amillennialism?

[ApostolicFaith]

I would be interested in seeing these evidences of amillennialism dating back this far, can you provide them ?



How do you know that there were only a few who taught or believed in premillennialism ? What is your evidence for that statement ?

My first piece of evidence is from the first century. When the grandsons of Jude were brought before Domitian, he asked them what kind of kingdom they were expecting. The account recorded by Eusebius tells us what took place:

And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.
Ecclesiastical History 3.20.

In Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, the rabbi Trypho enquires:

“But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came?”

Justin answers: “I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”

Clearly there were Christians who were ‘orthodox’ who did not believe as Justin on this. I believe that the majority rejected it, because the majority of Christians taught that Christians go to heaven when they die, but the chiliasts taught that they go to Hades until the resurrection.

 

[thereselittleflower]

1st of all i didnt start out to argue your position with you i was curiouse as to the answer to my question. A map of any sort is not evedince to support any issue as maps are a picture of a particular time frame at best, and as we seen conflicts, can develop quickly from differing sources. scripture however is a differant story,

Then why did you offer the maps at the back of your bible as evidence to counter an argument in this thread?

I also disagree . . the map I offered was followed by proof from scriptures for its boundries . . did you bother going to the linked page?

one can not argue with what is plainly stated in scripture.

Since the evidence for those boundries was plainly stated in the scriptures, then we should have no problems with the map, right?

And since it is plainly stated in the scripture in Joshua, that ALL promises made to Abraham regarding the land were fulfilled, and none were left unfulfilled, then it is also plainly stated that your position is incorrect. Obviously, Israel must have possessed the land from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates already,

That is why i quickly conseaded the issue when dave presented the text from joshua at least as far as Gen is concerned. However no one has yet to show plainly stated scripture to support an amillinial pos.

I think this is what you are not understandiing.

The Ammillenial position is predicated on the chilaist position, the premillenial position, being wrong.

IE there is no 1000 literal reign of Christ on earth.

If there is no promise given to Abraham left to be fulfilled regarding the land of Israel, then where does a dispensationalist go from there?

You have argued against my natural understanding of scripture, and you have shown the error in my assumptions from Gen. But to effectivly support your position you will need to know and be ready to present your position through scripture, Assumming that the scripture as its given is alligorical, is not support for your position, it is simply an argument (and a weak one) against mine. To show me support for your position through scripture you will need to find the scripture (it is out there) and present it with a convincing argument for your position (Im not convinced it exists).

Actually, no . . you have it backwards.

It is the premillieniealist, the dispensatinalist, who needs to present clear and convincing proof that the 1000 years in Revelation is a literal period of 1000 years, and not symbolic.

The premillienialist position rests entirely on that assumption . that it is literal.

Some of the facts the amillenial position rests on are these:

1. the utter and complete lack of any solid proof that the 1000 years is a literal time frame. . it is the negative of the premillenialist position.
2. the nature of the book of Revelation, which is the only place in all of scripture where a thousand year reign of Christ is mentioned, being of the apocalyptic genre, which is HIGHLY symbolic and full of symbolic numbers
3. the teaching of the Church from the beginning regarding the nature of the book Revelation and
4. Chrsit's own words to Pilate regarding the nature of Hihs kingdom . My Kingdom is not of this world.

It is the PREMILLENIALIST position that needs to be solidly proven . .

What are the solid proofs that the 1000 years in Rev 20 are literal?


There are none .. it is all speculation. . . .

Speculation does not seem to be a very good basis for such an important doctrine as dispenationalism, or even earlier forms of premillenialism.

Gen was only one small portion of the premillinial pos,

Actually, no .. for the dispensationalist position (the form premilleniaism has surfaced in again today) primarily based on this argument from Gen, regarding the promise of God to Abraham about the land.

It was where Darby started . . it was what he set himself out to discover once he believed it had not been fulfilled .. how was God going to fulfill it?

So he started from a faulty premise and then proceeded to break the bible apart into snippets here and there which he then attempted to show how and why God was going to restore Israel to its land . . . and so dispensationalism was born.


If we do not have such a promise to Abraham left unfulfilled, then dispensationalism has no foundaiton.

Before Darby, never did the premillenialist position, which occasionally reared its head from time to time and ALWAYS associated with other heresies, ever hold that Israel would be restored to their land.

The chilaists never believed that about Israel.


This is what you need to focus on . . .

If premillenialism fails, then there are two other eshcatological options. . amillenialism or postmillenialism . . both of which are accpetable in the Church.

The Church does not make a difinitive statement of which view is correct, but does make a difinitive statement as to which view is in error and a heresy . .premillenialism.

So I don't need to prove amillenialism is right to prove dispenaitionalism or premillenialism is wrong . . . I am amillenial BECAUSE premillenialism is wrong and it makes the most sense . . but I could be post millennial as well. ....

So when the discussion is between amillenialism and dispesnationalism or another form of premillenialism, all I have to do is point out how premillenialism cannot prove its most essential claim, that of a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, leaving amillenialism as the only viable alternative between them.

in fact i was not even aware of it when i choose the premillinial pos. oh and my views are not dispensational either in fact i disagree with large portions of dispinsationalism. But it would take convincing scripture and argument to lead me towards amillinial indeed. Take your best shot.

What are you so I have a proper frame of reference from which to present my case from?

Are you premillenialist?

Do you believe more along the lines of the chilaists where their premillenial views did not involve a restored nation of Israel (as they saw all promises to them fulflled already)?


If you could share some information about what you do and do not believe, that would be most helpful.



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yes, we have evidence of amillennialism dating back (outside the NT) to the second and third centuries. Not only that, but the few who taught premillennialism also held as part of that belief a heretical view of life after death - a view which eventually developed into the Roman Catholic purgatory teaching.
aF

Hi . . I appreciated you posting evidence from the early church on the amillenialist view . .

There was something in your post though above which I want to comment on . . the idea that the premillenialist view of life after death developed into our teaching on purgatory . .

Actually, that's not correct.

From the beginning of the Church the believers prayed for those who had died. We see it in Paul's writings, we see it in the catacombs of the Early Christians. If there was not an intermediate state that some or many may have to experience before coming before the throne of God in Glory, then there was no basis for such prayers, but these have always and universally been prayed in both east and wet.

