20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[Spiritual Jew]

You are changing the meaning of what Hebrews 8:11 actually says.

Pastors are still needed now for SOMEONE, maybe not you. Would you agree with that?

No, I don't agree with that. I'm not saying that no one should be a pastor, that no one can ever learn something from a pastor or that a pastor doesn't have a role in the church, but I am saying that everyone can learn from reading God's Word for themselves while getting insight directly from the Holy Spirit.

Do you disagree with that? There may be some who can't read God's Word for themselves, but there isn't anyone who can't be taught directly by the Holy Spirit. In Hebrews 8:10 (which is quoting Jeremiah 31:33) God is saying "I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.". That is a reference to the fact that God would come to dwell in our hearts via the Holy Spirit to teach us the truth about Him. And that began happening long ago on the day of Pentecost.

So, it is you who is not accepting what Hebrews 8 teaches about the new covenant. Hebrews 8:6 says that it was already established at the time Hebrews was written upon better promises than of the old covenant. You try to say that it is not yet established which contradicts that verse. If you continue reading into Hebrews 9 and 10 it becomes even more clear that the new covenant was already established long ago by the blood of Christ.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No, Paul said the dead, those not in their spiritual body, will be resurrected. That body is the permanent incorruptible body.

I never said that the dead will not be resurrected with a spiritual body or that the spiritual body is not the permanent incorruptible body, so what exactly are you disagreeing with me about here?

What I was saying is that the resurrection of the dead will happen at the last trumpet, as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54. Your doctrine has each believer being immediately resurrected upon his or her death instead of all of us being resurrected at the same time when the last trumpet sounds as Paul taught.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Angels have physical bodies that are heavenly. An angel can also take on the form of human physical flesh. That their bodies are physical makes that possible.

Do you understand that demons are fallen angels? How can a being with a physical body possess a physical human body? That makes no sense.

 

[Guojing]

No, I don't agree with that. I'm not saying that no one should be a pastor, that no one can ever learn something from a pastor or that a pastor doesn't have a role in the church, but I am saying that everyone can learn from reading God's Word for themselves while getting insight directly from the Holy Spirit.

Do you disagree with that? There may be some who can't read God's Word for themselves, but there isn't anyone who can't be taught directly by the Holy Spirit. In Hebrews 8:10 (which is quoting Jeremiah 31:33) God is saying "I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.". That is a reference to the fact that God would come to dwell in our hearts via the Holy Spirit to teach us the truth about Him. And that began happening long ago on the day of Pentecost.

So, it is you who is not accepting what Hebrews 8 teaches about the new covenant. Hebrews 8:6 says that it was already established at the time Hebrews was written upon better promises than of the old covenant. You try to say that it is not yet established which contradicts that verse. If you continue reading into Hebrews 9 and 10 it becomes even more clear that the new covenant was already established long ago by the blood of Christ.

My simple question is "Has Hebrews 8:11 came to pass NOW? Does EVERYONE in the Body of Christ KNOW the Lord, without needing others to teach them?"

If your answer to the above is YES, then we can agree to disagree.

But if you answer the above as "Everyone in the BOC CAN read the bible for themselves to know the Lord, without anyone to teach them", that is not answering the above question.

 

[Guojing]

That interpretation indicates that you believe one requirement for being part of the True Israel/Israel of God is being a descendant of the nation of Israel. But, that isn't what Paul said in Romans 9:6-8. It says just the opposite of that.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

This indicates that where you are descended or who you are descended from has nothing at all to do with being part of the true Israel of God. Instead, it has to do with being "God's children" and "children of the promise". This is where the importance of interpreting scripture with scripture comes in. If we can determine who "God's children" and "the children of the promise" made to Abraham are then we can determine who are part of the true Israel of God. Agree? So, let's use the following passage to determine the identity of "God's children" and "the children of the promise".

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul, speaking to Jew and Gentile Christians, said that we are the children of God through faith in Christ. Then he said that those who belong to Christ are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. So, God's children, who are the children of the promise that Paul referred to in Romans 9:6-8, are those who have faith in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. And they are counted as Abraham's seed and therefore counted as part of the Israel of God.

So, your understanding of Romans 9:6-8 is not accurate because it doesn't agree with other scripture like Galatians 3:26-29. When you take both of these passages into account, it shows that the true Israel of God does not just consist of a subset of Israelite Christians as you believe. It also includes Gentile Christians because, as Paul said, "there is neither Jew nor Gentile".

