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

[CadyandZoe]

I just showed you the evidence.

Perhaps you thought it was evidence, but it wasn't. When we make an argument, we must avoid assuming our conclusion in the core of our argument.

You either duck around it or attempt to explain it away talk.

If by "explain it away" you mean "present a counterargument," then I agree. That is what I do. To summarize, John teaches us that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and that one of the most significant roles assigned to Jesus is to "exegete" God. In other words, Jesus came as a human being to make God more tangible and understandable to us.

That sums up your consistent approach to God's Word! You are a heretic.

Those who study God's word might find themselves in disagreement with orthodoxy. I tend to avoid discussing such subjects, but you insisted. I can't be untruthful when confronted.

You should be banned from this forum.

Is censorship good or evil? That is a question that remains open in our society today. Most reasonable people appreciate the opportunity to hear both sides of the argument.

We give you credibility even engaging with you, as if your thoughts are legitimate.

You and I are not speaking for the board. So there is no possibility that someone would mistakenly believe that they support what I say.

Jesus is not an "abstract concept." He is a person.

I never said otherwise.

The Word was made flesh.

I kindly accept your reminder, but surely, if you have been reading my responses, you have seen me say the same thing.
Objectively speaking, the New Testament fills out and explains what that means. Jesus was born, he learned wisdom, he studied his Bible, he obeyed his mother, he got a job, he grew to adulthood, he ate lunch and drank water, he made friends, he started a school, Satan tempted him, he was crucified, and he died. Everything about Jesus is relatable to us because he was one of us. He was the best of us.

Paul acknowledged that Jesus lived as a man, and John emphasized the importance of the fact that the Messiah came in the flesh.

And the Word was God.

Yes, and so was Jesus.

Jesus is Yahweh.

I disagree. Jesus and Yahweh have a subject/object relationship. Jesus obeys Yahweh. Jesus said to Yahweh, "Your will be done." Jesus called Yahweh "Father," and God called Jesus "My Son."

The passage you quoted from Hebrews demonstrates this perfectly. Paul argues that God has appointed his Son to be heir of all things. If Jesus was another name for Yahweh, there would be no subject/object relation between them and Paul's statement about the Son wouldn't make any sense.

Concerning your understanding of the Greek term charakter, I would add this. The Greek word "χαρακτήρ" (charaktḗr) originally referred to an engraving tool or the mark left by such a tool. Over time, it came to mean an impression, stamp, or exact representation—something that reflects the essence of the original -- Character, exact ...](https://biblehub.com/greek/5481.htm).

In philosophical and biblical contexts, χαρακτήρ was used to describe an exact likeness or precise reproduction, often in reference to divine or ideal forms. For example, in the New Testament, it appears in Hebrews 1:3, where Christ is described as the "express image" of God's nature (Charakter Meaning - Greek Lexicon | New Testament (NAS)).

Paul argues that Jesus, the man, is the exact representation of God's nature. And I described this earlier as "representational identity" because John says that Jesus is the exegesis of God. John 1:18 states that Jesus "has explained" God, meaning that Christ is the full revelation of who God is. Jesus is emphasizing that Jesus is not just a messenger of God; He is the very expression and interpretation of God himself.

The Son of God became a man.

You are mistaken. The phrase "Son of God" doesn't indicate that God sired a Son to produce a copy of himself. The phrase "Son of God" is a political category instituted by God during the time of David.

Yes, the phrase "Son of God" has political significance in the Book of Samuel, particularly in relation to kingship. In the ancient Near East, rulers were often seen as having a divine connection, and in Israel, this idea was adapted to emphasize the king’s special relationship with God rather than literal divinity.

In 2 Samuel 7, God makes a covenant with David, declaring that his descendants will rule Israel and that God will be a father to them. This establishes the Davidic kingship as divinely sanctioned, reinforcing the idea that the king is God's chosen ruler. The term "Son of God" in this context signifies legitimacy, divine favor, and authority, rather than a claim to divinity.

I agree with your view that the Word was manifested physically in the person of Jesus Christ. I disagree with your view that Jesus had two natures, which is a nonsensical concept.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Where in Revelation 20 does it say that He will "rule on Earth among His enemies"?

Why would you expect Revelation to have all the information? I think you know that prophetic information is often a part of the picture.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You are so selective in your referencing of Scripture, twisting every text to support your heresy. This text clearly shows that He is God. It shows that Christ reigns sovereignly.

You need to make your argument rather than assuming it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why can you not let the Scripture speak for itself?

We both let scripture speak for itself when we study, but when we discuss what we have learned, we disagree about its meaning.