The chilaist beliefs denied that one canNOT enter heaven before Jesus returns. This was heretical and denied the cherished hope of all Christians which is to depart this life is be present with the Lord. Chilaists denied this for ALL and for the entire time before Christ's return and the resurrection.

The Catholic teaching regarding purgatory is nothing like this . . there are only similarities but there is nothing that is really the same. It did not develop out of this heretical view.

The Church rejected this heretical teaching of the chilaists, and it is one of the biggest reasons why premillenialism was discarded . . and each time premillenialism has resurfaced, it has been associated with other, heretical teachings.



I just wanted to clarify. . .


Peace

 

[ETide]

Some of the facts the amillenial position rests on are these:

1. the utter and complete lack of any solid proof that the 1000 years is a literal time frame. . it is the negative of the premillenialist position.
2. the nature of the book of Revelation, which is the only place in all of scripture where a thousand year reign of Christ is mentioned, being of the apocalyptic genre, which is HIGHLY symbolic and full of symbolic numbers
3. the teaching of the Church from the beginning regarding the nature of the book Revelation and
4. Chrsit's own words to Pilate regarding the nature of Hihs kingdom . My Kingdom is not of this world.

I'd like to comment briefly on the above so called facts which have been presented here..

1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ itself, in its 20th chapter, within the portion pertaining to "the things which shall be hereafter" speaks of those who had not worshipped the beast or his image, who had not received his mark upon their hand or their forehead, and who were beheaded for their testimony of Jesus. It is plainly stated that they lived (after they were beheaded) and reigned with Christ for a thousand years, and that this is called the first resurrection.

Amillennialists claim that this is taking place now, and also that satan is bound, and that the first resurrection described there pertains to when a person receives Christ..? ?

Furthermore, the beast and the false prophet are also linked with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with His saints.. making it a scriptural fact that the beast and the false prophet are future realities. 2 Thess 2 affirms that the man of sin will be destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's coming in that Day, the Day of Christ.. and we know that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.

Paul also speaks of the resurrection of the dead in 1 Cor 15 and links it with those that are Christ's at His coming.

Paul also speaks of those who err concerning the truth because they say that the resurrection is past already, and that their word eats like a cancer.

2. The prophetic book of Revelation is heavily centered upon judgment and there are many other places in scripture which speak of judgment and of the coming of the Day of the Lord.

3. The teaching of the church ? ? ? Evidently the church of God is not what this person thinks that it is..

4. Christ's own words to Pilate concerning His kingdom being not of this world.. and it certainly is not based upon this world.. it is based upon our Lord Jesus Christ and His righteousness.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ tells us plainly in its 11th chapter that the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. Again, this is found in the portion of the book which pertains to "the things which shall be hereafter"..

 

[thereselittleflower]

I'd like to comment briefly on the above so called facts which have been presented here..

1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ itself, in its 20th chapter, within the portion pertaining to "the things which shall be hereafter" speaks of those who had not worshipped the beast or his image, who had not received his mark upon their hand or their forehead, and who were beheaded for their testimony of Jesus. It is plainly stated that they lived (after they were beheaded) and reigned with Christ for a thousand years, and that this is called the first resurrection.

My response is quite detailed, so I am going to break it up into 2 posts:

I have questions:

1. "hereafter" what?
2. Who or what is the beast?
3. What is the mark?
4. What does beheading mean or stand for?(remenber, this is a highly symbolic book)
5. what does lived and reigned with Christ mean?
6. What legitimate justification is there in understanding the 1000 years stand for a literal 1000 years (remember, this is a highly synbolic book and other books threat this number only in symbioilic, figurative ways)
7. What is the first resurrection?

Thse are question you have not presented any real objective evidence for your claim.

You have provided only other word from the same passage and the same highly symbolic work . .

What you have not yet done is provide and legitimate justification and evidence that these things should be understood in any literal manner.

You are assuming that things you take as literal are literal, becaue that makes sense to you.

But what of you are wrong?

How do you prove that certain passages or phrases in a highly symbolic book should be undrestood literally?

Obvioulsy, you don't believe the "beast" in the same passage is a literal beat, but this term is symbolic and symbolizes a person.

Yet, everything else in that same passage you are taking literally .


Look at it . . again, remember not only is this a highly symbolic book, it is the MOST symbolic book of the entire bible . . look at what you are doing:

4I saw thrones (literal) on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.(literal) And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded (literal) because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God.(literal) They had not worshiped the beast (SYMBOLIC) or his image (literal) and had not received his mark (literal) on their foreheads or their hands.(literal) They came to life (literal) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.(literal) 5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years (literal) were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.(literal)

​

Here is a passage where you allow only ONE element to be symbolicly respresenting something else.

But this is the most symbolic of all the books of the bible. If one element in this passage is symbolic, why aren't all of them? To have so many elements be literal in a passage from the most symbolic book of the bible goes against the rule for such books.

What possible justification do you have to arbitrarily decide what is symbolic and what is literal?

Just because it makes sense to you?

What about the early Chirstians? How did they understand this book? Have you asked yourself that? Have you investigated that angle?

Wy are you so quick to take as literal what so many Early Christains understood to be symbolic?


This is a symbolic writing ETide. . I know what you believe and why, for I believed it myself for 30 years . . but where is the valid justification and proof for it?

Relying on the "context' of a highly symbolic book is not sufficient to prove you understand the context rightly and are properly assigning value to what is symbolic and what is literal . . you are only appealing to your private interpretation.


But Peter had something very serious to say about private interpretation of prophecy of scripture:

2 Peter 1:20
knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,

​

Yet you are giving us your private interpretation of prophecy of scripture as to what is to be undrestood literally and what is to be understood symbolically, and contrary to the Early Church.

You need more than to claim words from the most highly symbolic book in the bible should be interpreted literally . .

You need something outside of Revelation to prove this . . I see nothing that can.




cont.....

 

[thereselittleflower]

Amillennialists claim that this is taking place now, and also that satan is bound, and that the first resurrection described there pertains to when a person receives Christ..? ?

