Surely Premils must invent 2 future glorifications days and 2 future raptures separated by 1000 years+?

[Spiritual Israelite]

What in the world are you talking about?

Something different than what you're talking about, apparently. If you want to keep wasting time arguing about Isaiah 65:20, go ahead, but I'm not interested in going back and forth like this where neither of us understands what the other is saying.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

God burning the enemies while the saints are unscathed. I don’t think them being raptured would be required for God to miraculously burn his enemies, while they remain unscathed. God protected Daniel from the furnace, no?

Yes, so a rapture wouldn't necessarily have to occur if they were miraculously protected like that. Regardless, those saints who are alive at the time along with any who are dead at the time would need to be glorified (changed to put on bodily immortality) in order to live in the eternal new heavens and new earth and there is nothing there in the text about that. That's where the idea that Premills need to invent the belief of that occurring at that time comes in. The point is that their doctrine forces at least some of them (depending on their understanding of who the rest of the dead are) to believe something will happen that is never actually mentioned anywhere in scripture, including in Revelation 20.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have been unable to highlight one single error in Amil. If you had it you would present it. But you have nothing. You are playing evasive games because you have nothing. Your doctrine has been totally exposed on here. That is why no Premil can actually address the Op of any Amil thread. It is amusing to watch them duck and dive. They habitually evade the evidence. All they are left with is ad hominem and avoidance.

For Premils to address it would cause them to become Amils.

In order to try to refute Amil he has to come up with insane ideas like claiming that the souls of the dead in Christ are conscious but not alive (dead). It's impossible to take seriously. He can't refute Amil with scripture in a coherent way, so he has to come up with a convoluted theory that makes no sense in order to supposedly refute Amil.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

All humanity died in Adam - verse 22. All humanity who died in Adam will be raised in Christ - verse 22.

Those who belong to Christ at His coming will be raised at His coming - verse 23.

Verse 23 identifies one particular group and says nothing about the rest of the dead who in died in Adam (which is referring to Adam's death that came upon all humanity).

Not sure what you think your point is but I'm not going to argue the point about this with you too. You have enough other holes in your Amil ship not to concentrate on this one too, trying to patch it with tissue paper. I'm letting you off the hook.

The context of 1 Corinthians 15 in relation to the resurrection of the dead is clearly in relation to believers, so he was saying all of the dead in Christ will be resurrected at Christ's second coming. But, go ahead and think Paul was talking about the resurrection of unbelievers there, too, if you want. Whatever it takes to keep your false doctrine afloat.

 

[WPM]

In order to try to refute Amil he has to come up with insane ideas like claiming that the souls of the dead in Christ are conscious but not alive (dead). It's impossible to take seriously. He can't refute Amil with scripture in a coherent way, so he has to come up with a convoluted theory that makes no sense in order to supposedly refute Amil.

That is where Premil has arrived. That is normal today. Why can none of them be orthodox?

 

[WPM]

We know there will be mortal survivors by what we are told above in Rev19:15 .

15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

" he shall rule them with a rod of iron " If no one is left there would no one to rule .

More verses , Rev2:25-27 , about the "Rule with a rod of iron " during the millennial reign . We who are left will rule with a rod of iron .

25But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

The word rule should be interpreted "shepherd." It describes the separation of the sheep and the goats at the end

 

[claninja]

Yes, so a rapture wouldn't necessarily have to occur if they were miraculously protected like that. Regardless, those saints who are alive at the time along with any who are dead at the time would need to be glorified (changed to put on bodily immortality) in order to live in the eternal new heavens and new earth and there is nothing there in the text about that. That's where the idea that Premills need to invent the belief of that occurring at that time comes in. The point is that their doctrine forces at least some of them (depending on their understanding of who the rest of the dead are) to believe something will happen that is never actually mentioned anywhere in scripture, including in Revelation 20.

Ok, so I reviewed Scofield's "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth". Classic Premil, at least according to Scofield, holds that the first resurrection is to life, then around a thousand years later, the 2nd resurrection is that to damnation.