All because you have your own preconceived manmade heresy that you must force on the sacred text. That's not the way you study Scripture. No wonder you are an unapologetic heretic.

There is only one kingdom. Christ reigns over this one kingdom now. This is the same one He receives when He returns and hands up to His Father. Why would it not?

We discussed this. I thought we both agreed that "the kingdom of his son," as Paul described it, is not a political kingdom but a spiritual kingdom. When Jesus taught his disciples about going to a far country to receive a kingdom, he spoke as one who was already the king of a spiritual kingdom. His ascension marked the moment that he went off to receive a political kingdom.

The reference in this parable to the “nobleman” who “went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return” clearly relates to the Lord Jesus Christ and His ascension into heaven. In verse 12 it affirms, that He is going “to return” and in verse 13 we see the instruction, “Occupy till I come.” We are not here to play defense, we are here to play offense. We are here to invade the darkness with the glorious light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don't have any disagreement with what you say above.

Jesus Christ is the only true King.

Christ isn't the only true king. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. When Jesus returns to the Earth, he will rule over other political authorities.

The kingdom will then be delivered up by Christ

Paul is speaking about the political kingdom Christ will set up on Earth.

The kingdom must already be here for Him to receive it when He comes.

That makes no sense. Either he goes away to receive a kingdom or he doesn't.

 

[WPM]

You need to make your argument rather than assuming it.

And you consider this a suitable response to my post?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Jesus' kingship and kingdom were indeed inaugurated and established on earth at the beginning of His earthly ministry.

I agree. Remember I pointed out that Jesus was already the King of a Spiritual kingdom when he told the parable of the Nobleman, which is an analogy describing Jesus going to a far country to receive a political kingdom.

Christ reigns in majesty and glory at the right hand of majesty today over His enemies.

Show me. Where is Jesus enforcing his political will?

He has already defeated all His enemies.

They are still alive, breathing, and killing Christians and Jews. Are you sure your eyes are open?

This passage confirms the absolute authority that Christ now enjoys and reveals the unlimited scope of His current rule. It explicitly illustrates the current sovereign reign of Christ over all His enemies from the “right hand” of majesty on high.

Philippians 2:9 says, “wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.”

He reigns today over the seen and the unseen world making every power and every authority “subject unto him.”

Philippians 2:9 speaks to Jesus' current status as the Son whom God has given supreme authority. Verse 10, locates the manifestation of his reign in the future when "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

1 Peter 3:22 says, that Christ, “who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God (now!!!); angels and authorities and powers being (currently!!!) made subject unto him.”

Presumably, angels and authorities and powers are friendly to Jesus. He is currently ruling among friends.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thank you I missed that scripture. So, the righteous go into eternal life. However, it does not say `when.`

Yes, it does. Matthew 25:31-46 will happen when Jesus comes with His angels. There is no reason to think that when the sheep (righteous) inherit eternal life that it's not in the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world. There's not any more reason to think that then there is to think that the goats don't go into everlasting punishment when they are cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". This lines up with how Jesus taught that the wheat and tares and the good fish and bad fish (righteous and wicked) are judged at the same time at the end of the age (Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50).

`To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance.` (Isa. 61: 2)

God`s great kingdom is what He has ruled over BEFORE the world was created. God was king, ruler over the angels before humans were created.

`Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the LORD your God, also the earth with all that is in it.` (Deut. 10: 14)

`The Lord has established His throne in heaven, and His kingdom rules over all.` (Ps. 103: 19)

The kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world, is an earthly rulership for earthly people in the millennium and then the rulership will go onto the new earth. God speaking to David -

`And your house and your kingdom shall be established for ever before you. Your throne shall be established for ever.` (2 Sam. 7: 16)

The prophet Daniel gives more understanding of when this rulership through Israel on earth happens. It is after the Times of the Gentiles ruling the world.

`And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.` (Dan. 2: 44)

The Lord`s rule of iron through Israel goes on into the millennium to put down all rule authority and power. (1 Cor. 15: 24) After death is defeated and there is a new heavens and new earth we see the nations of those that are saved on the new earth. (Rev. 21: 24) They are NOT the Body of Christ for we are called out of the nations.

I completely disagree with everything you're saying. When Jesus comes He will immediately put down all rule, authority and power as He takes vengeance on all of His enemies (Matthew 24:35-39, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12, Rev 19:17-18).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

False narrative.
False claim.

Some Premills do believe that, as I've shown. In this thread Doug and Marilyn have shown that they believe mortal flesh and blood will inherit the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world (Matthew 25:34) despite the fact that Jesus indicated that the sheep (righteous) will inherit "eternal life" in that kingdom. That is the kingdom of God, so their interpretations of Matthew 25:34 contradict what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Forget about what words the church's theological geniuses use to describe God's revelation of Himself in scripture, and about dualistic-inspired concoctions of the teaching of Jesus and His apostles mixed with Greek philosophy.

