How can satan be already bound without contradicting Revelation 12?

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Wait. Maybe I need more coffee....but I just re-read this. DavidPT you wrote this:

-Revelation 20:4 clearly and undeniably places the 42 month reign of the beast as already fulfilled and in the past when satan is loosed after the thousand years.
.....and I CAN AGREE with all of that (I'm not completely sure - but that's where I'm currently leaning).

But then you immediately followed that statement with this:

Therefore the only logical place the 42 month reign of the beast can possibly fit is before the thousand years.
????
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
J
This does seem convincing to me - that the 42 month period lines up to when satan is "loosed" but it's AFTER the thousand years are completed. But why are you believing it ONLY fits BEFORE the thousand years when Scripture places it AFTER? That's the only part of your conclusion that I'm seeing as being in conflict with Scripture (the timing). Revelation 20:3 is irreconcilable with your conclusion:


Let me try and explain it this way. There are only 2 times when satan is not in the pit. Either before the thousand years, or after it. The thousand years obviously precede satan's little season. I wouldn't think anyone would dispute that. In order for a position, such as Amil, to be the correct postion, the beast in Revelation 13 has to still be alive and well in order for it to be cast alive into the LOF according to Revelation 19.

According to Revelation 20:4 though, as of the thousand years, there have already been martyrs by this same beast in Revelation 13. So when were they initially martyred via it then? And since it can't be during the thousand years, and it that it can't be during satan's little season following the thousand years, the fact they have already been martyred by the beast before satan is even loosed, how can before the thousand years not be the only logical place this can fit?

And since there is only one 42 month period the beast is allowed to continue, there
can't be both a 42 month period by this same beast, prior to the thousand years and also after the thousand years. It has to be one or the other and that Revelation 20:4 indicates it's the former and not the latter.

And if the 42 months the beast is allowed to continue is already in the past when satan is loosed, how then is satan able to use this same beast in order to help fulfill his little season?
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
There are only 2 times when satan is not in the pit. Either before the thousand years, or after it.
Or both.....right?

He was not bound before.....and after the thousand years, he was "loosed for a little while" (which would mean he wasn't in the pit before and after he was bound). Agreed?
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
According to Revelation 20:4 though, as of the thousand years, there have already been martyrs by this same beast in Revelation 13. So when were they initially martyred via it then?
Since this is a critical point that distinguishes between the different millennial viewpoints, maybe this is a good thing for us to sort of "wrestle" with? I'm still processing most of this - and haven't come to any dogmatic conclusions (nor do I ever plan to take a dogmatic stance).

I think we may be getting to a point of agreement, though. I'm seeing the identity of the martyrs in the same way - that in order for them to "reign with Christ" BECAUSE they are those who refused to worship him and take his mark.....then their martyrdom had to have occurred while satan was loosed (not bound). As I'm understanding.....the place of reference for the period of time of "worshiping him and taking his mark" is in Revelation 13:11-17 (as you posted). I see this as the 42 month period in 66-70 AD.

I'm leaning towards the idea that satan was NOT "bound" until AFTER 70 AD. Doug Wilkinson makes a good point (Doug Wilkinson, Rethinking Eschatology Facebook group, November 22, 2017):

Quoting Doug Wilkinson: "In the Transmillennial FP position, the millennium ends before the mark of the beast is issued. And, since the martyrs of 20:4 were killed for not taking the mark, that means those martyrs aren’t killed until after the millennium. That means the only people who are explicitly said to be in the millennium are actually excluded from it"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Or both.....right?

He was not bound before.....and after the thousand years, he was "loosed for a little while" (which would mean he wasn't in the pit before and after he was bound). Agreed?


The way I worded it perhaps makes it appear that I'm not concluding the same as you here. I do agree with you here. So yes, we're on the same page here. I think my point was that there are only 2 logical places the 42 months of the beast can fit. And since it has to be during a time when he is not in the pit, it either has to be before the thousand years, or after the thousand years, since these are the only 2 times he wouldn't be in the pit.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wait. Maybe I need more coffee....but I just re-read this. DavidPT you wrote this:


.....and I CAN AGREE with all of that (I'm not completely sure - but that's where I'm currently leaning).

