A problem with premillennialism

[3 Resurrections]

What you should both do is find out the details about the geography of the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, Azel and the sea and then Google to find out about the largest earthquakes, like the one last year in Turkey that created a 900-foot canyon. Zechariah 14's earthquake makes that one look miniscule

The earthquake in Zechariah 14:"5 is directly compared to the earthquake in King Uzziah's day - not quite so catastrophic as you are supposing, but still significant enough to make it into historians' accounts (like Josephus).

This set of Zechariah 14:4-5 verses are translated better in versions such as the LXX. A verb has been mistranslated there in many of the other translations. Nobody was going to "flee" through a valley when Christ returned to the Mount of Olives. (Where and how would they have been able to run from Christ anyway?) Instead, the valley was going to be "blocked up" with the rocks broken apart by the earthquake - landslide rubble which fell downhill into the Kidron Valley, blocking up the Kidron Valley as far as Azal, just past the southeastern corner of Jerusalem's walls.

This had happened once before in King Uzziah's day, and it similarly happened once again at Christ second coming in AD 70. The Kidron Valley has been documented by archaeologists to have this deep layer of earthquake rubble lying in the bed of the Kidron Valley today, just as prophesied, which dates to the first century.

You have already been shown where it's stated that Yahshuah's Feet touch down upon the earth, upon the Mount of Olives, and nowhere is it stated that He ascends once again to Heaven in order to rule the earth from afar.

Sure, scripture does teach this. 1 Thessalonians 4 has Christ coming to earth bodily for His resurrected saints, and then returning to heaven with them. The resurrected saints would rise to meet Him in the air in the clouds, and they are forever with the Lord. They would not return to this planet on that occasion.

Christ reassured His own disciples that "I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also". That was not going to be Christ remaining on earth. It was Christ returning to heaven after collecting His resurrected saints.

Christ expressed this as His own personal longing on the night of the Last Supper, saying, "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee...Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me..." (John 17:11, 24). Christ's ultimate desire was to gather His resurrected saints to heaven where they could behold His glory in that heavenly environment where Christ rules on His throne at the right hand of the Father.

Zechariah 14:11 And [men] shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

This is the "New Jerusalem" with the "living water" of the Holy Spirit's influence extending to all the nations of the world. The old, physical Jerusalem was destroyed down to the last stone in AD 70, and has no more significance prophetically since the New Jerusalem has superseded it.

 

[Musicmaster]

Sure, scripture does teach this. 1 Thessalonians 4 has Christ coming to earth bodily for His resurrected saints, and then returning to heaven with them. The resurrected saints would rise to meet Him in the air in the clouds, and they are forever with the Lord. They would not return to this planet on that occasion.

Christ reassured His own disciples that "I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also". That was not going to be Christ remaining on earth. It was Christ returning to heaven after collecting His resurrected saints.

Christ expressed this as His own personal longing on the night of the Last Supper, saying, "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee...Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me..." (John 17:11, 24). Christ's ultimate desire was to gather His resurrected saints to heaven where they could behold His glory in that heavenly environment where Christ rules on His throne at the right hand of the Father.


This is the "New Jerusalem" with the "living water" of the Holy Spirit's influence extending to all the nations of the world. The old, physical Jerusalem was destroyed down to the last stone in AD 70, and has no more significance prophetically since the New Jerusalem has superseded it.

I'm not so hip on jumping onto the bandwagon of allegorizing the scriptures into saying something that they don't say in any way, but we're all free to believe whatever we choose.

Also, Paul was not talking about the same event as is stated by Zechariah. They are not one and the same, unless you can show to me where Paul mentioned the splitting in half of the Mount of Olives.

MM

 

[Josheb]

Greetings Josheb,

I find the following passage sufficient evidence:

Acts 3:19–21 (KJV): 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Kind regards
Trevor

I do not care what you find "sufficient evidence," because sufficient evidence is not what was requested. What was requested was an explicit statement. Acts 3:19-21 does not meet that criterion. Furthermore, Acts 3:19-21 does not explicitly state Jesus is physically living on the earth. It states Jesus would be sent AND it explicitly states he must be received in heaven... until the times of restitution of all things NOT the establishment of a physical earthly rule. NONE of the criteria in my question was met so Acts 3:1921 is NOT sufficient evidence for anything requested.

This all could have been avoided had the thread been read because every other premillennial has attempted to supply inferential readings of verses instead of an explicit statement from scripture.