• Two resurrections, differing in respect of time and of those who are the subjects of the resurrection, are yet future. These are variously distinguished as "the resurrection of life," and "the resurrection of damnation," "the resurrection of the just and the unjust," etc. (https://biblecentre.org/content.php?mode=7&item=779&lng=1)

If the second resurrection is only of the wicked, then what happens to the millennial converts (living and/or dead) at the end of the of the millennium? Some possibilities:

• Revelation 20 is silent on what happens, so Premil's must invent a glorification process for the living millennial converts and maybe another resurrection for the dead, unless converts don't die during the millennium?
• Revelation 20 is not silent. Satan deceives literally everyone who did not partake in the first resurrection, thus there are no millennial converts by the end of the millennium that need to be glorified or raised in order to enter the kingdom? They all partake in the judgement of the unjust. Would there be any converts with the saints "ruling with a rod of iron and shattering the nations to pieces"?

I understand that Premils take revelation literally and as a new revelation of the chronology of the eschaton, filling in the gaps left by the gospels and epistles. While I dont think mentioning premils must invent a 2nd rapture/glorification is that convincing, I do think you are on right track with the whole "millennial converts" thing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ok, so I reviewed Scofield's "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth". Classic Premil, at least according to Scofield, holds that the first resurrection is to life, then around a thousand years later, the 2nd resurrection is that to damnation.

You had to look that up? Hmmm. Do you not have much experience talking to Premils?

If the second resurrection is only of the wicked, then what happens to the millennial converts (living and/or dead) at the end of the of the millennium? Some possibilities:

• Revelation 20 is silent on what happens, so Premil's must invent a glorification process for the living millennial converts and maybe another resurrection for the dead, unless converts don't die during the millennium?

This is exactly the point that WPM is making and that I am agreeing with him about.

• Revelation 20 is not silent. Satan deceives literally everyone who did not partake in the first resurrection, thus there are no millennial converts by the end of the millennium that need to be glorified or raised in order to enter the kingdom? Would there be any converts with the saints "ruling with a rod of iron and shattering the nations to pieces"?

No converts for the entire thousand years? That's farfetched. What is the point of the thousand years in that case? I don't think many Premills take this position.

I understand that Premils take revelation literally and as a new revelation of the chronology of the eschaton, filling in the gaps left by the gospels and epistles. While I dont think mentioning premils must invent a 2nd rapture/glorification is that convincing, I do think you are right track with the whole "millennial converts" thing.

I honestly don't care what you think is convincing since we're not refuting what you believe, but rather what Premills believe.

 

[claninja]

ou had to look that up? Hmmm. Do you not have much experience talking to Premils?

unfortunately, too much talking, as they all have seem to have disagreeing and different beliefs.

This is exactly the point that WPM is making and that I am agreeing with him about.

Right, so this is only directed at Scofield like premils, who believe the first and second resurrections only apply to the righteous and unrighteous, respectively. This doesn't really apply the various other premil beliefs where the 2nd resurrection is a general resurrection, of which millennial converts partake to glorified/resurrected. This should probably be specified in the OP. Otherwise, premils who don't believe the 2nd resurrection only applies to the wicked, will be like what is WPM talking about?

No converts for the entire thousand years? That's farfetched. What is the point of the thousand years in that case? I don't think many Premills take this position.

For the saints to inherit the nations and rule over them with an iron rod, as dashing a pottery to pieces (revelation 2:26-27)?

I honestly don't care what you think is convincing since we're not refuting what you believe, but rather what Premills believe.

Right, but only a specific set of premils that hold to a scofield like belief of the 2nd resurrection. The OP just makes a blanket statement about premil in general, and so his arguments of 2 raptures/glorifications don't really apply to all variations.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

unfortunately, too much talking, as they all have seem to have disagreeing and different beliefs.



Right, so this is only directed at Scofield like premils, who believe the first and second resurrections only apply to the righteous and unrighteous, respectively. This doesn't really apply the various other premil beliefs where the 2nd resurrection is a general resurrection, of which millennial converts partake to glorified/resurrected. This should probably be specified in the OP. Otherwise, premils who don't believe the 2nd resurrection only applies to the wicked, will be like what is WPM talking about?



