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

[Zao is life]

Not so! You've ducked around numerous points I presented that forbid your position. The reader can judge for themselves.

Saying you are living in denial; can you explain how the beast somehow got into the abyss according to your teaching?

Repeat (3rd time or 4th time, or maybe even 5th time):
1. Beast not in abyss.
2. Beast not even exist now because beast "was not" by the time John wrote Revelation.
3. Revelation not say anywhere that beast thrown into abyss or put into abyss.
4. Revelation 19 say beast will be thrown into LOF.
5. Satan give 10 kings his seat, power & great authority, and 10 kings give their power and authority to beast, so beast figuratively "ascend from abyss". Figuratively only, because beast not in abyss and never been in abyss.
6. Beast only become "yet is" when figuratively ascend from abyss.
7. Beast only figuratively ascend from abyss when 10 kings give beast their power & authority.
8. John not say John marvel when "John see" beast what was, what isn't and what yet is, because John not live to see beast what was. John only write about the beast he saw in the vision only (beast isn't when John wrote).

John say they i.e the people who would be living when beast what was and what is not (figuratively) ascend from abyss when 10 kings give beast their power & authority, will marvel when they see beast what was, what isn't and what (now is again).

9. Figuratively only because 10 kings what give beast their power, get their power from Satan.

PS: I only spoke like this because you pretend that I never already said numerous times what I said above, and then condescendingly ask me a question like, "Can you explain how the beast somehow got into the abyss according to your teaching?"

Oh yes,

10. Not "my" "teaching". It's what's written in the text, but you don't understand the text.

 

[Guojing]

I consider myself a person that is saved by grace.

I think the terms being used were meant for the time period between the cross and AD70. A time period where that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

So to confirm, you don't believe in a "spiritual Israel", nor do you consider yourself part of any type of "Israel"?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Repeat (3rd time or 4th time, or maybe even 5th time):
1. Beast not in abyss.
2. Beast not even exist now because beast "was not" by the time John wrote Revelation.
3. Revelation not say anywhere that beast thrown into abyss or put into abyss.
4. Revelation 19 say beast will be thrown into LOF.
5. Satan give 10 kings his seat, power & great authority, and 10 kings give their power and authority to beast, so beast figuratively "ascend from abyss". Figuratively only, because beast not in abyss and never been in abyss.
6. Beast only become "yet is" when figuratively ascend from abyss.
7. Beast only figuratively ascend from abyss when 10 kings give beast their power & authority.
8. John not say John marvel when "John see" beast what was, what isn't and what yet is, because John not live to see beast what was. John only write about the beast he saw in the vision only (beast isn't when John wrote).

John say they i.e the people who would be living when beast what was and what is not (figuratively) ascend from abyss when 10 kings give beast their power & authority, will marvel when they see beast what was, what isn't and what (now is again).

9. Figuratively only because 10 kings what give beast their power, get their power from Satan.

PS: I only spoke like this because you pretend that I never already said numerous times what I said above, and then condescendingly ask me a question like, "Can you explain how the beast somehow got into the abyss according to your teaching?"

Oh yes,

10. Not "my" "teaching". It's what's written in the text, but you don't understand the text.

Not so! You are fighting with the scriptural text.

Revelation 11:7-9: “And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.”

Revelation 17:7-8: “And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”

So, you think because you keep repeating an error that it suddenly makes it a truth? That is not the way it works! How can the beast "figuratively 'ascend from abyss'" (whatever that means)? That is ridiculous. We are looking at theological double-speak. You are obviously trying to defend what you have been taught. We could apply this same logic/wording to Satan and his minions, who are also in the abyss during the intra-Advent. We could say that Satan and his minions "figuratively 'ascend from abyss'" near the end to negate that reality, but that would also be absurd. The reality is, this is classic Premil eisegesis.

It is noticeable that you can't even answer a simple question: "Can you explain how the beast somehow got into the abyss according to your teaching?" This highlights the weakness of your position.

 

[grafted branch]

So to confirm, you don't believe in a "spiritual Israel", nor do you consider yourself part of any type of "Israel"?