There is a method to my madness and much of it has already been explained in the thread. To begin with, we (Christians) should ALL be building our doctrine first on what is explicitly in God's word. We're not supposed to start with inference. We're not supposed to read into scripture what we want. It is, therefore, ALWAYS good to ask where is the explicit statement upon which this doctrine or that doctrine can be built and justified? Any doctrine that cannot do that must then explain how and why the doctrine is built without an explicit foundation. Both conversations have proven impossible in this thread because not a single premillennialist here can provide a single explicit statement in God's word explicitly stating Jesus is physically living on earth (not stepping on the earth, not sent to the earth, not merely coming to the earth but physically living on the earth for one thousand years, AND not a single premillennialist here has acknowledged that lack SO not one single premillennialist here has been able to discuss how and why they hold to an inferential-only doctrine.

No one here can have either conversation with any premillennial here because none of the premils are showing up for either conversation with any integrity. So..... you will forgive my bluntness. You come to the party late and you're doing what everyone else has already done and that implies the thread was not read to see and avoid all the already-made mistakes. The unintended message is, "I do not care what specifically was asked, and I don't care what others have done, I am going to do just like everyone else and I don't care what Josh thinks even though I know he's going to have the same reply to my not actually answering the question asked that he's had with all the others who tried to pass off inferential readings as explicit statements.

And don't be judging me because I'm not the problem here; I am not the one incapable of providing explicit scripture. Every time I have been asked to provide scripture in this thread I set an example; I posted explicit scripture. I did NOT hypocritically post verses I eisegetically interpret to mean things nowhere actually explicitly not stated. When the matter of interpretation came up I explicitly stated I was purposefully NOT going to be interpreting what things could mean (until we ALL have something explicit from which we can work). I have done my part. There's not a single premillennialist here who has done his/her part here. They have ALL tried to pass of verses premillennialists read inferentially. In other words, without coming right out and saying it, every single one of them have demonstrated the fact premillennialism reads theses scriptures differently than everyone else in Christendom! It is bad enough that Christ's rule ends in rebellion, but before there is any rebellion-ending rule there must first be a Jesus physically living on earth physically ruling for a fixed, finite literal thousand years (not merely setting foot on the planet) for premillennialism to work (both scripturally and logically).

And that then becomes addition content indirectly related to the op because no one should believe a doctrine that can't be founded on something explicitly stated in God's word AND no one should be subscribing to a doctrine that causes its subscribers to misuse scripture, abuse reason, and show contempt for their siblings in Christ who ask very valid and relevant questions like,


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


So..... let's start over. Now that the relevance and importance of this specific question is better understood perhaps you can do one of two options: Either post the explicit verse or post an acknowledgment none exists. Have more integrity than any other premillennialist in this thread. Give them all an example to follow and be immediately and directly forthcoming with an actual answer to the specific question asked and do not waste any more time with verses that do not explicitly state Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for a literal thousand years. When a correct answer has been posted we (everyone here) can then discuss it. It will not matter whether the answer is an actual explicit verse or an acknowledgment of scripture's silence. Either can (and should) be discussed. Just answer the question asked, please. Thanks in advance for doing so.



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




.

 

[Josheb]

You have already been shown where it's stated that Yahshuah's Feet touch down upon the earth...

The question was NOT "Where does scripture explicitly state Jesus' feet touch down on the earth?" The question asked is,


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


And that question has NOT been answered. YOU have been wasting everyone's time with fallacy. YOU have not set any kind of godly example for ANY premillennialist here. I should not have to explain the reason for the question again, but if Post 163 above is given a read then the reasons why the specific question is asked and why it is important for the premillennialist to answer the specific question asked and NOT attempt to answer a question never asked will be understood.

Do not post to me again until the specific question asked is answered or your posts will be ignored until the answer to the question asked is posted.


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




.

 

[Musicmaster]

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

This has already been shown to be the irrational demand that it is.

The argument from silence you are making is similar to yet another argument from silence:

Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state Jesus DID NOT ever state that He will physically be living on earth physically while ruling the earth?

John 21:25 KJV] 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

So, prove to us that He never did state that He would not rule from this earth in Person! It goes both ways!

MM

 

[3 Resurrections]

Also, Paul was not talking about the same event as is stated by Zechariah. They are not one and the same, unless you can show to me where Paul mentioned the splitting in half of the Mount of Olives.