But then you immediately followed that statement with this:


????


I'm failing to understand why you are not seeing the logic in what I concluded? Especially since you agreed that the 42 months of the beast would be in the past when satan is released post the thousand years. How can that not logically place this 42 months prior to the beginning of the thousand years in that case?

It would look like this chronologically---the 42 months the beast is allowed to continue, thus when the martyrdom of the saints seen in Revelation 20:4 initially occurred----followed by the thousand years---followed by satan's little season. This would also obviously mean satan is bound after the beast has been allowed to continue 42 months. Without there still being a beast around during satan's little season, typical Amil is an impossible conclusion to arrive at. By typical Amil I'm meaning those that place the 42 months of the beast in the end of this age with the 2nd coming of Christ following it's conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The way I worded it perhaps makes it appear that I'm not concluding the same as you here. I do agree with you here. So yes, we're on the same page here. I think my point was that there are only 2 logical places the 42 months of the beast can fit. And since it has to be during a time when he is not in the pit, it either has to be before the thousand years, or after the thousand years, since these are the only 2 times he wouldn't be in the pit.
Agreed. And, to me, it only makes sense that the 42 months had to have been BEFORE satan was in the pit (bound) because that was what identified the saints that reigned with Christ for the millennium.

Revelation 20:4 ~ Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

I think there were two wars waged like bookends on either side of the millennium. The 42 month period that's referenced in Rev 13 - and the time of satan being "loosed" again at the completion of the millennium (and the purpose of that is given in Rev 20:8.

Revelation 20:7-9 ~ When the thousand years are complete, Satan will be released from his prison, and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earthGog and Magogto assemble them for battle.
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm failing to understand why you are not seeing the logic in what I concluded?

EDITED: I think I understand you now. I believe we're on the same page.

IOW the timeline would look like this:

42 month period (Rev. 13) ------>(saints reigning with Christ/millennium)---->loosing of satan (Rev 20:7-8)

Correct?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: ewq1938
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I think I'm leaning towards the postmillennial viewpoint now, which BlueLetterBible defines as:


Definition:

The postmillennialist believes that the millennium is an era (not a literal thousand years) during which Christ will reign over the earth, not from an literal and earthly throne, but through the gradual increase of the Gospel and its power to change lives. After this gradual Christianization of the world, Christ will return and immediately usher the church into their eternal state after judging the wicked. This is called postmillennialism because, by its view, Christ will return after the millennium.

Features and Distinctions:

  • Favored method of interpretation: covenant-historical.
  • Israel and the church: the church is the fulfillment of Israel.
  • Kingdom of God: a spiritual entity experienced on earth through the Christianizing affect of the Gospel.
  • The Millennium: a Golden Age previous to Christ's second advent during which Christ will virtually rule over the whole earth through an unprecedented spread of the Gospel; the large majority of people will be Christian.
  • Miscellaneous:
    • Higher degrees of interpreting First Century events in the light of prophecy; preterism often goes hand-in-hand with postmillennialism.
    • Of the several versions of postmillennial eschatology, the View the visual interpretation
      There are several different versions of postmillennialism, but one of the views gaining the most popularity, is that of the theonomists. Generally speaking, the postmillennial theonomist viewpoint holds to a
      partial-preterist interpretation of Revelation and the various judgment prophecies in the Gospels, believing that the majority of those prophecies were fulfilled in 70 A.D. at the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

      The postmillennialist sees the millennial kingdom as the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham that he would become "a great nation" and that "all peoples on earth would be blessed" through him
      (Genesis 12:2-3). This holy reign will come about via gradual conversion (rather than premillennialism's cataclysmic Christological advent) through the spread of the Gospel — this incremental progress is drawn from many pictures found throughout Scripture (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:22 and Ezekiel 47:1-12).

