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

claninja said:

1.) When our earthly tent is destroyed, we have a house, not made by hands IN the heavens.

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.) Paul makes this clear, that when our earthly home is destroyed and we have a house, not made by hands, eternal in the heavens IS ABOUT THE RESURRECTION.

Click to expand...

The immediate resurrection. When a physical body is pronounced dead it is destroyed, no? Do other humans have to cremate the body to ensure it's destruction? Certainly the body waiting for the second coming is not destroyed then? What is the change then? We shall not all sleep (die), but we all shall be changed. Being changed can be said to destroy the corruptible body. But Paul literally said there is already a permanent incorruptible physical body waiting the destruction of the old one. That would mean it is there already while this one is still alive. So the only point that destruction can be is death. The other point is the soul is never found naked, but always clothed with a body.

You all waiting for the second coming have both a permanent incorruptible physical body in Paradise, and then claim the soul cannot enter it. So you continue the separation of soul, body and spirit even though all three are available right now in Paradise. Those in Paradise right now are in their physical bodies. So that means God will force you against your belief system to also be in your physical body, or God will allow some souls to walk around naked to comply with their earthly beliefs.

Death is the destruction of the physical body, not the change itself. Yes Paul wrote about that in 1 Corinthians 5:4-5

"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

Now natural death is not that drastic. Does Satan need to literally destroy this physical body, to prove a point?

The whole point of God taking the OT souls out of Abraham's bosom, which was located in a part of sheol controlled by Satan. Which Paul may have been alluding to. In Jude 1:9 we see a dispute between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses. Which indicates Satan was never given the body, other wise the point would have been resolved. The soul being in Abraham's bosom assured the point prior to the Cross the destruction of the body was complete by death.

Which leads to the point that after the Cross, no soul would taste death again. Yes the body would dissolve, but it would not be a death sentence like it was for the OT souls.

We see at the Cross physical bodies did come out of their graves. The soul was in those bodies. They were not soulless physical bodies. They did ascend with Christ. Christ did not free them from Sheol doing a half way job. Do we need proof that Christ did not fail in that regards?

An interesting observation. Peter declared that David was physically still in his sepulchre. Josephus alledged this is true. After the 70AD destruction, the Romans found both the bones of David and Solomon.

One interpretation would be that the old corruptible body can still be in tack, and the new permanent body was in Paradise. Or David and Solomon are not saints, because they missed the resurrection at the Cross.

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

Does dissolved mean dead and unable to sustain life. Or does dissolved mean even the bones have returned to dust?

The early church demanded that bodies be preserved against the natural decay of death, but to what end? Were they trying to prolong them from being dissolved to prevent the soul in Paradise to enjoy the permanent body, or did they like most here think that the body needed to be preserved or would miss out at the resurrection? Clearly a permanent body is waiting and already exists. Why think the soul has to wait for some and not others? Those at the Cross did not see a change in their old bones. Because then David and Solomon would have not been resurrected, thus not worthy of the resurrection at the Cross.

I will stick with the fact that at the Cross permanent incorruptible physical bodies were made possible to enter Paradise and enjoy all it has to offer. Hebrews 11 was satisfied for all the OT firstfruits because Jesus was the Resurrection and the Life. Including Lazarus who was an OT firstfruits of the power of the Resurrection and the Life. Since physical death is ongoing and since no one in Christ can taste death, then the soul immediately enters the permanent incorruptible physical body, because no one in Christ should have to wait until Satan destroys the body via death.

Also the old physical body can remain preserved in the ground, and it does not prevent a resurrection, neither can those living prevent the resurrection, not even with false theology that maintains the soul cannot have a body in Paradise until the Second Coming. The Cross already settled the matter. The new permanent incorruptible physical body can exist at the same time as the old one still buried in the ground, or totally dissolved via cremation. Cremation is not necessary to ensure a completely dissolved state.

In writing their portions of the NT, I doubt neither Peter or Paul knew that the Romans would find the bones of David and Solomon after the 70AD destruction. Nor would finding their bones contradict what the NT states, despite how some interpret Scripture to form human theology. Some must think that the old body literally has to be changed into the new one: once again.

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

Paul states two separate physical bodies. One on earth and one in Paradise. The change is refered to putting on clothes and being clothed. You do not burn your clothes to change into a different outfit every time. You have multiple distinct sets of clothing. The body moves from one set to another to have a different set. The same with the soul. It moves from one physical body to another physical body. The old body does not have to dissappear in order for the one in Paradise to be put on. Paul was simply saying if the old body no longer functions, the soul moves into the one in Paradise.

