A problem with premillennialism

[Josheb]

Greetings again Josheb,

You introduced your favourite question in Post #68, not Post #57 where you only endorsed the OP.

I stand corrected.

The fact remains we're now at Post #181 and no one has answered the question asked correctly, and no one did so when the question was asked. Non-answers and delay ensued, and every premil here, including you, tried to change the subject.

You have repeated the same question in Posts #68, 78, 86, 115, 117 (x2), 121, 140, 153, 163 (x2), 164 (x2) and 170. Some of these Posts actually discuss this question, and some other Posts also discuss this question

Discussing the question is not the same as answering the question. The facts are as I have stated: I did others the courtesy of discussing some of the non-answers, and I did so in hopes that would set an example, and as a sign of respect not received by others. Logically, it is impossible to discuss an answer never answered and no one has answered the question asked.

Not even you.


What was discussed was the question, not the answer to the question asked.

Let me ask a similar question and compare the two:
Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state Jesus will physically be living on earth physically ruling the earth?
Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state that the Throne of David is in Heaven and where does it say that Jesus is now reigning on the Throne of David?

First, you don't get to ask questions until the question first put to you is answered and, second, I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THE SECOND QUESTION!!!!! and I did so with an explicit statement from scripture!

Why isn't the question asked being answered? Why is what was posted in answer to the throne's place being ignored? Why are questions already answered being repeated? Why are non-answers being misrepresented as answers to the question asked?

Why are you wasting everyone's time and trying to hijack this op?

Yes, you have responded to both threads.

And I will keep that content in those threads. I will NOT be collaborating with any efforts to hijack this op. This op is about premillennialism's failed rule of Jesus. There cannot be a successful rule if it ends in rebellion and there cannot be any premillennial physically earthly rule at all if Jesus is not physically on the earth physically ruling for that thousand years.

So.....

Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state Jesus will physically be living on earth physically ruling the earth?

.

But how does a rebellion at the end of the 1000 years in any way invalidate the clear teaching of the millennium?

Great question. The answer has, AGAIN, already been provided.

Why isn't the question asked being answered? Why is what was posted in answer to the throne's place being ignored? Why are questions already answered being repeated? Why are non-answers being misrepresented as answers to the question asked?

Why are you wasting everyone's time and trying to hijack this op?

and the return of Christ before the beginning of the millennium?

This is not about the return of Christ per se. This is about the premillennial view of the premillennial return of Christ, which is inherently and expressly reported to be tied to the thousand years of Revelation 20. There is nothing in Revelation 19 or 20 that explicitly states Jesus is physically on the earth physically ruling for a thousand years. Nothing! In fact, there is nothing in the entire first 20 chapters of Revelation ever reporting Jesus is physically on the earth physically ruling for the thousand years. Nothing. There is, INSTEAD, multiple verses explicitly reporting Jesus is in heaven commanding from heaven commands that have their effect in the heavens and on earth. There is, INSTEAD, the clear, explicit report in chapters 21 and 22 of Jesus coming to earth - AFTER the thousand years is over and Satan and the rebellion has been addressed.

Once again, ALL of this has already been posted.

Why isn't the question asked being answered? Why is what was posted in answer to the throne's place being ignored? Why are questions already answered being repeated? Why are non-answers being misrepresented as answers to the question asked?

Why are you wasting everyone's time and trying to hijack this op?
.

The rebellion will NOT be the whole populace living at the end of the 1000 years...

No one said it was.

...and there is no indication what percentage of the population will revolt.

So what?

How do you understand Acts 1:10-11?

When you answer my question with either a verse explicitly stating Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for the thousand years OR come right out and post, "There is no such verse." I will answer that question. I have already gone beyond what was necessary. I voluntarily addressed a few of the other positions and covered those passages with much greater detail and accuracy than any premil here. You do not get to ask any more questions until the question(s) asked are answered and I will NOT be collaborating with any attempt to hijack this op for your own purposes. I am not chasing anyone around the thread from this verse to that verse and then another and another ad nauseam without the premil ever answering any question put to them.

There are five main eschatological povs (in the order of their historical development):

1. Historical Premillennialism
2. Amillennialism
3. Postmillennialism
4. Idealism
5. Dispensational Premillennialism

The non-premil versions all agree on the answer to the question of Acts 1:10-11 and anyone who has studied the history of Christian eschatology already knows the answer. Four of them all agree about the relevance of Israel in Christian eschatology. Anyone who has studied the history of Christian eschatology knows that, too.


