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

[WPM]

They were `saved` because they believed what God promised them. (Heb. 11: 13)

They did not know to recite `letting Jesus into their hearts.`

But most Israelis are not saved. They are therefore off their father the devil. They do not belong to God's people.

 

[WPM]

`For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order. Christ, the first-fruits, afterwards those who are Christ`s at His coming,.....` (1 Cor. 15: 22 & 23)

You see those events precede the reigning judgments of Christ because we read the word THEN....

`THEN comes the end....` meaning a setting out to a goal, (Greek). And in that time the Lord puts down all rule, authority and power.

When are you going to address all the passages above that you have avoided? You seem to be a master at avoidance.

 

[WPM]

LOL. What does it matter if you think or not? How can you understand anything if you don't think? LOL.


Is it too hard for you to address my comments? Do you believe that God exercised dominion over the earth in OT times, including in Noah's day?

Good luck (and I do not believe in luck)! It is like getting blood out of a stone.

 

[Marilyn C]

No. Not setting out a goal. Setting out a reality! Hello! You are wrongly dividing the Word of God. You are trying to twist Scripture to fit your doctrine. Dispies do that all the time. That is because they have nothing to support their views. You are always adding unto Scripture.

1 Corinthians 15:12-14, 21-24, “how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain…But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at His coming. THEN COMETH THE END, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.”

Here we see Christ’s coming confirmed as “the end.” The conclusiveness of the reading is undoubted, in that it is the occasion that Christ finally presents “up the kingdom to God” and “shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.” It is expressly “the end” for every enemy and the termination of every effort from the devil’s kingdom to thwart the plan of God. Therefore, this all-consummating last day ushers in the end (or completion) of all things.

`cometh the end,` end - Greek, `telos` to set out for a definite point or goal.

 

[Marilyn C]

When are you going to address all the passages above that you have avoided? You seem to be a master at avoidance.

`For in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order,

1. Christ the first-fruits,
2. afterwards those who are Christ`s at His coming,
3. THEN comes the end, (Greek -`telos` to set out for a definite point or goal. (putting down all rule and authority and power. v. 24)
4. when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father.` (1 Cor. 15: 22 - 24)

 

[Marilyn C]

But most Israelis are not saved. They are therefore off their father the devil. They do not belong to God's people.

Have you counted them?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Were all the leaders of the world under God's feet in Old Testament times?

No. Not at all. Remember what our apostle said, "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." He repeats the phrase "God gave them over" two more times in that context.

God abandoned mankind to their lusts and passions. Paul teaches us that the abandonment of mankind was an objectification of God's wrath.

Scripture says that God the Father put all things under Jesus's feet long ago (Ephesians 1:19-22, Hebrews 2:8), so why do you not accept that?

I disagree with your interpretation of those passages for obvious reasons. First of all, we don't see every authority subjugated to Jesus Christ. That is your first and strongest clue that your interpretation is in error.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No. Not setting out a goal. Setting out a reality! Hello! You are wrongly dividing the Word of God. You are trying to twist Scripture to fit your doctrine. Dispies do that all the time. That is because they have nothing to support their views. You are always adding unto Scripture.

1 Corinthians 15:12-14, 21-24, “how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain…But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at His coming. THEN COMETH THE END, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.”

Here we see Christ’s coming confirmed as “the end.” The conclusiveness of the reading is undoubted, in that it is the occasion that Christ finally presents “up the kingdom to God” and “shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.” It is expressly “the end” for every enemy and the termination of every effort from the devil’s kingdom to thwart the plan of God. Therefore, this all-consummating last day ushers in the end (or completion) of all things.

Paul is not saying that the Second Coming of Christ is the end. He is saying that the end comes after the second coming of Christ.

Paul is giving the order of resurrection. Keep that in mind. Look at Marilyn's list. The Second Coming is item number 2 on the list. Remember what the list represents: moments when people are resurrected.

1. resurrection
2. resurrection
3. resurrection

Understand?

1. resurrection of Jesus
2. resurrection of his followers
3. resurrection of everyone else.

Revelation 20 has a similar list:

2. resurrection of his followers
3. resurrection of everyone else.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Absolutely unbelievable for him to complain about you not answering questions when he answers maybe 10% of our questions. This guy is just playing games.

We are playing a game that you invited us to play. If you no longer enjoy the game, then consider giving up or stopping play.

 

[WPM]

`cometh the end,` end - Greek, `telos` to set out for a definite point or goal.

It is the end. It is the completion. It is the conclusion of a thing The coming of the Lord is the end goal. Hello!

So sad your theology requires you butcher Scripture. But that sums up Dspensationalism.

Remember, people are actually watching on as you manipulate the text to fit your doctrine.

 

[WPM]

Paul is not saying that the Second Coming of Christ is the end. He is saying that the end comes after the second coming of Christ.

Paul is giving the order of resurrection. Keep that in mind. Look at Marilyn's list. The Second Coming is item number 2 on the list. Remember what the list represents: moments when people are resurrected.

1. resurrection
2. resurrection
3. resurrection

Understand?

1. resurrection of Jesus
2. resurrection of his followers
3. resurrection of everyone else.