Prior to the Cross, the soul waited in Abraham's bosom, a part of sheol controlled by Satan, where it seems Satan enjoyed the destruction of one's physical body. Since the soul goes straight to Paradise like the thief on the Cross, then the thief had that permanent incorruptible physical body waiting for him when the soul arrived in Paradise. That was a fact prior to Paul writing about it. Paul did not invent that the second he wrote the words down. It was a fact since Jesus declared, "It is finished", on the Cross.

The Righterzpen said:

So you are NOT the type of premillennialist who believes Jesus rules over a corrupt earth? Is that correct?

Yet Revelation 20:7 states that satan is loosed at the end of the "millennial reign" to "deceive the nations once again."

I agree with you that the 2nd coming dawns the recreation of the cosmos. We do not agree on when the "millennial reign" is and what that consists of.

Click to expand...

Was the Garden of Eden corrupt before Satan decieved Eve?

Why the need for corruption to be decieved? If one is corrupt that is just being natural, no deception necessary. They were perfect just like Adam and Eve. They listened to Satan just like Adam and Eve. They disobeyed God, just like Adam and Eve. They died via fire. Adam and Eve died and changed from incorruptible permanent physical bodies to corruptible sin nature physical bodies.

Prior to listening and the deception, they were perfect without sin.

DavidPT said:

You apparently have it figured out somehow. And you didn't even need the Bible to do so. Must be nice to have insight into things like that that no one else on the planet has.

Click to expand...

It is called reading the Bible over and over again. Iron sharpening iron.

Timtofly said:

Was the Garden of Eden corrupt before Satan decieved Eve?

Why the need for corruption to be decieved? If one is corrupt that is just being natural, no deception necessary. They were perfect just like Adam and Eve. They listened to Satan just like Adam and Eve. They disobeyed God, just like Adam and Eve. They died via fire. Adam and Eve died and changed from incorruptible permanent physical bodies to corruptible sin nature physical bodies.

Prior to listening and the deception, they were perfect without sin.

Click to expand...

Was there evil present in the cosmos before Adam and Eve ate the fruit?
Yes, there was. We know this because Satan fell before man did.

Was there evil present before Satan fell?
This also appears to be the case because "darkness was upon the face of the deep" before life was even created. Now if Lucifer was suppose to be the "covering cherub". What was he covering and why? We know from Job that angels existed before the foundations of the earth was laid.

Is corruption the same thing as "being natural"?
No it's not. Jesus existed in a natural human state and was not corrupted by sin or a fallen nature because he did not have a human father.

The state of existence Adam and Eve lived in was not the same state as those in the new heavens and new earth will be. In the recreated cosmos; there is no corruptibility.
1 Corinthians 15:45, Romans 8:21

Adam and Eve were not created in a state of being incorruptible. If they were, there would have been no fall. It was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"; not the tree of good and evil. Adam and Eve were capable of committing acts that displeased God. They just were not aware of that until they ate of the tree.

So again, if Christ's return establishes a new cosmos where there is no corruption, no sin and no death and this is the commencement of the "millennial reign". How can Satan deceive the nations at the end of the millennium?

grafted branch said:

That explanation is not well supported with scripture but I do appreciate you giving your answer.

Click to expand...

Your explanation of the rapture would influence your explanation of the new heavens and earth.

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

Not much to work with. Some even say the Sea is not a literal Sea.

Does every single human ever born experience the same thing equally as John does when he keeps saying, "I saw" throughout the book of Revelation? Because John sees different things involving different people. I would say, only the people John is literally seeing, experience that particular event. Not every soul that ever existed.

Spiritual Jew said:

You completely ignored what I said and didn't address it at all. Why should I respond to anything you say when you just ignore what I say? Why do you think it's okay to try to have one way discussions where I'm the only one who has to address your points while you can just ignore mine? That's not how this is supposed to work.

Do you believe that Amos 9:14-15 is speaking of the same time period as Amos 9:11-12? If so, shouldn't we get our understanding of Amos 9:11-15 from Acts 15:7-19, which actually quotes Amos 9:11-12 and explains what it means?

Click to expand...

Here's the problem besides you not liking the way I go about things. I don't see your interpretation taking into account the following verse.


