Pre-Mil Fallacy

[Scripture More Accurately]

Eve was not told by God not to eat. Only when Adam ate was sin started in the world. They were not sinners nor sinned until after Adam disobeyed God. Disobedience came first, and then sin.

Not true. Both of them were told by God not to eat the fruit:

Gen. 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Eve used plural pronouns ("we," "ye") to speak of her knowledge of what God said. She knew that God had said that neither of them were to eat of it.

The NT says explicitly that Eve transgressed, and she ate the fruit before Adam did:

1 Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

[Aaron]

The Premillennial position is what the Pharisees taught and expected when Daniel said God would set up his forever kingdom in the time of the ancient Roman Empire. He did, but it is spiritual and only the born-again can see it. So the Pharisees, as many calling themselves Christians rejected the gospel of the kingdom. And still, wait for the Pharisee's Premillennial kingdom. My question is; how can anyone claim to follow Christ while siding with the wicked Pharisees in rejecting Christ's kingdom?

Christians can have fallacious ideas, and still be a disciple. But this is something folks should think about.

 

[Reformed1689]

Christians can have fallacious ideas, and still be a disciple. But this is something folks should think about.

That's not something anyone should think about because it's not even a true statement.

 

[percho]

The 1,000 years are a specific period of time when Christ will rule over the earth, this is not his final rule or final kingdom as there is a battle to follow.

I agree. Let's consider:

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. Dan 2

That has not taken place yet.

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

That has not taken place yet. Rev 11

 

[Aaron]

It's not the hope of an earthly kingdom.
It's the hope of an eternal kingdom preceded by a 1,000 year reign after the Tribulation where the Lord Jesus puts all His enemies under His feet by ruling the nations with a rod of iron, all His saints ruling from Jerusalem with Him, and the Lord Jesus delivering up all of that to His Father.

Respectfully,
It is not antithetical to the Gospel in any way.

We have already come unto mount Zion, and are living in the New Jerusalem. Hebrews 12:18, 22 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, ... But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.

 

[George Antonios]

The idea that Christ will return with a temporal kingdom and re-establish the Temple cultus and Jewish nation is a fallcious idea. There are a number of anti-gospel notions in the scenario, but the rebuilding of the Jewish temple is the most serious.

Only problem with that is that Ezekiel and Zechariah all prophesy it.
When the Bible doesn't fit my theology, guess which one goes out the window.

 

[kyredneck]

It is not though as of yet His Ruling Age!

???

18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Mt 28

 

[Aaron]

Agree. @Aaron has repeatedly said that a literal 1,000 year reign is somehow against the Gospel but has shown no Scriptural su

Just waiting for one of you to make some definitive doctrinal statement about a premillennial reading of Revelation 20, instead of the general shock and awe and vague allusions to flavors of Premillennialism.

 

[1689Dave]

Christians can have fallacious ideas, and still be a disciple. But this is something folks should think about.

The disciples thought like Pharisees for quite some time. Peter however preached Amillennialism at Pentecost as did Paul. So old false concepts sometimes die hard.

 

[1689Dave]

You still have not shown any basis other than your bias. You also have not dealt with the fact that Satan is not and has not yet been bound. You have also not dealt with what happens after he has been loosed as those events definitely have not occured. Your viewpoint simply does not align with Scripture.

Your idea of binding adds to Revelation. This is a serious offence against God's fair warning against doing so.

 

[Aaron]

There is no contradiction. You did not give one. Christ was on earth the first time physically. He will be on earth physically the next time. The Millennium has nothing to do with current temporal conditions based on sin. The Millennium is the spiritual and physical being one and restored. Paradise is not "restored" until after the 1000 years and as a totally different reality called the New Jerusalem. By restored, actually replacing the current Jerusalem, geographically. Paradise is not brought down. It can be seen though. The whole earth will see God on the throne at the 6th Seal. Paradise is part of seeing the throne.

Again, we've already entered the New Jerusalem. Hebrews 12:18, 22 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, ... But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.

 

[Yeshua1]

Amillennialism is a misnomer. Amillennialists believe in Revelation. We just believe it rightly.

Believe in No kingdom reign for the King?

 

[Yeshua1]

Nope. Be specific. What's the point of the Millennium?

To have earth restored to Paradise lost, and to have the Lord Jesus set up as its true and rightful king!

 

[1689Dave]

Is this true at this moment? Are you saying you cannot be deceived by Satan at this moment? I don't agree with that. Are you saying you can't be tempted at this moment? I don't agree with that. More importantly, Scripture doesn't agree with that. Jesus was tempted by Satan. Jesus prayed that we not be led into temptation but be delivered from the evil one.

How do you know you are not deceived when the historic creeds condemned Premillennialism as heresy?

 

[Yeshua1]

God the Father is not going to allow the final word from the mouths of Israel's leaders about His Son to be, "We have no king but Caesar."

John 19:15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

God the Father is going to glorify Himself and His Son by bringing that nation as a nation to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth was and is His Messianic King whom they rejected. Jesus Christ will be glorified by the whole world as God's anointed King who will rule with a rod of iron from Jerusalem for a thousand years.

Peter agrees with you, as he links the Second Coming as the time when refreshing comes about, as all nations being blessed with Israel then accepting their rightful Messiah and King then!

 

[1689Dave]

The Pharisees knew that in 2000 years, there would be a third 1000 year period on earth?

They were deceived just as many calling themselves Christians are today.

 

[Yeshua1]

The whole book of Revelation is not symbolism. That's ridiculous.

Is the new heavens and a new earth then just symbolism?

 

[1689Dave]

No, Jesus did not teach the spiritual kingdom only. Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus said,

Matthew 26:29
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

He spoke here of a future drinking of the fruit of the vine with His disciples in His Father's kingdom, which requires a physical kingdom.

How long after that was it until he drank of it? Any guesses? The kingdom was there since Jesus preached it.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is better to interpret the Bible literally unless it is obviously not literal. It's easy (for the most part) to tell what parts are symbolism and what parts are literal. There is no indication that the 1,000 year reign is symbolic.

Also pretty clear that cannot be here until its King returns to set it up!

 

[kyredneck]

And I just don't see that as viable in Scripture.

Stop trying to 'see' with your carnal eyes Nicodemus, and peer Behind The Veil Of Moses.

For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched,

...a spiritual kingdom that cannot be touched with the hand or seen with the eye:

20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Lu 17