Just answer the question asked. Don't make suggestions. Answer the specific, specified question asked.

 

[Josheb]

Hijack?

Yes, hijack.

You've done better than most, but you have NOT addressed the op's inquiry with any substance or answered the presuppositional question I asked. What you've done is post avoidant content. The entirety of Post 179 proves it! All that time and effort used to write Post 179 could have been spent answering the op's inquiry AND answering my question! Post 179 does not further the discussion one bit and now that I have pointed that out to you the next post will tell us more about whether or not you are here to discuss THIS op or not.

Is the subject the OP or the subject that you introduced with your favourite question from Post #68 and then constantly repeated.

Yes!

Not only has that already been explained previously, but the author of this op "Loved" Post 57 , repeatedly "Liked" posts emphasizing the question, and on one occasion openly expressed affirmation of one premil's "hogwash." So.... once again.....

Why isn't the question asked being answered? Why is what was posted in answer to the throne's place being ignored? Why are questions already answered being repeated? Why are non-answers being misrepresented as answers to the question asked?

Why are you wasting everyone's time and trying to hijack this op?

.

I suggest that I have answered your question.

Suggestions were not requested. EXPLICIT scripture was requested, and you most definitely have not provided a single verse from anywhere in the Bible EXPLICITLY stating Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for a thousand years. Nor have you done us the courtesy and respect of posting, "There is no such verse." Instead, an attempt to change the conversation was made by "suggesting" verse read inferentially to imply things not explicitly stated.


Why isn't the question asked being answered? Why is what was posted in answer to the throne's place being ignored? Why are questions already answered being repeated? Why are non-answers being misrepresented as answers to the question asked?

Why are you wasting everyone's time and trying to hijack this op?





And, lastly, I have explained all this more than once. The question speaks to the presuppositional nature of premillennialism. BUT that is not all the question does. The question - when answered correctly - necessarily prompts a discussion about the underlying assumptions of premillennialism AND the way premillennialism makes premillennialists eisegetically read scripture. That's not all because when the question is answered incorrectly that then evidences the fact (most) premillennialists will not answer the question correctly (even though they could if they sincerely wanted to do so) and that, in turn, proves questions like the one asked in this op cannot be discussed with premillennialists.

Read through the entire thread again and verify for yourself how many premils answered the question asked in this op with substance.

Then ask yourself two questions: 1) why do we premillennialists do what we did? and 2) Why do I want to be a member of the group that behaves that way?

Why isn't the question asked being answered? Why is what was posted in answer to the throne's place being ignored? Why are questions already answered being repeated? Why are non-answers being misrepresented as answers to the question asked?

Why are you wasting everyone's time and trying to hijack this op?



Just answer the question asked, not questions not asked.

Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state Jesus will physically be living on earth physically ruling the earth?


And I will then gladly answer any op-relevant question asked of me.

 

[Musicmaster]

The fallacy of loaded questions will always remain a fallacy, no matter how vehemently and how repeatedly one hammers on it, over and over and over. Once it becomes a manic practice in repetition, that's when it's best to just walk away and let the perpetrator feel as though he has won the debate. Proverbs deals quite extensively with such, and the wisdom in Proverbs is indeed inspired.

Educated scholars generally know better than to use that type of battering ram to beat others into submission, but it doesn't work on everyone. Dawkins is one such individual who poisons the wells of discussions in this manner, mainly because he debates things that are outside his area of expertise.

MM

 

[Josheb]

The fallacy of loaded questions will always remain a fallacy...

That is the fallacy.

My question is not fallacious, and it has been explained how and why it is not fallacious. Calling any not-fallacious question fallacy is fallacious.

This op is about how it is Jesus' physical thousand-year rule can end in rebellion and not be deemed a failure. Presuppositionally, speaking, there CANNOT be a physical rule if Jesus is not physically living on the earth physically ruling for those thousand years. That is a logical necessity, NOT a fallacy. Therefore, the question that correctly begs, is "Where does scripture explicitly state Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for that thousand years?"

And the answer to that question is, "Nowhere."