It is occuring now, has been for almost 2000 years, Satan is bound in the life of the believer, and the first resurrection is when we are raised (resurrected) with Christ in Baptism, the new birth.

Furthermore, the beast and the false prophet are also linked with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with His saints..

That is your interpretation, but the passage above says nothing about Jesus returning with His saints.

You have added that bit in yourself . . see how you are reading your theology into the passage we are discussing?

Where does it say that this happens when Jesus returns with His saints?


It doesn't ETide.




This is what you are reading into it . . this is calle eisegesis . . an erroneous approach to scripture interpretation.

So, the passage does not say this about Jesus sand the saints, yet this is integral to your argument regarding timing . .

Without this necessary component, being stated in thsi passage, your argument regarding timing has no support.

making it a scriptural fact that the beast and the false prophet are future realities. 2 Thess 2 affirms that the man of sin will be destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's coming in that Day, the Day of Christ.. and we know that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.

And a thousand years is like a day . . can't leave out that part of Peter's words . . .

So, if you selective select which part of Peter's saying should apply, by what authority do you claim to do so?

You have not established that this is simply a future reality. The passage in 2 Thes 2 has been interpreted in varous ways, even among evangelicals. Some look at That (transtlated he, but actually neutur) which restraineth being the Roman government at the time and HE (masculine) who letteth being the Emperor Claudia whose reign, AD 41-54, was one of the sainer at the time. After his reign, all hell broke loose. A little later, the temple was destroyed, Jerusalem beseiged, the people starved to death and forced into cannibalism . . and clearly it was confirmed in the minds of the Church that God's authority and power had left Israel and has passed to the Church

2 Thess 2 is very apocalyptic, using figurative, cryptic langauge to convey ideas. . . ideas that are difficult to understand.



Peter tells us about Paul's writings:

2 Peter 3:16
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.


​

"These things" refer to what Peter had just gotten done speaking about, The Day of the Lord. . . and he tells us that there are somethings Paul has said about this subject that are hard to understand, and which people who are UNTAUGHT and unstable can twist to their own destruction.

That is a pretty heavy warning.

People who are untaught . . . what could the Apostle Peter had in mind?

Well, the NT scriptures were written TO those who had already been taught all that was needful to know about the Christian faith by the Apostles themselves and in person! So what was written in the NT scriptures was meant to build on that foundation.

If one does not have this same foundation laid before they begin to try to interpret Paul's words on this matter, then are the untaught Peter is referring to.

So the question that naturally comes up in our discussion is, who laid your foundation?

Was it the teaching the Apostles passed on to the Church BOTH by word and epistle?

Paul tells us to stand fast and hold to the TRADITIONS taught by the Apostle, whether VERBALLY (by word) in person, or by epistle (NT scripture).

Do you hold only to one, the bible? Or do you hold to both and how do you know you have all the traditions Paul commanded us to keep?

How do you know the foundation laid in your life is exactly the same as the Aposltes laid almiost 2000 years ago?

If it is not, then how can one approach the apocalyptic words of Paul and understand them correctly if Peter so strongly warns us both about

1. trying to interpret Paul's words in such an untaught situation as well as
2. the fact that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation?

iwold be leary of doing so.

Paul also speaks of the resurrection of the dead in 1 Cor 15 and links it with those that are Christ's at His coming.

Yes, but that does not mean it is linked to the words of John we have been dicussing in Rev 20.

That is your claim .. there is no link established by the text.

Paul also speaks of those who err concerning the truth because they say that the resurrection is past already, and that their word eats like a cancer.

Saying the FIRST resurrection is baptism is not the same as saying the resurrection is past. . . There is a second resurrection - that of the body.

2. The prophetic book of Revelation is heavily centered upon judgment and there are many other places in scripture which speak of judgment and of the coming of the Day of the Lord.

The book of Revelation highly symbolic as it is of the apocalyptic genre . . so it cannot be assumed to be speaking literally as you have done, in such a predominate manner in a passage.

The teaching of the church ? ? ? Evidently the church of God is not what this person thinks that it is..

The teaching of the Church FROM THE BEGINNING . . you left out the part bolded in blue . . Do you think the Church something other than the Church in the beginning?

4. Christ's own words to Pilate concerning His kingdom being not of this world.. and it certainly is not based upon this world.. it is based upon our Lord Jesus Christ and His righteousness.

And? What does this have to do with my point that this means Jesus kingdom is not an earthly kingdom and so is a proof against a literal 1000 year reign of Chris on earth?

The Revelation of Jesus Christ tells us plainly in its 11th chapter that the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.

In Rev1:5 John tells us that Christ, at that momment, was now reigning over the kings of the earth . . so if Ch 11 tells us that this happened then, in that chapter, then it has to be referring to a time before John because Jesus was already reigning over the kings of the earth when John penned those words.

The kingdoms of pf this world have already become Christ's.



I want you to look at that passage in ch 11 again . . for you think it is future . . but is it really? verse 15:

15And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, `The kingdoms of the world did become [those] of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages!' (Youngs Literal Translation)

15 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms[f] of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” 16 And the twenty-four elders who sat before God on their thrones fell on their faces and worshiped God, 17 saying: (New King James Version)


​

The kingdomes of this world "did become " or "have become" the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Chirst:


The verb translated "have (or did) become" is ginomai" but what is important here is it is in

1. the 2nd aorist tense,
2. middle depondent voice,
3. Indicative mood

I want you to look at the aoirist tense . .

5777 Tense - Aorist

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.



​

So one has to assume that it is future from this verse, for this verse does not state it is furture.

Now, bear with me a little further - it is going to seem repetative, but I want to make another point. . this verse (Rev 11:15) is not concerned with when the kingdoms of the world become Christ's - just that they have done so.

Rev 1:5 tells us He is ruling over the kings of the earth now . . as of the time when John penned those words. The situation has not changed in 1900 years, He is still rulling over the kngs of the earth.

Understanding this, we look at verse 15 again:

The kingdoms of the world have become, did become (simply past tense translating the aorist which has no regard for time) yet is then says He SHALL reign (future tense) for ever and ever.

Now, again, we know He is reigning now from Rev 1:5.