For the saints to inherit the nations and rule over them with an iron rod, as dashing a pottery to pieces (revelation 2:26-27)?



Right, but only a specific set of premils that hold to a scofield like belief of the 2nd resurrection. The OP just makes a blanket statement about premil in general, and so his arguments of 2 raptures/glorifications don't really apply to all variations.

So, the Premills who his comments don't apply to can just ignore this thread then. Very simple.

Could he have specified that it doesn't apply to every Premil? Sure. But, people make generalized statements about Amil and Premil on here all the time.

 

[Zao is life]

The context of 1 Corinthians 15 in relation to the resurrection of the dead is clearly in relation to believers, so he was saying all of the dead in Christ will be resurrected at Christ's second coming. But, go ahead and think Paul was talking about the resurrection of unbelievers there, too, if you want. Whatever it takes to keep your false doctrine afloat.

LOL. So only believers die in Adam. Non-believers don't?

Pssst the whole long passage of 1 Corinthians 15 is talking in general about the resurrection from the dead that came in Christ, through His resurrection, and specifically in verse 23 about those who belong to Christ at His coming.

 

[talons]

Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

What were you saying again about mortal survivors? What mortals are not included in "all people, free and slave, great and small"?

Hey there ! I need people for the nations in the millennium don't you know , lol .

The great feast for the fowl of the air is indicated to be local (at the battle ) by the words " Come , gather together "

Your understanding of ruling with a rod of iron is also flawed.

Psalm 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

See here how ruling with a rod of iron has to do with breaking/destroying them like a potter's vessel being dashed into pieces? How do you expect those who have been destroyed to be rule over in the sense that you think they will be?

I do see breaking in Psalm 2:8 . Are you saying breaking is the same as ruling ?
Lets look again at Rev19:15 .

15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God

Is the sword out of his mouth not enough to eliminate the armies of the beast ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL. So only believers die in Adam. Non-believers don't?

Hello? Wake up. Are you not alive (zao)? I'm talking about who Paul was talking about being resurrected. Are you saying that you think Paul was saying in Christ all of the dead, including non-believers, will be made alive? Non-believers made alive in Christ? LOL. No.

Pssst the whole long passage of 1 Corinthians 15 is talking in general about the resurrection from the dead that came in Christ, through His resurrection, and specifically in verse 23 about those who belong to Christ at His coming.

1 Corinthians 15 refers to the resurrection of believers in particular which is why when giving the order of resurrections in verse 23 Paul doesn't mention unbelievers at all. You repeatedly miss the context of scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hey there ! I need people for the nations in the millennium don't you know , lol .

No, you don't.

The great feast for the fowl of the air is indicated to be local (at the battle ) by the words " Come , gather together "

Do you not see all of the symbolic text in Revelation 19? Do you think it's talking about Jesus slaying people with a literal sword coming out of His mouth?

I do see breaking in Psalm 2:8 . Are you saying breaking is the same as ruling ?

I'm saying it's the same as ruling with a rod of iron. You're missing what the rod of iron represents, which is destruction.

Lets look again at Rev19:15 .

15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God

Is the sword out of his mouth not enough to eliminate the armies of the beast ?

It looks like he also uses "the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God" as well. And a rod of iron.

 

[talons]

Do you think it's talking about Jesus slaying people with a literal sword coming out of His mouth?

Was there some where I suggested that ? God breathed the world into existence . Would speaking death be hard for God ?

8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Here is 2Thess2:8 we see the "spirit of his mouth" and I have BONUS scripture for you !

But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
Breath of his lips shall sly the wicked . Notice the rod of his mouth is not what is slaying .

You're missing what the rod of iron represents, which is destruction.

Have you ever held an Iron rod in your hand ? Have you ever used an Iron rod ? I have .

It represents control not destruction .

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Have you ever held an Iron rod in your hand ? Have you ever used an Iron rod ? I have .

It represents control not destruction .