All who have faith in Christ are included among the children of God/children of the promise and those are the ones who Paul is referring to in Romans 9:6-8. You say that one's nationality has something to do with being part of the Israel of God. But scripture says that has nothing to do with it.

Galatians 3:26-29 is about the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ was a mystery found only in Paul's letters.

None of my points in that reply I made was about the Body of Christ, only Israel.

You disagree because you assumed the Body of Christ is Israel, I don't.

Anyway, you have asked me a question and I have given you my answer. I cannot make you accept the answer if you prefer not to.

 

[Guojing]

So, I guess you don't have the courage to read John 4 or to plug in on your computer - "John Nelson Darby" or "The Origins of Dispensationalism"? If so let me ask you why you are here; to teach us AMIL's or to learn from us AMIL's?



Thanks for the "thumbs up".

You are sidetracking the original question that you asked me, about whether I take bible passages literally, into this rant about Darby, whom I have not even read.

The original point is simple, when Jesus told the Gentile woman Matthew 15:24, do you think

1. He was joking? OR
2. Did he really meant what he said?

Notice none of the 12 who was present with him then, nor the gentile lady, turned to Jesus after that and said, "But you actually went to the Samaritan Woman in John 4!"

The 12 and her obviously believe what Jesus literally said in Matthew 15:24.

For you, you seem to enjoy spiritualizing what Jesus was saying in the 4 Gospels, whenever you come across a statement from him that you find it hard to swallow literally.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Do you understand that demons are fallen angels? How can a being with a physical body possess a physical human body? That makes no sense.

I may not fully comprehend the meaning of your question, but I know three men who have encountered demons and none were in physical bodies. One was inside a living human and left when the Baptist pastor asked him the third time if the man wanted to accept the Lord Jesus as his Savior and the man stopped screaming and wringing and shaking and sat up like weeks of that torture had never happened, and simply said "yes I do". The demon left and never returned. That man with the pastor that day was my father in law, who is a Baptist choir director and told me had he not seen it with his own eyes he would have not believed it, as he is one who thinks the Spiritual gifts ceased with the last Apostle's death.

The second person I know who has run into a demon said it was in his room with him and was like a apparition or ghost but without any form and was more of a red glow, out of which came the worst profanities and cursing God. My friend was in college living alone in an apartment at the time, and tried many times to run the thing off in the name of the Lord, but it didn't leave for quite some time, but eventually I guess it gave up trying. It never harmed my friend, but terrorized him for months on end, and he slept with his bible in his arms or under his head for weeks and weeks.

The third person I know who claims to have encountered a demon also did not see any thing in a physical form, but could feel the foul evil thing pass by him and said it stunk terribly and when it passed it knocked out the power to his whole apartment while he was in dental school at LSU. Again no one was harmed. He is my nephew and is now a dentist.

I say all this to add the point that just because a demon is a fallen angel does not necessarily mean they still have possession of a physical form by themselves. Just like the Lord commanded the "Legion" out of a man into a bunch of pigs.

 

[Timtofly]

It's pretty clear to me that you don't understand what He was saying. Look at the passage more carefully.

John 11:21 “Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Look at what He said in verse 25. He said those who believe in Him "will live even though they die. This is what He was saying to Martha in relation to the resurrection of the dead "at the last day" (verse 24 11:24). So, in verse 25 He says that those who believe in Him will live even though they had died. How are you missing that? He clearly said in verse 25 that they will die, so you need to take that into account when interpreting verse 26. How do they die? Physically, like Lazarus did.

He didn't proceed to contradict Himself in verse 26, though. He already said they would die, so why would He follow that up by saying they will never die? We (believers) will never die because even when we physically die, our souls and spirits live on. And we also will never experience the second death as unbelievers will (Rev 20:14-15). So, that is the context in which we will never die.

When you conclude that we will literally never die in any way then that shows that you are missing what Jesus specifically said in John 11:25 which is that we continue to live even though we will die (physically). And the reason He said we will never die is because our bodies are not all there is to us, for one thing, and another thing is that when we're resurrected at the last day it will be unto eternal bodily life instead of unto the second death.

The physical is already death. Being born into a dead body is physical death. The soul is already dead just by being in this body. The soul of those in Christ will never die. But claiming this "never death" is end of physical life death or spiritual death is missing the point. The point is we are already dead.

"Had died" is past tense of being dead. The point you miss is not the second death. Only those who partake in a bodily resurrection can be saved from the second death.