But it turns out to be hard as hell to get a premillennialist to answer the question asked correctly. Instead, the question is dodged and a selective pile of verses are posted that do not answer the specific question asked. The discussion then shows all those selectively employed verses are read inferentially. Premillennialist do not start with what is explicitly stated. All the non-premils in this thread do. Premils do not start with something explicitly stating Jesus is physically on earth physically ruling for a thousand years. They start with inference.

There is nothing inherently wrong with inference. EVERYONOE has some degree of inference in their exegesis. All doctrines are made from some degree of inference. All of them. The soundest of exegesis starts with what is explicitly stated. That's a fact of exegesis. That's not an opinion. That's not a misrepresentation. That's not a fallacy. The first rule of exegesis is read the text exactly as written unless there is something stated in the text giving reason not to do so. Therefore, the question asked is exactly where every single Christian should start when forming doctrine. "Where does scripture explicitly state what I believe?" There is nothing fallacious about the question and the question is presuppositionally, directly related to the question about the post-thousand-year rebellion.

The fallacy of loaded questions will always remain a fallacy...

The posts prove otherwise, and they reason I'm ignoring your posts is because the posts are off-topic, irrational, and at times just plain wrong. There is nothing fallacious about the question asked.

Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state Jesus will physically be living on earth physically ruling the earth?

I don't know, Josh, and I don't care. I'm not interested in answering that question and I think it fallacious. All I will post is what I want to post regardless of what anyone else has to say on the matter.

Yeah, okay. Thank you for your time.​

.

 

[Musicmaster]

That is the fallacy.

My question is not fallacious, and it has been explained how and why it is not fallacious. Calling any not-fallacious question fallacy is fallacious.

And if the deceived knew they were deceived, then they would not be deceived.

I'm not going to get into meaningless tit-for-tat crap with you.

If you want to have an intelligent conversation with me, then by all means, do so. I saw no justification for your demand for an explicit statement for Christ ruling from upon this earth. I showed to you the very strong inferences, implications and even arguments from silence as you have done, and you persist in thinking that your argument from silence is somehow more credible.

That only drives us to am impasse, which is a dead end going nowhere fast.

So, what do you want? Do you want someone to say that you won? That would be an empty accolade, so I'm not comfortable offering a false praise on that basis. The throne of David upon which Christ will sit has been and always will be on this earth. Ruling vicariously and from afar just isn't in the cards (or, rather, verses in this case). You and I simply agree to disagree at best.

Those who remain here from the start of the tribulation, taking their chances at trying to survive one out of every two people being killed in the first 42 months, my heart goes out to them. They will get a taste of the wrath of the Lamb at the very outset, at the opening of the very first seal, except Israel, which will be enjoying the peace treaty the first 42 months, but will then have to flee into the mountains at the middle when the man of sin breaks that covenant. If you're here and still alive up to that point, you will then see the beginning of the bowl judgements staring in the second half, and will see the requirement for the mark to buy and sell, and Yahshuah's Second Coming if you're still alive at the end when He comes.

Good luck to you...even though I don't believe in luck...

MM

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Josheb,

Just answer the question asked, not questions not asked.
Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state Jesus will physically be living on earth physically ruling the earth?

The situation resolves to the following:
Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state Jesus will physically be living on earth physically ruling the earth?
Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state that the Throne of David is in Heaven and where does it say that Jesus is now reigning on the Throne of David?

The following clearly teaches that Jesus is at present seated on the Father's Throne after being invited by Yahweh according to Psalm 110:1. Jesus speaks of another Throne, and this is the Throne of David, and he will be seated on the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem for the 1000 years.

Revelation 3:21–22 (KJV): 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Josheb]

And if the deceived knew they were deceived, then they would not be deceived.

I do hope that is not an off-topic ad hominem insinuating someone other than you is deceived and you are, therefore, better then whoever that might be.


Can you provide a verse in scripture that explicitly states Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for the thousand years, or not? If so, then do so. If not then say, "No."

Greetings again Josheb,

The situation resolves to the following:
Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state Jesus will physically be living on earth physically ruling the earth?
Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state that the Throne of David is in Heaven and where does it say that Jesus is now reigning on the Throne of David?

The following clearly teaches that Jesus is at present seated on the Father's Throne after being invited by Yahweh according to Psalm 110:1. Jesus speaks of another Throne, and this is the Throne of David, and he will be seated on the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem for the 1000 years.

Revelation 3:21–22 (KJV): 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Kind regards
Trevor

Revelation 3 has Jesus in heaven, not on earth. Revelation 3 foreshadows Revelation 21, not Revelation 20.