I'm going by what scripture indicates and you're going by your own experience instead. Scripture indicates that he uses the rod of iron to break/destroy His enemies which is compared to a potter's vessel being broken into pieces (Psalm 2:9). Should we just ignore that description of what Jesus does with the rod of iron? We're not talking about what you do with a rod of iron here, we're talking about what Jesus does with a figurative rod of iron. You shouldn't take the rod of iron any more literally then the sword that Jesus has coming out of His mouth. A literal sword would not be used to kill a multitude of people like Jesus will when He returns, so you shouldn't think of the rod of iron so literally, either.

 

[Zao is life]

I'm talking about who Paul was talking about being resurrected.

And Paul was talking about all humanity in 1 Corinthians 15:22 when he said that all die in Adam. He was talking about all humanity in that verse.

So either your reading comprehension skills are useless, or you're deliberately and consciously ignoring the fact that in the very next verse Paul narrows what he is saying down to only one of those two groups being raised at the time of Christ's return.

So you stop talking about who Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 15:23 because it doesn't suit you anymore to talk about who Paul was talking about

That's why your doctrine is always skewed. Way too often with respect to way too many passages and verses in scripture you talk about what you're talking about - not about what the authors are talking about.

I won't ask you to wake up. I know you won't. You've chosen to interpret all scripture in such a way as to attempt to get scripture to comply with your Amill theology. It's a conscious choice - every time - and you keep exposing yourself for doing that, as in this case.

 

[talons]

I'm going by what scripture indicates and you're going by your own experience instead.

You should pickup a rod of iron sometime . It can be used for destruction or it can be used to rule as we see in the scripture where rod of iron is used .

Scripture indicates that he uses the rod of iron to break/destroy His enemies which is compared to a potter's vessel being broken into pieces (Psalm 2:9). Should we just ignore that description of what Jesus does with the rod of iron?

Break their will to rule them , read what the commentaries say about the "rod of iron" in Rev2:27 . You do read commentaries , don't you ? I do not rely on them solely but I do consult them .

REVELATION 2:27 MEANING

Revelation 2:27 MEANING and KJV Bible commentary. What is the meaning of Revelation 2:27?

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You should pickup a rod of iron sometime . It can be used for destruction or it can be used to rule as we see in the scripture where rod of iron is used .

Break their will to rule them , read what the commentaries say about the "rod of iron" in Rev2:27 . You do read commentaries , don't you ? I do not rely on them solely but I do consult them .

REVELATION 2:27 MEANING

Revelation 2:27 MEANING and KJV Bible commentary. What is the meaning of Revelation 2:27?

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

It seems to me that you do rely on them. You shared a commentary that you agree with. That's supposed to mean anything to me? Commentaries are no different than what we see on this forum. They're people giving their interpretations of scripture which often are wrong.

What do you mean "break their will to rule them"? That's something that would be compared to a potter's vessel being broken into pieces? The ruling with a rod of iron is described alongside descriptions of Christ smiting the people you think He will rule over and treading them in the winepress of God's wrath (Rev 19:15). How exactly can Christ rule over people for a thousand years that He has smited and treaded in the winepress of God's wrath?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And Paul was talking about all humanity in 1 Corinthians 15:22 when he said that all die in Adam. He was talking about all humanity in that verse.

I'm not denying that he said that all humanity dies in Adam. Your reading comprehension skills are non-existent. What did he say right after that? He said "so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.". Are you claiming that even unbelievers will be made alive in Christ? If so, where does Paul include them in the order He gave of those who are made alive in Christ?

So either your reading comprehension skills are useless, or you're deliberately and consciously ignoring the fact that in the very next verse Paul narrows what he is saying down to only one of those two groups being raised at the time of Christ's return.

In verse 22 Paul said "so in Christ all will be made alive". You are trying to claim that unbelievers will be resurrected in Christ?

So you stop talking about who Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 15:23 because it doesn't suit you anymore to talk about who Paul was talking about

That's why your doctrine is always skewed. Way too often with respect to way too many passages and verses in scripture you talk about what you're talking about - not about what the authors are talking about.

I won't ask you to wake up. I know you won't. You've chosen to interpret all scripture in such a way as to attempt to get scripture to comply with your Amill theology. It's a conscious choice - every time - and you keep exposing yourself for doing that, as in this case.

You continually make a fool of yourself as if that is your hobby. If that's what you enjoy doing, then so be it.