" then jump to the Old Testament and use scripture showing the eternal Kingdom in the NHNE and falsely claim its a Millennial Kingdom on this earth

The sleight of hand is uncovered, no more rabbits in the hat

 

[marks]

as you desire to see

There won't be any responses . . .

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are looking for a parallel passage in a different book, so that you can find the teaching repeated somewhere else in the Bible. I'm saying the repetion is there, only, not, within the same passage.

Where?

I have to remember, you don't know me, how can you know the extend of my vocabulary? I remember being tested on vocabulary when I was 8 years old, they said I had a college level vocabulary. I've always loved reading. Anyway, enough about me. Really, enough.

I said nothing about your overall vocabulary. I was talking about just one word. You were not giving the impression at all that you understand what corroboration means. It does not have to mean "a parallel passage in a different book". I'm saying there is no scripture at all that corroborates (supports) your interpretation of Revelation 20.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As I suspected. Thank you for your honesty. So corroboration wouldn't matter then, whether it's a different book, or different chapter, or different verse.

What in the world are you talking about? You clearly do not understand what corroboration means. I'm simply saying that you don't have any other scripture which supports your interpretation of Revelation 20. I'm not saying that you need to find another scripture which specifically refers to "a thousand years". I'm saying where is the scripture which supports the idea of an earthly kingdom being set up for a long, temporary period of time after the return of Christ?

 

[marks]

Where?

I said nothing about your overall vocabulary. I was talking about just one word. You were not giving the impression at all that you understand what corroboration means. It does not have to mean "a parallel passage in a different book". I'm saying there is no scripture at all that corroborates (supports) your interpretation of Revelation 20.

What I'm saying is that this

Revelation 20:2-3 KJV
2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

is corroborated here

Revelation 20:7-8 KJV
7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

And you want to see it in some other part of the Bible. Further away. Different place not just in the chapter, but some other chapter, some other book.

Maybe you can corroborate that for me, am I correct about what you are saying?

Much love!

 

[jeffweeder]

What in the world are you talking about? You clearly do not understand what corroboration means. I'm simply saying that you don't have any other scripture which supports your interpretation of Revelation 20. I'm not saying that you need to find another scripture which specifically refers to "a thousand years". I'm saying where is the scripture which supports the idea of an earthly kingdom being set up for a long, temporary period of time after the return of Christ?

Exactly. What does every single reference regarding the Lords second coming allude to? Premill or Amill scenario?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What I'm saying is that this

Revelation 20:2-3 KJV
2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

is corroborated here

Revelation 20:7-8 KJV
7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

And you want to see it in some other part of the Bible. Further away. Different place not just in the chapter, but some other chapter, some other book.

Is that a problem for you? Is it not important to you that your interpretation of Revelation 20 not contradict any other scripture?

Maybe you can corroborate that for me, am I correct about what you are saying?

Yes, of course that is what I'm saying. Surely, I'm not asking you to corroborate Revelation 20 with...Revelation 20.