The point of contention is the timing of this resurrection. So what is resurrected? Hint, "I saw the souls of them" is key. It is not the body that is resurrected for those already in Paradise. It is not even their souls. Nothing about those in heaven need a resurrection. That is so understood, that John did not even need to mention a body. In Revelation 6, the soul and body are joined with the spirit at the Second Coming. In Revelation 20, those who shed this body after the Second Coming are given bodies, but not glorified. If they had been glorified, John would have mentioned that. One cannot presume this is the church being glorified, when that was already a done deal in the 6th Seal.

Trying to place the 5th and 6th Seal at the Cross, which is the same attempt to place Revelation 20:4 at the Cross will not work. The issue being over looked is that the Cross was the physical, bodily resurrection of the firstfruits. That is an irrefutable point. The first resurrection is physical. There is no need for a physical resurrection at the Second Coming, other than those alive in physical bodies need a physical change, resurrection from this dead body.

Remember the term for physical death, even at that time is sleep. Even Jesus used that term, and the disciples were "seemingly confused about sleep and death". We are talking prior to the Cross, and John in retrospect points out the literal and figurative aspects of physical death. Especially at the time Lazarus was indeed, literally physically dead, not just sleeping. Although even the OT term was not exactly physical death. It was the shadow of death, thus sleep, always, even for Lazarus. Not for all humanity, but those who chose to accept by faith, that heavenly city not made by hands, where physical bodies not made by hands await for those on the Last Day, resurrection.

Now the the Second most misunderstood point. That Last Day resurrection is not future. So no one can be a partial futurist and claim this last day is still future. Even a futurist, and pre-mill can accept that point. There is no future physical resurrection for those in Christ. Those once asleep, are now bodily resurrected in Paradise. The first resurrection is a bodily resurrection. The Cross was the Last Day resurrection to end all physical bodily first resurrections for those in Christ, ie the church. The soul has a permanent incorruptible physical body in Paradise. This old corruptible body will return to dust. The change already happened for those in Paradise.

Jesus claimed in those verses:
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

This translation indicates that physical death is an ongoing condition. Your translation indicates only a future death. My point is this verse should not point to a future death. The only death, period, is this corruptible body, that is dead because of the sin nature. All are born into death.

 

[Timtofly]

I never said that the dead will not be resurrected with a spiritual body or that the spiritual body is not the permanent incorruptible body, so what exactly are you disagreeing with me about here?

What I was saying is that the resurrection of the dead will happen at the last trumpet, as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54. Your doctrine has each believer being immediately resurrected upon his or her death instead of all of us being resurrected at the same time when the last trumpet sounds as Paul taught.

Because Paul claims in 2 Corinthians 5, it is immediate. Even Jesus in John 11 claims the soul will never die, that is be without a physical body, ever. You claim spirit, pneuma, bodies. What is a physical air body? That does not sound permanent. The spiritual body is the permanent incorruptible physical body. It is not just literally air.

 

[Freedm]

It's pretty clear to me that you don't understand what He was saying. Look at the passage more carefully.

John 11:21 “Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Look at what He said in verse 25. He said those who believe in Him "will live even though they die. This is what He was saying to Martha in relation to the resurrection of the dead "at the last day" (verse 24 11:24). So, in verse 25 He says that those who believe in Him will live even though they had died. How are you missing that? He clearly said in verse 25 that they will die, so you need to take that into account when interpreting verse 26. How do they die? Physically, like Lazarus did.

He didn't proceed to contradict Himself in verse 26, though. He already said they would die, so why would He follow that up by saying they will never die? We (believers) will never die because even when we physically die, our souls and spirits live on. And we also will never experience the second death as unbelievers will (Rev 20:14-15). So, that is the context in which we will never die.

When you conclude that we will literally never die in any way then that shows that you are missing what Jesus specifically said in John 11:25 which is that we continue to live even though we will die (physically). And the reason He said we will never die is because our bodies are not all there is to us, for one thing, and another thing is that when we're resurrected at the last day it will be unto eternal bodily life instead of unto the second death.

I'm not missing that part at all, but that verse has to be reconciled with John 8:51.

Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.

The way I reconcile this is to understand that we will die in this body, but are immediately resurrected so that we will never exist in the state of death. We move from this body, this life, straight into the next.

So yes, we will die, but we will never exist in a state of death. I believe this is what Jesus meant in John 8:51 when he said "you will never see death".