This verse is not concerned with something that will commence in the future, but it is telling us Christ' reigning will EXTEND INTO the future - it was not for a brief time and then will be over . .

"Shall reign forever and ever" . . a reign started before John penned those words, a reign that shall last forever and ever. . . (literally unto the ages of ages).

Now, with that in mind, look at the passage in Rev 20 again:

:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. ;


​

"I saw thrones and they sat upon them"

"I saw" is ALSO in the "aorist" tense . .so the "seeing" is without regard to time.!

"Sat" is ALSO in the "aorist" tense . .so the "sitting' on the thrones is without regard to time!

"and judgment was given unto them"

"was given" is ALSO in the "aorist" tense . .so the "giving" of judgement is without regard to time!


"and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,"

The "seeing" of the souls who were beheaded is ALSO in the "aorist" tense . .so the "sitting' on the thrones is without regard to time.!

Now we have a change:



"were beheaded" is in the PERFECT tense:

5778 Tense - Perfect

The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.



​

So this is speaking of those who are martyred, since, of course, they can only be martyred once.

Let's continue:


"and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image"

"worshipped" is ALSO in the "aorist" tense . .so the not "worshipping of the beast or his image is without regard to time


" neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands;"

"had received" is ALSO in the "aorist" tense . .so the not "receiving" of the mark is without regard to time


"and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

They "lived" is ALSO in the "aorist" tense . .so the "living" with Chirst is without regard to time

They "reigned" is ALSO in the "aorist" tense . .so the "reigning" with Chirst is without regard to time


John is not concerned with the timing of what he writes in Rev 20:4 at all . . . yet you want this to necessarily be future . . but the clues in other places make it present in his day, something that had already started and was continuing.

By the time John had wrote this around 100AD, there had been MANY, MANY martyrs, many of whom had been beheaded, and so it mkaes sense that John wiuld have used this to designate the martyrs (beheaded - perfect tense . .completed action in the past)

Chrsit is NOW reigning over the kings of the earth. He is doing so from heaven. The martyrs are also doing so, with Him, from heaven. The saints are also doing so, from heaven.

Are you starting to see a different picture?

Again, this is found in the portion of the book which pertains to "the things which shall be hereafter"..

"hereafter" what exactly? See, you have not yet established that "hereafter" only refers to a future, to us, time.



Peace

 

[ETide]

And what evidence have you provided for anything at all thereselittleflower ?

All that you have said is that the events of Revelation 20 are taking place right now.. AND, you're obviously free to believe that as much as you do.. that's absolutely fine.. although it is not as though you have any great evidence to support what you believe.

Let's go ever the facts of the scripture one more time.. although I'm not sure if it will do you any good, although perhaps some others who are looking at this thread can see these things.

In Revelation 20 we're told about satan being bound for a thousand years so that he can not deceive the nations.. that alone should be a no brainer for most because we're told in other places in the NT that he is the god of this world who has blinded the minds of those that believe not the gospel of Jesus Christ, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience.

We're told of those who had not worshipped the beast or his image, who had not received his mark upon their hand or their forehead, who live and reign with Christ for a thousand years, after they were beheaded.

You have spoken of chronological order, although it was pointed out to you that it is not so much a matter of chronological order as it is a matter of connection in the context of the events.

If you will look at at the latter portion of Revelation 19 which preceeds Revelation 20, you will see that the kings of the earth are gathered together with the beast and the false prophet who deceived them, to make war with the Lord and with the army which follows Him. We're told that the beast and the false prophet are taken and cast alive into the lake of fire at this time..

OK, connection.. the beast and the false prophet are taken and cast into the lake of fire by the Lord coming with His saints follwing Him. OK, not too difficult of a thing to grasp. Then, if you look at 2 Thess 2 we see another description of the man of sin who is destroyed by the brightness of our Lord's coming. That too is connected with the Lord's coming.

How about the resurrection of the dead, yes, that too is connected with the Lord coming as mentioned in 1 Cor 15.

OK, then, if you continue to look at Revelation 20, it says that after the thousand years are expired, satan is loosed and that he gathers together the nations which he has then deceived (remember that when he was bound he could not deceive the nations), and they went up on the breadth of the earth and compassed (ie, surrounded) the camp of the saints.. did you get that.. on the earth.. THEN, it says that fire comes down from God out of heaven and destroys them.. AND THEN, this is important.. it says that the devil was cast into the lake of fire WHERE THE BEAST AND THE FALSE PROPHET ARE..

Well, when were the beast and the false prophet cast into the lake of fire.. that's right, when the LORD comes with His saints, the armies of heaven following Him as described in Revelation 19.

So, unless you or other amillers believe that the Lord has already come with His saints as described in Rev 19, where He takes the beast and false prophet and casts them into the lake of fire, then clearly this is a future context.

Not that difficult to see, unless of course you must cleave to a position that claims that these things are already taking place.

continued..

 

[ETide]

Let's think about Revelation 20 in the context which it speaks of satan being bound for a thousand years and that he is unable to deceive the NATIONS during this time.

Before we do, let's look at a key verse in the Revelation of Jesus Christ which pertains to what John was told to write.

[BIBLE]Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;[/BIBLE]

The things which John had seen speak of his vision of the Son of man amongst the lampstands.. the things which are pertain to the messages to the churches as the things which shall be hereafter are defined in Rev 4 as John is then told to write about those things..

So, that in itself is very important.. however.. let's look at some other NT verses which are written to the church of God which we know that our Lord is still building.. believer by believer, He Himself setting each member into place in His body as it pleases Himself.

Let's start with Paul in 2 Cor 4:3-4.

[BIBLE]But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
[/BIBLE]

Keep in mind that Revelation 20 speaks of satan being bound so that he can not deceive the nations.. Paul says that he has blinded the minds of those that believe not.

In Ephesians Paul says that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against spiritual wickedness in high places, against the RULERS of the darkness of THIS WORLD. In Eph 2 he says that this spirit NOW works in the children of disobedience.

How about an active example.. In 1 Thess 2:18 Paul speaks of their desire to come to them but that Satan HINDERED them..

Peter tells us that we should be sober because our adversary the devil roams about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.