Revelation 3:10-13
Because you have kept the word of my perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my new name. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'

Revelation 21:1-8
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He *said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." Then He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Revelation 21 happens after the thousand years of Revelation 20 has come and gone. It is post-millennial. Revelation does not explicitly report Jesus coming to earth until chapter 21. Until then Jesus is repeatedly stated to be in heaven and everything that happens in the first twenty chapters is commanded from heaven, having effects on both the heavens and the earth. Revelation 3:10-13 is the only place the words "earth" and "heaven" are found in the entire chapter. Post 186's view of Revelation 3:21-22 is prejudicially read through the premillennial view the throne is a physical throne, but I have already posted the verses that explicitly state and thereby prove Jesus' throne is NOT a physical seat here on earth. Acts 2 makes it very clear that David's prophecy of a descendant of his sitting on an eternal throne is not about a physical chair physically on earth from which Jesus physically rules. The prophesied eternal throne of Daivd is the resurrection!


Acts 2:29-36
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

When God swore to David that He would set a descendant of David's on David's throne, God was speaking about the resurrection of His anointed one, and the fact the anointed one would NOT see decay in the grave. That promised throne is the resurrection, not a physical chair on earth. Jesus will resurrect from the dead and he will remain seated at his Father's right hand (in heaven) until his Father defeats all his enemies (Ps. 1).

Post 186 does not "reconcile" anything. What Post 186 does is misrepresent scripture. It does not answer the question asked. You're still trying to dodge what should otherwise be a very easily answered question; one that should not be avoided, and one that will further the discussion op-relevantly when answered correctly.


Can you provide a verse in scripture that explicitly states Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for the thousand years, or not? If so, then do so. If not then say, "No." I am not interested in anything else from either of you until the question asked has been correctly answered.

 

[Musicmaster]

My question is not fallacious, and it has been explained how and why it is not fallacious. Calling any not-fallacious question fallacy is fallacious.

You just don't get it. You have already been answered concerning that question, and you continue to repeat it as if that somehow legitimizes it.

I saw no justification for your demand for an explicit statement for Christ ruling from upon this earth. I showed to you the very strong inferences, implications and even arguments from silence as you have done, and you persist in thinking that your argument from silence is somehow more credible.

That only drives us to am impasse, which is a dead end going nowhere fast.

So, what do you want? Do you want someone to say that you won? That would be an empty accolade, so I'm not comfortable offering a false praise on that basis. The throne of David upon which Christ will sit has been and always will be on this earth. Ruling vicariously and from afar just isn't in the cards (or, rather, verses in this case). You and I simply agree to disagree at best.

Those who remain here from the start of the tribulation, taking their chances at trying to survive one out of every two people being killed in the first 42 months, my heart goes out to them. They will get a taste of the wrath of the Lamb at the very outset, at the opening of the very first seal, except Israel, which will be enjoying the peace treaty the first 42 months, but will then have to flee into the mountains at the middle when the man of sin breaks that covenant. If you're here and still alive up to that point, you will then see the beginning of the bowl judgements staring in the second half, and will see the requirement for the mark to buy and sell, and Yahshuah's Second Coming if you're still alive at the end when He comes.

Good luck to you...even though I don't believe in luck...

MM

 

[Josheb]

You just don't get it.

Ad hominem noted.

You have already been answered concerning that question...

The posts prove otherwise. Not a single verse quted explicitly states Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for a thousand years.

...and you continue to repeat it as if that somehow legitimizes it.

No, I continue to repeat it in hopes some premillennial will answer the question asked correctly. You continuing to deny the question, refusing to answer it correctly, resorting to ad hominem and other fallacious responses does not change the facts in evidence.

I saw no justification for your demand...

Nice red herring. I did not demand anything and the justification for the question has been posted more than once in this thread. Just re-read the thread. There cannot be any physical earthly rule if Jesus is not physically on the planet and any doctrine failing to build from what scripture explicitly states is dubious at best.

I showed to you the very strong inferences...

I did not ask for inferences. I asked for explicit statements. ,

implications...

I did not ask for implications.

and even arguments from silence as you have done..

No, you failed to correctly understand what consitutes an argument from silence. The book of Revelation repeatedly states Jesus is in heaven and not on the earth (until chapter 21). The silence occurs in juxtaposition to the repeated explicit statements, not silence on both sides.

