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

[WPM]

You have yet to expose my doctrine because as soon as I prove my case, your rhetoric falls into the pit of insults.

I know. But what does it mean? You haven't got a clue.

On the contrary, you are accusing me of the very thing that you are doing. How many times do you think I pointed out your use of proof texts, single verses taken out of context?

I have read many of your posts where you discuss "spiritual" realities, but in fact, you mean "imaginary" realities. You say that Jesus is ruling on earth right now, but it's all in your head. And you are insulted when I point it out. Simply saying something is true doesn't make it true.

Didn't you read John's first epistle, where he places a high value on empirical evidence? His claims about Jesus are based on what he (John) saw with his eyes, heard with his ears, and personally witnessed.

If Jesus is ruling the earth right now, show me.

Lol. The only thing that you have proved is that you have no answer to the multiple Scriptures above that prove Amil and absolutely demolish your doctrine.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Lol. The only thing that you have proved is that you have no answer to the multiple Scriptures above that prove Amil and absolutely demolish your doctrine.

His excuse for not being able to answer our questions and address our arguments is that we are making personal insults. That's always his excuse for getting out of addressing our arguments. He finds it insulting that we point out his obvious avoidance of our arguments. That's not an insult, it's the truth.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Isn't context important to Amils, such as yourself? Do you not see in Revelation that the kings of earth meant in Revelation 1:5 are not meaning the same kings of the earth meant in Revelation 6:15, Revelation 16:14, Revelation 17:2, Revelation 17:18, Revelation 18:3, Revelation 18:9, and Revelation 19:19? That they are only meaning the kings of the earth meant in Revelation 5:10 and Revelation 21:24?

You cannot apply this universally like you are attempting to do here---the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

You would have us believe, the way you are interpreting Revelation 1:5 universally rather than in context, that the woman meant in Revelation 17:18 is meaning Christ?

Revelation 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.


Can you not see what the text plainly says? The text says that the woman, not Christ, is the one that reigneth over the kings of the earth meant here. Except you want to contradict that and have us believe that Christ is the one that is reigning over the kings of the earth meant in Revelation 17:18. It can't be both. Either Christ is reigning over the kings of the earth meant in Revelation 17:18 or the woman is.

Who should we agree with? The text itself? Or someone that is contradicting the text by applying Revelation 1:5 universally rather than in context? Someone that can't even discern that the kings of the earth meant in Revelation 1:5 are not meaning the kings of the earth meant in Revelation 6:15, Revelation 16:14, Revelation 17:2, Revelation 17:18, Revelation 18:3, Revelation 18:9, and Revelation 19:19, but are meaning the kings of the earth meant in Revelation 5:10 and Revelation 21:24. IOW, there are two sets of the kings of the earth in Revelation, and that they are in opposition to each other, not the same kings of the earth instead. And that Christ rules over one set of kings of the earth while the woman rules over the other set of kings of the earth.

IOW, the following In Zechariah 14 which is also pertaining to the millennium, has not been fulfilled yet.

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one

And that Revelation 17:18, for one, undeniably proves it, the fact the woman reigning over the kings of the earth presently does not presently equal the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Good work and well argued in my opinion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You never look at the big picture. You only ever look at part of the story. Scripture teaches that Satan is the "god of this world" (lowercase "g" - 2 Corinthians 4:4), but does that mean God is not at the same time the God of this world (capital G)? I doubt you would claim that. Jesus and the woman, Babylon, rule over the same kings of the earth in different ways.

Name one king of the earth that Jesus does not have authority over and does not need permission from Jesus to do what he does?

@Davidpt I'm fully expecting you to never address this. Your pattern is obvious. You come here and make an argument that you falsely think is irrefutable. We then respond to your argument. You then disappear and never address our responses. This happens over and over again.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Lol. The only thing that you have proved is that you have no answer to the multiple Scriptures above that prove Amil and absolutely demolish your doctrine.

Well, since @David in NJ and @Marilyn C are doing so well, I should step up and do my part. Let's begin with a parable of Jesus.

I will quote a part of the parable in order to make a point.

Luke 19:11-15 While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. So He said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return. And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.​

The parable is predicated on the fact that the Kingdom of God was not present during the telling of the parable because Luke writes, " they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately." Jesus tells a parable about a nobleman who went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself.

Jesus' parable in Luke 19:12 about a nobleman traveling to a distant country to receive a kingdom appears to reference a historical practice familiar to His audience. In particular, Herod the Great and his son Archelaus both traveled to Rome to receive their authority over Judea from the Roman emperor. This historical backdrop would have made the parable especially relevant to Jesus' listeners, as they would have understood the political implications of a ruler needing approval from a higher authority.

Herod the Great received his official authority from Rome, but his actual rule didn't begin until he returned to Judea and established control. This was a common practice under the Roman system—local rulers often needed imperial approval before exercising power. If Jesus is that nobleman who went to a "far country" (heaven) to receive his official authority from God the Father, his actual rule won't begin until he returns to Jerusalem.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Lol. The only thing that you have proved is that you have no answer to the multiple Scriptures above that prove Amil and absolutely demolish your doctrine.

What they show is what they were intended to show. We could examine them in context together if you like.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, since @David in NJ and @Marilyn C are doing so well, I should step up and do my part. Let's begin with a parable of Jesus.

I will quote a part of the parable in order to make a point.

Luke 19:11-15 While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. So He said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return. And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.​

The parable is predicated on the fact that the Kingdom of God was not present during the telling of the parable because Luke writes, " they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately." Jesus tells a parable about a nobleman who went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself.