James tells us to resist the devil and he will flee from us..

John tells us that the whole world lieth in wickedness..

Yet amillennialists claim that satan is bound..? AND REMEMBER, we're told in Rev 20 that he is bound so that he can not deceive the nations..

 

[ETide]

thereselittleflower also mentioned the teaching of the church from the beginning with respect to the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Obviously her comments were connected with what she perceived the church of God to be, ie, perhaps the RCC.

The scriptures are overwhelmingly clear as to what the church of God is, and it's not the RCC. It is the BODY OF CHRIST, believers of which He alone knows the hearts of and who He alone has set into place as it pleases Himself. 1 Cor 12 describes that rather nicely.

There is not a man on this planet who has added any member to the body of Christ, it is God and God alone who has placed each member thereon, and continues to add members as it pleases Himself.

He alone knows the heart and He alone purifies each heart by faith..

As Paul teaches us, some plant, some water, but God giveth the increase.

So, unless thereselittleflower can see Christ within every member of the body of Christ as it is scattered abroad upon this planet, and intimately knows the heart and mind of each member, as God alone does, then she has no basis at all for a statement which suggests a particular teaching of the church.

Now we can assume that she means the RCC, although that has absolutely no basis whatsoever in scripture, the living and abiding Word of God.

 

[ETide]

So, because we can see from Revelation 19 that the beast and the false prophet are taken alive and cast into the lake of fire when the Lord comes with His saints.. (His coming is also described in Jude 1:14 as coming in judgment upon all..)

We can understand that this connects the beast and the false prophet to a future context. Obviously the Lord has not yet come with ten thousands of His saints in judgment..

So, when we look at other portions of the Revelation within the portion which speaks concerning the things which shall be hereafter.. we see that the beast and false prophet demands that all worship him and that they receive a mark upon their right hand or their forehead. We also see that those who would not would be killed. See Rev 13..

AND SO, isn't this precisely what we read of in Rev 20..? There we read of those who would not worship the beast or his image, who had not received his mark, and who were beheaded (ie, killed) for their testimony of Jesus Christ.

The Spirit of God alone can convict or convince one of these things.. all that we can do is to do our best with the ability that God has given each member and to speak the truth in love as we see these things in the scriptures.

May our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ continue to bless those of His richly, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding, enlightening the eyes of our understanding in all things so that we can all grow up together into that perfect man, unto the fulness of Christ.

To Him alone be the glory for ever and ever, AMEN.

 

[thereselittleflower]

And what evidence have you provided for anything at all thereselittleflower ?

Are you actually reading my posts?

I have given you a great deal of evidence why a literalist approach to the book of Revelation is dangerous to one's theology.

All that you have said is that the events of Revelation 20 are taking place right now.. AND, you're obviously free to believe that as much as you do.. that's absolutely fine.. although it is not as though you have any great evidence to support what you believe.

No that is not all I have done or said . . I have provided you with scriptural evidence to help you see that a literalist approach which puts the events into the future does not jive with the facts, foremost being the book of Revelation is a symoblic book, and not written or intended to be understood literally.

If one does not take into consideration the TYPE of writing they are reading, the genre of the book, they can come up with all sorts of things.

That would be like someone reading a Starwars book and, failing to understand it is a work of fiction (science fiction genre), treating it as though it is historical fact.


The genre is important, and must be conisdered first before all else, and one's approach must take into consideration the genre first or one could easily end up with a bunch of erroneous ideas, just as in our example of the one who didn't understand Starwars is a work of fiction.

You are simply not taking into account the genre of this book Revelation. . . .

It is HEAVILY SYMBOLIC.

That is the first and foremost point that needs to ever be before us when we read Revelation.

You need to deal with the arguments and evidences I gave that demonstrates all this, yet all you are doing is dismissing it . . .

Let's go ever the facts of the scripture one more time.. although I'm not sure if it will do you any good, although perhaps some others who are looking at this thread can see these things.

LOL May I let you know that resorting to Ad Hominems is a logical fallacy when it comes to rules of logic that govern debate (and discussions and verbal interactions between people).

May I also take time to inform all of what the engaging in of ad hominems means.

Ad Hominem means to attack the person, rather than the ideas and/or arguments the person has made.

Your comment above " I'm not sure if it will do you any good" is an ad hominem. . it attacks the person, me, not my arguments.

This type of logical fallacy is seen when the one engaging in it finds themselves backed into a corner and their position harder to defend. . . it means the person engaging in it is arguing from a very weakened position. It is a substitutionalry fallacy, substituting the person for their arguments and points.

So, this demonstrates for us that your position has been effectively shown to be weak by my arguments.


Let's see where this goes

In Revelation 20 we're told about satan being bound for a thousand years so that he can not deceive the nations.. that alone should be a no brainer for most because we're told in other places in the NT that he is the god of this world who has blinded the minds of those that believe not the gospel of Jesus Christ, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience.

Nothing so far says that the 1000 years is literal or that it is future.

These are your contentions as to how to interpret these words in Rev 20 . . they are have not been proven. Contending it is future and proving it are two very different things.

And what does this passage really say? Does it tell us it is future? Or is it full of aorist tense, wich is WITHOUT regard for time?

Revelation 20

Satan Bound 1000 Years

1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

​

"He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;"

"laid hold" - AORIST WITHOUT REGARD FOR TIME.

"is": the devil - PRESENT . .

"bound him" - AORIST WITHOUT REGARD FOR TIME


"and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while."


"cast him" - AORIST WITHOUT REGARD FOR TIME

"shut him up" - AORIST WITHOUT REGARD FOR TIME

"set a seal" - AORIST WITHOUT REGARD FOR TIME

"he should deceive" - AORIST WITHOUT REGARD FOR TIME

"were finished" - AORIST WITHOUT REGARD FOR TIME

"be released" - AORIST WITHOUT REGARD FOR TIME

Again, without regard for time .. nothing within this passage indicate it is necessarily future . . The genre indicates we should be very, very careful about assinging literal interpretations that fit our own sensibilities . . for it is a highly symbolic work.

We're told of those who had not worshipped the beast or his image,

Who or what is the beast? What is his image?