Revelation 20 has a similar list:

2. resurrection of his followers
3. resurrection of everyone else.

Lol. This forbids your doctrine. There is no mention of some imaginary future sin-cursed age. You force it into the text. You have to. You have to do that with countless Scriptures in order to justify your error. You cannot let the text speak for itself. For the record, adding onto Scripture is forbidden in the Word, yet you do it as will.

 

[WPM]

`For in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order,

1. Christ the first-fruits,
2. afterwards those who are Christ`s at His coming,
3. THEN comes the end, (Greek -`telos` to set out for a definite point or goal. (putting down all rule and authority and power. v. 24)
4. when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father.` (1 Cor. 15: 22 - 24)

The end comes at the second coming. Hello! Even Houdini couldn't squeeze out of that.

 

[WPM]

Paul is not saying that the Second Coming of Christ is the end. He is saying that the end comes after the second coming of Christ.

Paul is giving the order of resurrection. Keep that in mind. Look at Marilyn's list. The Second Coming is item number 2 on the list. Remember what the list represents: moments when people are resurrected.

1. resurrection
2. resurrection
3. resurrection

Understand?

1. resurrection of Jesus
2. resurrection of his followers
3. resurrection of everyone else.

Revelation 20 has a similar list:

2. resurrection of his followers
3. resurrection of everyone else.

Why are you trying to change the subject now? Why are you not addressing the multiple texts above that forbid your doctrine? When are you going to address the detailed posts about?

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL. This is happening now. How many times do I need to say it?

I don't need you to say it. I need you to prove it. You and everyone else know that the world is not currently living under a theocracy. Some countries are theocracies, but Jesus isn't ruling them.

Your reading comprehension is as good as your theology. Start by reading the Scriptures and the commentary above one by one. This will help you. He is reigning on His Father's throne. His Father has given Him all authority in heaven and on earth. I have furnished you with multiple Scriptures that proves that.

It seems that there is a fundamental disagreement regarding the scriptures in question. One possibility is that the interpretations you hold may not accurately reflect their intended meaning, whereas the idea that the scriptures themselves contain errors is simply not tenable. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the current state of the world is not governed by a theocracy; we live in a society characterized by a separation of religious authority and political power.

Until you admit the reality of the situation, we can't begin to discuss the meaning of the scriptures you quote.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Lol. This forbids your doctrine. There is no mention of some imaginary future sin-cursed age.

Did I say anything like that? No. Your imagination is working overtime.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Exactly! But he is exposing himself. His doctrine is in tatters. This is probably one of the most one-sided discussions that I have ever been in - and that is saying something. I have been in a lot of them.

I have presented multiple explicit Scriptures that show Christ is reigning over His enemies today and he avoids them like the plague. He cannot even address one single Scripture.

Show me. Look outside and tell me you see a worldwide theocracy having Jesus Christ as the primary leader. You can't. Therefore your interpretations are incorrect.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Lol. This forbids your doctrine. There is no mention of some imaginary future sin-cursed age. You force it into the text. You have to. You have to do that with countless Scriptures in order to justify your error. You cannot let the text speak for itself. For the record, adding onto Scripture is forbidden in the Word, yet you do it as will.

I have let the text speak for itself. You are the one who takes passages out of context to support your own view. Rather than the passage correcting you, you correct the passage.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I disagree with your interpretation of those passages for obvious reasons. First of all, we don't see every authority subjugated to Jesus Christ. That is your first and strongest clue that your interpretation is in error.

You don't understand what it means for Jesus to reign. It has nothing to do with being a dictator and dictating what everyone does.

Tell me, what do you think Jesus is doing today? Nothing? Just sitting up there in heaven doing crossword puzzles while waiting for His chance to reign? Do you think He has no authority and no control over what is happening on the earth? No authority and control over your life at all?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We are playing a game that you invited us to play. If you no longer enjoy the game, then consider giving up or stopping play.

Thank you for admitting that you are just intending to play games. And, yes, I will strongly consider not playing your game any longer. I would prefer to talk to serious adults.

 

[WPM]

I don't need you to say it. I need you to prove it. You and everyone else know that the world is not currently living under a theocracy. Some countries are theocracies, but Jesus isn't ruling them.



It seems that there is a fundamental disagreement regarding the scriptures in question. One possibility is that the interpretations you hold may not accurately reflect their intended meaning, whereas the idea that the scriptures themselves contain errors is simply not tenable. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the current state of the world is not governed by a theocracy; we live in a society characterized by a separation of religious authority and political power.

Until you admit the reality of the situation, we can't begin to discuss the meaning of the scriptures you quote.

This is another one of your strawman arguments.

Where in the New Testament does it say that nations were going to become theocracies? Nowhere! Where does it say that in Revelation 20? Nowhere!

You make your theology up as you go. You invent extra-biblical stipulations and then ask me to fulfill your silliness. That is not the way it works. When I do not align with your silliness then you dismiss my argument. That says it all! The reader can see that for themselves.

Why not admit: your doctrine is not in the Bible? This is another proof of you adding onto Scripture. That sums up your theology.

This is all a smoke screen to divert around what the Bible actually teaches. That is what I have outlined above. That is what you're avoiding. That is what you have to avoid. It exposes your theology.