      Postmillennial optimism is also nurtured through many of prophetic psalmody. The Psalms often speak of all nations fearing Him, salvation being known among all nations, the ends of the earth fearing Him, et cetera (e.g., Psalm 2:1-12; Psalm 22:27; Psalm 67:2, Psalm 67:7; Psalm 102:15; Psalm 110:1). Another passage that well feeds this earthly optimism is Isaiah 2:2-3 in which the nations will stream to the righteousness of God.
      • Major proponents: Rousas J. Rushdoony, Greg L. Bahnsen, Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., David Chilton, and Gary North.
      ~ Four Views on the Millennium - Study Resources
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It would look like this chronologically---the 42 months the beast is allowed to continue, thus when the martyrdom of the saints seen in Revelation 20:4 initially occurred----followed by the thousand years---followed by satan's little season. This would also obviously mean satan is bound after the beast has been allowed to continue 42 months. Without there still being a beast around during satan's little season, typical Amil is an impossible conclusion to arrive at.
Which would also mean that PREmil wouldn't be a viable conclusion either......right?

Premil says that the millennial period doesn't even BEGIN until Christ returns for the final time. So does that work with this timeline? Wouldn't that ALSO mean that we are not yet saved....that people remain in the prison of Sheol until these "wars" are waged.

From what I can gather from your posts, you are NOT a dispensational premil, so that would mean you'd fall under the category of what's called "Historical premil".

Quoting from BLB:

Historical premillennialists place the return of Christ just before the millennium and just after a time of great apostasy and tribulation. After the millennium, Satan will be loosed and Gog and Magog will rise against the kingdom of God; this will be immediately followed by the final judgment. While similar in some respects to the dispensational variety (in that they hold to Christ's return being previous the establishment of a thousand-year earthly reign), historical premillennialism differs in significant ways (notably in their method of interpreting Scripture).

Features and Distinctions:




    • Favored method of interpretation: grammatico-historical.
    • Israel and the church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel.
    • Kingdom of God: present through the Spirit since Pentecost - to be experienced by sight during the millennium after Christ's return.
    • The Rapture: The saints, living and dead, shall meet the Lord in the clouds immediately preceding the millennial reign.
    • The Millennium: Christ will return to institute a thousand-year reign on earth. The Millennium will see the re-establishment of temple worship and sacrifice as a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. ~ Four Views on the Millennium - Study Resources

      Do you see the problem(s) in what I put in red text?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
EDITED: I think I understand you now. I believe we're on the same page.

IOW the timeline would look like this:

42 month period (Rev. 13) ------>(saints reigning with Christ/millennium)---->loosing of satan (Rev 20:7-8)

Correct?


That would be correct. Typical Amil relies on the fact that the beast in Revelation 13 is still alive and well when Christ returns bodily. But if the 42 month the beast continues is already in the past before the thousand years even begins, where then is this same beast during the thousand years, and how does it reemerge after the thousand years in order to still be alive and well when Christ returns bodily?

Typical Amil apparently haven't actually thought some of these things all the way through. If the 42 months the beast is allowed to continue, only fits with a time before the thousand years begin, but that typical Amil is the correct conclusion to arrive at, the chronology would have to look like such---

the beast continues 42 months, thus the martyrs seen in Revelation 20:4 are killed during this time---followed by---the death of Christ on the cross--followed by the thousand years---followed by satan's little season---followed by Christ's bodily return----thus totally impossible for the beast to still be alive and well when Christ returns.

How does typical Amil try and get around this? They illogically place the 42 months of the beast after the thousand years, rather than prior to it where it actually belongs to begin with. To place it prior to it clearly debunks their position, and Amil knows it. And instead of being intellectually honest about it, that position doesn't appear to actually care about being logical about this at all. And if the 42 months the beast is allowed to continue, has to fit before the thousand years even begin, and the fact it most def does, typical Amil could not possibly work in that case.

