Premillennialism ignores the tenses in the original Greek in order to sustain its teaching

[The Righterzpen]

Well peeps; I'm "outta" this thread. (At least of the conversations I've been having.) Doesn't seem to me that anyone is learning anything at this point.

@sovereigngrace - I do appreciate the points you brought up in the OP though! I don't really have any Scripture to add though so. Although if you wanted to join a thread in Semper Reformada and kick around some ideas about eschatology? It might be educational for both of us.

 

[Guojing]

They did no such thing, as the absence of any supporting Scripture proves.

We have gone thru the scripture before, you just want to interpret them differently in order to keep your existing doctrine.

When God made Abraham and his descendants the focus of his blessings, here is what was said in Genesis 22

17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Verse 18 is the key verse in understand how God related to Gentiles in the Old Testament, as well as the 4 Gospels.

Roman Centurion
Luke 7

For the Roman Centurion case, the key verse was

3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.

4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:

5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.

The Centurion is wise not to approach Jesus directly, because he is a gentile. Instead he made his request thru Israel, thru the elder of the Jews, who appealed to Jesus on his behalf, citing evidence that he has helped Israel build a synagogue.

The Lord Jesus, without hesitation, immediately agreed to his request because he has blessed the Jews, and the Abrahamic covenant allows the blessing to then go to him.

As for the Canaanite woman, she did not deeds for the Jews but she wisely said in Mark

28 "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." 29 Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."

Mark has this important detail which I highlighted in bold. That lady made the correct analogy that even the dogs, a term used by the Jews to describe Gentiles, could be blessed with the crumbs falling from the Jewish children's bread.

Thus Jesus healed her because her faith allowed her to be blessed, thru the Jews, as promised to Abraham.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Well peeps; I'm "outta" this thread. (At least of the conversations I've been having.) Doesn't seem to me that anyone is learning anything at this point.

@sovereigngrace - I do appreciate the points you brought up in the OP though! I don't really have any Scripture to add though so. Although if you wanted to join a thread in Semper Reformada and kick around some ideas about eschatology? It might be educational for both of us.

Thanks. Appreciate. Will try and touch base. I am waiting for Premils to actually address/rebut the evidence in the Op but have experienced nothing but avoidance. I have normally exposed multiple holes in Premil and they have avoided. This time I kept to one topic, and it made no difference.

 

[Timtofly]

And I think here is where the issue is. Amil argues revelation 20:4 is about the realized promises to the saints after death, prior to the resurrection. Premils argue revelation 20:4 is the realized promises to the saints at the resurrection (2nd coming).

therefore, the best course of action for the Amil would be to use scripture from non symbolic/apocalyptic language that demonstrates the soul goes to reign with Christ SPECIFICALLY after death, prior to the resurrection. And the best course of action for the premil is to demonstrate using non symbolic/apocalyptic language that the saints reign with Christ SPECIFICALLY at the resurrection (2nd coming)

Edit: the problem seems to be on the Amil side in this case. I’m unaware of any non apocalyptic language that specifically states the believers soul goes to reign with Christ, prior to the resurrection.

Revelation 20:4 is not a Second Coming resurrection. It is not even for the church. Even if Amil use the verse to describe the Cross in 30AD, because that was when Satan was bound, what church was resurrected at the Cross?

They only call these verses the FIRST big Resurrection of Christ Himself. The firstfruits, and they deny that it even applies to the OT redeemed. It is not even a physical resurrection, yet the Resurrection of Christ was physical and bodily.

They contradict the fact it is about those beheaded people. Christ was not even beheaded. They have to explain away that part.

People probably will not even be physically beheaded, but that is just symbolic?

 

[Timtofly]

Thanks. Appreciate. Will try and touch base. I am waiting for Premils to actually address/rebut the evidence in the Op but have experienced nothing but avoidance. I have normally exposed multiple holes in Premil and they have avoided. This time I kept to one topic, and it made no difference.

Your point was the tense of "I saw". That appears throughout all of Revelation. Are you defending Preterism?

 

[claninja]

Yes, right, of course! Every view is wrong apart from yours, not!

Ok…….

How about you telling us where Extreme Preterism sees Revelation 20 being fulfilled. It is hard to take your lectures serious because you refuse to reveal your hand or answer any queries re your position.

I literally told you my position in post 950.

You are yet to even address the Op.

Ephesians 2:6 is in the OP as evidence of believers reigning now. I’ve been addressing this. So your assertion is false.

You are shooting at your own strawman.

what was the straw man, specifically? It helps when you give actual examples. Did you not use Ephesians 2:6 as evidence of Christians presently reigning in order to support of Amil?

 

[jgr]

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Who is Abraham's seed? (Galatians 3:16,28,29)

For the Roman Centurion case, the key verse was

Luke 7
9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

"Not in Israel" was Jesus' direct indictment of the faithlessness of Israel, including the elders of Israel who had approached Him.

The miracle had nothing to do with the Jews. Jesus said nothing about the Jews except to condemn their faithlessness; but everything about the centurion's faith.

