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

[claninja]

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.

Cool. Still doesn’t address my counterpoints to the OP.

 

[jgr]

Bro, where is your biblical evidence of this?

John 4:46

937 [e]
basilikos
βασιλικὸς
royal official
Adj-NMS

◄ 937. basilikos ►
Strong's Concordance
basilikos: royal
Original Word: βασιλικός, ή, όν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: basilikos
Phonetic Spelling: (bas-il-ee-kos')
Definition: royal
Usage: connected with a king, royal, regal, (a) an officer in the service of the king, (b) the king's country.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It seems per the OP, that there is a "big difference" between ephesians 2:6 and Revelation 20:4.

"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, then when I asked sovereigngrace 3 questsions, one of them being: " is this spiritual event in Ephesians 2:6 of being seated in heaven with Christ the same event as the souls living and reigning in heaven with Christ, according to your position?", he responded with "yes". Now when I asked for clarification on this "yes", he didn't provided any.

I know what he believes and he believes the same as I do on this.

So, I have no idea, should I stop asking questions, and just make assumptions?

You have no idea of what you believe about this, but you think you are in a position to criticize what Amils like sovereigngrace and I believe? Okay, buddy.

Because your explanation is incorrect.

If the premise of the OP is that the saints of revelation 20:4 are presently reigning because the verb tenses of Ephesians 2:6 are past tense, but revelation 20:4 and ephesians 2:6 are different events, then using Ephesians 2:6 to prove revelation 20:4 SPECIFICALLY AGAINST PREMIL, is moot.

1.) Let's say I'm a premil and I believe the reigning of saints in revelation 20:4 is a literal future reality when the saints are raised again at the 2nd coming and sit on thrones to rule over the nations.

2.) However, you being and Amil, say no, it's a literal event about the souls of believers being in heaven to sit on thrones and rule with Christ following the 1st coming.

3.) You then proceed to provide Ephesians 2:6 to prove revelation 20:4 is a present reality of souls reigning in heaven with Christ, because you say "look, the verb tenses are past and show that we are already seated in heaven, thus proving revelation 20:4 should be understood as Amil".

4.) I, as the premil, will say, "great observation on the verb tenses, so ephesians 2:6 is about souls being in heaven to reign?"

5.) You, the amil, say "NO, it's NOT about souls being in heaven".

6.) I, as the premil, now being very confused say "what? then how does ephesians 2:6, which is is NOT about souls being in heaven with Christ, prove revelation 20:4 is about souls being in heaven reigning with Christ?"

If you are reigning with Christ while you're alive then why would you stop reigning with Him when you physically die and your soul goes to be with Him in heaven? I don't see any reason why not. So, that's why I believe that Revelation 20:4 is portraying souls reigning with Christ in heaven after they had been reigning with Him up until their bodily deaths. From my perspective, what is described in Ephesians 2:6 has to happen first while you're alive in order to be able to experience what is described in Revelation 20:4.

I'm not going to say any more about those 2 verses. If you don't get what I'm saying, then so be it.

Nothing against forum rules for me to provide counterpoints to the OP, regardless of my view.

I didn't say there was. I'm just saying that I find it to be strange since the OP is intended to be an argument against Premil specifically. Are you secretly a Premil or something (kidding)?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

"we have" is a present indicative active verb. Paul, talking about the resurrection, states if our earthly dwelling "might be destroyed" we "have a house from God, eternal in the heavens".

This is clearly the same thing as saying "to be away from the body and at home with the Lord".

2 corinthians 5:1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 corinthians 5:8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

1.) does earthly dwelling being destroyed = away from the body?

2.) does having a house from God, eternal in the heavens = home with the Lord?

If you have to say no to either 1 or 2, you are forcing the context out of the text to prop up your own position.

I'm not seeing your point, so I don't even know how to respond. I've already explained my understanding more than once and I stick with what I've already said.

I think I've explained my view clearly at this point and don't need to explain it any further. But, your view needs more explanation. I don't yet understand what you actually believe.

What do you believe happens to a believer immediately after they die? Please be as specific as possible.

How do you interpret this passage and when do you believe the last trumpet sounded or will sound?

1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

1.) 2 corinthians is believed to have been written prior to philippians

I don't see why that matters, but okay.

2.) Paul, in regards to his future resurrection, states that when the earthly tent is destroyed, we presently have a home in the heavens not made by human hands.