The name Israel ultimately means Gods people. So if I say I don’t consider myself part of any type of Israel then I might as well say I’m not one of Gods people.

When you use the phrase “spiritual Israel” I assume your referring to Romans 2:28-29. As I stated before I think these terms were used during the period between the cross and AD 70. I don’t have an issue with someone using this term to describe someone who is saved and perhaps using a term like Spiritual Jew would cause an unbeliever to inquire about the meaning and be beneficial in that way. I personally refer to myself simply as a Christian.

 

[Guojing]

The name Israel ultimately means Gods people. So if I say I don’t consider myself part of any type of Israel then I might as well say I’m not one of Gods people.

When you use the phrase “spiritual Israel” I assume your referring to Romans 2:28-29. As I stated before I think these terms were used during the period between the cross and AD 70. I don’t have an issue with someone using this term to describe someone who is saved and perhaps using a term like Spiritual Jew would cause an unbeliever to inquire about the meaning and be beneficial in that way. I personally refer to myself simply as a Christian.

So when you said "if I say I don’t consider myself part of any type of Israel then I might as well say I’m not one of Gods people.", can I confirm your answer to my original question is actually "Yes, I consider myself as part of the Israel that is saved by grace thru faith"?

 

[grafted branch]

So when you said "if I say I don’t consider myself part of any type of Israel then I might as well say I’m not one of Gods people.", can I confirm your answer to my original question is actually "Yes, I consider myself as part of the Israel that is saved by grace thru faith"?

I’ll put it this way, I do consider myself one of Gods chosen people (elect). If you think Israel means Gods chosen people then yes I am part of that group.

I see people defining Israel in different ways, even Paul said they are not all Israel which are of Israel. If you clarify what you think Israel means I can better answer your question.

 

[Guojing]

I’ll put it this way, I do consider myself one of Gods chosen people (elect). If you think Israel means Gods chosen people then yes I am part of that group.

I see people defining Israel in different ways, even Paul said they are not all Israel which are of Israel. If you clarify what you think Israel means I can better answer your question.

Didn't you already claim that "if I say I don’t consider myself part of any type of Israel then I might as well say I’m not one of Gods people."?

By that claim, you are already saying that you regard only Israel as God's chosen people. No one can be out of Israel and yet be of God's people.

To me, Israel refers to the nation. So Paul is saying there that true Israel refers to those from the nation of Israel who also believe in Christ as their promised Messiah.

Hope that clarification is clear?

 

[grafted branch]

Didn't you already claim that "if I say I don’t consider myself part of any type of Israel then I might as well say I’m not one of Gods people."?

By that claim, you are already saying that you regard only Israel as God's chosen people. No one can be out of Israel and yet be of God's people.

To me, Israel refers to the nation. So Paul is saying there that true Israel refers to those from the nation of Israel who also believe in Christ as their promised Messiah.

Hope that clarification is clear?

Yeah, that helps. I actually do agree with you on the point that Israel, as a nation, was considered chosen. I would even say Israel, as a nation, could be referred to as saints.

Daniel 9:27 has the phrase “the people of the saints of the most high”; I think this should be associated with Romans 9:16.

However I believe it is these same saints (national Israel) that end up being overcome by the beast in Revelation 13:7.

 

[Guojing]

Yeah, that helps. I actually do agree with you on the point that Israel, as a nation, was considered chosen. I would even say Israel, as a nation, could be referred to as saints.

Daniel 9:27 has the phrase “the people of the saints of the most high”; I think this should be associated with Romans 9:16.

However I believe it is these same saints (national Israel) that end up being overcome by the beast in Revelation 13:7.

So, if you agree with my view on the difference between the nation Israel and true Israel, would you still hold to your earlier claim that "if I say I don’t consider myself part of any type of Israel then I might as well say I’m not one of Gods people."

After all, I am a gentile believer who is not from the nation of Israel, there is therefore no way I can be considered as part of any Israel, true or otherwise, would you agree?