I asked you a series of questions in the opening part of my response to you, yet you are not answering my questions. .. the questions above were two of them . .

Why are you avoiding my questions?

who had not received his mark upon their hand or their forehead, who live and reign with Christ for a thousand years, after they were beheaded.

You have not answered my questions regarding these lelements of the passage . .

You have spoken of chronological order, although it was pointed out to you that it is not so much a matter of chronological order as it is a matter of connection in the context of the events.

It is absolutely a matter of chronological order for you are makig it chronological.

I am saying there is nothing that mandates it be so.

You are arguing that it is a matter of connection which PUTS it into chronological order . .

But you have not established the connections you assume in the manner you assume them.


The visions were recorded in a certain order . . but that says NOTHING about whether the visions are about events that are in chronological order.

Proving they are in chronological order is essential for your position.


This you can't do.

If you will look at at the latter portion of Revelation 19 which preceeds Revelation 20, you will see that the kings of the earth are gathered together with the beast and the false prophet who deceived them, to make war with the Lord and with the army which follows Him. We're told that the beast and the false prophet are taken and cast alive into the lake of fire at this time..

Again, you are reading this literally . you are reading large portion of a highly symblic book as though it speaks literally . .

This violates and does vioilence to the very genre of the book!

In order to read ch 19 and 20 as literal, one has to IGNORE the GENRE of the book itself!

This is a fallacious appraoch to the book of Revelation, which is of the APOCALYPTIC GENRE which signifies it is a HIGHLY SYMBOLIC book, and in actuallity is the MOST SYMBOLIC book of the entire bible!

When you are reading a book of this genre, you cannot be taking whole chapters, chapter after chapter, treating them as basically literal, especially in such a cavalier way, and legitimately expect to come out of this all with a right understanding of what was being spoken about.

The book is SYMBOLIC . . not Literal with a little symbolism thrown in here or there . .

IT IS SYMBOLIC! It utilizes symbolic langauge. It uses normal langauge in symbolic ways.

OK, connection.. the beast and the false prophet are taken and cast into the lake of fire by the Lord coming with His saints follwing Him.

Where does it say that exactly?

I guess you didn't read my posts before responding as I already asked you a question about this and pointed out that what you claim is in the text is NOT in the text.



You are ignoring this?

Where does it say that the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire BY THE LORD COMING WITH HIS SAINTS?



It doesn't say that. You are inferring this because of what came before and how you are taking what is in the most symbolic book of the bible, literally without any warrant for ignoring the genre of the book you are reading to do so.

OK, not too difficult of a thing to grasp. Then, if you look at 2 Thess 2 we see another description of the man of sin who is destroyed by the brightness of our Lord's coming. That too is connected with the Lord's coming.

I understand the connection you are making.

But you are ignoring that both passages use apocalyptic langauge whch is highly symbolic.

You are reading it as though it is literal while ignoring its purpose, its genre. A superficial read while ignoring the genre of the work will yeild erroneous results in understanding.


And again, you appear to be ignoring scriptures admonision that

NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE
IS OF ANY
PRIVATE INTERPRETATION​

2 Peter 1:20​

Yet you are engaging in private interpretation of prophecy of scripture. . AGAINST a CLEAR BIBLICAL mandate not to do so!

Why? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

The bible tells you NOT to do EXACTLY what you ARE DOING!

Why are you doing it? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

How about the resurrection of the dead, yes, that too is connected with the Lord coming as mentioned in 1 Cor 15.

Again, Revelation speaks of more than ONE resurrection, for it speaks specifically of the FIRST . . If there is a FIRST then there is at least another.



We are resurrected with Jesus, raised with Jesus in Baptism . .the bible tells us that ETide.


We still have another resurrection to experience . that of our bodies. Our bodily resurrection is not the first resurrection . .

OK, then, if you continue to look at Revelation 20, it says that after the thousand years are expired, satan is loosed and that he gathers together the nations which he has then deceived (remember that when he was bound he could not deceive the nations), and they went up on the breadth of the earth and compassed (ie, surrounded) the camp of the saints.. did you get that.. on the earth.. THEN, it says that fire comes down from God out of heaven and destroys them.. AND THEN, this is important.. it says that the devil was cast into the lake of fire WHERE THE BEAST AND THE FALSE PROPHET ARE..

Well, when were the beast and the false prophet cast into the lake of fire.. that's right, when the LORD comes with His saints, the armies of heaven following Him as described in Revelation 19.

So, unless you or other amillers believe that the Lord has already come with His saints as described in Rev 19, where He takes the beast and false prophet and casts them into the lake of fire, then clearly this is a future context.

Not that difficult to see, unless of course you must cleave to a position that claims that these things are already taking place.

continued..

[/quote]

I am not going to continue to tear apart the passages to show how they were not written with a time frame in mind. I have already several times brought to your attention the genre of this book and how you are doing violence to it by requiring a literal reading and understanding of what is written symbilically. I am not going to keep repeating my arguments simply because you refuse to deal with them.


When you are ready to deal with my arguments, instead of simply repeating your own as if I have not said anything, let me know.



Peace

 

[inhisdebt]

Then why did you offer the maps at the back of your bible as evidence to counter an argument in this thread?
OBVIASLY I HAD ASSUMED I WAS CORRECT

I also disagree . . the map I offered was followed by proof from scriptures for its boundries . . did you bother going to the linked page? YES I WENT TO BOTH LINKS/MAPS NO SCRIPTURE



Since the evidence for those boundries was plainly stated in the scriptures, then we should have no problems with the map, right?
WRONG THE SCRIPTURE WAS NEVER GIVEN BY YOU IT WAS GIVEN BY DAVE/ AND A MAP IS A PICTURE OF A PLACE IN TIME THEY CHANGE CONSTANTLY

And since it is plainly stated in the scripture in Joshua, that ALL promises made to Abraham regarding the land were fulfilled, and none were left unfulfilled, then it is also plainly stated that your position is incorrect. Obviously, Israel must have possessed the land from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates already, TRUE AS I HAD ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED TO DAVE




I think this is what you are not understandiing.

