Unlike Amillennialism, Premillennialism is based on assumptions and speculation rather than on any clear, straightforward scriptures

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're the one who said he was what, trying to make 17 groups of believers? Not in that post!

Much love!

Yeah, I was obviously exaggerating there and I wasn't referring only to that post he made there, but other posts he has made as well. His beliefs are very convoluted. He talks about believers who are not in Christ, believers who are in Christ, tribulation believers, millennium believers, and so on. It all ignores the fact that believers are all in one body and all one in Christ.

 

[WPM]

LOL! I was proving that it was not incoherant and meaningless. I'm just surprised you guys weren't able to understand what was written.

You continue to astound me!

Much love!

Gibberish is gibberish, regardless of who makes it, and you know it.

 

[covenantee]

Yeah, I was obviously exaggerating there and I wasn't referring only to that post he made there, but other posts he has made as well. His beliefs are very convoluted. He talks about believers who are not in Christ, believers who are in Christ, tribulation believers, millennium believers, and so on. It all ignores the fact that believers are all in one body and all one in Christ.

Bro, you need to be careful. Many premils would take the "17" literally.

 

[WPM]

Why in the world would someone at this point on this thread want to try to have a serious discussion with you? Look at how you respond. No, it's just not attractive. So, have fun!

Much love!

Why not tell the truth? Why not admit you have nothing?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why not tell the truth? Why not admit you have nothing?

This is what they always do. Instead of addressing our arguments, they make things personal and then use that as an excuse for not addressing our arguments. Everyone can see I tried repeatedly to get them to address my arguments without any personal remarks and they refuse to do so. Why do they refuse to do so? I can only assume it's because they know that they cannot reconcile those clear and straightforward scriptures with Premil.

 

[marks]

Someone needs to review the thread . . .

 

[WPM]

Someone needs to review the thread . . .

What are you scared of?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Someone needs to review the thread . . .

Someone needs to actually address the original posts of this thread instead of avoiding them at all costs. I can only assume that no Premill is capable of showing how the scriptures that were referenced support their doctrine.

 

[marks]

What are you scared of?

Why do you project some supposed emotionalism where it doesn't exist?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Someone needs to actually address the original posts of this thread instead of avoiding them at all costs. I can only assume that no Premill is capable of showing how the scriptures that were referenced support their doctrine.

Again, someone needs to review the thread.

 

[WPM]

Again, someone needs to review the thread. The point that we've reached

LOL. What are you scared of?

 

[marks]

LOL. What are you scared of?

Why do you project some supposed emotionalism where it doesn't exist? Remember, everyone does what they do for a reason. You say such things because it gives you some kind of payoff.

For some, it's to deflect from their own inner feelings of inadequacy, a need to prove themselves superior in their own eyes. Or it may just be a provocation to manipulate me into your discussion, which I find entirely distasteful. Or maybe it's just to avoid looking at yourself.

I can't say why you do the things you do, only that there are always reasons.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Remember . . . I was asked to respond to something in the first two posts. I responded to the very first assertion made, that Revelation 20 was symbolic and not to be understood in some literal fashion.

I like to take things in order.

I responded that this was narrative prophecy just like so much other narrative prophecy, and that we need to treat as symbols and allegory and such what the Bible not only calls symbols and allegory and such, but also gives the meaning of such.

And I have never received a response to this request, to show some Biblical authentification for that assertion, that this isn't an actual kingdom for an actual 1000 years, and so on. I've given examples of such, like, the great red dragon in heaven is said in the Bible to be a sign, a symbolic indication, which the Bible likewise defines to be Satan. This carries Biblical authority.

To declare something a sign, or a metaphor, or a symbol, without such authority, is something many do, as an expression of their understanding or opinion. But it should not be confused with actual Biblical authority.

So when someone makes such a claim, and I don't see the evidence in the Bible, I challenge it, looking for that evidence. None has been presented, only, "It can't mean that because of what I think these other verses mean."

And it's all been downhill since then. No one has responded in any meaningful fashion to my challenge, nor to those passages I've posted comments on. Only more ad hominems then I normally see in any given thread. Towards myself, towards others, apparently it's just your modus operandi.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Again, someone needs to review the thread.

Someone needs to review the first two posts in this thread and actually address them. Otherwise, I will just assume that Premils know that what I said in those posts is true and it's time for you and the rest of the Premils here to give up your false doctrine and accept the truth.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Remember . . . I was asked to respond to something in the first two posts. I responded to the very first assertion made, that Revelation 20 was symbolic and not to be understood in some literal fashion.

I like to take things in order.

I responded that this was narrative prophecy just like so much other narrative prophecy, and that we need to treat as symbols and allegory and such what the Bible not only calls symbols and allegory and such, but also gives the meaning of such.

And I have never received a response to this request, to show some Biblical authentification for that assertion, that this isn't an actual kingdom for an actual 1000 years, and so on. I've given examples of such, like, the great red dragon in heaven is said in the Bible to be a sign, a symbolic indication, which the Bible likewise defines to be Satan. This carries Biblical authority.

To declare something a sign, or a metaphor, or a symbol, without such authority, is something many do, as an expression of their understanding or opinion. But it should not be confused with actual Biblical authority.

So when someone makes such a claim, and I don't see the evidence in the Bible, I challenge it, looking for that evidence. None has been presented, only, "It can't mean that because of what I think these other verses mean."