Frorget about ALL that and concentrate only on scripture - ONLY on scripture - because that is where you will find God's revelation of Himself.​

Good advice.

​

"The Logos ("Word") of God was in the beginning with God. IN HIM WAS LIFE [zōḗ], and the life [zōḗ] is the light of men." (John 1:2 & 4).

If we are to take your good advice, then why would we translate "logos" as if John spoke about a "him" rather than an "it"? A word is a thing, not a person.

Okay so, if you believe what the apostles of Jesus wrote, then you must believe that the source of all life is in God the Father alone, and you must believe that that life is in the Word of God.

But Jesus ALSO SAID, "For as the Father hath life [zōḗ] in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life [zōḗ] in himself." (John 5:26).​

I agree that God is the source of life. That is indisputable. But let's parse Jesus' statement and notice the comparison Jesus is making between "the Father" and "the Son." This is a political distinction, based on 2 Samuel 7, where God makes a covenant with David, declaring that his descendants will rule Israel and that God will be a Father to them.

In John 5:26, Jesus is making a new point. Unlike all the other kings of Israel, whom God declared to be his "sons", Jesus is a unique son among them, because God has given him to have "life in himself." Jesus, as the Son, shares in God's authority and power to give life. This reinforces Jesus' role as the giver of eternal life, a central theme in the Gospel of John. This means that Jesus chooses to give eternal life to whomever he wishes. One must be a follower and devotee to Jesus Christ to find eternal life.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Quote Doug claiming flesh and blood mortals “inherit” the “Kingdom of God”…

He said he believes flesh and blood mortals inherit the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world that Jesus references in Matthew 25:34. Marilyn C believes that, also. But, the sheep (the righteous) inherit eternal life in that kingdom, which is the kingdom of God. So, that contradicts 1 Corinthians 15:50-54. This is not hard for a normal person to understand at all, yet you still can't understand the point.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Only to a carnal person like you. Why do you put limitations on God?

I don't put limits on God. I acknowledge the limitations of language. I also recognize the first principle of reason: the law of non-contradiction. I suspect that you also remember the principle just as I do.

The law of noncontradiction is a fundamental principle in logic that states "A proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense." In other words, something cannot both be and not be in the same respect simultaneously.

For example, if the statement "It is raining" is true, then the statement "It is not raining" cannot also be true at the same time in the same location.

This principle is essential for rational thought, clear argumentation, and meaningful discourse, as it ensures consistency in reasoning. Without it, logical contradictions would render all truth meaningless.

Thus, God and not God are not the same thing. Man and not Man are not the same thing. The idea of two natures—divine and human—has been a central debate in theology, particularly in the early church. While some saw it as a necessary explanation for Jesus' role, others, like myself, view it as an unnecessary construct, perhaps imposed by philosophical influences rather than arising naturally from biblical texts.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Believers have authority over all of our enemies because we have Christ in us and we can do all things though Christ who gives us strength (Phil 4:13)! It's unfortunate that the Premil doctrine does not promote this truth.

Look around the world and show me where believers are ruling over their enemies.

 

[Doug]

Quote @Doug saying… Flesh and Blood mortals inherit Gods Kingdom.

Thanks but to be fair I did say mortals would enter the kingdom on earth
I do have to clarify this however
There are two kingdoms
Paul speaks of the heavenly kingdom....................
[Eph 1:3 KJV] 3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
[2Ti 4:18 KJV] 18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve [me] unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

It is this heavenly kingdom that Paul says flesh and blood cant enter so we will be changed at the rapture

The prophetic Davidic earthly kingdom is found in the gospels where Christ preached it was at hand
Isiah talks about this kingdom where those who enter out of the tribulation will have mortal bodies
[Isa 65:20 KJV] 20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.
They will die so they are mortal

 

[CadyandZoe]

Again, you manipulate the Word to support your imaginations. The phrase at hand means to be nigh (near, or close).

"Near" and "close" only count in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Look around the world and show me where believers are ruling over their enemies.