3.) Therefore, paul's departure = earthly tent destroyed. Paul being with Christ = home in heavens not made by human hands.

You believe that Paul being with Christ in heaven means him being with Christ with his changed, immortal body, right? At what point exactly do you believe Paul went to be with Christ or will go to be with Christ?

 

[sovereigngrace]

John 4:46

937 [e]
basilikos
βασιλικὸς
royal official
Adj-NMS

◄ 937. basilikos ►
Strong's Concordance
basilikos: royal
Original Word: βασιλικός, ή, όν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: basilikos
Phonetic Spelling: (bas-il-ee-kos')
Definition: royal
Usage: connected with a king, royal, regal, (a) an officer in the service of the king, (b) the king's country.

No, that Jesus was not of Judah and using Roman imperialism as proof of a lineage connection with Jesus.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I know what he believes and he believes the same as I do on this.
You have no idea of what you believe about this, but you think you are in a position to criticize what Amils like sovereigngrace and I believe? Okay, buddy.
If you are reigning with Christ while you're alive then why would you stop reigning with Him when you physically die and your soul goes to be with Him in heaven? I don't see any reason why not. So, that's why I believe that Revelation 20:4 is portraying souls reigning with Christ in heaven after they had been reigning with Him up until their bodily deaths. From my perspective, what is described in Ephesians 2:6 has to happen first while you're alive in order to be able to experience what is described in Revelation 20:4.

I'm not going to say any more about those 2 verses. If you don't get what I'm saying, then so be it.

I didn't say there was. I'm just saying that I find it to be strange since the OP is intended to be an argument against Premil specifically. Are you secretly a Premil or something (kidding)?

Hey bro, he believes that the millennium is an apparition and not a reality or time period. He 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."

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Hey bro, he believes that the millennium is an apparition and not a reality or time period. He 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."

I remember now that he said that. Honestly, that interpretation is even worse than Premil. It's complete nonsense. And he criticizes our view? Amazing.

The thousand years of Revelation 20 has no relation to the 1000 years from David to Christ whatsoever. That is a huge stretch. Even though we see the thousand years as figurative, it clearly represents an actual time period with a beginning and an end. I don't know how anyone can deny that. The beginning is obviously marked by the beginning of Christ's reign and the binding of Satan. The end is marked by the loosing of Satan. This couldn't be more clear.

 

[jgr]

No, that Jesus was not of Judah and using Roman imperialism as proof of a lineage connection with Jesus.

I don't follow, bro.

I was establishing that it was unnecessary for Gentiles to access Jesus through Jews.

The Gentile Roman nobleman demonstrated that.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I don't follow, bro.

I was establishing that it was unnecessary for Gentiles to access Jesus through Jews.

The Gentile Roman nobleman demonstrated that.

You do believe He was of the natural lineage of Judah?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I remember now that he said that. Honestly, that interpretation is even worse than Premil. It's complete nonsense. And he criticizes our view? Amazing.

The thousand years of Revelation 20 has no relation to the 1000 years from David to Christ whatsoever. That is a huge stretch. Even though we see the thousand years as figurative, it clearly represents an actual time period with a beginning and an end. I don't know how anyone can deny that. The beginning is obviously marked by the beginning of Christ's reign and the binding of Satan. The end is marked by the loosing of Satan. This couldn't be more clear.

Totally agree with everything you said here. This is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous. This doesn't add up and it doesn't make sense. That is why no one of any orthodoxy held or holds Full Preterism.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I remember now that he said that. Honestly, that interpretation is even worse than Premil. It's complete nonsense. And he criticizes our view? Amazing.

The thousand years of Revelation 20 has no relation to the 1000 years from David to Christ whatsoever. That is a huge stretch. Even though we see the thousand years as figurative, it clearly represents an actual time period with a beginning and an end. I don't know how anyone can deny that. The beginning is obviously marked by the beginning of Christ's reign and the binding of Satan. The end is marked by the loosing of Satan. This couldn't be more clear.

Here is a bit more from Claninja:

"I take the 1,000 years to be literal and parabolic. Literal in that there were literally 1,000 years between the time of David and Christ, and parabolic in that they represent the fulfillment of David never lacking a man on throne (Jeremiah 33:17).