Jesus' parable in Luke 19:12 about a nobleman traveling to a distant country to receive a kingdom appears to reference a historical practice familiar to His audience. In particular, Herod the Great and his son Archelaus both traveled to Rome to receive their authority over Judea from the Roman emperor. This historical backdrop would have made the parable especially relevant to Jesus' listeners, as they would have understood the political implications of a ruler needing approval from a higher authority.

Herod the Great received his official authority from Rome, but his actual rule didn't begin until he returned to Judea and established control. This was a common practice under the Roman system—local rulers often needed imperial approval before exercising power. If Jesus is that nobleman who went to a "far country" (heaven) to receive his official authority from God the Father, his actual rule won't begin until he returns to Jerusalem.

What do you think Jesus is doing right now? Nothing at all or nothing of significance? Do you think He is just up in heaven sitting there twiddling His thumbs or doing crosswords while waiting to have His chance to rule?

 

[CadyandZoe]

@Davidpt I'm fully expecting you to never address this. Your pattern is obvious. You come here and make an argument that you falsely think is irrefutable. We then respond to your argument. You then disappear and never address our responses. This happens over and over again.

You honestly believe that people disappear because you responded to an argument?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You honestly believe that people disappear because you responded to an argument?

I'm only talking about him here. He does it repeatedly. Why does he make an argument, and then we respond to his argument, but then he doesn't respond in kind? That has happened many times.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What do you think Jesus is doing right now?

What did Herod do while he was in Rome? What does it matter? Herod didn't begin his rule until he returned to Judea. Jesus will not rule until he returns to Earth.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'm only talking about him here. He does it repeatedly. Why does he make an argument, and then we respond to his argument, but then he doesn't respond in kind? That has happened many times.

He is probably one of those people who have limited time. I am retired now. I have more time to explore issues with you and WPM. Don't assume that a non-response is an admission of defeat.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What did Herod do while he was in Rome? What does it matter? Herod didn't begin his rule until he returned to Judea. Jesus will not rule until he returns to Earth.

Was my question too hard for you to answer? What do you think Jesus is doing right now? You don't think He is reigning, so what do you think He is doing? Why are you so incredibly evasive?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He is probably one of those people who have limited time. I am retired now. I have more time to explore issues with you and WPM. Don't assume that a non-response is an admission of defeat.

You should not speak about things of which you know nothing about. I see him responding to other posts in the meantime besides ours, but he somehow doesn't have time to respond to ours? I know why that is and it's not because he has limited time.

 

[WPM]

Well, since @David in NJ and @Marilyn C are doing so well, I should step up and do my part. Let's begin with a parable of Jesus.

I will quote a part of the parable in order to make a point.

Luke 19:11-15 While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. So He said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return. And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.​

The parable is predicated on the fact that the Kingdom of God was not present during the telling of the parable because Luke writes, " they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately." Jesus tells a parable about a nobleman who went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself.

Jesus' parable in Luke 19:12 about a nobleman traveling to a distant country to receive a kingdom appears to reference a historical practice familiar to His audience. In particular, Herod the Great and his son Archelaus both traveled to Rome to receive their authority over Judea from the Roman emperor. This historical backdrop would have made the parable especially relevant to Jesus' listeners, as they would have understood the political implications of a ruler needing approval from a higher authority.

Herod the Great received his official authority from Rome, but his actual rule didn't begin until he returned to Judea and established control. This was a common practice under the Roman system—local rulers often needed imperial approval before exercising power. If Jesus is that nobleman who went to a "far country" (heaven) to receive his official authority from God the Father, his actual rule won't begin until he returns to Jerusalem.

I knew you would run. That is what people do when they have no arguments. I have been at this long enough to know that. You are unable to prove your thesis. You cannot address any of the rebuttals.

 

[WPM]

Was my question too hard for you to answer? What do you think Jesus is doing right now? You don't think He is reigning, so what do you think He is doing? Why are you so incredibly evasive?

Exactly bro. Talk about false teaching.

 

[WPM]

What they show is what they were intended to show. We could examine them in context together if you like.

This all evasive noise. Personal opinion.

Stop avoiding the Scriptures. Stop avoiding the watertight arguments.

 

[WPM]

You honestly believe that people disappear because you responded to an argument?

Yes! You and David are too good examples.

 

[WPM]

Did I say that nations would turn into theocracies? No. I said that God would defeat Jesus' enemies and establish him as head over the entire Earth. God the Father will rule through God the Son and establish a theocracy.

Psalm 110:2 The Lord (God the Father) will stretch forth Your (God the Son) strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”​

Do we see that today? No. Until you grasp reality as it is, you won't be able to understand what you are reading.

There is an intimate theocracy within the kingdom of God. Jesus reigns over true spiritual Israel on David's throne. Jesus reigns on that as the Son of man - Messiah, Israel's king. Christ also rules as God over all creation. You must reject that because you deny the deity of Christ. That is why you have to reject that. He possesses all authority in heaven and on earth.

Proverbs 21: 1: "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."

This is His sovereign control. What more control does He need than that to be ruling over his enemies?

Jeremiah 10:23: "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps."

This is His sovereign control. What more control does He need than that to be ruling over his enemies?

Revelation 3:7: "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth."

This is His sovereign control. What more control does He need than that to be ruling over his enemies?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Was my question too hard for you to answer? What do you think Jesus is doing right now? You don't think He is reigning, so what do you think He is doing? Why are you so incredibly evasive?

I answered your question with a question. Since Jesus is not reigning right now, it doesn't matter what he is doing.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I knew you would run. That is what people do when they have no arguments. I have been at this long enough to know that. You are unable to prove your thesis. You cannot address any of the rebuttals.

I just proved it.