Pre-Trib Rapture and Premillennialism are False Doctrines

I can agree with this. This is the vibe im getting too. In order to know what X or Y text in the OT or revelation means, you have to turn to the amil pastor or expert of some sort.
You cant figure out that on your own.

You look at Isaiah 2, talking about nations not going to war no more. You look around and there is war war war and more war. So you say, its not fulfilled. You ask your pastor and BAM its fulfiled SPIRITUALLY in the church. Well problem is, churches argue and bicker constantly. LOL.

It is laid out in rev 20

The amillennialist believes that Rev 20: 1-8 is the entire age we are currently living in. It spans Christ's first coming to His second coming. I can give further details about those verses if you are interested or have questions.

(Mat 10:23) But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

The disciple will not have gone to all the cities of Israel before Christ returns, what does this mean?

In 2 Timothy 2:18 Paul states that some taught it was past tense to ad61(date of 2 tim.) so it is future tense to the Apostle Paul in aspect to ad61...

Yes, Hymenaeus and Philetus saw the resurrection of the Old Testament saints and thought that the resurrection was past already... as in the resurrection had come and gone.

What they didn't understand was that Christ and those Old Testament saints were the firstfruits of the resurrection. In other words they didn't understand that the resurrection is like a harvest where the firstfruits come in first and then the main harvest comes later at the end.

But how are you relating this to Christ returning before the disciples have time to spread the gospel to all the cities of Israel?

lol, you gave that scripture(your the one relating it) I pointed out that Paul an Apostle did not see it as past tense in aspect to ad61 when he wrote to Timothy.

Paul did not see what as past tense?

I would also like to see a premillennialist try and answer this:



I think my last reply proves that a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is impossible according to Scripture. I would like to throw out a challenge. I would love to see a premillennialist try and prove my last reply #209 wrong.

I like to have my theological positions challenged by people with different views to see if they will hold up under fire. I believe the amillennial view is what the Bible teaches on eschatology.

We got the best one . . . everything else are just imitations.

The word "IN" would speak of a chip, perhaps. The word "ON" would suggest a tattoo. But I don't see a tattoo speaking to an ATM machine.

In 1 Thess. 4:13-18 (written approx.ad49-52) Paul regarded this as future tense,I have to agree with Paul as to it's timing.

According to the text he doesn't see it as being future tense, he sees it as not being finished.

(2Ti 2:18) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_timothy/2-18.htm #'s 1096 and 2235 1096 is a verb 2235 is an adverb describing the timing...

Yes I'm not arguing the adverb, its describing the past and that's what Hymenaeus and Philetus were saying, the resurrection was already past. Paul was saying that they were wrong, it hasn't already past.

He in 2 Thess. also says it is not present tense(ongoing) in 2 Thess. 2:2 https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_thessalonians/2-2.htm (see 1764/is present)...

When you say "there is about to be" in Acts 24: 15 you are referring to the Greek word "mello" It's Strong's Concordance 3195.

That word has a few different meanings. According to Thayer, who is widely regarded as one of the best lexicons of the past 100 years that word simply means, "something that is sure to happen."

If you notice the most literal translations like NKJV, ESV, NASB, none of them translate the word the way you suggested.

NKJV Acts 24: 15, "I have a hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there WILL BE a resurrection from the dead, both of the just and the unjust."

ESV Acts 24: 15, "having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there WILL BE a resurrection of both the just and the unjust."

NASB Acts 24: 15, "having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall CERTAINLY BE a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked."

So we see all these translations line up with what Thayer says in his lexicon. These translation committees are full of men who are fluent in the biblical languages.

You are saying we should accept your version of "there is about to be" because it is a possibility for the word. That's how cults and false doctrines get started. Why do none of the major formal equivalence translations translate it your way then? In fact almost all the major translations, whether formal or dynamic, translate it as "will be", "certainly be" not "about to be".

They are all in agreement with each other and also Thayer's lexicon. But you are saying we should base a major doctrine like resurrection of the dead on an outlier possiblity in Acts 24: 15 when we have other clear texts from Scripture that describe it as future.
I don't think that is a good idea.

The hour is coming and NOW IS (not 2000 years later) when the dead shall hear his voice. Obviously at least to me this verse is referring to the resurrection of the Old Testament saints that rose with Christ.

Then you HAVE to place satan as bound and separated from any involvement in hindering mankind.

Which means the trib came and went,as well as the AC and the fiery hailstones and flying scorpions,and the mark of the beast are just spiritual analogies.

Not sytematic theology.
Amil carries alongside itself not one,but many impossibilities.