Why [I believe] Premillennialism is false

[TCassidy]

So Satan is the Prince of the Power of the Atmosphere?:

So, we find something else you don't understand.

“We live in an atmosphere poisonous and impregnated with deadly elements. But a mighty purification of the air will be effected by Christ’s coming” [Auberlen]

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

"Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. So we will be with the Lord forever."

επειτα, "then" - an adverb with no temporal connotation other than "after" or as it is sometimes translated "furthermore."

I'm so glad you brought that up!

Let's examine the word "then." This is the Greek word epeita. Normally, when a sequence of events is described, the simple word eita "then" is used. Eita is best translated as "at that time" or "next". Eita is used to indicate an immediate sequence. We see this in:
John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" 27 Then (eita)He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

This is a series of events - one immediately after the other.

But in our text, the Greek word is not eita but epeita, which is essentially the same Greek word with an "epi" prefix. This has the effect of affixing the word "after" to the word "then", and the best translation becomes "after then", "after that", or "after that time",and thereby doesn't include the idea of right after.

Let's look at some other uses of epeita to get a clearer idea of its meaning:
Galatians 1:18 Then (epeita) after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.

In this case, the word "then" involved at least three years later.
Galatians 1:21 Afterward (epeita) I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.

Galatians 2:1 Then (epeita) after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.

Epeita here involves fourteen years.
1 Corinthians 15:23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward (epeita) those who are Christ's at His coming.

Epeita here is referring to a period of at least forty years, and some such as yourself would argue 2000 years!. The idea is: "what came at some time afterwards, after that time, not at that time."

You are not consistent at all on this.

Now look at 1 Cor 15:5-8:
1 Corinthians 15:5-8 and that He was seen by Cephas, then (eita) by the twelve. 6 After that (epeita) He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that (epeita) He was seen by James, then (eita) by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

We see in this passage that both eita and epeita are used. In verse 15:5, we see eita, indicating that the twelve (the original apostles) saw Him immediately after Peter did, the same day. In verse 15:6, epeita is used meaning: "after that time", because the 500 didn't see Him until later. Verse 15:7, again uses epeita, meaning that some time after the 500 saw him, He appeared to James. Next, the reference is that immediately after appearing to James, He appeared to all the apostles.

The point is, that the form of the word for "then"used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is not the form eita, meaning: "right after", but the epeita, meaning: "after that time."

1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then (after that time) we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

These are not simultaneous events.

"Together with them" — all together: the raised dead, and changed living, forming one joint body.

Again, I will still be "together with my wife" in new york city even though our journeys to the Big Apple are 1 week apart.....
BTW, the Dead in Christ and the Living in Christ are already "one body" we aren't still waiting for that to happen

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

So, we find something else you don't understand.

“We live in an atmosphere poisonous and impregnated with deadly elements. But a mighty purification of the air will be effected by Christ’s coming” [Auberlen]

You really claim that is what Paul meant? Thats quite a stretch

In contrast, Paul Himself equates the air with the spiritual realm.... And His interpretation is authoritative above yours for me.

Eph 2:2: "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."

The word "air" is used here for heavenly or spiritual realm. Satan was always an opponent of the scheme of redemption, as we can see throughout the Bible. He was the prince of the power of the air.

 

[HankD]

Then Is your clonclusion that the writer of Hebrews was mistaken, or that He lied?:

“For yet a little while,
And He who is coming will come and will not delay. (Hebrews 10:37)

And what does Jesus call those who say the He has delayed His coming?:

48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’....

Lastly, has not His coming been FIXED in time, on a day already appointed?

31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31)

If the Son of Man didn't know the day or the hour, etc, then neither would the author of the Book of Hebrews, Acts whatever.

HankD (still waiting for Him)

 

[TCassidy]

You really claim that is what Paul meant? Thats quite a stretch

No, that is what Karl August Auberlen, one of the 19th centuries greatest theologians, opined.

 

[TCassidy]

Again, I will still be "together with my wife" in new york city even though our journeys to the Big Apple are 1 week apart.....

Exactly! You were NOT "together with her in the air."

Thank you for finally admitting that.

So, either the living saints will be "caught up together with them in the air" or Paul lied.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The persecutions that those churches faced were led by the Jews (as we see with the Thessalonican persecution at Acts 17:5-8).

Yes, but after the initial trouble, the persecution at Thessalonica was led by Thessalonians. 'For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen just as they did from the Judeans' (1 Thes. 2:14).

When these evil men were destroyed in Jerusalem at AD 70, the churches gained relief.

I don't see how a pile of deaths in Jerusalem would affect a church several hundred miles away. Also, some cities, like Lystra and Philippi appear not to have had Jewish populations since Paul did not visit a synagogue there.

The Jews had been urging the Romans to persecute the Christians. The destruction of Jerusalem eliminated nearly all the non-Christ-following Jews of the entire Roman Empire, and Christianity emerged victorious.

This isn't true either. There was another great Jewish rebellion against Rome in AD 132, and before that there were revolts in Egypt, Libya, Cyrene, Egypt, Cyprus and Mesopotamia in the time of Trajan (c.110 AD. c.f. The Growing Flame by F.F. Bruce). It was only after 132 that real sanctions against Jews, including a brief ban on circumcision, took place.