Jesus is not racist.

Mark has this important detail which I highlighted in bold. That lady made the correct analogy that even the dogs, a term used by the Jews to describe Gentiles, could be blessed with the crumbs falling from the Jewish children's bread.

The Jews were racists.

Anyone agreeing with their characterization of Gentiles as dogs would also "qualify" as racist.

Jesus is not racist.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Ok…….



I literally told you my position in post 950.



Ephesians 2:6 is in the OP as evidence of believers reigning now. I’ve been addressing this. So your assertion is false.




what was the straw man, specifically? It helps when you give actual examples. Did you not use Ephesians 2:6 as evidence of Christians presently reigning in order to support of Amil?

I have no interest in trying to translate #950. It does not make sense to me. You seem to be trying to confound us with obscure lingo in order to justify Extreme Preterist error.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Well peeps; I'm "outta" this thread. (At least of the conversations I've been having.) Doesn't seem to me that anyone is learning anything at this point.

@sovereigngrace - I do appreciate the points you brought up in the OP though! I don't really have any Scripture to add though so. Although if you wanted to join a thread in Semper Reformada and kick around some ideas about eschatology? It might be educational for both of us.

What and where is Semper Reformada?

 

[The Righterzpen]

What and where is Semper Reformada?

Think this will work?

Semper Reformanda

 

[Guojing]

Luke 7
9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

"Not in Israel" was Jesus' direct indictment of the faithlessness of Israel, including the elders of Israel who had approached Him.

The miracle had nothing to do with the Jews. Jesus said nothing about the Jews except to condemn their faithlessness; but everything about the centurion's faith.

The Centurion did have faith, no one is denying that.

But why did Jesus agree to go to him in the first place, unlike the case with the Canaanite lady?

The Centurion was wise not to approach Jesus directly, because he is a gentile. Instead he made his request thru Israel, thru the elders of the Jews, who appealed to Jesus on his behalf, citing evidence that he has helped Israel build a synagogue.

The Lord Jesus, without hesitation, immediately agreed to his request because he has blessed the Jews, and the Abrahamic covenant allows the blessing to then go to him.

That is my point. Now I understand covenant theologians like yourself will not want to use Luke 7:3-6, especially Luke 7:5, but prefer to only use Luke 7:9

As I said already to you, you just want to interpret them differently in order to keep your existing doctrine.

Let's move on.

 

[jgr]

The Centurion did have faith, no one is denying that.

But why did Jesus agree to go to him in the first place, unlike the case with the Canaanite lady?

The Centurion was wise not to approach Jesus directly, because he is a gentile. Instead he made his request thru Israel, thru the elders of the Jews, who appealed to Jesus on his behalf, citing evidence that he has helped Israel build a synagogue.

The Lord Jesus, without hesitation, immediately agreed to his request because he has blessed the Jews, and the Abrahamic covenant allows the blessing to then go to him.

That is my point. Now I understand covenant theologians like yourself will not want to use Luke 7:3-6, especially Luke 7:5, but prefer to only use Luke 7:9

As I said already to you, you just want to interpret them differently in order to keep your existing doctrine.

Let's move on.

This gentile nobleman approached Jesus directly. No Jews involved.

Jesus is not racist.


John 4

46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.

47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judaea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death.

48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die.

50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.

 

[Guojing]

This gentile nobleman approached Jesus directly. No Jews involved.

Jesus is not racist.


John 4

46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.

47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judaea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death.

48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die.

50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.

Why do you straight away assumed this nobleman is a gentile?

Notice Jesus included him in his statement in vs 48, bearing in mind 1 Corinthians 1:22

 

[jgr]

Why do you straight away assumed this nobleman is a gentile?

He was a royal, thus a physical offspring of Herod.

Herod was a Gentile.

 

[Guojing]

He was a royal, thus a physical offspring of Herod.

Herod was a Gentile.

If you want to insist he was a gentile, despite my explanation above, that is your choice.

 

[jgr]

If you want to insist he was a gentile, despite my explanation above, that is your choice.

It invalidates your claim that the centurion's servant was healed only because the Jews were involved.

 

[Guojing]

It invalidates your claim that the centurion's servant was healed only because the Jews were involved.

You want to ignore what Jesus said to the nobleman in John 4:48, in order to believe he is a gentile?

 

[jgr]

You want to ignore what Jesus said to the nobleman in John 4:48, in order to believe he is a gentile?

As the physical offspring of Herod, he was unquestionably a Gentile by ethnicity.

He may have been a Jew by religion.

 

[Guojing]

As the physical offspring of Herod, he was unquestionably a Gentile by ethnicity.

He may have been a Jew by religion.

In time past, gentiles who converted to Judaism, become Jews (Esther 8:17), and join the nation of Israel.

If that is your point, then we are in agreement.

 

[jgr]

In time past, gentiles who converted to Judaism, become Jews (Esther 8:17), and join the nation of Israel.

If that is your point, then we are in agreement.

Their ethnicity did not change. They remained Gentiles ethnically.