That's your problem. You only see with your physical eyes and not with spiritual eyes. Do you know who the enemies of believers are? Have you ever read Ephesians 6:10-18? Do you think that believers do not have authority over their enemies even though scripture says that we do? I showed you the example of how the 70 disciples Jesus sent out had full authority over their enemies. Do you think that believers today do not have that same authority? Or do you only have a form of godliness while denying its power?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thanks but to be fair I did say mortals would enter the kingdom on earth
I do have to clarify this however
There are two kingdoms
Paul speaks of the heavenly kingdom....................
[Eph 1:3 KJV] 3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
[2Ti 4:18 KJV] 18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve [me] unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

It is this heavenly kingdom that Paul says flesh and blood cant enter so we will be changed at the rapture

The prophetic Davidic earthly kingdom is found in the gospels where Christ preached it was at hand
Isiah talks about this kingdom where those who enter out of the tribulation will have mortal bodies
[Isa 65:20 KJV] 20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.
They will die so they are mortal

He can't even understand the argument I'm making, which is why I told him he should just step aside. You, at least, understand the argument I'm making. But, you have yet to explain how the sheep (the righteous) can inherit "eternal life" (Matthew 25:46) in mortal bodies in a supposed temporal earthly kingdom (your understanding of Matthew 25:34). Please address that.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You do NOT believe that Jesus is God. Stop lying.

Who are you to tell me what I believe? I mean really? Isn't it more likely that you don't understand what I believe?

God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), but you do not believe Jesus did that.

God is all powerful. You do not believe that Jesus is all powerful.

God is omnipresent. You do not believe Jesus is omnirpresent.

We both realize that one thing or person can represent another thing or person without sharing all of its attributes. For instance, the musical score of a symphonic piece represents the symphony. The paper and ink don't share the same attributes as sound, but they represent the sound nonetheless.

A mirror or a statue does not share the attributes of a person, but they represent the person nonetheless. A mirror reflects an image but lacks the substance or qualities of the original, while a statue captures form but not life. Both symbolize something without possessing its true nature.

This connects well to discussions about representation in philosophy and theology. For instance, some see Jesus as the representation of God—not merely as a reflection, but as an embodiment that makes God known in a tangible way. Similarly, images, metaphors, and art can convey deep meaning while remaining distinct from what they depict.

So then, suppose a father is looking at himself and his daughter in the mirror. He asks her, "Who is that? and she responds, "That's my daddy." The man's reflection in the mirror shares "representational identity" with the man such that when his daughter sees his reflection, she understands that she is seeing her daddy.

I can honestly say that when I see Jesus, who is the image of God, I am seeing God.

So, no, you do not believe that Jesus is God. Stop the charade already. Who do you think you're fooling here with your lies?

Not you, apparently. :)

What translation is this from? Saying "He existed in the form of God" is a strange way to put it. But, even saying it that way, how can He be in the form of God and be equal with God without actually being God? But, you do not believe He is God because you do not believe He has God's attributes like being the Creator of all things, being all powerful and being omnipresent.

The comparison between God and man does not always relate to a person's nature. In that era, distinguished individuals and royalty were often referred to as "gods," while ordinary people were called "men." Jesus employs this distinction of "god" (referring to royalty) and "man" (referring to the common person) in his argument with the Pharisees. In that context, the Pharisees challenged Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah based on his status as a man.

He argued that since the scriptures referred to men as "gods" they shouldn't have a problem believing that the messiah, who is the son of God, is a man.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hi Cady,

I do appreciate your comments. However, had you thought about these scriptures.

`...the Son of His love....for by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.` (Col. 1: 16)

`...His Son, whom He has appointed Heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds.` (Heb. 1: 2)

I am convinced that Paul meant to say that all things were created "for" him. And this is why Paul says that all things are his inheritance. Does that make sense?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Who are you to tell me what I believe? I mean really? Isn't it more likely that you don't understand what I believe?

On this forum I'm Spiritual Israelite. So, that's who I am telling you what you believe. And I can tell you that you do not believe that Jesus is God since you do not believe He has God's attributes such as being the Creator of all things, being all powerful, being omnipresent, and so on. You do agree that God created all things, is all powerful and is omnipresent, I assume? If so, then your claim that Jesus is God is a lie since you do not believe that He has God's attributes.

We both realize that one thing or person can represent another thing or person without sharing all of its attributes.

Then say it that way. You do not believe that Jesus is God, but rather that He only represents God or is the image of God. Even Adam and Eve were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). But, no one would say that Adam or Eve are God.

 

[Doug]

He can't even understand the argument I'm making, which is why I told him he should just step aside. You, at least, understand the argument I'm making. But, you have yet to explain how the sheep (the righteous) can inherit "eternal life" (Matthew 25:46) in mortal bodies in a supposed temporal earthly kingdom (your understanding of Matthew 25:34). Please address that.

I showed you dont have to die to have eternal life there will be death until the new heavens and earth ..........flesh and blood can enter the kingdom on earth but not the heavenly kingdom
[Rev 21:4 KJV] 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.