20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[jgr]

No, I am respecting that Jesus meant he said and said what he meant, but he was only speaking to the nation of Israel during his first coming, as Matthew 15:24 clearly stated.

He meant sheep, and He said sheep.

And sheep are four-footed woolly mammals.

 

[Guojing]

He meant sheep, and He said sheep.

And sheep are four-footed woolly mammals.

If you want to insist that is referring to sheep, I am also fine. =)

 

[jgr]

If you want to insist that is referring to sheep, I am also fine. =)

You insist that He meant what He said, and said what He meant.

So you insist that that would be four-footed woolly mammals.

 

[Guojing]

You insist that He meant what He said, and said what He meant.

So you insist that that would be four-footed woolly mammals.

I would not say that because of a cross reference verse Matthew 9:36, but as I said, if you insist to see it that way, I will leave that to you.

 

[jgr]

I would not say that because of a cross reference verse Matthew 9:36, but as I said, if you insist to see it that way, I will leave that to you.

You say that He said what He meant.

So when He said "sheep" in Matthew 15:24, He must have meant "sheep".

 

[Guojing]

You say that He said what He meant.

So when He said "sheep" in Matthew 15:24, He must have meant "sheep".

If you don't want to use Matthew 9:36 to understand what he meant after that, in Matthew 15:24, as I said, I leave it to you. We can agree to disagree =)

 

[jgr]

If you don't want to use Matthew 9:36 to understand what he meant after that, in Matthew 15:24, as I said, I leave it to you. We can agree to disagree =)

You claim that He said what He meant.
But in Matthew 15:24, when He said "sheep", but He didn't mean "sheep",
your claim is false.

 

[Guojing]

You claim that He said what He meant.
But in Matthew 15:24, when He said "sheep", but He didn't mean "sheep",
your claim is false.

Why do people find it so hard to say "Let's agree to disagree"?

 

[ShineyDays2]

but he was only speaking to the nation of Israel during his first coming, as Matthew 15:24 clearly stated.

That's a different subject and I know you are using it to avoid the truth of "rightly interpreting verses such as..

Eph 2:14- "For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility,"​

The false doctrine of dispensationalism puts the wall back up again - a very serious thing when Jesus came to bring peace between the two.

I am respecting that Jesus meant he said and said what he meant,

And I respect that Jesus said what he said...and because of the many scriptures that indicate that those verses in Mark 9 clearly is a reference to sin in ones lives that needs to end if they wish to the New Jerusalem as it says in Rev 22:15...

"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."​

These are those who never changed their lives for the purpose of following Christ. But nowhere do you see "...but those who mutilated their bodies to get rid of sins (like the above mentioned sins,) are those who do enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Now, I have better things to do than continue with anyone that came here just to attack amil's views instead of seeing scripture as both literal as well as symbolic - depending on the context.

 

[ShineyDays2]

Why do people find it so hard to say "Let's agree to disagree"?

Because it only means the two people are firm in their beliefs to the point they will not change it. However, it is impossible, IMHO, for two interpretations that are diametrically opposed (as in Mark 9) to ever agree without the guidance of the Holy Spirit and a bit of common sense to go with it.

 

[Guojing]

That's a different subject and I know you are using it to avoid the truth of "rightly interpreting verses such as..

Eph 2:14- "For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility,"​

The false doctrine of dispensationalism puts the wall back up again - a very serious thing when Jesus came to bring peace between the two.
And I respect that Jesus said what he said...and because of the many scriptures that indicate that those verses in Mark 9 clearly is a reference to sin in ones lives that needs to end if they wish to the New Jerusalem as it says in Rev 22:15...

"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."​

These are those who never changed their lives for the purpose of following Christ. But nowhere do you see "...but those who mutilated their bodies to get rid of sins (like the above mentioned sins,) are those who do enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Now, I have better things to do than continue with anyone that came here just to attack amil's views instead of seeing scripture as both literal as well as symbolic - depending on the context.