Paul does not have to mention the earthquake and the Mount of Olives location for him to be speaking about the same occasion of Christ's return. 1 Thess. 4 and Zechariah 14:4-7 were both writen about the same event of the coming bodily resurrection at Christ's return. Paul was concentrating on the bodily resurrection aspect of that return, and Zechariah was concentrating on the physical effects on the Mount of Olives at that return. This is no different that the slight difference in the gospel accounts of Christ's ministry. Some included details that the others did indescribing the same occasion.

The overriding concern of the Thessalonian saints was worrying if their beloved dead relatives in the faith had missed the resurrection event or not. Paul was assuring them that those who had already been made alive by resurrection (such as the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints) would not precede their dead relatives in being taken to heaven. The dead saints in the ground would rise first, then be followed immediately afterward by those living resurrected saints who had "remained" on the earth until then.

I'm not so hip on jumping onto the bandwagon of allegorizing the scriptures into saying something that they don't say in any way, but we're all free to believe whatever we choose

This is not my allegory. Calling this "living water" phenomenon flowing from the New Jerusalem as the influence of the Holy Spirit is the exact comparison which Christ made in John 7:38-39. Christ was speaking of this very Zechariah 14:8 verse when He said, "He that believeth on me, AS THE SCRIPTURE HATH SAID, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

We believers are called the "living stones" that compose the New Jerusalem reality, built upon Christ the "chief cornerstone". The "living water" of the Holy Spirit flows out of every one of us, which has continued to flow out to all the nations ever since the New Jerusalem was established with the New Covenant. This is the spiritual reality of Zechariah 14's New Jerusalem. It mirrors the physical reality of the Gihon Spring's literal waters flowing to serve the Old Jerusalem's physical temple requirements for ritual purification. First the natural physical, then that which is spiritual to fulfill the symbolism.

 

[Musicmaster]

Paul does not have to mention the earthquake and the Mount of Olives location for him to be speaking about the same occasion of Christ's return. 1 Thess. 4 and Zechariah 14:4-7 were both writen about the same event of the coming bodily resurrection at Christ's return. Paul was concentrating on the bodily resurrection aspect of that return, and Zechariah was concentrating on the physical effects on the Mount of Olives at that return. This is no different that the slight difference in the gospel accounts of Christ's ministry. Some included details that the others did indescribing the same occasion.

The overriding concern of the Thessalonian saints was worrying if their beloved dead relatives in the faith had missed the resurrection event or not. Paul was assuring them that those who had already been made alive by resurrection (such as the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints) would not precede their dead relatives in being taken to heaven. The dead saints in the ground would rise first, then be followed immediately afterward by those living resurrected saints who had "remained" on the earth until then.

I can see that we differ in our views of the rapture and the second coming of Yahshuah, which is fine. I don't care to change your mind about this since it's a peripheral issue.

This is not my allegory. Calling this "living water" phenomenon flowing from the New Jerusalem as the influence of the Holy Spirit is the exact comparison which Christ made in John 7:38-39. Christ was speaking of this very Zechariah 14:8 verse when He said, "He that believeth on me, AS THE SCRIPTURE HATH SAID, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

We believers are called the "living stones" that compose the New Jerusalem reality, built upon Christ the "chief cornerstone". The "living water" of the Holy Spirit flows out of every one of us, which has continued to flow out to all the nations ever since the New Jerusalem was established with the New Covenant. This is the spiritual reality of Zechariah 14's New Jerusalem. It mirrors the physical reality of the Gihon Spring's literal waters flowing to serve the Old Jerusalem's physical temple requirements for ritual purification. First the natural physical, then that which is spiritual to fulfill the symbolism.

Again, you can draw all manner of parallels you so desire. It's peripheral, and therefore not central. Believe as you wish.

MM

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Josheb,

I do not care what you find "sufficient evidence," because sufficient evidence is not what was requested. What was requested was an explicit statement. Acts 3:19-21 does not meet that criterion.

You may be disappointed after such a long response, but I consider Acts 3:19-21 is sufficient even though many other denominations such as JWs and SDAs and earth burning advocates somehow, want Jesus to be in heaven despite the clear teaching of these verses.