 

[grafted branch]

So, if you agree with my view on the difference between the nation Israel and true Israel, would you still hold to your earlier claim that "if I say I don’t consider myself part of any type of Israel then I might as well say I’m not one of Gods people."

After all, I am a gentile believer who is not from the nation of Israel, there is therefore no way I can be considered as part of any Israel, true or otherwise, would you agree?

No, I would say that Gentiles are grafted in and then become part of the olive tree.

 

[Guojing]

No, I would say that Gentiles are grafted in and then become part of the olive tree.

Alright, so you do believe that we gentile believers become part of true Israel.

 

[grafted branch]

Alright, so you do believe that we gentile believers become part of true Israel.

Well I think the root is Christ, so we Gentiles become Gods chosen people through the grafting in. Again I personally prefer not to use the term Israel or “true Israel “, I use the term chosen or elect to prevent any confusion.

 

[Guojing]

Well I think the root is Christ, so we Gentiles become Gods chosen people through the grafting in. Again I personally prefer not to use the term Israel or “true Israel “, I use the term chosen or elect to prevent any confusion.

Strange you keep saying this preference because you were very clear when you stated "if I say I don’t consider myself part of any type of Israel then I might as well say I’m not one of Gods people."

 

[grafted branch]

Strange you keep saying this preference because you were very clear when you stated "if I say I don’t consider myself part of any type of Israel then I might as well say I’m not one of Gods people."

Yes because I believe the word Israel ultimately means Gods people. The confusion comes in when we start taking about national Israel, or the tribes after they split, or the physical area of land, or the people who are true believers in the nation of Israel, and so on.

I get the feeling you want me to declare that I am spiritual Israel for some reason.

 

[Zao is life]

Not so! You are fighting with the scriptural text.

Revelation 11:7-9: “And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.”

Revelation 17:7-8: “And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”

So, you think because you keep repeating an error that it suddenly makes it a truth? That is not the way it works! How can the beast "figuratively 'ascend from abyss'" (whatever that means)? That is ridiculous. We are looking at theological double-speak. You are obviously trying to defend what you have been taught. We could apply this same logic/wording to Satan and his minions, who are also in the abyss during the intra-Advent. We could say that Satan and his minions "figuratively 'ascend from abyss'" near the end to negate that reality, but that would also be absurd. The reality is, this is classic Premil eisegesis.

It is noticeable that you can't even answer a simple question: "Can you explain how the beast somehow got into the abyss according to your teaching?" This highlights the weakness of your position.

God bless SG. We only disagree. It's not the end of the world (yet). Too many really bad things going on for me to want to say I disagree yet again.

But we do disagree. Not a big deal.

 

[Guojing]

Yes because I believe the word Israel ultimately means Gods people. The confusion comes in when we start taking about national Israel, or the tribes after they split, or the physical area of land, or the people who are true believers in the nation of Israel, and so on.

I get the feeling you want me to declare that I am spiritual Israel for some reason.

It doesn't have to be "spiritual" Israel, but since you are not a physical Jew, it has to be either spiritual or true Israel, if you hold the doctrine that "if I say I don’t consider myself part of any type of Israel then I might as well say I’m not one of Gods people."

 

[Bob_1000]

No, you're not. The text says that Christ Himself is the firstfruits (of them that slept). You're trying to say that more than Christ Himself represent the firstfruits, but the text absolutely does not say that.

You do understand that the original Bible manuscripts were not written in English, right?

Their souls are in heaven with Christ now. They have not yet been bodily resurrected. All dead believers from all-time will be resurrected at Christ's second coming in the future at the last trumpet. That's what you're not getting.

No, of course not. Christ is Christ, not the body of Christ. Or else it would say the body of Christ, but it doesn't.

What you're not getting is "them that slept" are the Old Testament body of Christ and it says Christ Himself is the firstfruits of them that slept. You're acting as if "them that slept" are the firstfruits, but it does not say that. You're not accepting the text as written. You're getting thrown off by the word "firstfruits", thinking it's plural and talking about more than Christ Himself and that's unfortunate. Saying that Christ was the firstfruits is the same thing as saying that Christ was the first to rise from the dead, as it says in Acts 26:23.