...and you persist in thinking that your argument from silence is somehow more credible.

This thread is not about my views. When you try to make the thread about anyone else's views but the premillennial view you are attempting to shift the onus away from the op. It's fallacious and cowardly. It also delays the discussion because if someone actually answered the question asked correctly we could all move on discussing the correct answer.

Which means every premillennial here does not actually want to discuss the problem(s) with premillennialism. They just want to muck up the discussion.

That only drives us to am impasse, which is a dead end going nowhere fast.

Exactly.

So just answer the question asked. Don't post inferences. Don't post implication. Don't post fallacies. Just answer the question asked.



Can you provide me with a scripture explicitly stating Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for Revelation 20's thousand years?


If the answer is yes, then post the verse. If the answer is no, then say so. Impasse passed! Stop attacking me for y'all's failures.

So, what do you want?

I want an answer to the specific specified question asked and not anything else.

Do you want someone to say that you won?

It's not a matter of winning or losing. That is another red herring. I've already stated the goal:

a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case made from well-rendered scripture.

If everyone here abided by a well-rendered scripture we'd have two things: 1) a flowing conversation and 2) a lot more consensus with scripture. If you and I agree with each other but our agreement bears no consensus with scripture, then our agreement is worthless. It's not about winning.

Those who remain here from the start of the tribulation...

Just cannot stay on topic, can you?


This op is about the problem with premillennialism in which it is held Jesus physically comes to earth before the thousand years of Revelation 20 physically living and physically ruling on physical earth for a thousand years but that rule ends in rebellion. That is what this op is about. Nothing more. Every single word every single premillennialist has posted that has nothing to do with the one problem is all off-topic. That includes the entirety of Post 188. No one made you post that nonsense but you.

The still unanswered question I have asked gets to the foundation of the problem because if Jesus is never explicitly stated to be living on the earth physically ruling everything from the earth for those thousand years, then 1) the problem does not exist and 2) premillennialism has no foundation in anything scripture explicitly states. That lack is worth discussing but it is nearly impossible to get a premillennialist to have that conversation. Ten pages worth of posts prove it. If scripture never actually, explicitly states Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for those thousand years that's a huge problem. Verses that mention his coming do not qualify as living. Coming for a visit it not the same thing as coming to live for a thousand years. Standing someplace on earth is not the same thing as living on the earth for a millennium. Not once have I disputed the fact verses exist stating he comes or stands someplace. That's not what I asked for.

I asked for a verse explicitly stating he is physically living on earth physically ruling for those thousand years and I asked that question because Revelation never states Jesus is living on the earth until chapter 21 and between chapters one and 20 the book repeatedly states he is in heaven.




Can you provide a verse in scripture that explicitly states Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for the thousand years, or not? If so, then do so. If not then say, "No." Move past the impasse.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Josheb and greetings Musicmaster,

The prophesied eternal throne of Daivd is the resurrection!

The resurrection and David's Throne are two different entities. Jesus was raised from the dead and given a place in God the Father's Throne, and in the future he will sit upon the Throne of David Revelation 3:21-22.

We had a beneficial study weekend, both spiritually and fellowship. We had four studies on the Life Of Jehoshaphat, each study covering the four chapters 2 Chronicles 17-20. Our speaker was from interstate and is the editor of one of our two Australian magazines. We had quite a few visitors from other meetings that helped make the occasion warm and enjoyable. One outcome of the speaker's visit was the prospect of my purchasing his new commentary on Isaiah which became available last Thursday. He is going to have three volumes, and the first only is available and covers Isaiah chapters 1-23. I have heard many talks on the early chapters of Isaiah, specifically chapters 1-12, and with the ebb and flow of people and ideas there is some variation, though I should imagine all of our talks would be different to your perspective @Josheb. I have listened to a series of talks given by the speaker in 2006 on the early chapters of Isaiah, and I will be interested if he has altered some of the perspective presented nearly 20 years ago.

Those who remain here from the start of the tribulation, taking their chances at trying to survive one out of every two people being killed in the first 42 months, my heart goes out to them. They will get a taste of the wrath of the Lamb at the very outset, at the opening of the very first seal, except Israel, which will be enjoying the peace treaty the first 42 months, but will then have to flee into the mountains at the middle when the man of sin breaks that covenant. If you're here and still alive up to that point, you will then see the beginning of the bowl judgements staring in the second half, and will see the requirement for the mark to buy and sell, and Yahshuah's Second Coming if you're still alive at the end when He comes.