I reinforce my understanding of these verses by the context of Acts 1 and 2 and the expression that these times of refreshing and restoration are the subject matter of all the prophets. I could list a large number of OT prophecies and again I am satisfied with my understanding of these prophecies. For example Isaiah 2:1-4 and all of Zechariah 14 are very clear on this subject and these are like bookends to all of the OT writing prophets. On the way through I personally add Isaiah 6 as a vision of Jesus in the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem during the 1000 years.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Josheb]

Greetings again Josheb,

You may be disappointed after such a long response, but I consider Acts 3:19-21 is sufficient even though many other denominations such as JWs and SDAs and earth burning advocates somehow, want Jesus to be in heaven despite the clear teaching of these verses.

I reinforce my understanding of these verses by the context of Acts 1 and 2 and the expression that these times of refreshing and restoration are the subject matter of all the prophets. I could list a large number of OT prophecies and again I am satisfied with my understanding of these prophecies. For example Isaiah 2:1-4 and all of Zechariah 14 are very clear on this subject and these are like bookends to all of the OT writing prophets. On the way through I personally add Isaiah 6 as a vision of Jesus in the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem during the 1000 years.

Kind regards
Trevor

As I said, neither Acts 3:19-21 nor any of the many other verses explicitly state Jesus is living on earth, physically ruling for a thousand years.


What happens when questions like this one are asked is otherwise earnest, devout, and well-meaning Christians take verses they infer mean what they want the verse to say. What this then amounts to is the difference between something explicitly stated and something the verse is made to say inferentially. Invariably these "inferences" are made because of the already-existing doctrine the poster want to assert, affirm, or confirm to the one asking the question. The practice of taking a verse and making it say something based on an already-existing point of view or doctrine (like premillennialism) is called "eisegesis." It is NOT exegesis. Exegesis lets the verses speak for themselves without any added interpretation. Exegesis ALWAYS starts with what is plainly, explicitly stated and not what may or may not be inferred.

On top of this practice of inferentially reading individual verses and making them "say" things they do not objectively state, there is the problem of proof-texting. Proof-texting occurs when we take a single verse (or two) and remove it from all of its surrounding verses, ignoring what else is said in the larger passage. By focusing only on the removed verse(s) a single verse (or three) can be made to say anything! This too is a form of eisegesis, or making the verse comply with an already-existing position. This is NOT the same as taking something explicitly stated in scripture and treating it as a using it as a "proof" by which other verses can be evaluated. I'm confident you already know all this but folks mess it up quite often......

Acts 3:19-21 does NOT explicitly state Jesus is physically living on the earth, physically ruling for a thousand years. Acts 3:19-21 may or may not be inferred to "say" that, but that is not what those three verses actually state.

Therefore, Acts 3:19-21 does NOT meet the stipulated criterion. Those three verse may or may not exegetically indicate Jesus is physically living on the earth if and when they are exegeted correctly, but they do not actually explicitly state, "Jesus is physically living on the planet physically ruling the earth for a literal thousand years." That is what was requested. Nothing more.

I'd be very, very, willing to discuss ANY of the submitted verses with those who assert them bout for the fact they did not show good faith and answer the question asked. They were not honest with me. They did not answer the specific question asked AND they tried to pass off a non-criteria-meeting response as an answer to the question asked. They tried to pass off an answer to a question not asked as an answer to the specific, specified, question asked. In other words, they all started off the discussion of the answer to the question, "Where does scripture EXPLICITLY state Jesus will physically be living on earth physically ruling the earth?" with subterfuge and not just one form of deceit, but multiple forms. I've already posted about the relevant aspects pertaining to how and why premillennialism makes its adherents do that so I won't belabor that content further. Another problem that results is my inability to rely on the other poster to have what is supposed to be the goal for all of us. THE best case any of us could present is.....


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


Is that not the goal to which we should ALL aspire? How is that going to happen when people do not answer the specific questions asked? How is that going to happen when people constantly answer questions never asked? How is that going to happen when people rip selected verses out of their whole passage and force the selected verses to say things they do not actually, objectively, self-evidently state? How is that going to happen if confirmation bias is the only method used by a poster? How is that going to happen when others are mistreated and abused with ad hominem, red herring, straw men, shifting onus, and any of the other failure of logic known as fallacy? How is that going to happen when a very valid and very simple question is ignored? How is that going to happen when a very valid and very simple prompts disrespect instead of a respectful direct and immediate answer that furthers the conversation? How is that going to happen when others take the valid and simple inquiry and use it to create a cul de sac or roadblock to what would otherwise be both a scripturally and logically respectful moving-forward topical conversation? How is that going to happen when these very obvious errors are pointed out for the benefit of ALL involved and the response is rancor?