The faithful and the unfaithful of the Asia Minor churches were to each receive something at His coming to them, each according to their works

There were rewards and sanctions spoken of in the letters to the churches, but they were conditional. Was the destruction of Jerusalem dependant upon whether the church in Sardis watched and repented? I think not!
Nothing would have changed for the churches in Asia Minor in or after AD 70. Any Jews living there would still have been there.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is all first-century stuff here. No "Church Age," no "1948," no "21st century computer chips"

You need to understand that not everyone who is not a preterist is a dispensationalist.

 

[David Kent]

You need to understand that not everyone who is not a preterist is a dispensationalist.

Absolutely.

Before the beginning of the 19th century there were no didpensationalists and probably no preterists.

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

If the Son of Man didn't know the day or the hour, etc, then neither would the author of the Book of Hebrews, Acts whatever.

My wife and I didnt know the day or hour our son would be born, but we absolutley knew it would be within or around 9 months after conception...

And after 8 months we knew it would be in a little while....

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

Exactly! You were NOT "together with her in the air."

Thank you for finally admitting that.

Ok... you do understand the concept of my analogy, right? I thought I spelled that out for you but you seem to have missed it...

So, either the living saints will be "caught up together with them in the air" or Paul lied.

Paul didn't lie... the Living would be caught up sometime AFTER the Dead and, then (and only then) would they be be "together with them in the air"
That is what the text teaches.

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

Absolutely.

Before the beginning of the 19th century there were no didpensationalists and probably no preterists.

Correct about Dispensationalists, Incorrect about Preterists.

The ECFs uniformly interpreted Matthew 24 as fulfilled up to the point where they believed the Great Tribulation was past.

The preterist view is rooted in the early Church commentaries that interpreted Matthew 24 as mostly or entirely fulfilled in the first century.

And, one of the main writers of the Westminster Confession, John Lightfoot, had ALL of Matthew 24 fulfilled.

To visit a library of early preteristic interpretations of Matthew 24, click here:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/index.html

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My wife and I didnt know the day or hour our son would be born, but we absolutely knew it would be within or around 9 months after conception...

And after 8 months we knew it would be in a little while....

Oh for goodness' sake! 'Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming....' (Mark 13:35).
Did the people of Sodom or the people of Noah's day have any idea that idea that judgement was coming upon them (Luke 17:26-30)?

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

Was the destruction of Jerusalem dependant upon whether the church in Sardis watched and repented?

Is the timing of the second coming dependant on whether anyone watches and repents?

NO!

According to scripture, the second coming of Christ was to take place irrespective of whether some repented and others did not -- in fact, the doctrine of the second coming fully and uniformly teaches that some would be faithful and others unfaithful (Romans 2:5-9; Mt 25:1-13; Lk 13:24-30; 1 Cor 3:12-15). As the angel also plainly states:

Revelation 22:10-11
And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."

Did you catch that? Man's repentance or lack thereof has nothing to do with the timing of the coming of Christ. Nothing whatsoever. Note also that Jesus explicitly says that the Thyatria Prophetess movement chose not to repent, and that He was coming and would kill her and her "children." But to the rest at Thyatria (the faithful), they were to hold fast and had no additional burden placed upon them, for Jesus had rewards to give them as stated in Rev 2:26-28. We know that Christ came to them, for he came and killed the Prophetess and rewarded the faithful as he said. This is all first-century stuff here. No "Church Age," no "1948," no "21st century computer chips" -- the glorified Jesus knew of none of those modern speculative doctrines, and that makes them impossible doctrines, ones not found anywhere in scripture. Had any of those things been biblical doctrines, then Jesus would not be speaking to first-century churches about His second coming as we see him doing in Revelation 2-3, where He plainly applies the doctrine to first-century people.

Jesus must be right, and therefore futurism must be wrong concerning the timing of the second coming of Christ.

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

Oh for goodness' sake! 'Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming....' (Mark 13:35).
Did the people of Sodom or the people of Noah's day have any idea that idea that judgement was coming upon them (Luke 17:26-30)?

My answer to this is that we know EXACTLY when the biblical endtimes were, for Christ and the apostles all taught WHEN they were. The apostles stated that THEY were the last days generation (Heb 1:1-2, 1 Cor 10:11, Acts 2:15-17; 1 peter 1:20; James 5:3; Heb 9:26), and they did so because their Master told them so. Jesus told his apostles that THEY would experience the signs of the end and even be killed in their generation:

"So, too, when YOU see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." --Matthew 24:33-34

"upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." -- Matt 23:35-36

In fact, the N.T. is unanimous on the subject.

 

[HankD]

My wife and I didnt know the day or hour our son would be born, but we absolutley knew it would be within or around 9 months after conception...

And after 8 months we knew it would be in a little while....

Oh come on.

You are comparing apples and refrigerators.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Ok... you do understand the concept of my analogy, right? I thought I spelled that out for you but you seem to have missed it...

No, I understood it fine. It just fails horribly on the "together in the air" issue.

 

[David Kent]

Correct about Dispensationalists, Incorrect about Preterists.

Not sol, they were both taught in the late 16th century, by Jesuits. They were brought in to challenge the true Christian interpretation, that the pope is antichrist. That is not a reformation teaching it was a pre reformation teaching from about 1200 when the pope attained his full persecuting powers.

The Historicist teaching is the only non Catholic doctrine

 

[TCassidy]

Paul didn't lie... the Living would be caught up sometime AFTER the Dead and, then (and only then) would they be be "together with them in the air"

Exactly. And how long do you think God will keep them hovering there in the air before allowing them to continue TOGETHER on to Glory?

 

[TCassidy]

The Historicist teaching is the only non Catholic doctrine

So you are claiming that all the ECFs who taught Pre-Mil were Catholic Jesuits?