The Ammillenial position is predicated on the chilaist position, the premillenial position, being wrong.
THEN THAT IS A WEAK POSITION INDEED

IE there is no 1000 literal reign of Christ on earth.
WRONG

If there is no promise given to Abraham left to be fulfilled regarding the land of Israel, then where does a dispensationalist go from there?
BACK TO THE SCRIPTURE OF COARSE, ONLY A FOOL CHOOSES THERE DOCTRINAL POSITION ON ONE VERSE OF SCRIPTURE/ OR THE LACK THEROF




Actually, no . . you have it backwards.
OF COARSE I DO IM WRONG AND YOUR RIGHT, WHO NEEDS PROOF LOL
It is the premillieniealist, the dispensatinalist, who needs to present clear and convincing proof that the 1000 years in Revelation is a literal period of 1000 years, and not symbolic.
i WOULD ARGUE THAT AS IT IS PLAINLY STATED IN SCRIPTURE YOU MUST PROVE THE SCRIPTURE IS WRONG

The premillienialist position rests entirely on that assumption . that it is literal.
YES WE DO TEND TO TAKE THE WORD OF GOD SERIOUSLY

Some of the facts the amillenial position rests on are these:

1. the utter and complete lack of any solid proof that the 1000 years is a literal time frame. . it is the negative of the premillenialist position
2. the nature of the book of Revelation, which is the only place in all of scripture where a thousand year reign of Christ is mentioned, being of the apocalyptic genre, which is HIGHLY symbolic and full of symbolic numbers
3. the teaching of the Church from the beginning regarding the nature of the book Revelation and
4. Chrsit's own words to Pilate regarding the nature of Hihs kingdom . My Kingdom is not of this world.

It is the PREMILLENIALIST position that needs to be solidly proven . .

What are the solid proofs that the 1000 years in Rev 20 are literal?
1)there is no proof to support any scripture it boils down to faith in God and his word, If you choose to disbelieve it, your problem is not with me it is a lack of faith in Gods word.
2)While you have explained why you do not believe Gods word in the book of Rev, you still have not explained why you do not believe Gods word in ezekial


There are none .. it is all speculation. . . .

Speculation does not seem to be a very good basis for such an important doctrine as dispenationalism, or even earlier forms of premillenialism.



Actually, no .. for the dispensationalist position (the form premilleniaism has surfaced in again today) primarily based on this argument from Gen, regarding the promise of God to Abraham about the land.

It was where Darby started . . it was what he set himself out to discover once he believed it had not been fulfilled .. how was God going to fulfill it?

So he started from a faulty premise and then proceeded to break the bible apart into snippets here and there which he then attempted to show how and why God was going to restore Israel to its land . . . and so dispensationalism was born.
Agreed dispinsationalism is as weak as ammillianialism


If we do not have such a promise to Abraham left unfulfilled, then dispensationalism has no foundaiton.
Dont throughout the baby with the bath water, Just because darby was dreadfully wrong on most of his positions doesnt mean you through out all of his ideas
Before Darby, never did the premillenialist position, which occasionally reared its head from time to time and ALWAYS associated with other heresies, ever hold that Israel would be restored to their land. Actually most of the old testiment states just that.

The chilaists never believed that about Israel.
And who are /where they

This is what you need to focus on . . .

If premillenialism fails, then there are two other eshcatological options. . amillenialism or postmillenialism . . both of which are accpetable in the Church.

The Church does not make a difinitive statement of which view is correct, but does make a difinitive statement as to which view is in error and a heresy . .premillenialism. Oh really and whos church is that

So I don't need to prove amillenialism is right to prove dispenaitionalism or premillenialism is wrong . . . I am amillenial BECAUSE premillenialism is wrong and it makes the most sense . . but I could be post millennial as well. ....

So when the discussion is between amillenialism and dispesnationalism or another form of premillenialism, all I have to do is point out how premillenialism cannot prove its most essential claim, that of a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, leaving amillenialism as the only viable alternative between them.




What are you so I have a proper frame of reference from which to present my case from?
My positions would be a post tribulational, premillianial,leaning towards covanat theoligy, And partial preterist.

Are you premillenialist?Obviasly

Do you believe more along the lines of the chilaists where their premillenial views did not involve a restored nation of Israel (as they saw all promises to them fulflled already)? No Ezekial and rev points towards a premillianial rule of Christ on earth, in jerusalam.


If you could share some information about what you do and do not believe, that would be most helpful.



Peace

 

[ETide]

thereselittleflower,

ALL that you have done is give your opinion on the scriptures pertaining to the Rev 20, as this is also what I have done. Others can see that for themselves. The Spirit of God convinces of these things... you nor I do not.

If you somehow believe that your thoughts and opinion on these matters is somehow greater or is on the plane of absolute infallibility, then I guess we'll need to leave it at that.

You share your thoughts on the subject, I'll share mine. That's all that we can do to the best of our abilities.

So, as you're obviously entitled, keep on embracing the doctrine of amillennialism.

I chose not to do that.

Is that OK with you ?

You and I are both free to discuss these things although again, if you consider your opinion on these things as somehow better than another, then that's that.

 

[thereselittleflower]

ETide . . if you wish to continue to dismiss facts I have presented, that is your choice, but until you are willing to answer my questions to you, and engage me on my arguments and evidences, there is nothing more for me to say to you . it is pointless to keep offering information that keeps getting ignored.

That the book of Revelation is of the apocalyptic genre is not my opinoin . . it is fact.

That apolcalyptic genre is highly symbolic is not my opinion, it is fact.

That the aorist tense is predominiately used in passages you are referring us to, and that it has NO respect for time, past, present or future, is not my opinion, but fact.

I could go on . but what is the point? You are ignoring all these facts and more . . .


When you are ready to deal with my actual arguments, facts and evidences I have presented, let me know.

If you simply want to dismiss this as all my mere opinion and ignore the facts and evidences, then there is no point to continuing discussion with you.



Peace

 

[ETide]

ETide . . if you wish to continue to dismiss facts I have presented, that is your choice, but until you are willing to answer my questions to you, and engage me on my arguments and evidences, there is nothing more for me to say to you . it is pointless to keep offering information that keeps getting ignored.