But if one accepts the chronology I presented earlier---the 42 months the beast is allowed to continue, thus when the martyrdom of the saints seen in Revelation 20:4 initially occurred(thus in the end of this age followed by the bodily return of Christ)----followed by the thousand years---followed by satan's little season---this problem goes away entirely since this chronology would be agreeing with the texts involved.
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But if one accepts the chronology I presented earlier---the 42 months the beast is allowed to continue, thus when the martyrdom of the saints seen in Revelation 20:4 initially occurred(thus in the end of this age followed by the bodily return of Christ)----followed by the thousand years---followed by satan's little season---this problem goes away entirely since this chronology would be agreeing with the texts involved.
Where are you getting the idea of a "bodily return of Christ"? And why are you convinced of a postponed kingdom when the NT writers (along with Jesus) claimed the kingdom was present? For instance:


When John wrote to “the seven churches that are in Asia” (Revelation 1:4), he stated that Christ had loosed them from their sins by his blood and made them “to be a kingdom” (1:6). Further, he was with them in that kingdom (1:9).

Revelation 1:9 ~ I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance that are in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and my testimony about Jesus.

How could the kingdom have been postponed (all this time) when John was writing that he was IN the kingdom at that time? Doesn't that sound more like John was writing during the 42 month period?
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The trouble I see with the premil viewpoint (as I understand, anyway) is that it places most of the prophecies of Jesus off in the future - ignoring critical fulfillments like this:

Quoting Wayne Jackson:
The prophet Zechariah prophesied regarding the Christ thusly:

Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah; even he shall build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and he shall sit and rule upon his throne; and be shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both (6:12-13).

This passage positively affirms that Christ would function as priest and reign as king on his throne—simultaneously. But, according to Hebrews 8:4, Christ could not act in the role of a priest while on the earth—for he was not descended from the priestly tribe (Hebrews 7:14). Since the Lord could not be a priest on earth, and since he is priest and king jointly, it necessarily follows that his reign as king cannot be earthly in nature. Rather, it is heavenly.

The heavenly nature of the reign of Christ is readily apparent in that narrative known as the parable of the pounds, recorded in Luke 19:11-27. The parable involves a certain nobleman (Christ) who went into a far country (heaven) to receive a kingdom and to return. Some citizens, however, sent a message to him, saying, “We will not that this man reign over us.” Finally, having received the kingdom, the nobleman returns to render judgment.

From this account it is perfectly clear that:

  1. the kingdom was received in heaven (not on earth);
  2. the reign was from heaven (not from Jerusalem); and
  3. the return of the nobleman was after the reception of the kingdom (not prior to it).
All of these facts are strikingly at variance with the premillennial concept. ~ Examining Premillennialism
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I think Adam Maarschalk has a convincing argument for the 42 months of Revelation 13 taking place during the period of 66-70 AD (with the millennium and the "loosing of satan" to follow in the chronology).

Quoting Adam Maarschalk:
In Revelation 20:4 we see the identity of the saints who reigned with Christ for 1000 years. There’s a bit of a difficulty at first because it says “they sat on them” (thrones) without first saying who “they” is. However, after this initial statement, special (even exclusive) attention is given to those who “had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands.” This description is taken directly from Revelation 13:11-17, where the second beast works closely with the first beast to make war on the saints for 42 months (AD 66-70).

This is probably the biggest reason why I cordially disagree with a number of other preterists who teach that the 1000 years began around AD 30. I feel they would need to demonstrate that the 42-month reign of the beast took place prior to AD 30 (and I’m not aware of anyone holding this position). I believe Revelation 20:4 clearly shows the 1000 years beginning after the beast’s reign, since the participants of the 1000 year reign are those who refused to worship him and take his mark.

This verse tells us that the way those saints were martyred was by being beheaded. On this site I’ve been developing a series explaining why I believe the beast was Israel, especially under the leadership of the Zealots. Josephus wrote quite a bit about the Zealots cutting the throats of those who wouldn’t follow their war agenda. Since they used swords, this very well could mean that they beheaded their enemies. The Zealots had the upper hand until the siege began in April AD 70. After this, they were hunted down and killed until the war ended in AD 73.
The 1000 Years and the Two Wars of Revelation 20 (Long Island Conference Presentation)
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Features and Distinctions:

[/B]


    • Favored method of interpretation: grammatico-historical.
    • Israel and the church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel.
    • Kingdom of God: present through the Spirit since Pentecost - to be experienced by sight during the millennium after Christ's return.
    • The Rapture: The saints, living and dead, shall meet the Lord in the clouds immediately preceding the millennial reign.
    • The Millennium: Christ will return to institute a thousand-year reign on earth. The Millennium will see the re-establishment of temple worship and sacrifice as a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. ~ Four Views on the Millennium - Study Resources

      Do you see the problem(s) in what I put in red text?

