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

[Guojing]

Their ethnicity did not change. They remained Gentiles ethnically.

The point is, once you are part of the nation of Israel, then you are included in the audience of Jesus's first coming (Matthew 15:24).

 

[jgr]

The point is, once you are part of the nation of Israel, then you are included in the audience of Jesus's first coming (Matthew 15:24).

The whole world is included. (John 3:16)

Read Matthew 23 to see what Jesus had to say to your Jews.

Particularly Matthew 23:33 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

You can be confident that Jesus listened to nothing that the Jews in Luke 7 had to say, beyond the centurion's own entreaties.

Only to what the centurion himself had to say in Luke 7:6-10.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus is not racist.

The Jews were racists.

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

Jesus is not racist.

Jesus is not a Jew?

 

[jgr]

Jesus is not a Jew?

Jesus is not a Christian?

 

[claninja]

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.

Classic diversion again. You don't ask questions when you need clarification, you don't respond to counterpoints, you simply scream the false claim of "extreme" or "full preterist" in order dominate the conversation in attempt to get it thrown out.


Anyways, back to your OP.

It's a poorly structured argument against premil.

Revelation 20:4-5 says, “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given (aorist active indicative) unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived (aorist active indicative) and reigned (aorist active indicative) with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.”

The dead in Christ are therefore no longer in Abraham’s bosom since the first resurrection. They are seen in heaven reigning with Christ.

Your premise: revelation 20:4 = souls of dead believers are living and reigning with Christ in heaven following Christ's resurrection.

Through His glorious victory, we are qualified to sit with Him in heavenly places. Of course, that is our spiritual standing. We should never forget, there is a big difference between our standing and our state. Until death, we do not assume our thrones.

However, you created a problem with your argument when you stated there is a "big difference" between our standing and our state. According to you, "Until death, we do not assume thrones". Therefore, any passage that your provide, that is NOT about AFTER DEATH for the believer, does not provide evidence for your position SPECIFICALLY against premil

Are Ephesians 2:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9, revelation 1:5-6, revelation 5:10 about souls of dead believers reigning in heaven? If no, then it has nothing to do with proving your premise regardless of verb tense. You need to demonstrate that these verses are about the souls of dead believers going to heaven to reign in order to prove your position against premil.

. They have overcome and now reign "in Christ." God also revealed Christ’s current reign to His servant John when He promised the obedient Laodiceans of Asia Minor in. Jesus confirms in Revelation 3:21: “To him that overcometh (present active particle) will I grant to sit (aorist, active infinitive), with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am (aorist active indicative) set down with my Father in his throne.”

1.) You are incorrect that "I will grant to sit" is aorist, active infinitive. These are 2 separate verbs. "I will grant" is future indicative active. "to sit" is aorist active infinitive (which does not denote a past action, but complements the main verb which is future tense). You may want to correct this in the OP.

2.) Your use of revelation 3:21 is debatable. Christ sat down on the throne AFTER the resurrection. Christ promises to give, in future tense, the overcoming saint the right to sit on His throne, JUST AS HE overcame (aorist indicative active) and sat down (aorist indicative active) on His Fathers throne. If it was AFTER the resurrection for Christ, then JUST AS CHRIST DID, I would argue it is AFTER the resurrection for the overcoming believer, for this when Christ rewards. Can you provide any non apocalyptic teaching that the soul goes to heaven to be rewarded prior to the resurrection? In the mean time, I'll leave you with these:

Romans 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

2 timothy 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done

Luke 19:15-17 When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant!c Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’

2 corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

revelation 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.

 

[sovereigngrace]

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

Herod was a Gentile.

Bro, where is your biblical evidence of this?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Classic diversion again. You don't ask questions when you need clarification, you don't respond to counterpoints, you simply scream the false claim of "extreme" or "full preterist" in order dominate the conversation in attempt to get it thrown out.


Anyways, back to your OP.

It's a poorly structured argument against premil.



Your premise: revelation 20:4 = souls of dead believers are living and reigning with Christ in heaven following Christ's resurrection.



