[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Mfblume:

Your constant accusations weary me. I gave my comments on 1 Cor. 15. They are plain to see in post 222. You want to force me into a making counterpoints to your counterpoints.

You have acted throughout the entire discussion as if a few verses in 1 Cor. 15 is the COMPLETE DISCUSSION OF THE 1000 YEAR REIGN. But it is not. As important as it is it is just one aspect of the number of scriptures that must be considered.

If one or two simple plain verses throw out your entire argument, then so be it.

1 Cor 15 says that Christ defeats ALL ENEMIES at the rapture. I repeated and repeated this point. You could never respond, when you easily could have taken the time to do so. I found a few verses that shot you completely out of 1 Cor 15, as though you wanted to forget they existed there. You went all around creation searching for OTHER issues to support your doctrine. Your silence on those verses speaks so loud it's hard to hear anything else you say.

The simple truth of the Word proved you wrong in that you said Christ only defeated death FOR THE SAINTS then, but the text says ALL ENEMIES without one mention of it regarding the saints alone. I do not care how much you hop all around the board, when those few verses stop you dead in your tracks, all the amount of hopping around you do cannot change that.

Nobody said it w as the complete discussion of the 1000 years. But three verses can still shoot down the possibility of an entire doctrine.

It's like proposing Jesus never resurrected. Two verses can prove that wrong, even though there may be hundreds of other verses somebody tries using to propose such nonsense.

1 Cor 15 IS SOLID PROOF that there can be no millennium after the church age. And your constant refusal to address that point makes it more blatantly obvious you really are cornered in your doctrine. You cannot answer!

If two or three verses prove millennialism wrong, then they prove it wrong, and nothing else need be discussed.

We are into the realm now of repeating the same things pretty much.

Incorrect, brother. You can only repeat since you refuse to respond to my points I raise.

YOU HAVE NEVER responded to 1 Cor 15's note about ALL ENEMIES defeated at the rapture. You NEVER responded to 1 Cor 15's cessation of rule for the Son at the rapture. And I will not be amazed if you still do not respond in your last few words below. Wow. This really showed me something, brother! I want all our readers to see this.

Therefore I will give my summation of the matter. If you chose to respond fine. If you do not fine. If no one else responds I will be finished.

I think you SHOULD be finished, since your argument is entirely proved wrong by 1 Cor 15. And proof is evident in your inability to respond.

The errors of the amillenial doctrine at least in part.

1. Jesus said we would rule the NATIONS AFTER HIS COMING.

That was a coming in judgment in AD70 against Israel. And the church is indeed ruling with Christ now. Christ no longer rules after the rapture, disallowing a millennium after the rapture, as per 1 Cor 15. (Man, I love that chapter more and more!)

They answer this by saying Jesus already came in 70 ad. That would mean the second coming of Jesus already happened. A position that contradicts not only scripture but historical fact.

Incorrect. The SECOND COMING does not refer to a localized coming in judgment against Israel. When He first came, He came in general coming for the entire world. The SECOND coming is similar. He is coming in a general coming for the entire world. He came and went in MANY MANY ways and comings ever since the first coming. Bless God, He came to Sychar one day in John 4. We do not take every reference to a "coming" and say it must be the second COMING. That would be silly.

2. They teach satan is bound right now from deceiving the nations.

Yet Paul who was an Apostle of Jesus said he was "god" to this world.

You do not even represent us properly, but choose to ignore what WE ACTUALLY SAID. You only show PART of what we said. We said he bound the devil SO AS TO DISABLE THE DEVIL FROM GATHERING NATIONS AGAINST THE CHURCH by deception. You conveniently chose to ignore the capitalized parts.

Jesus said he had a SEAT in this Church age that does not sound like he is shut up in a bottomless pit as John said he WILL BE in the 1000 year reign.

Again you ignore what we actually said.

But he will have NOWHERE TO SIT during the 1000 year reign because he will be in a pit with NO BOTTOM!

Do you also actually believe Jesus is a lamb with seven eyes and horns, too? We must never take figurative language far too literally. His pit with no bottom is speaking about the degree of limitation satan has been forced to experience. Using your reasoning, and looking at figurative visions far too literally, we could say the Lamb cannot be Jesus, because Rev 1 shows Jesus as a man with eyes of fire, and only two of them at that, while the Lamb has seven of them and is not a human being! Just as you cannot see satan in a visionary pit and be seated in Smyrna at the same time, why do you see the Lamb and the one with fiery eyes as the same person?

You would never conclude anything so silly about the lamb, though. However, you do that with the pit and the seating pictures. Brother, we cannot make a doctrine out of visions!

continued...