How do you reconcile the two?

 

[Timtofly]

Do you understand that demons are fallen angels? How can a being with a physical body possess a physical human body? That makes no sense.

They are not fallen angels. The fallen angels are physically bound in the pit. They are the locust like creatures found in the 5th Trumpet. The only spirit entity is our own spirit. We are separated from our spirit. Spirit in this sense is not exactly pnuema. It is a robe of white light. It is supposed to be wrapped around us. In some cases they can come to earth and poses people as in a prophetic form. A reprobate soul has forced a spirit to become a demon and flee God's presence. That is why they are on earth looking for an open mind to inhabit.

The text of 1 Kings 22:20-22 shows us these spirits.


20 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.

21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.

22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

These are not fallen angels walking around in heaven. A spirit and a demon are the same type. According to these verses, they have input in what goes on on the earth. They are not angels. They are the part of humanity that was lost when Adam disobeyed God. Body, soul, and spirit. The soul cannot die. The spirit cannot die. It can become reprobate along with the soul, that is a demon. The body is what physically dies. The spirit is what spiritually dies. But the spirit does not return to dust. It becomes a demon.

 

[ShineyDays2]

You are sidetracking the original question that you asked me, about whether I take bible passages literally, into this rant about Darby, whom I have not even read.

I can assure you that it was not a "rant". Although Darby is not the "origin" of dispensationalism, he is known as "enhancing" or "uniting together" bits and pieces of the system and then promoting his newly devised system of interpreting scripture throughout England and Scotland. Then a person by the name of C.I . Scofield took the notes and added them to the King James Bible and then brought the idea to the USA where book sellers saw a potential to make huge profits from Scofield's Bible. It then became the foundation of the Dallas Theological Seminary's decision to make it their primary interpretation of the end times and other themes through it.

It is the very system that scripture in 2Pe 2:1 warns us about..."But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."​

If you click on the link below, you can read the background for yourself. It may just be the eyeopener you need. After that just look up John Nelson Darby. His character and education is known to be questionable.
n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism#:~:text=Dispensationalism%20developed%20as%20a%20system%20from%20the%20teachings,considered%20the%20implications%20of%20Isaiah%2032%20for%20Israel.

 

[Guojing]

I can assure you that it was not a "rant". Although Darby is not the "origin" of dispensationalism, he is known as "enhancing" or "uniting together" bits and pieces of the system and then promoting his newly devised system of interpreting scripture throughout England and Scotland. Then a person by the name of C.I . Scofield took the notes and added them to the King James Bible and then brought the idea to the USA where book sellers saw a potential to make huge profits from Scofield's Bible. It then became the foundation of the Dallas Theological Seminary's decision to make it their primary interpretation of the end times and other themes through it.

It is the very system that scripture in 2Pe 2:1 warns us about..."But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."​

If you click on the link below, you can read the background for yourself. It may just be the eyeopener you need. After that just look up John Nelson Darby. His character and education is known to be questionable.
n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism#:~:text=Dispensationalism%20developed%20as%20a%20system%20from%20the%20teachings,considered%20the%20implications%20of%20Isaiah%2032%20for%20Israel.

You don't need to know anything about Darby in order to understand the Bible literally.

I never read any of his writings, nor heard about him, until people like you drop his name to me.

Do you want to go back to Matthew 15:24 and discuss whether Jesus meant what he said there?

 

[ShineyDays2]

until people like you drop his name to me.

Maybe you should listen if others are trying to get you to see that your dispensational beliefs are far from being scripture based. For example read 1 Thess 4:13-18. Where do you see a "1,000 year millennium" in it?

 

[Guojing]

Maybe you should listen if others are trying to get you to see that your dispensational beliefs are far from being scripture based. For example read 1 Thess 4:13-18. Where do you see a "1,000 year millennium" in it?

I see you are no longer interested in your original question to me about taking bible passages literally.

Alright then, we can move on.

 

[ShineyDays2]

see you are no longer interested in your original question to me about taking bible passages literally.

?? That is why I asked you about 1 Thess 4:13-18! If you read it and take it "literally" AS IT IS WRITTEN WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING TO THE TEXT then, if you honestly adhere to "rightly dividing the word of truth*" (according to Vine's definition below); those verses do not reveal a "raptured church, nor a 1,000 millennium" in them. Dispensationalism, via JND's method of teaching, inserts that theory that you seem to hold to in order make the false theology work.