Amos 9:15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

If we apply this to the time involving Acts 5 at the time, this part--them upon their land---that would have been true at the time. But once 70 AD came, that contradicts this also being true at the time-- and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them.

Why should we ignore the fact that 70 AD makes nonsense out of Amos 9:15 if we are to apply that verse to a time period preceding 70 AD? Does not that verse say this---their land which I have given them? One is to seriously think literal land is not meant here and that God gave them spiritual land instead, as if that makes sense?


You asked me whether or not I believe Amos 9:14-15 is speaking of the same time period as Amos 9:11-12? How would you answer that same question in light of verse 15 and the points I raised?

Timtofly said:

It is called reading the Bible over and over again. Iron sharpening iron.

Click to expand...

Why are you then not explaining how you are arriving at those things and what Scriptures cause you to conclude what you do? If you at least did that, who knows, maybe it might prove you are correct about some of these things after all. In the meantime, I don't think there is one single person around here that have a clue as to how you are arriving at some of these things.

The Righterzpen said:

The state of existence Adam and Eve lived in was not the same state as those in the new heavens and new earth will be. In the recreated cosmos; there is no corruptibility.
1 Corinthians 15:45, Romans 8:21

Click to expand...

This is the Millennium state, though. I never said it was the NHNE state. Many times we see a new heaven and earth in Scripture. But only after the GWT in Revelation 20, will there be a totally different reality.

Satan and the angels were created on day 4. They did not even exist before day 4. Saying so is just Satan’s imagined reality or human mythology. There is no indication of a reality prior to this one.

That there is a new reality in Revelation 21 is not indicative of a reality prior to Genesis 1:1. You give Satan too much credit even if you use Scripture to do so.

The 7th "day" is not given an evening and morning time stamp. God came back after the first 1000 years and created the Garden of Eden. Satan had 1000 years of being the morning star for those on earth. Time to just think and think. When God created Eden and put Adam in the Garden, Satan then offered many suggestions about God's creation.

Yes, God knew Satan would have many ideas. God already knew all the plans of creation, including Satan’s ideas.

Guojing said:

Yet, the same Greek term, ecclesia, is used in those passages to describe them, as I already stated.

Click to expand...

So? What is your point? Just that the Greek word ecclesia doesn't always refer to the church/body of Christ comprised of Jew and Gentile Christians? If so, well, no kidding. Who doesn't know that?

Douggg said:

Redemption of Jerusalem from foreign rule. At the time they were occupied by the Romans.

Click to expand...

Who do you think you're kidding here? No one. She was talking about spiritual redemption just like Simeon had just talked about. Do you think she wasn't aware of the same thing that Simeon was?

Luke 2:28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying: 29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you may now dismiss your servant in peace. 30 For my eyes have seen your salvation, 31 which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: 32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel.”

Notice how he talks about seeing God's "salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all nations" and about Jesus being "a light for revelation to the Gentiles". He clearly wasn't talking about redemption from foreign rule there, he was talking about spiritual redemption and salvation.

btw, do you know what the Jews (Judaism) call the "final redemption" ?

Click to expand...

Who cares? We don't get our understanding from unbelieving Jews.

The consider the final redemption is when all the children of Israel have been brought back to the land of Israel.

And do you know what the Jews (Judaism) think Salvation is and God their only Savior means? To them, they believe it means physical salvation from one's enemies.

Click to expand...

That is what unbelieving Jews think because they are deceived and are not focused on what matters. That is not what Jews like Simeon and Anna think, which is what matters.

sovereigngrace said:

I have listed various supporting Scripture in the Op. You have presented nothing including Revelation 20 to support your view that the redeemed are reigning now. Where is your Scripture?

Click to expand...

correct, I have not provided any scripture of believers reigning presently, because I’m countering your position, which is that there are no verses that state the believer is presently reigning with the same magnitude as Christ’s present reign. would you give yourself the title ruler of the kings of the earth? And as I stated, the OP offers no present tense verb verses for believers reigning with Christ.

so we need to establish what type of reigning is occurring in revelation 20:4.

1.) You used Ephesians 2:5-6’s aorist verbs to demonstrate that the believer has been raised and seated in heaven with Christ already, effectively reigning. You deem this reigning spiritually, correct?

2.) 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? Spiritual Jew has said no, they are not the same. So I’m interested if you agree with spiritual Jew or not. If they are not the same event, then Ephesians 2:6 won’t counter the premil position.