Speaking about variation, my perspective is nearly totally different to what you have stated above. I differ on the 42 months, the first seal, the fleeing into the mountains, the bowl judgements, the mark to buy and sell. Perhaps not suitable for this thread, but it does surprise me that you state your perspective in an authoritarian way as if your particular perspective is 100% correct.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Musicmaster]

Ad hominem noted.

Please educate yourself on the definition of ad hominem. Stating that you aren't getting something is NOT ad hominem.

The posts prove otherwise. Not a single verse quted explicitly states Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for a thousand years.

There is no rule in scholastic, accepted hermeneutics that requires explicit statements.

No, I continue to repeat it in hopes some premillennial will answer the question asked correctly. You continuing to deny the question, refusing to answer it correctly, resorting to ad hominem and other fallacious responses does not change the facts in evidence.

I told you many posts ago that there is no explicit declaration of such. There doesn't have to be when considering the lack of any explicit mention of Christ returning to Heaven immediately after setting His Feet down upon this earth, causing the Mount of Olives to split in two. You have nothing at which you can point that shows that He immediately or soon thereafter returned to Heaven with the saints who will come with him. Your argument from silence is now met with another argument from silence that reveals its bankruptcy in logic. I also showed to you strong inferences and indicators of His presence on this earth, one of which was that He will rule from David's throne, which was never removed from this earth.

What are you going to do with that? Are you going to ignore it?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Speaking about variation, my perspective is nearly totally different to what you have stated above. I differ on the 42 months, the first seal, the fleeing into the mountains, the bowl judgements, the mark to buy and sell. Perhaps not suitable for this thread, but it does surprise me that you state your perspective in an authoritarian way as if your particular perspective is 100% correct.

Kind regards
Trevor

Fair enough. What is your take on Revelation itself? Do you believe, as some out there do, that Revelation is a jumbled mess, or that it's chronological?

As for me, I believe it's chronological, with perspective shifts interjected throughout, which is not at all different from many movies that we have all seen. I've encountered many people who decry the alleged jumble of Revelation. When I ask them about the chronology that is indeed present, and what they have done in study to realize that shifting perspectives to Heaven and back to earth, that there's nothing unusual about any of that, with some of the Heavenly imagery simply reiterating previous events long before in order to make a point in clarifying who the woman with the "man" child is, leaving absolutely no doubt as to identities. Without that recap, it would have been up in the air as to her identity and that of the "man" child, leaving it all to confusing interpretations that are as wild as so many others I've seen through the years.

The chronology of Revelation is so precise that I'm about to create a 30 foot long scroll banner that will outline, with illustrations, the chronology of Revelation, also drawing upon places like Daniel 11, which is also VERY detailed with precision in chronology given its comparative qualities with secular history. The coincidental nature of Revelation with other writers who have filled in the gaps from the OT and some in the NT, it's all astoundingly accurate and precise.

Granted, there are those who disagree in order to retain faith in their mid, pre-wrath, or post-tribulational dogmas, which is ok. I simply don't hold to the intentional disregard for chronology and cohesion that does exist. When even the people of this earth recognize that even the very beginning of the seals is indeed the start of the "great wrath of the Lamb," that's a pretty good indicator that traipses deeply into the realm of the obvious...at least, to me. Some of my acquaintances ignore all that, demanding that only the bowls are the Lamb's "great tribulation," even though I pointed out "wrath" rather than mere tribulation. Everything that happens during that period is indeed the "wrath of the Lamb" that Revelation makes clear that is it precisely that, Yahshuah's wrath, given that it's His Hand, and ONLY HIs Hand that releases His wrath onto this earth and its populations, starting with the seals, then with the trumpets, then with the bowls. None of that can ever occur without Yahshuah opening the seals.

I also do not take it all as allegorical. Doing so only makes it wide open to subjective interpretation, with men making it say whatever they want it to so, with some even dredging up OT items for comparison to try and interpret various parts in relation to those other images that happen to be similar, if not contextually and objectively consistent as legitimate parallels.

Hope that helps.

MM

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Musicmaster,

What is your take on Revelation itself? Do you believe, as some out there do, that Revelation is a jumbled mess, or that it's chronological?