You claimed that you "interpret scripture literally" now show me that you do in 1 Thess and then we can move on to Matthew.
-----------------------------------
*Strong's Number: g3718
Greek: orthotomeo
Divide, Divider, Dividing:

lit., "to cut straight" (orthos, "straight," temno, "to cut"), is found in 2Ti 2:15, AV, "rightly dividing," RV, "handling aright" (the word of truth); the meaning passed from the idea of cutting or "dividing," to the more general sense of "rightly dealing with a thing."
What is intended here is not "dividing" Scripture from Scripture, but teaching Scripture accurately.
​

(bold, italics and underlines are mine.)

​

 

[Timtofly]

Maybe you should listen if others are trying to get you to see that your dispensational beliefs are far from being scripture based. For example read 1 Thess 4:13-18. Where do you see a "1,000 year millennium" in it?

By this logic, so is amil and post mill. All human theology without a shred of Scriptural proof.

Where does Paul claim in these verses: "in the 20th century it is OK to deny a millennium"?

 

[ShineyDays2]

By this logic, so is amil and post mill. All human theology without a shred of Scriptural proof.

Human theology? Scriptural proof while sticking to the context, without adding to scripture as dispensationalism does, is "human theology?" I'll pose the same question to you then:

"...read 1 Thess 4:13-18. Where do you see a "1,000 year millennium" in it?​

Where does Paul claim in these verses: "in the 20th century it is OK to deny a millennium"?

"And just where in 1 Thess 4:13-18 does it say that it there IS a "millennium" to deny in the 20th century or any other century?"​

 

[Timtofly]

?? That is why I asked you about 1 Thess 4:13-18! If you read it and take it "literally" AS IT IS WRITTEN WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING TO THE TEXT then, if you honestly adhere to "rightly dividing the word of truth*" (according to Vine's definition below); those verses do not reveal a "raptured church, nor a 1,000 millennium" in them. Dispensationalism, via JND's method of teaching, inserts that theory that you seem to hold to in order make the false theology work.

You claimed that you "interpret scripture literally" now show me that you do in 1 Thess and then we can move on to Matthew.
-----------------------------------
*Strong's Number: g3718
Greek: orthotomeo
Divide, Divider, Dividing:

lit., "to cut straight" (orthos, "straight," temno, "to cut"), is found in 2Ti 2:15, AV, "rightly dividing," RV, "handling aright" (the word of truth); the meaning passed from the idea of cutting or "dividing," to the more general sense of "rightly dealing with a thing."
What is intended here is not "dividing" Scripture from Scripture, but teaching Scripture accurately.
​

(bold, italics and underlines are mine.)

​

Amill cannot use 1 Thessalonians 4 to claim anything about what John wrote in Revelation 20. Paul was not addressing Revelation 20. Paul was talking about the Second Coming.

13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Where is Paul indicating this would happen in 1900+ years? Has it been 1900+ years since Paul wrote this? We are looking back in hind sight. Paul was not indicating any time frame nor a time frame of 1000 years after this event. Amill cannot use this passage to refute Revelation 20, nor use Paul to prove their interpretation of Revelation 20. When the Second Coming happens it is not post any prophetic millenia. No NT author prophecied any millenia would happen between the first century and the Second Coming.

The only prophecy is from Daniel, and even that is not a settled time frame. Daniel 12:4-7

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.

6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?

7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

What time frame is time, times, and half a times? Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, or millenia?

Did John see the same "time keeper"? Revelation 10:5-7


5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,

6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

This angel declared time was up. The time in Daniel 9 or the time in Daniel 12? Daniel 9 was only 490 years. Is time, times, and half a time; only the 490 years? 140 years is a time. 280 years is times. 70 years is half a time. But what does that prove? All but 7 years were over before Jesus was baptized. This does not explain the last 1991 years one bit. Neither does it explain Revelation 20. So claiming a point that takes Revelation 20 out of context, renders it insignificant, makes it say something it does not in relationship to the first century, is only human opinion, definitely not God's Word.

 

[Timtofly]

Human theology? Scriptural proof while sticking to the context, without adding to scripture as dispensationalism does, is "human theology?" I'll pose the same question to you then:

"...read 1 Thess 4:13-18. Where do you see a "1,000 year millennium" in it?​

"And just where in 1 Thess 4:13-18 does it say that it there IS a "millennium" to deny in the 20th century or any other century?"​

I am not one to use Scripture to prove human theology. I also do not need corroboration to support human theology.