That the book of Revelation is of the apocalyptic genre is not my opinoin . . it is fact.

That apolcalyptic genre is highly symbolic is not my opinion, it is fact.

That the aorist tense is predominiately used in passages you are referring us to, and that it has NO respect for time, past, present or future, is not my opinion, but fact.

I could go on . but what is the point? You are ignoring all these facts and more . . .


When you are ready to deal with my actual arguments, facts and evidences I have presented, let me know.

If you simply want to dismiss this as all my mere opinion and ignore the facts and evidences, then there is no point to continuing discussion with you.



Peace

OK thereselittleflower,

I understand that you believe that what YOU believe is fact, and what another believes is not fact. That's absolutely fine in my mind.

That simply means that you have Godspeed knowledge and understanding in all things and that there is no possibility that you can be incorrect.

Again, you have at that my friend, that is entirely beyond the realm of my capability.

 

[thereselittleflower]

OK thereselittleflower,

I understand that you believe that what YOU believe is fact, and what another believes is not fact. That's absolutely fine in my mind.

Then is everything relative and there is no such thing as "fact" in any aboslute sense?

That is what you are saying by responding to me in this way regarding facts, even if this is not what you are intending to convey.

That simply means that you have Godspeed knowledge and understanding in all things and that there is no possibility that you can be incorrect.

We are not talking about mysteris, but facts of life.

Do you understand what the word "genre" even is? Do you realize that this is an everyday word and that all books fall into one genre or another?

This is a FACT . . not an opinion .. a FACT.

It is not relative . .. it is FACT.

We have to have some basis from which to have a discussion and part of that basis is what words mean.


What does the word "genre" mean? Do you know?

Have you aquianted yourself with this whole concept?

Or are you rejecting its validity based on your own presumptions you don't have to bother yourself with it?


Let's focus on that one issue for right now . .


GENRE . .


Are you willing to do this? We have to have a starting place from which we can move forward agreeing on something . . or there is no reasonable purpose for this discussion.

Again, you have at that my friend, that is entirely beyond the realm of my capability.

Understanding what the genre of a book is and what that means is beyond you?

If so, then this disucssion is as you say .. .

"beyond the realm of my capability"
​

I don't think that is true.


If you want to tackle the issue of genre with me as a starting place, which is a very primary point in this discussion, please let me know and we can start to lay some commong points of understanding from which to proceed.





Peace

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

TLF: The Church rejected this heretical teaching of the chilaists, and it is one of the biggest reasons why premillenialism was discarded . . and each time premillenialism has resurfaced, it has been associated with other, heretical teachings.

I just wanted to clarify. . .
Peace

Heretical is an awfully strong word, what about Unbiblical and Unscriptural.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3095929-wow-daniel-831-14-overlooked.html

Amos 8:1 Thus the Lord GOD showed me: Behold, a basket of summer fruit. 2 And He said, "Amos, what do you see?" So I said, "A basket of summer fruit." Then the LORD said to me: "The end [#07093] has come upon My people Israel; I will not pass by them anymore. 3 And the songs of the temple Shall be wailing in that day," Says the Lord GOD -- "Many dead bodies everywhere, They shall be thrown out in silence."

 

[ETide]

therese,

You believe that the events described in Rev 20 are taking place now. That's fine, you're entitled to that belief. It is what you believe and you have shared some reasons why you believe this way, and of course there are many others that believe the same way that you do.

Let me ask you this, is there any possibility at all that you may be incorrect..?

Anyway, I have obviously also shared reasons as to why I believe that the events described in Rev 20 pertain to future events. I believe that there are clear scriptural evidences supporting this position.

Is there the possibility that I am incorrect. Absolutely, although again, the scriptural support for these things seems to be overwhelming in my estimation.

You do not believe that.

So what, it's not a big deal to me. I am not out to convince you of anything, that's the job of the Spirit of God.. He leads us into all truth and of things to come.

I have no desire to debate, but rather to share our positions as we understand them. This is profitable to both camps as they can see both sides of the fence so to speak.

So, have at it..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

therese,

You believe that the events described in Rev 20 are taking place now. That's fine, you're entitled to that belief. It is what you believe and you have shared some reasons why you believe this way, and of course there are many others that believe the same way that you do.

Let me ask you this, is there any possibility at all that you may be incorrect..?

Anyway, I have obviously also shared reasons as to why I believe that the events described in Rev 20 pertain to future events. I believe that there are clear scriptural evidences supporting this position.

Is there the possibility that I am incorrect. Absolutely, although again, the scriptural support for these things seems to be overwhelming in my estimation.

You do not believe that.

So what, it's not a big deal to me. I am not out to convince you of anything, that's the job of the Spirit of God.. He leads us into all truth and of things to come.

I have no desire to debate, but rather to share our positions as we understand them. This is profitable to both camps as they can see both sides of the fence so to speak.

So, have at it..

So, because we can see from Revelation 19 that the beast and the false prophet are taken alive and cast into the lake of fire when the Lord comes with His saints.. (His coming is also described in Jude 1:14 as coming in judgment upon all..)

Where do you think this "Lake of Fire" is?

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/lazarus.htm

[SIZE=+1]LUKE 16:24 "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'" [/SIZE]

 

[thereselittleflower]

Heretical is an awfully strong word, what about Unbiblical and Unscriptural.

Actually no . . it was the Early Church who determined it was heretical. So I am giving the Early Church's determination on this.

And I saw the thread below . . I didn't enter it to refute the premise as I didn't want to get involved in another such thread yet again right now.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3095929-wow-daniel-831-14-overlooked.html

Amos 8:1 Thus the Lord GOD showed me: Behold, a basket of summer fruit. 2 And He said, "Amos, what do you see?" So I said, "A basket of summer fruit." Then the LORD said to me: "The end [#07093] has come upon My people Israel; I will not pass by them anymore. 3 And the songs of the temple Shall be wailing in that day," Says the Lord GOD -- "Many dead bodies everywhere, They shall be thrown out in silence."

Yes, and that speaks against the premillenialist postion.

This is speaking of a coming judgement on Israel (coming as of the time it was given, past from our persepctive). I don't see how it addresses what I was talking about earlier.



Peace