I believe in the Continuous Historic view of the Book of Revelation. The Seals start at AD 96 and continue to AD 312 the overthrow of the Pagan Roman Empire. The Trumpets start soon after AD 312 and end in 1789 the French Revolution. The Vials start soon after the French Revolution and continue until the return of Christ. I consider that we are already part the way through the 6th Vial.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Musicmaster]

Greetings again Musicmaster,

I believe in the Continuous Historic view of the Book of Revelation. The Seals start at AD 96 and continue to AD 312 the overthrow of the Pagan Roman Empire. The Trumpets start soon after AD 312 and end in 1789 the French Revolution. The Vials start soon after the French Revolution and continue until the return of Christ. I consider that we are already part the way through the 6th Vial.

Kind regards
Trevor

Ah, preterist. Got it.

Thanks

MM

 

[Josheb]

Greetings again Josheb and greetings Musicmaster,

The resurrection and David's Throne are two different entities.

Not according to Acts 2.

Acts 2 explicitly states God was speaking of the resurrection of Christ, that his body would not see decay. That is what the verse actually, factually, explicitly states. When you or anyone else make it say anything other than what is stated then what scripture states is not accepted and believed as written. You may disagree all you like but my response will be the same, the same unendingly, and the same unyieldingly: I will point directly to what is explicitly stated in Acts 2:31 (and I know how much you two loath what is perceived to be ad nauseam).

God was speaking of the resurrection.

 

[Josheb]

Please educate yourself on the definition of ad hominem. Stating that you aren't getting something is NOT ad hominem.

Yes, it is. The argument amounts to, "You lack understanding and because you lack understanding you are wrong, and I am correct." That is a textbook example of ad hominem. It's also completely off topic (neither I nor my faculties of "getting it" are the topic of this discussion) and that makes the comment a red herring (something intended to distract or divert away from the discussion).

Your posts are filled with fallacies and ALL of them occur unnecessarily because all that is requested is a correct answer to the specific question asked.

I told you many posts ago that there is no explicit declaration of such.

And I asked why is it you believe something not stated in scripture while ignoring what is repeatedly stated. Still waiting for that answer.

There doesn't have to be....

I never said there did have to be. What I said in response to that is we should build our doctrine on a foundation of what is stated (which in this case is that Jesus is in heaven until the new city comes down, and that inference-only doctrines are dubious. Still waiting for a relevant response. Not once have I asked any premillennialist here what his or her particular inferences are.

...when considering the lack of any explicit mention of Christ returning to Heaven immediately after setting His Feet down upon this earth...

Is a red herring because there is nothing stating his setting his feet down is premillennial, nothing stating he stays and lives on earth but there is plenty stating he is in heaven until the new city comes down. I've got scripture explicitly stating he is in heaven, and I have piles of scripture stating he is in heaven when premillennialists say he's on earth. I have explicit statements from scripture explicitly stating whenhe comes to heaven and stays.

You guys do not.

...causing the Mount of Olives to split in two.

And that text was addressed with much greater depth and length than any premil here. It is not a text that can be reconciled with premillennialism.

You have nothing...

The posts prove otherwise. There is a huge pile of relevant content I have posted sitting in the thread unattended.

What are you going to do with that?

Wait on you to stop obfuscating and falsely attacking me in hopes you'll eventually get around to an op-relevant conversation addressing all I have brought to bear on the matter of Christ's failed rule, the utter lack of a foundation in premillennialism, the chronic eisegesis found in premillennialism, and what scripture does verifiably explicitly state.

I do not expect a premil to like it.

But if they bother to discuss the op then I do expect them to engage it politely, respectfully, reasonably, rationally, coherently cogently, exegetically and continue to do so topically (this op is not about the whole of premillennialism).

Are you going to ignore it?

LOL!

Wherever the contents is off-topic it has been and will continue to be ignored. Wherever the content is op-relevant it has been addressed, and addressed with scripture better rendered than any premil here has done.


Now link me to the post where you said there is no such verse.

 

[Musicmaster]

Yes, it is. The argument amounts to, "You lack understanding and because you lack understanding you are wrong, and I am correct." That is a textbook example of ad hominem. It's also completely off topic (neither I nor my faculties of "getting it" are the topic of this discussion) and that makes the comment a red herring (something intended to distract or divert away from the discussion).