And it's all been downhill since then. No one has responded in any meaningful fashion to my challenge, nor to those passages I've posted comments on. Only more ad hominems then I normally see in any given thread. Towards myself, towards others, apparently it's just your modus operandi.

Much love!

You have rejected every request to actually address the clear, straightforward scriptures that I used to show that Amillennialism is true. You haven't addressed any of them. You're trying to change the narrative of this thread which is that Amillennialism is based on clear, straightforward scriptures and Premillennialism is not.

To try to say that a passage within the most highly symbolic book in the entire Bible is a clear, straightforward passage is nothing more than ridiculous when your interpretation of it contradicts all the clear and straightforward passages I referenced in the second post of this thread. None of which you are willing to address in detail. You're not fooling anyone with your attempt to divert attention away from the weakness of your doctrine.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

To declare something a sign, or a metaphor, or a symbol, without such authority, is something many do, as an expression of their understanding or opinion. But it should not be confused with actual Biblical authority.

So when someone makes such a claim, and I don't see the evidence in the Bible, I challenge it, looking for that evidence. None has been presented, only, "It can't mean that because of what I think these other verses mean."

I provided a great deal of evidence against your interpretation of Revelation 20 in the second post of the thread, so that is my response to what you're saying about Revelation 20. That is the biblical authority I use to interpret Revelation 20. So, how about you address what I said in that post? You are clearly afraid to do so. You know you can't reconcile Premil with those passages. You want to interpret Revelation 20 in isolation from the rest of scripture. I'm not going to do that.

 

[marks]

You want to interpret Revelation 20 in isolation from the rest of scripture. I'm not going to do that.

There's no "interpret in isolation", your claim tells me you don't know me. I want to do no such thing. I want you to interpret as it is presented, along with the rest of the Scriptures. And you will find they harmonize without having to negate any of them.

You know why you won't go there. I think I know.

What if Rev 20 means exactly what it says? Wouldn't that mean that you'd have to rethink an awful lot of things?

So this entire question hinges on whether it's symbolic or literal. I say there is no reason whatsoever to consider it symbolic.

As I understand your position on this, the only reason (none given in Scripture) is that you think it cannot be literal because of how you understand other passages.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You know why you won't go there. I think I know.

LOL. You are just playing games. Why would you want to interpret Revelation 20 in such a way that you can't reconcile with the rest of scripture? Why are you afraid to show how you can reconcile your interpretation of Revelation 20 with the clear and straightforward passages I referenced in the second post of this thread? You're all talk.

What if Rev 20 means exactly what it says? Wouldn't that mean that you'd have to rethink an awful lot of things?

LOL. What does that even mean? Should we take the references to the dragon, the beast, the mark of the beast and image of the beast literally? Should we think that a spirit being like Satan can be literally chained up somehow? Should we assume that only those who get their heads chopped off have part in the first resurrection? How literally should we take it to mean "exactly what it says"?

So this entire question hinges on whether it's symbolic or literal. I say there is no reason whatsoever to consider it symbolic.

I say that is crazy talk because we're talking about the most highly symbolic book in all of scripture. But, more importantly, a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts a great deal of scripture, including all of the scriptures I referenced in the second post of this thread. None of which you are willing to show how they line up with your interpretation of Revelation 20. Why are you afraid to show how even one of them lines up with your interpretation of Revelation 20? Is Revelation 20 the only passage in your Bible?

As I understand your position on this, the only reason (none given in Scripture) is that you think it cannot be literal because of how you understand other passages.

Yes, of course! Should our understanding of any given passage not be based on all of scripture and should we not be careful to make sure our interpretation of any given passage of scripture doesn't contradict any other passages of scripture? I don't understand your approach to interpreting scripture at all.

 

[WPM]

There's no "interpret in isolation", your claim tells me you don't know me. I want to do no such thing. I want you to interpret as it is presented, along with the rest of the Scriptures. And you will find they harmonize without having to negate any of them.

You know why you won't go there. I think I know.

What if Rev 20 means exactly what it says? Wouldn't that mean that you'd have to rethink an awful lot of things?

So this entire question hinges on whether it's symbolic or literal. I say there is no reason whatsoever to consider it symbolic.

As I understand your position on this, the only reason (none given in Scripture) is that you think it cannot be literal because of how you understand other passages.

Much love!

I agree. Let us put your opinion of Revelation 20 to the test then.

• Where else in Scripture is a thousand years mentioned after the second coming?
• Where in Scripture (including Rev 20) is Jesus shown to be on a millennial earth?
• Where else in Scripture is the binding of Satan?
• Where else in Scripture are the 2 future resurrections?
• Where else in Scripture are the 2 future judgments?
• Where else in Scripture is the release of Satan and an unparalleled global uprising 1,000 years after the second coming?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree. Let us put your opinion of Revelation 20 to the test then.

• Where else in Scripture is a thousand years mentioned after the second coming?
• Where in Scripture (including Rev 20) is Jesus shown to be on a millennial earth?
• Where else in Scripture is the binding of Satan?
• Where else in Scripture are the 2 future resurrections?
• Where else in Scripture are the 2 future judgments?
• Where else in Scripture is the release of Satan and an unparalleled global uprising 1,000 years after the second coming?

This is his cue to run away and stop responding. Any time a Premil is asked to actually put their money where their mouth is, they disappear.