I did not ask for verses that either imply or could be inferred to mean Jesus is physically living on the earth.

 

[Josheb]

Greetings again Josheb,

You may be disappointed after such a long response, but I consider Acts 3:19-21 is sufficient...

Well.... let's take a look at those verses.


Acts 3:19-21
Therefore, repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

To what does the "therefore" refer? Because the selected verses were removed from their surrounding text no one knows. The "therefore" refers to the prior state of ignorance in which the audience previously existed in contrast to the revelation from God that He has fulfilled what He said through the prophets: "His Christ would suffer."

• Repent
• Return (to God)
• Repent and return so the times of refreshing may come.
• The refreshing comes from the presence of the LORD.
• The refreshing comes from the presence of the LORD and his possible sending Jesus. (the "may" is not "will;" it's a statement of possibility, not inevitability).
• This Jesus is the Christ appointed for his audience.
• Heaven must receive him until the "period of restoration of all things" (indicating he is not coming until that period).
• God spoke about the restoration of all things previously by the mouth of His prophets.

That is what those three verses state. They do NOT state, "Jesus is going to physically live on the earth physically ruling for a literal thousand years." What they do state is he'll be in heaven until the time of restoration, at which time he may come to those to whom he was appointed for refreshing if they repent. Nothing about his physically living on the planet.

And..... if space permitted I (with you) could go back to the prophets and look at the passages explicitly stating anything about the "restoration of all things," and THEN look forward to see what the New Testament explicitly adds about the restoration of all things. If we did that one of the things we would discover is that phrase, "restoration of all things" is used only once in the entire Bible . We'd also discover the shortened phrase "all things" occurs 144 times in the Bible but only two of them occur in the prophets (eight if we count Moses, Samuel, and David as prophets), and none of those mentions have anything to do with restoration ! If we take the Greek "apokatastaseos," and examine its various conjugations in the New Testament we can use words like "reconciliation," "restitution," and/or changing from one state (in this case the state of ignorance lacking repentance), into another (another state consistent with restoration, reconciliation, or restitution). In other words, the Greek frees us up to examine other texts that do not specifically include the English word "restoration," but the options are still limited. The terms "restoration," reconciliation," and "restitution" all necessarily imply a return to some prior condition or previously existing state. That is what the prefix "pre-" means.

What then is that prior state or condition? It CANNOT be one in which Jesus is physically living on the planet ruling for a thousand years because that is not a state that ever previously existed!

What I just posted is important for two reasons: 1) I just posted a better exegesis in the space of a single post than all the posts from the premillennialists combined (I did the same with Zec. 14:4), 2) I have just demonstrated an ability to collaboratively walk through scripture (and with a person who has failed to answer the question asked), and 3) I just provided a plethora of content that could be discussed op-relevantly....


....were it not for the fact no one has yet done me the courtesy of giving me an honest and forthcoming, direct and immediate correct answer the specific, specified question asked.

There are only two correct answers to that question: 1) the explicit verse (not an inferred verse), or 2) an explicit acknowledge no such explicit verse exists.





As far as Acts 3:19-21 goes, that exegesis is going to end at Revelation 21.


Revelation 21:5
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."

We can debate whether "all things new" is a valid replacement for "restoration of all things," or "apokatastasis," but it is clear from the book of Revelation the chapter 20 thousand years is not a time of restoration of anything because Jesus' rule ends in rebellion!!! Jesus makes all things new in chapter 21, not chapter 20. Jesus makes all things new AFTER the thousand years, not before. Jesus is explicitly stated to come to earth in chapters 21 and 22 and NOT before then. Nowhere in the first 20 chapters of Revelation does the book of Revelation ever explicitly state Jesus is physically living on the earth.

Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Do NOT add to the book!

Hence the question asked several pages ago in this thread...


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


Every premillennial here not only ignored the specific, specified question asked, they all also added to the book. That is another problem that can be added to the growing list of problems with premillennialism that have been revealed by this thread.

 

[Musicmaster]

Greetings again Josheb,

You may be disappointed after such a long response, but I consider Acts 3:19-21 is sufficient even though many other denominations such as JWs and SDAs and earth burning advocates somehow, want Jesus to be in heaven despite the clear teaching of these verses.