Timtofly said:

This is the Millennium state, though. I never said it was the NHNE state. Many times we see a new heaven and earth in Scripture. But only after the GWT in Revelation 20, will there be a totally different reality.

Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself, as well as Scripture.

Timtofly said:

The 7th Trumpet is the final end of Daniel's 70th week. There is no more sin nor Satan. It is also the end of the 6000 years of Adam's punishment. The Second Coming removes sin from this earth. The final harvest removes Adam's sinful flesh. The Millennium starts with a resurrection with humans in permanent incorruptible physical bodies.

Click to expand...

Timtofly said:

Satan and the angels were created on day 4. They did not even exist before day 4. Saying so is just Satan’s imagined reality or human mythology. There is no indication of a reality prior to this one.

Click to expand...

Job 38:
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

"Morning stars" here can not be planetary bodies or suns because those are what was created on the 4th day. The only thing "morning stars" could be in this context is some form of angelic host. "Lucifer" means "morning star". But Jesus also refers to Himself as the "morning star" in Revelation 22:16

Timtofly said:

The 7th "day" is not given an evening and morning time stamp. God came back after the first 1000 years and created the Garden of Eden. Satan had 1000 years of being the morning star for those on earth. Time to just think and think. When God created Eden and put Adam in the Garden, Satan then offered many suggestions about God's creation.

Click to expand...

You have absolutely NO evidence of this out of Scripture! "Evening morning was day...." 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.

Timtofly said:

That there is a new reality in Revelation 21 is not indicative of a reality prior to Genesis 1:1. You give Satan too much credit even if you use Scripture to do so.

Click to expand...

Not sure what this has to do with anything I said?

Revelation 20:7 is very clear that Satan is loosed at the end of the "millennial reign". Now if you are trying to say that Satan ruled for 1000 years prior to the creation of this current earth? That doesn't work either because there's no nations to reign over before there's even a human race.

I don't know where you get this stuff from; but it's certainly not the Bible!

claninja said:

Well, when it's from a highly symbolic book with no interpretation given by the angel, then yes, I would argue it would be helpful to have another similar passage from non apocalyptic language..... you know, using scripture to interpret scripture, which Amils claim to do.

Click to expand...

I do that over 99% of the time, but since I don't have anything this time then it's a huge problem for you. That's great.

But on the other hand, you have presented a great defense for Premil, which only uses 1 passage to tell us there will be a literal future 1,000 year reign when Christ returns. At least we know you and premils are on the same page when it comes to using 1 passage in a symbolic book to form a theological doctrine....

Click to expand...

This was a ridiculous comment. You're not even thinking. Their interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts other scripture. What scripture does my view that souls reign with Christ in heaven contradict?

Well, according to you and your interpretation of 1 symbolic passage, they are reigning in heaven, correct?

Click to expand...

Uh huh.

Good, you agree Christ didn't come into his kingdom that same day he died on the across, but AFTER His resurrection when he ascended bodily. We are on the same page here. However, this is creating some questions:

1.) So then the thief on the cross didn't come into the kingdom that same day either, correct?

Click to expand...

Not bodily. Why do you never make a distinction between the soul/spirit and the body? The thief on the cross is still waiting for the redemption of his body, but his soul and spirit are in heaven with Jesus. What is so hard to understand about this?

3.) So then to be consistent, you believe the soul entering heaven upon physical death is not entering the kingdom, correct?

Click to expand...

Not bodily, no. A Christian is already part of Christ's kingdom at the time they die. Why would they no longer be in His kingdom after they die?

**Remember, the spirit always returned to the Lord post death (ecclesiastes 12:7). This is not some new transition that began after the cross.

Click to expand...

What about Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:19-31), though? That is where believers were before the cross. So, that has to be where their souls were.

So is it your argument that:

1.) prior to the cross: spirit returned to the Lord, Soul went to hades, Body to the grave?

Click to expand...

Not Hades. Abraham's bosom, which was separate from Hades (read Luke 16:19-31).

2.) post cross: spirit returned to the Lord, Soul goes to heaven, body in grave until resurrection?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Excellent, then it appears you agree that vs 1-5 from 2 corinthians chapter 5 are about the resurrection as Paul uses this same language in 1 corinthians chapter 15 to describe the resurrection.

Click to expand...

2 corinthians 5:4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.

1 corinthians 15:53-55 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?

2 corinthians 5:5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guaranteed of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

So when our earthly dwelling is destroyed, we have a heavenly eternal home is in regards to the resurrection, correct?