However, you created a problem with your argument when you stated there is a "big difference" between our standing and our state. According to you, "Until death, we do not assume thrones". Therefore, any passage that your provide, that is NOT about AFTER DEATH for the believer, does not provide evidence for your position SPECIFICALLY against premil

Are Ephesians 2:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9, revelation 1:5-6, revelation 5:10 about souls of dead believers reigning in heaven? If no, then it has nothing to do with proving your premise regardless of verb tense. You need to demonstrate that these verses are about the souls of dead believers going to heaven to reign in order to prove your position against premil.



1.) You are incorrect that "I will grant to sit" is aorist, active infinitive. These are 2 separate verbs. "I will grant" is future indicative active. "to sit" is aorist active infinitive (which does not denote a past action, but complements the main verb which is future tense). You may want to correct this in the OP.

2.) Your use of revelation 3:21 is debatable. Christ sat down on the throne AFTER the resurrection. Christ promises to give, in future tense, the overcoming saint the right to sit on His throne, JUST AS HE overcame (aorist indicative active) and sat down (aorist indicative active) on His Fathers throne. If it was AFTER the resurrection for Christ, then JUST AS CHRIST DID, I would argue it is AFTER the resurrection for the overcoming believer, for this when Christ rewards. Can you provide any non apocalyptic teaching that the soul goes to heaven to be rewarded prior to the resurrection? In the mean time, I'll leave you with these:

Romans 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

2 timothy 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done

Luke 19:15-17 When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant!c Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’

2 corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

revelation 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.

You are just regurgitating moot arguments that have been ably and repeatedly rebutted here. There is nothing new here and you seem to have nothing to add to the conversation.

Tell me: when was the first resurrection and when is the living and reigning in Revelation 20? When did/does it stop?

 

[claninja]

You are just repeating moot arguments that have been ably and repeatedly rebutted here. There is nothing new here and you seem to have nothing to add to the conversation.

Premils don’t really seem to be debating here, as the OP has already defeated itself with its own contradicting argument.



Where and which post did anyone address or rebut the following:

Your premise: revelation 20:4 = souls of dead believers are living and reigning with Christ in heaven following Christ's resurrection.

However, you created a problem with your argument when you stated there is a "big difference" between our standing and our state. According to you, "Until death, we do not assume thrones". Therefore, any passage that your provide, that is NOT about AFTER DEATH for the believer, does not provide evidence for your position SPECIFICALLY against premil

Are Ephesians 2:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9, revelation 1:5-6, revelation 5:10 about souls of dead believers reigning in heaven? If no, then it has nothing to do with proving your premise regardless of verb tense. You need to demonstrate that these verses are about the souls of dead believers going to heaven to reign in order to prove your position against premil.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Premils don’t really seem to be debating here, as the OP has already defeated itself with its own contradicting argument.



Where and which post did anyone address or rebut the following:

Your premise: revelation 20:4 = souls of dead believers are living and reigning with Christ in heaven following Christ's resurrection.

However, you created a problem with your argument when you stated there is a "big difference" between our standing and our state. According to you, "Until death, we do not assume thrones". Therefore, any passage that your provide, that is NOT about AFTER DEATH for the believer, does not provide evidence for your position SPECIFICALLY against premil

Are Ephesians 2:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9, revelation 1:5-6, revelation 5:10 about souls of dead believers reigning in heaven? If no, then it has nothing to do with proving your premise regardless of verb tense. You need to demonstrate that these verses are about the souls of dead believers going to heaven to reign in order to prove your position against premil.

You are stating your personal opinions as facts. But all we are getting is your personal opinions. The op addresses and suitably rebuts Full Preterism. I am not the only one that is weary of your avoidance. You are left fighting with yourself.

 

[claninja]

You are stating your personal opinions as facts. But all we are getting is your personal opinions. The op addresses and suitably rebuts Full Preterism. I am not the only one that is weary of your avoidance. You are left fighting with yourself.

and there you have it:

1.) you are unable to reconcile your false claim that I have been rebutted by providing no post # which demonstrates so.

2.) you are unable to counter any of my points in regards to your poorly constructed OP

3.) you have to falsely accuse me of being full preterist in attempts divert from any of my arguments.

 

[sovereigngrace]

and there you have it:

1.) you are unable to reconcile your false claim that I have been rebutted by providing no post # which demonstrates so.

2.) you are unable to counter any of my points in regards to your poorly constructed OP

3.) you have to falsely accuse me of being full preterist in attempts divert from any of my arguments.