I reinforce my understanding of these verses by the context of Acts 1 and 2 and the expression that these times of refreshing and restoration are the subject matter of all the prophets. I could list a large number of OT prophecies and again I am satisfied with my understanding of these prophecies. For example Isaiah 2:1-4 and all of Zechariah 14 are very clear on this subject and these are like bookends to all of the OT writing prophets. On the way through I personally add Isaiah 6 as a vision of Jesus in the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem during the 1000 years.

Kind regards
Trevor

You have to understand the power of arguments from repetition, which is no power at all.

Repetition on their part proves nothing for those who use it as a battering ram against evidence that stands far too strong against their repetition for a requirement that not even they practice in their own lives for the sake of integrity.

This is an old trick that works only in the minds of the ignorant masses who don't arm themselves with the truth. Some here are not affected by the repetitive nonsense.

Good post, TrevorL.

MM

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Josheb,

You come to the party late and you're doing what everyone else has already done and that implies the thread was not read to see and avoid all the already-made mistakes.

I was the first to respond to the OP in Post #2 where I disagreed with the OP, while you joined the thread in Post #57 where you endorsed the OP.

What happens when questions like this one are asked is otherwise earnest, devout, and well-meaning Christians take verses they infer mean what they want the verse to say. What this then amounts to is the difference between something explicitly stated and something the verse is made to say inferentially. Invariably these "inferences" are made because of the already-existing doctrine the poster want to assert, affirm, or confirm to the one asking the question.

It is true that I have an established view which includes premillennialism and I have two threads on this subject, and I checked that although some of this has been contested by other members, you have not participated in either of these threads.:

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/psalm-72-the-kingdom-of-god-soon-to-be-established-on-earth.887/

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-vision-of-isaiah-2-1-5-soon-to-be-fulfilled.1385/

But my view of Acts 3:19-21 is not based on injecting my premillennial view on Acts 3:19-21 but the detail and context gives the clear teaching. Acts 3:19-21 speak of a future time and the following expressions are used: "the times of refreshing" and "the times of restitution". This speaks of the future Kingdom and "the times of refreshing" is linked with Psalm 72, and "the times of restitution" is linked with the question asked by the Apostles:
Acts 1:6 (KJV): When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

In Acts 2 the promises to David are expounded, teaching that Jesus will sit upon the Throne of David. Anyone in the audience would reject the view that the Throne of David was in heaven. This promise is linked with Psalm 110:1 that Jesus would temporarily sit at the right hand of God. Acts 3:19-21 build on this and state that Jesus will be sent by God at the times of refreshing and restoration, and that as a result he will no longer be in heaven. Would this information be lost on anyone in the audience? The Throne of David is at Jerusalem.

I am not interested in interacting with the rest of your Posts as I consider that the premillennial view is firmly established..

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Musicmaster]

We can go even further with proofs that Christ will reign on this earth, physically. Denials of this is only willful blindness:

Isaiah 9:6-7
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders; [There's no government structure in Heaven, but there is a Monarchy.]
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom, [David's throne and kingdom were never in Heaven, but HERE ON EARTH! There's not ONE VERSE where it declared David's throne was taken up into Heaven!]
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.

There are many, many more verses in their proper contexts throughout that speak of Christ on David's throne, which was ALWAYS on this earth, not in Heaven. So, demands for evidence on the order to an explicit statement for such, that's just what is stated above, WILLFUL BLINDNESS!

MM

 

[Josheb]

Greetings again Josheb,

I was the first to respond to the OP in Post #2 where I disagreed with the OP, while you joined the thread in Post #57 where you endorsed the OP.

Yep. That has nothing to do with the question asked in Post 57. That party is the party to which the arrival was late, not the op. Premils were having a different conversation until they were asked to prove Jesus is living on earth and that question prompted pages of inanity and ungodly content. Don't confuse the parties ; whether Jesus is on earth or not is a subset of whether or not his rule succeeds (a physical rule where he's physically living on the planet cannot succeed if he's not here physically on the earth; it cannot even get started, much less succeed).