Ephesians 2:14 is after the nation of Israel has fallen (Romans 11:11)

Are you trying to insert the revelation of Ephesians 2:14 into Jesus first coming? The wall was only broken down much later (Ephesians 2:11-12)

 

[Guojing]

Because it only means the two people are firm in their beliefs to the point they will not change it. However, it is impossible, IMHO, for two interpretations that are diametrically opposed (as in Mark 9) to ever agree without the guidance of the Holy Spirit and a bit of common sense to go with it.

Romans 14:5 not a clear advice for matters like that?

 

[ShineyDays2]

Romans 14:5 not a clear advice for matters like that?

Rom 14:5&6a - "One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord."​

This is referring to a difference of interpreting which day is supposed to be the day of worship for Christians. Scripture clearly indicates that "the day" is not important - it is setting aside one day of the week to worship Him. This is totally different than distorting scripture as dispensationalist do in Mark 9.

I repeat, "Now, I have better things to do than continue with anyone that came here just to attack amil's views instead of seeing scripture as either literal or as symbolic - depending on the context."

 

[jgr]

Why do people find it so hard to say "Let's agree to disagree"?

I don't agree with false claims.

Do you?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I don't agree with false claims.

Do you?

I am with you and Moriah's Song on this!

 

[Spiritual Jew]

How dead in sin does one have to be, to be literally dead?

Just one sin is all it takes for someone to be spiritually dead in their sins.

You cannot be alive in Christ from the time you were inside your mother's womb. Therefore if you were never dead, you have no need to ever be alive in Christ.

I didn't say otherwise.

You cannot claim to be alive in Christ, until after being dead in sin.

I didn't say otherwise.

This body is the result of being dead in sin. Did your body change when you became alive in Christ? Did you receive a new body at that moment?

No, of course not. Why do you ask?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I already stated Matthew 15:24.

Are you saying that you think Christ's commands only apply to the house of Israel? If so, what do you make of this:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The things He commanded them would include gouging out their eye if it caused them to sin and cutting off their hand if it caused them to sin, right? Have you gouged out at least one of your eyes and one of your hands? If not, why are you not obeying what Jesus commanded? I'm sure they have caused you to sin since that is true for all of us.

In bible discussions, learn to just "agree to disagree".

All these are non-salvific issues, as long as you are putting your faith in the gospel that Paul preached to us in the Body of Christ in 1 Cor 15:1-4, we will see each other in heaven.

If you're going to promote a certain doctrine on this forum then you should be prepared to defend it, but I'm not getting the sense that you are able to do so.

 

[Guojing]

Are you saying that you think Christ's commands only apply to the house of Israel? If so, what do you make of this:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The things He commanded them would include gouging out their eye if it caused them to sin and cutting off their hand if it caused them to sin, right? Have you gouged out at least one of your eyes and one of your hands? If not, why are you not obeying what Jesus commanded? I'm sure they have caused you to sin since that is true for all of us.

If you're going to promote a certain doctrine on this forum then you should be prepared to defend it, but I'm not getting the sense that you are able to do so.

Matthew 28:19-20 is based on reaching the Jews that have been scattered in every nation since post Solomon, as stated in Acts 1:6, Acts 2:5 and Acts 10:28.

It was meant for the little flock to preach to Israel, so no, it does not apply to us.

We are still in Ephesians 2:11-12 post cross, before Paul was saved to reach to us. Our commission to reach non-believers can be found in 2 Corinthians 5:11-21

 

[Guojing]

Rom 14:5&6a - "One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord."​

This is referring to a difference of interpreting which day is supposed to be the day of worship for Christians. Scripture clearly indicates that "the day" is not important - it is setting aside one day of the week to worship Him. This is totally different than distorting scripture as dispensationalist do in Mark 9.

I repeat, "Now, I have better things to do than continue with anyone that came here just to attack amil's views instead of seeing scripture as either literal or as symbolic - depending on the context."

I am more interested in your response to 20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

But if you have better things to do, we can move on.

 

[Guojing]

I don't agree with false claims.

Do you?

Naturally, the claims that one disagree with, one would think they are false.

Opinions does not mean facts.