Thus it was a 1,000 literal years from the time of David to Christ, in which Christ bound satan and ascended to the right hand to fulfill David never lacking a man to sit on the throne.

It was Christ's ministry, death, resurrection, ascension to the right hand, and sending of the Spirit on those born again, effectually making them a kingdom of priests and immune to the 2nd death, that fulfills the promise that David would never lack a man on throne.

I would argue the 1,000 years are derived from the time period between David and Christ. This is inspired by Steve Hahn who wrote in his book The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament "The background of the millennium may be traced to the period of the Davidic Covenant, which was established almost exactly 1,000 years before the coming of Christ."

Thus the Davidic covenant was fulfilled at Christ's 1st advent, 1000 years after the promise was given to David."

 

[jgr]

You do believe He was of the natural lineage of Judah?

Certainly (Revelation 5:5). Is He not the One to Whom the nobleman went to request healing for his son?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Certainly (Revelation 5:5). Is He not the One to Whom the nobleman went to request healing for his son?

Yes!

 

[jgr]

Yes!

Thanks bro. As you can see, Guojing was attempting to convince us that Jesus healed the Gentile centurion's servant because as a Gentile the centurion "blessed the Jews" and "went through the Jews" to gain access to Jesus.

It had nothing to do with the Jews.

It had everything to do with the centurion's faith.

And the Gentile nobleman didn't "need no Jews" to approach Jesus.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Thanks bro. As you can see, Guojing was attempting to convince us that Jesus healed the Gentile centurion's servant because as a Gentile the centurion "blessed the Jews" and "went through the Jews" to gain access to Jesus.

It had nothing to do with the Jews.

It had everything to do with the centurion's faith.

And the Gentile nobleman didn't "need no Jews" to approach Jesus.

I agree. Thanks bro. I was just confused with what you were saying. That was a first. I can normally follow your argument.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Thanks bro. As you can see, Guojing was attempting to convince us that Jesus healed the Gentile centurion's servant because as a Gentile the centurion "blessed the Jews" and "went through the Jews" to gain access to Jesus.

It had nothing to do with the Jews.

It had everything to do with the centurion's faith.

And the Gentile nobleman didn't "need no Jews" to approach Jesus.

He had faith like Abraham who wasn't a Jew.
Nice post.

 

[Guojing]

Thanks bro. As you can see, Guojing was attempting to convince us that Jesus healed the Gentile centurion's servant because as a Gentile the centurion "blessed the Jews" and "went through the Jews" to gain access to Jesus.

It had nothing to do with the Jews.

It had everything to do with the centurion's faith.

And the Gentile nobleman didn't "need no Jews" to approach Jesus.

I gave you Luke 7:3-6 regarding the Centurion and you choose to ignore those verses, because they don't fit your doctrine.

You then jump to another passage in John 4, and desperately claim that that nobleman was a gentile.

This is despite knowing the following from scripture:

1. that the Jews needed a sign to believe (Exodus 4, Luke 7:18-22, 1 Corinthians 1:22)
2. that Jesus said to him in John 4:48, the NIV even translated that verse as "“Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.”

Now, if you want to convince yourself that that nobleman is a gentile despite those scriptural passages, nobody can stop you.

 

[jgr]

I gave you Luke 7:3-6 regarding the Centurion and you choose to ignore those verses, because they don't fit your doctrine.

You then jump to another passage in John 4, and desperately claim that that nobleman was a gentile.

This is despite knowing the following from scripture:

1. that the Jews needed a sign to believe (Exodus 4, Luke 7:18-22, 1 Corinthians 1:22)
2. that Jesus said to him in John 4:48, the NIV even translated that verse as "“Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.”

Now, if you want to convince yourself that that nobleman is a gentile despite those scriptural passages, nobody can stop you.

Your incessant attempts to "Jewify" everything in sight are consistently rebutted by Scripture.

But keep 'em coming. Rebuttals are immensely pleasing and satisfying to behold.

 

[Guojing]

Your incessant attempts to "Jewify" everything in sight are consistently rebutted by Scripture.

But keep 'em coming. Rebuttals are immensely pleasing and satisfying to behold.

There is no need for me to when scripture like Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24 and Romans 15:8 exist.

 

[jgr]

There is no need for me to when scripture like Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24 and Romans 15:8 exist.

You forgot Matthew 23.

The entire chapter.