And, I never said you were a Full Preterist. But your view on Revelation 20 is classic Full Preterist. That is why you refuse to present it.

You have previously said:

"There were 1,000 years between David and Christ. The millennium is not the literal time period between David and Christ, for Satan was not bound, Christ had not yet risen, and the saints had not yet been born again to be a kingdom of priests to God during this time frame.

The millennium is therefore a reflection that it was 1,000 years from David to Christ, and when Christ did arrive, 1,000 years later, He fulfilled the Davidic covenant through his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Spirit, which resulted in satan bound, the first resurrection, and the saints being born again to become a kingdom of priests."

No wonder you are vehemently against the Op.

 

[claninja]

And, I never said you were a Full Preterist. But your view on Revelation 20 is classic Full Preterist. That is why you refuse to present it.

You have previously said:

"There were 1,000 years between David and Christ. The millennium is not the literal time period between David and Christ, for Satan was not bound, Christ had not yet risen, and the saints had not yet been born again to be a kingdom of priests to God during this time frame.

The millennium is therefore a reflection that it was 1,000 years from David to Christ, and when Christ did arrive, 1,000 years later, He fulfilled the Davidic covenant through his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Spirit, which resulted in satan bound, the first resurrection, and the saints being born again to become a kingdom of priests."

1.) doesn’t address my counter points to your op, nor does it provide post #s to anyone that rebutted or addressed my counter points

2.) that’s not how full preterists interpret the millennium. So as far as “classic” I don’t know what you are talking about, nor is your claim, again, true

 

[sovereigngrace]

1.) doesn’t address my counter points to your op, nor does it provide post #s to anyone that rebutted or addressed my counter points

2.) that’s not how full preterists interpret the millennium. So as far as “classic” I don’t know what you are talking about, nor is your claim, again, true

It lets the reader know why you are so vehement against the Op and what your real angle is.

 

[claninja]

It lets the reader know why you are so vehement against the Op and what your real angle is.

Or if the reader has been following from the beginning, here was my stated goal from the start:

“however, I’m going to offer some counter points on your “believers reigning now” section, to help sharpen your argument”

however, you didn't seem to take this challenge as a way to help refine your argument, instead you seem to take it as an affront that I somehow challenge your “perfect” , “airtight” argument that cannot be “rebutted”.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Or if the reader has been following from the beginning, here was my stated goal from the start:

“however, I’m going to offer some counter points on your “believers reigning now” section, to help sharpen your argument”

however, you didn't seem to take this challenge as a way to help refine your argument, instead you seem to take it as an affront that I somehow challenge your “perfect” , “airtight” argument that cannot be “rebutted”.

I believe that discussion is healthy and helpful to someone's position. You see the weaknesses and strengths of your argument. I enjoy being sharpened. Check the many discussions I am involved in. But, I do not have to agree if someone's argument is not convincing. I believe you have just succeeded in proving the veracity of the Op by the fragility of your argument.

 

[claninja]

I believe you have just succeeded in proving the veracity of the Op by the fragility of your argument.

how so? Please show the readers the how my arguments are fragile.

 

[DavidPT]

4.) you say premils don’t believe Christians are currently reigning. I’m unsure of this position. Let’s ask a premil @DavidPT

1.) do you believe Christians reign in a spiritual sense presently? In other words, do christians presently reign over sin and through the spreading of the gospel?

2.) according to premil, do Christians presently reign in same magnitude as Christ does. In other words, are Christians able to call themselves co rulers of the king of the earth with authority over nations?

As to 1.), I agree, if understanding it like that, but that is not the same as reigning with Christ a thousand years.


As to 2.), the answer would be no to that. There are no Christians that have authority over nations, in any sense.


Here's something I asked in another thread. Is 'reigning over' and 'reigning with' meaning the same thing, in regards to Christ and believers?

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

This was meaning while He was away. This says----But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them. What would the opposite of that be since it isn't meaning everyone would not that He should reign over them? Wouldn't the opposite of that be that some would He should reign over them?

If so this would mean Christ is reigning over believers while He is away, as long as they allow Him to.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

In regards to reigning, these verses say one reigns with Christ and not He reigns over them.

Unless reigning over and reigning with mean the exact same thing, I'm left thinking that because some have allowed Christ to reign over them while He is away, He then rewards them with reigning with Him when He returns.