Your posts are filled with fallacies and ALL of them occur unnecessarily because all that is requested is a correct answer to the specific question asked.

And I asked why is it you believe something not stated in scripture while ignoring what is repeatedly stated. Still waiting for that answer.

I never said there did have to be. What I said in response to that is we should build our doctrine on a foundation of what is stated (which in this case is that Jesus is in heaven until the new city comes down, and that inference-only doctrines are dubious. Still waiting for a relevant response. Not once have I asked any premillennialist here what his or her particular inferences are.

Is a red herring because there is nothing stating his setting his feet down is premillennial, nothing stating he stays and lives on earth but there is plenty stating he is in heaven until the new city comes down. I've got scripture explicitly stating he is in heaven, and I have piles of scripture stating he is in heaven when premillennialists say he's on earth. I have explicit statements from scripture explicitly stating whenhe comes to heaven and stays.

You guys do not.

And that text was addressed with much greater depth and length than any premil here. It is not a text that can be reconciled with premillennialism.

The posts prove otherwise. There is a huge pile of relevant content I have posted sitting in the thread unattended.

Wait on you to stop obfuscating and falsely attacking me in hopes you'll eventually get around to an op-relevant conversation addressing all I have brought to bear on the matter of Christ's failed rule, the utter lack of a foundation in premillennialism, the chronic eisegesis found in premillennialism, and what scripture does verifiably explicitly state.

I do not expect a premil to like it.

But if they bother to discuss the op then I do expect them to engage it politely, respectfully, reasonably, rationally, coherently cogently, exegetically and continue to do so topically (this op is not about the whole of premillennialism).

LOL!

Wherever the contents is off-topic it has been and will continue to be ignored. Wherever the content is op-relevant it has been addressed, and addressed with scripture better rendered than any premil here has done.


Now link me to the post where you said there is no such verse.

You playing the "victim card" is getting very tiring. My pointing out that you didn't get what I was saying is nowhere near ad hominem.

Until you choose to converse with integrity and remain consistent with what I have said, and stop using fallacy labels where they don't even apply, we really have no way of carrying on any kind of productive conversation. Leave the victim card playing to the woke crowd out there. It doesn't work for them, and it certainly doesn't work in your favor.

MM

 

[Josheb]

You playing the "victim card" is getting very tiring. My pointing out that you didn't get what I was saying is nowhere near ad hominem.

Until you choose to converse with integrity and remain consistent with what I have said, and stop using fallacy labels where they don't even apply, we really have no way of carrying on any kind of productive conversation. Leave the victim card playing to the woke crowd out there. It doesn't work for them, and it certainly doesn't work in your favor.

MM

Have you anything op-relevant to post?

 

[Josheb]

The fallacy of loaded questions...

Not op-relevant.

Educated scholars generally know....

Not op-relevant.

And if the deceived knew....

Not op-relevant.

I'm not going to get into meaningless tit-for-tat crap with you.

Not op-relevant.

Good luck to you...even though I don't believe in luck...

Not op-relevant.

Please educate yourself....

Not op-relevant.

Fair enough. What is your take on Revelation itself? Do you believe, as some out there do, that Revelation is a jumbled mess, or that it's chronological?

That is op-relevant.

If Revelation is recapitulative and/or chronological then Jesus does not come down from heaven and stay until chapter 21.

As for me, I believe it's chronological, with perspective shifts interjected throughout...

Then Jesus is stated not to come down until chapter 21, which is after the thousand years of chapter 20. That's a problem for premillennialism.

I also do not take it all as allegorical.

Then you had best find a verse that explicitly states Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for Rev. 20's thousand years.

Ah, preterist. Got it....

Not op-relevant.

You playing the "victim card" is getting very tiring.

Not op-relevant (or true).

My pointing out that you didn't get what I was saying is nowhere near ad hominem.

Yes, it is. It is also not op-relevant.

Until you choose to converse with integrity and remain consistent with what I have said...

Already done. All the op-relevant content has been addressed and most of the irrelevant content has been ignored. This op is about the failed rule of Christ (real or perceived), nothing more.

Have you anything more op-relevant to post?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Musicmaster and Josheb,

Ah, preterist. Got it.

No, firmly and strongly premillennialist.

Not according to Acts 2.

The resurrection and the Throne of David are distinct in Acts 2 also. You cannot merge the two.

Kind regards
Trevor