It is true that I have an established view which includes premillennialism and I have two threads on this subject, and I checked that although some of this has been contested by other members, you have not participated in either of these threads.:

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/psalm-72-the-kingdom-of-god-soon-to-be-established-on-earth.887/

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-vision-of-isaiah-2-1-5-soon-to-be-fulfilled.1385/

Thanks for the links. I'll read the ops and sample a few posts and reply if I find the op of interest, but if either op is asserting premillennialism then my initial reply will likely start with the same question - a question you've failed to answer here. Why would I have any interest in seeing the same avoidance repeated in multiple threads. I've already covered the multiple reasons it is important for premils to answer the specific, specified question asked. Why, then, would I want to see a repeat of ALL the various nonsenses I listed? If I show up in either of those threads you are going to have to do better there than here.

Yes?

But my view of Acts 3:19-21 is not based on injecting my premillennial view.....

I do not care.

The relevant matter regarding Acts 3:19-21 is that it does NOT answer the question asked. It asserts a personal opinion that has nothing to do with the specific, specified question asked. The assertion of Acts 3:19-21 is disrespectful to every poster here because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the one, single, solitary observation of this op AND it does not answer my question AND you do not seem to understand any of that.

Post #2 starts out with,

I am not sure what your problem is here.

Ummm... yeah. So, apparently, you think it is okay to insinuate @Carbon has a problem (but you don't know what it is) and you think that's a beneficial way to start a discussion of the op's observation Jesus's thousand-year rule ends in rebellion. Post 2 completely ignores the one single, solitary question asked, "Who are these people whom the devil received, who then revolt against God, only to be consumed by fire from heaven?" So the record shows the question asked in Post 2 is ignored and the question asked in Post 57 is ignored.

Why are you here?

Why would anyone have any inclination to discuss anything with you when they cannot get a single question answered when asked?

The next line in your reply to the op's single inquiry is,

Christ will return and reward the faithful with everlasting life and they will become kings and priests with Jesus for the 1000 years over the mortal nations that survived Armageddon.

...and the conclusion of Post 2 is...

Towards the end of the 1000 years, human nature being what it is, even under ideal conditions, some will rebel against the authority of Christ and the faithful, and this will bring about the events depicted in Revelation 20 at the end of the 1000 years.

Who are these "some rebel against the authority of Christ..."? Where is the verse that explicitly states Jesus is physically living on earth physically ruling for those thousand years? Not a single word in Post 2 can have any merit unless it can be proven Jesus is physically on the earth as premilennialism asserts and not a single premillennialist here has provided a single explicit verse. How would you feel if I followed your posts and attempted to hijack every op and every post you write with my own agenda?

Carb does not have a problem other than the fact the premillennial here either do not know how to have an intelligent topical discussion or the premillennial are sabotaging his op with intentional non sequiturs and red herrings!

In Acts 2 the promises.....

I do not care.

This op is not an opportunity for premils to hijack the thread and make the thread about anything and everything premillennial.

I am not interested in interacting with the rest of your Posts as I consider that the premillennial view is firmly established.

Then do not post to me! No one made you attempt an answer to the question asked but you and you did not answer the question correctly.

Kind regards
Trevor

It is not kind to misuse a thread and ignore other's inquiries and then say, "Kind regards." It's hypocrisy. Show me kind regards by answering the question asked and NOT answering questions not asked and then inviting me to suffer more of the same in other threads.

Matthew 12:36
But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment.


Do not be that guy. Next time, answer the question asked first.

 

[Carbon]

We can go even further with proofs that Christ will reign on this earth, physically. Denials of this is only willful blindness:

That’s your opinion.

Hope this helps

 

[Musicmaster]

That’s your opinion.

Hope this helps

Like I said before, folks can ignore the obvious all they want. It's only their own toes they are bruising against the goad. Being willfully blind is a choice, not a state of being.

MM

 

[Carbon]

Like I said before, folks can ignore the obvious all they want. It's only their own toes they are bruising against the goad. Being willfully blind is a choice, not a state of being.

MM

Now read again what you just wrote. Take your own advice.

Hope this helps

 

[Musicmaster]

Now read again what you just wrote. Take your own advice.

Hope this helps

Given that you provided no scripture for rebuttal, the only conclusion left to us all is that you're responses to this are merely antagonistic.

MM

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Josheb,

Yep. That has nothing to do with the question asked in Post 57. That party is the party to which the arrival was late, not the op

You introduced your favourite question in Post #68, not Post #57 where you only endorsed the OP. 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. Yes, I have been late in responding to your question, and my response was in Post #156. After responding in Post #2 I had a few glances at this thread and was not interested in the discussion. You seemed to have changed the subject of the OP.