But then there is the following.

2 Timothy 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

IMO, endure would be a better word to use than suffer---If we endure, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us

Amils interpret this differently than I do. I take it to mean the following. If we endure while He is away, we shall also reign with him when He returns: if we deny Him while He is away, he also will deny us when He returns

The way most Amils apparently interpret this verse, at least the ones in the Once Saved Always Saved camp, it doesn't matter if one endures or not, they still reign with Him, regardless. Where I come from 'if' is something that is conditional. Look at the last part of that verse as well. Would anyone suggest, that if we deny Him, He won't deny us in return? Shouldn't the same be true per the former part of that verse, that if one doesn't endure, neither shall they also reign with Him?

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Since some believers might not endure, and that some believers might even deny Him at some point, it doesn't make sense to apply this to anyone until after they have endured first. It is impossible that once one has part in the first resurrection that they can lose part in it somehow. That's exactly what happens per Amil if one doesn't endure. This means they lose part in the first resurrection, which is ludicrous. This couldn't possibly happen per Premil, though. The first resurrection is being applied to someone after they have endured, and not before they have endured or are in the process of enduring.

 

[claninja]

As to 1.), I agree, if understanding it like that, but that is not the same as reigning with Christ a thousand years.


As to 2.), the answer would be no to that. There are no Christians that have authority over nations, in any sense.

bingo! Thanks for the responses @DavidPT !

it makes no sense for the OP’s premise to claim revelation 20:4 = souls living and reigning in heaven with Christ, and then use Ephesians 2:6, 1 Peter 2:9, revelation 5:10, revelation 1:5-6, which, according to the OP, is not about souls in heaven reigning, to “prove” souls reigning in heaven in revelation 20:4. it’s a terrible argument.

@sovereigngrace

look, davidPt, a premil, can agree that Christians reign spiritually now over sin while physically alive. But, as a premil, he disagrees that this is the same type of reigning in revelation 20:4.

So if Ephesians 2:6, etc…etc are not about souls reigning in heaven, how does that prove souls reigning in heaven in revelation 20:4?

The premil doesn’t need to even argue your OP as it doesn’t even make sense.

 

[DavidPT]

it makes no sense for the OP’s premise to claim revelation 20:4 = souls living and reigning in heaven with Christ, and then use Ephesians 2:6, 1 Peter 2:9, revelation 5:10, revelation 1:5-6, which, according to the OP, is not about souls in heaven reigning, to “prove” souls reigning in heaven in revelation 20:4. it’s a terrible argument.

Revelation 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.


Since you mentioned Revelation 5:10, according to this passage the scene is in heaven at the time. Yet, that verse never says anyone shall reign in heaven as kings and priests. It says we shall reign on the earth.

Compare with Revelation 20:6.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

And hast made us unto our God kings and priests(Revelation 5:10)-----but they shall be priests of God and of Christ(Revelation 20:6)

and we shall reign on the earth(Revelation 5:10)-----and shall reign with him a thousand years(Revelation 20:6)

That's how I tend to see these things correlating. If the scene is heaven in Revelation 5, how do Amils propose that anyone that is in heaven at the time shall reign on the earth? Obviously, they have to be bodily resurrected first. Why can't that be what the first resurrection is involving?

 

[sovereigngrace]

bingo! Thanks for the responses @DavidPT !

it makes no sense for the OP’s premise to claim revelation 20:4 = souls living and reigning in heaven with Christ, and then use Ephesians 2:6, 1 Peter 2:9, revelation 5:10, revelation 1:5-6, which, according to the OP, is not about souls in heaven reigning, to “prove” souls reigning in heaven in revelation 20:4. it’s a terrible argument.

@sovereigngrace

look, davidPt, a premil, can agree that Christians reign spiritually now over sin while physically alive. But, as a premil, he disagrees that this is the same type of reigning in revelation 20:4.

So if Ephesians 2:6, etc…etc are not about souls reigning in heaven, how does that prove souls reigning in heaven in revelation 20:4?

The premil doesn’t need to even argue your OP as it doesn’t even make sense.

You can high-5 David all you want but you believe that the millennium is an apparition and not a reality or time period. This is the source of your argument. How then can anyone take your arguments serious? At least David and Premils believe this period of time is real.