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.

Click to expand...

Yes. And we have to wait until Christ's return at the last trumpet for that to happen.

1.) When our earthly tent is destroyed, we have a house, not made by hands IN the heavens.

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.) Paul makes this clear, that when our earthly home is destroyed and we have a house, not made by hands, eternal in the heavens IS ABOUT THE RESURRECTION.

2 corinthians 5:4-5 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

3.) VS 6-8 is simply a rehash of vs 1. Both talk about our earthly home and our heavenly home.

2 corinthians 5:6-8 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

So, according to you, Paul mentioning that if our earthly dwelling is destroyed, we have a home in heaven, in vs 1, is completely different than Paul mentioning if we are away from the body, then we are at home with the Lord in vs 6-8? That is complete nonsense, and a total stretch. I would call that scriptural "gerrymandering". The passages, both before (vs 1-5) and after (vs 10) are both about the resurrection.

Click to expand...

I honestly could not care less what you think is complete nonsense. Your understanding of the thousand years in Revelation is beyond complete nonsense, so you're not one to talk.

You can believe what you want, but it's clear to me that in verses 6-8 he was talking about something that happens immediately upon death, so he couldn't have been talking about the resurrection since believers are not resurrected immediately upon death. He indicated that being absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. You seem to be arguing that one cannot be present with the Lord without a body, which contradicts what Paul said.

1.) Well, Paul does say we do not wished to unclothed, but further clothed. So I don't know what you are talking about.

2 .) Paul doesn't actually say that being away from the body "is" to be present with the Lord, so no there is no contradiction.

Click to expand...

He strongly implies it. He said that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. That strongly suggests that you can be apart from the body and present with the Lord. Then in verse 8 he said he "would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord". What else does that mean except that he was talking about not being in his body and present with the Lord? It's clear to me that is what he was saying. You don't need to have a body to be present with the Lord. That is what he was clearly saying. To me, Philippians 1:21-24 confirms that my interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 is correct because he taught the same thing there.

While vs 6 does use a present indicative active in regards to being home in the body and a present indicative active in regards to being away from the Lord. Paul never uses a present indicative active verb in regards to being at home with the Lord. Paul uses aorist infinitives to denote being absent from the body and at home with the Lord. remember, aorist infinitives do not denote time. Paul, in vs8, simply states he is now confident and pleased to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Paul never says to be absent from the body IS to be at home with the Lord.

Click to expand...

Spare me. I don't believe you are the Greek expert that you pretend to be.

I don't think to die is gain means the soul goes to heaven. I believe for the Christian, death in Christ is a gain because of the resurrection. The Christian does have a desire to depart and be with the Lord, for we know that when we are in our earthly dwelling we know we are away from the Lord.

Click to expand...

Can you break Philippians 1:21-24 down for me and show me exactly how you interpret it? That would be great. Thanks.

What do you believe happens to the soul when a person dies?

claninja said:

2.) 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? Spiritual Jew has said no, they are not the same. So I’m interested if you agree with spiritual Jew or not. If they are not the same event, then Ephesians 2:6 won’t counter the premil position.

Click to expand...

The thing we have to keep in mind, the first resurrection is being applied to martyrs, for one.

Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:


This verse says in heavenly places. Jesus is in heaven and that that is a place, not places. This verse seems relevant only in the here and now, and not once someone has died. Once someone dies they are then in heaven, a place where Christ currently is. This verse says in heavenly places in Christ. S J is correct to conclude that the reign involving martyrs is not meaning what Ephesians 2:6 is meaning. The same would be true per Premil, but in a different way. It seems to me, in order for Amil to be the correct position, Ephesians 2:6 has to apply to both the living and the dead. I can't see it applying to the dead, though.

What happens if we compare Ephesians 2:6 with Revelation 3:21, like such? Some of the rest of you are experts on tenses, not me. Do the tenses agree or disagree?


And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus(Ephesians 2:6)---To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame(Revelation 3:21)

claninja said:

2.) 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? Spiritual Jew has said no, they are not the same. So I’m interested if you agree with spiritual Jew or not. If they are not the same event, then Ephesians 2:6 won’t counter the premil position.

Click to expand...

That's not true. My interpretation of Ephesians 2:6 counters the Premil position that living Christians don't reign with Christ. Most premils don't just deny that the souls of the dead in Christ reign with Christ, but they also deny that anyone reigns with Christ at all until the second coming.