The Old Testament believers were asleep when Christ rose, Christ and all of the Old Testament believers are "them that slept". This is common sense and has nothing to do with theology.

Those believers rose with Christ and by default they are a part of the firstfruits of "them that slept".

 

[Bob_1000]

In the New Testament the word first fruit is always singular.


Romans 8:23 N-AFS

GRK: αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος

NAS: having the first fruits of the Spirit,

KJV: which have the firstfruits of the Spirit,

INT: ourselves the first-fruit of the Spirit

Romans 11:16 N-NFS

GRK: δὲ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ ἁγία καὶ

NAS: If the first piece [of dough] is holy,

KJV: if the firstfruit [be] holy,

INT: moreover the first-fruit [be] holy also

Romans 16:5 N-NFS

GRK: ὅς ἐστιν ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀσίας

NAS: who is the first convert to Christ

KJV: who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto

INT: who is a first-fruit of Achaia

1 Corinthians 15:20 N-NFS

GRK: ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων

NAS: from the dead, the first fruits of those

KJV: [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.

INT: from among [the] dead first-fruit of those fallen asleep

1 Corinthians 15:23 N-NFS

GRK: ἰδίῳ τάγματι ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός ἔπειτα

NAS: Christ the first fruits, after

KJV: Christ the firstfruits; afterward

INT: own order [the] first-fruit Christ then

1 Corinthians 16:15 N-NFS

GRK: ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀχαίας

NAS: of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia,

KJV: it is the firstfruits of Achaia,

INT: that it is first-fruit of Achaia

James 1:18 N-AFS

GRK: εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀπαρχήν τινα τῶν

NAS: that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.

KJV: a kind of firstfruits of his

INT: to be us first-fruits a sort of

Revelation 14:4 N-NFS

GRK: τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπαρχὴ τῷ θεῷ

NAS: men as first fruits to God

KJV: among men, [being] the firstfruits unto God

INT: the men [as] firstfruits to God

Strong's Greek 536

8 Occurrences



ἀπαρχὴ — 6 Occ.

ἀπαρχὴν — 2 Occ.




Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.(2Cor.5:17).

The firstfruits are the first gatherings of a group. The firstfruits of a crop of peas would be all of the ripe peas gathered at the first picking.

Epaenetus was ONE of the first peoples of Achaea to come to Christ, not the ONLY one.

Rom 16:5 (KJV) Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

 

[claninja]

Are your arguments classic Full Preterist arguments or not?

since I believe in a future coming of Christ and future resurrection, no they are not classic “full preterist” arguments. Please see forum rules if you are unsure of the difference between full and partial.

1. When (time-wise) was Satan cast out of heaven to war against the saints (revelation 12:12)?

Following Christs resurrection, which was the first.

2. When (time-wise) was Satan hindering the gospel to the nations (2 Thessalonians 2:18), masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), Satan prowling and looking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), Satan leading many astray (1 Timothy 5:15), working through the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1), etc?

following Christs resurrection, which was the first.

3. When (time-wise) is sin no longer able to draw power from the law?

Following Christs resurrection, which was the first, and the vanishing away of the obsolete old covenant at the coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel.

4. When (time-wise) is Satan crushed?

following Christs resurrection, which was the first, and the vanishing away of the obsolete old covenant, and destruction of the sons of the evil one at the coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel.

 

[DavidPT]

Why not? We know there is no need for the sun or moon according to Revelation 21:23, which would agree with God no longer having that ordinance before him.

Have you actually read what the text states and what it doesn't state?

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

What it doesn't state is this---And the planet earth had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it

What it does state is this---And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it


Anyone reading Revelation 21-22 should be able to see that there is a city and nations outside of the city. It is only inside of the city where it is not in need of the sun. What about the nations existing outside of the city? Should we just assume they live in the dark for all eternity since the sun allegedly will no longer exist at some point?