Not everything you put in red would be my position. It might be the position of some Premils though, just not all Premils. What I have underlined is not a position I hold to. But like I already indicated, some Premils might hold that position though, just not me personally. If we take that part I underlined out, what then would you put in red text in that list that you still see being problematic? If what I have underlined is something one can't be Premil unless they agree with this, I would have to reject Premil in that case. Fortunately one doesn't have to agree with what I have underlined in order to be Premil, no more than one has to agree with Pretrib in order to be Premil. All Pretribbers are Premil, yet not all Premils are Pretribbers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,391.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
After this gradual Christianization of the world,


This isn't going to happen. Christianity is in a decline, the worst now than ever. It is when Christianity is at it's lowest will the GT happen and afterwards Christ will return.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They both have one thing in common.
They are willing to ignore certain passages to make their doctrine work.
Some ignore more than others...
.


Sounds like a personal opinion to me. Maybe where you come from personal opinions settle things. But where I come from, they don't.
 
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
This assertion from Adam Maarschalk is convincing (in my opinion) and lines up with the chronology that DavidPT and I agree on:

Quoting Adam Maarschalk:

I’d like to offer one more option for your consideration. I believe that the 1000 years covered a period of about 60 years between roughly AD 70 and AD 132, that is, between the First Great Revolt (AD 66 – 73) and the Second Great Revolt led by Simon Bar Kokhba (AD 132 – 135). There are six things I want to focus on in explaining why I believe this is the correct timing for this prophecy:

[1] Rev. 19:17 – 20:3 describes the capture of the beast, the false prophet, and Satan. Two of them are cast into the lake of fire. Satan is not;

[2] Why Satan was bound and sealed, and how he deceived the nations to war twice;

[3] The timing of Christ sitting on His throne with His saints (Rev. 20:4; Daniel 7:7-11, 7:23-27; Matthew 19:27-28, 25:31; Rev. 3:21);

[4] The identity of those who reigned with Christ, and the connection between Rev. 20:4 and Rev. 13;

[5] The persecution of the saints in the beloved city, Jerusalem (Rev. 20:9);

[6] How Satan joined the beast and the false prophet (who were already) in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10).

I personally believe that when Revelation 20:1-3 says that Satan would be bound “so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished,” this was especially a reference to how Satan had deceived the nations in preparation for the First Great Revolt of 66-73 AD. This deception was described in the first 19 chapters of Revelation. The nations he deceived to go to war during the First Great Revolt included Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Idumea, and Perea. He also deceived Jews throughout the diaspora who continued to take their marching orders from Jerusalem (Rev. 17:15).

In Rev. 20:1-3 John was told that Satan would be bound for a long time from continuing that deception, but that he would be loosed to do it again after the 1000 years (Rev. 20:3b, 7-10). I believe he was released just before the Second Great Revolt of AD 132 – 135). I believe that, just as he gave his power, throne and authority to the leaders of the First Great Revolt (i.e. the Zealots) from AD 66 – 73, he was released just in time to back the Second Great Revolt as well. In summary, I believe that Satan deceived the nations to war at the time of both great Jewish revolts; and that he gave his power, throne, and authority to the leaders of both great revolts.

~ The 1000 Years and the Two Wars of Revelation 20 (Long Island Conference Presentation)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
If we take that part I underlined out, what then would you put in red text in that list that you still see being problematic?
Typically, premills believe the "rapture" is a removal of the saints - but then, as I understand it, they ALSO have the saints reigning with Christ physically.....on earth (after they've been "taken away"). IOW....those that are supposed to reign with Christ during the millennium are the very ones that they have removed by the "rapture".

What are YOUR beliefs about all that?
 
Upvote 0