Premils were having a different conversation until they were asked to prove Jesus is living on earth and that question prompted pages of inanity and ungodly content. Don't confuse the parties ; whether Jesus is on earth or not is a subset of whether or not his rule succeeds (a physical rule where he's physically living on the planet cannot succeed if he's not here physically on the earth; it cannot even get started, much less succeed).

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?

Luke 1:30–33 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Acts 2:25–36 (KJV): 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Thanks for the links. I'll read the ops and sample a few posts and reply if I find the op of interest

Yes, you have responded to both threads.

Ummm... yeah. So, apparently, you think it is okay to insinuate @Carbon has a problem (but you don't know what it is) and you think that's a beneficial way to start a discussion of the op's observation Jesus's thousand-year rule ends in rebellion.

But how does a rebellion at the end of the 1000 years in any way invalidate the clear teaching of the millennium? and the return of Christ before the beginning of the millennium? The rebellion will NOT be the whole populace living at the end of the 1000 years, and there is no indication what percentage of the population will revolt.

Not a single word in Post 2 can have any merit unless it can be proven Jesus is physically on the earth as premilennialism asserts and not a single premillennialist here has provided a single explicit verse.

How do you understand Acts 1:10-11?

I do not care. This op is not an opportunity for premils to hijack the thread and make the thread about anything and everything premillennial.

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

No one made you attempt an answer to the question asked but you and you did not answer the question correctly.

I suggest that I have answered your question.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Musicmaster]

Greetings again Josheb,

You introduced your favourite question in Post #68, not Post #57 where you only endorsed the OP. 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. Yes, I have been late in responding to your question, and my response was in Post #156. After responding in Post #2 I had a few glances at this thread and was not interested in the discussion. You seemed to have changed the subject of the OP.

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?

Luke 1:30–33 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Acts 2:25–36 (KJV): 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Yes, you have responded to both threads.

But how does a rebellion at the end of the 1000 years in any way invalidate the clear teaching of the millennium? and the return of Christ before the beginning of the millennium? The rebellion will NOT be the whole populace living at the end of the 1000 years, and there is no indication what percentage of the population will revolt.

How do you understand Acts 1:10-11?

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

I suggest that I have answered your question.

Kind regards
Trevor

Good points, Trevor. In line with the irrational demand for the explicit, I have asked three questions that have still remained unanswered after I admitted there is no explicit statement that Christ will rule on this earth:

1) Show to me an explicit statement declaring that Christ returned to Heaven after having set His feet down on the Mount of Olives, thus causing it to split in half, and
2) Show to me an explicit statement declaring that David's throne has ever been, or will be, relocated in Heaven since it is explicitly stated that Christ will rule from upon that throne, and
3) Show to me an explicit statement declaring that Christ will rule from afar, in Heaven, during His Millennial reign.

So, what this means is, when none of those questions have an explicit answer with a reference that does indeed speak directly to all four, we are then left with inferences and implications, all of which have been provided. Some people just don't seem to figure out that inference and implication is on the same level of the explicit when the explicit is missing, given that the Lord has demanded that we use our God-given reason.

Isaiah 53 did not explicitly spell out the name "Jesus" or Yahshuah," and so irrational demands for explicit proof that the prophecy spoken therein actually is a reference to Jesus. Anyone arguing for the explicit in relation to Christ being the object of Isaiah 53 is perpetrating the same argument again Christ's reign on this earth by implication and inference, which would be a stupid argument. BY the way, ANY of us can violate reason by putting forth "stupid" argumentation in the face of evidence to the contrary. I've done that before when dealing with something that I WANTED to believe no matter what... So, when something is argued on the level of what may labeled as "stupid" doesn't mean the individual is stupid. Such an individual may have an agenda, or they're simply not willing to budge away from their irrational position because of the cascade damage that might do to other of their pet doctrines. That's not necessarily the practice of stupid people. It's a defensive position and nothing more since holding to it doesn't require that they think it all through.

The spirit of stoic indifference to evidence to the contrary of one's chosen position seems to dominate forums on just about any topic one may choose in life and in theology. This applies to us all, not just some or one. We ALL have been affected by that desire. I've been wrong on a number of beliefs I once held, but when confronted with evidence to the contrary, the only course was to study it all again, and then admit error when I discovered my error.

But, watch the ensuing reaction(s)...

MM