DavidPT said:

The thing we have to keep in mind, the first resurrection is being applied to martyrs, for one.

Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:


This verse says in heavenly places. Jesus is in heaven and that that is a place, not places. This verse seems relevant only in the here and now, and not once someone has died. Once someone dies they are then in heaven, a place where Christ currently is. This verse says in heavenly places in Christ. S J is correct to conclude that the reign involving martyrs is not meaning what Ephesians 2:6 is meaning. The same would be true per Premil, but in a different way. It seems to me, in order for Amil to be the correct position, Ephesians 2:6 has to apply to both the living and the dead. I can't see it applying to the dead, though.

Click to expand...

Ephesians 2:6 is simply a figurative way to describe what God did for those who are saved. The context of the verse is established in verses 4 and 5.

Ephesians 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

Paul was talking specifically about believers who were still alive and was not specifically talking about the dead in Christ, but why can't what he said still apply when a believer dies? We are still saved when we die, right? So, why would this passage that describes those who are saved no longer apply to us when we die? I don't think that makes any sense, especially if you don't believe in soul sleep.

Timtofly said:

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet."

Do you deny the 1991 years that have passed since 30AD?

Click to expand...

Please don't ask me dumb questions like this.

Between the Cross and the Second Coming is a set of years. Between the Second Coming and the End is a set period of time.

Click to expand...

Where are you seeing in 1 Corinthians 15:22-24 that a long period of time occurs between His second coming and the end? That's what I'm trying to get you to address, but you come back with complete nonsense instead.

Guojing said:

Romans 11:13 tells you who the "thou" is referring to.

Click to expand...

Romans 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Are you trying to say that you think Romans 11:22 is talking about the Gentiles collectively continuing in his goodness and if they don't all continue in his goodness they all will be cut off? If so, how does that make any sense? What if some Gentiles continue in his goodness and some don't? They all get cut off? Obviously, that doesn't make any sense and wouldn't be fair to those Gentiles who do continue in his goodness.

Romans 11:22 applies to each individual Gentile. Notice in verse 20 that they each were grafted in because of their faith. It's not talking about Gentiles collectively having faith, it's talking about each individual Gentile who had faith being grafted into the olive tree. If any individual Gentile does not continue in God's goodness and does not continue to have faith then they "shalt be cut off".

DavidPT said:

Here's the problem besides you not liking the way I go about things. I don't see your interpretation taking into account the following verse.


Amos 9:15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

If we apply this to the time involving Acts 5 at the time, this part--them upon their land---that would have been true at the time. But once 70 AD came, that contradicts this also being true at the time-- and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them.

Why should we ignore the fact that 70 AD makes nonsense out of Amos 9:15 if we are to apply that verse to a time period preceding 70 AD? Does not that verse say this---their land which I have given them? One is to seriously think literal land is not meant here and that God gave them spiritual land instead, as if that makes sense?


You asked me whether or not I believe Amos 9:14-15 is speaking of the same time period as Amos 9:11-12? How would you answer that same question in light of verse 15 and the points I raised?

Click to expand...

So, you're not going to answer the question, but you expect me to answer it instead? This is exactly what I was talking about. You want a one way discussion. I already said I'm not interested in that. Please address what I said in my post #763 and answer the question I asked you about the timing of Amos 9:14-15 and Amos 9:11-12 first and then I will answer your question. That's how discussions work.

The Righterzpen said:

Adam and Eve were not created in a state of being incorruptible. If they were, there would have been no fall. It was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"; not the tree of good and evil. Adam and Eve were capable of committing acts that displeased God. They just were not aware of that until they ate of the tree.

So again, if Christ's return establishes a new cosmos where there is no corruption, no sin and no death and this is the commencement of the "millennial reign". How can Satan deceive the nations at the end of the millennium?

Click to expand...

Knowledge is not what caused sin. Saying they were not in incorruptible bodies is not the logical outcome of what God declared.


You are as decieved as they were if you think knowledge is what caused the change.

Disobedience is what caused the change, not gaining knowledge.

That does not mean they did not gain the knowledge either. Having knowledge is a totally different point than their disobedience.

Many dwell on the result of eating and gaining knowledge. That was Satan’s deceptive angle. Had nothing to do with sin whatsoever.

Adam disobeying God is the exact point where they died and their incorruptible bodies were exchanged for corruptible bodies.

Knowing good and evil then complimented what sin would do to the earth.