Is there even an "..ism" known to Christians that's perfectly true?

[Spiritual Jew]

All good.

The point of the OP is that once anyone believes that the tenets of any "..ism" are true, then (whether you or anyone agrees that this is true or not, or admits it or not) without even realizing it you (each person individually) does indeed wind up ensuring that the way you (each person individually) interpret each and every passage of scripture, has to / must comply with the "..ism" that you have subconsciously turned into is the "yardstick of truth" that you believe scripture should be interpreted by.​

I'm completely fine with that when it comes to the basics of amillennialism. It's not as if I'm going to ever change my mind that Jesus has been reigning since His resurrection since scripture explicitly teaches that.

The "..ism" is placed above scripture, all too often.

Yeah, I get that. We should not be so connected to the "ism" that we have no flexibility when interpreting scripture. I think this is particularly a problem for preterism and futurism because of the narrow scope both views tend to look at things.

I have seen you do this in your arguments against Premil, a number of times. Instead of letting the scripture mean what it's saying, you believe it means what it means in terms of the Amil premise.

What does it even mean to let the scripture mean what it's saying? Is all scripture literal and straightforward? No. You know it isn't. So, why act as if it is? Please give me one example of what you're talking about and tell me if it's possible for me to believe something different and still believe that Jesus reigns now and will return after the thousand years (and Satan's little season).

 

[Zao is life]

I'm completely fine with that when it comes to the basics of amillennialism. It's not as if I'm going to ever change my mind that Jesus has been reigning since His resurrection since scripture explicitly teaches that.


Yeah, I get that. We should not be so connected to the "ism" that we have no flexibility when interpreting scripture. I think this is particularly a problem for preterism and futurism because of the narrow scope both views tend to look at things.


What does it even mean to let the scripture mean what it's saying? Is all scripture literal and straightforward? No. You know it isn't. So, why act as if it is? Please give me one example of what you're talking about and tell me if it's possible for me to believe something different and still believe that Jesus reigns now and will return after the thousand years (and Satan's little season).

The fact that people being killed specifically for refusing to worship the beast or his image, or receive his mark or the number of his name, is mentioned only twice in the Revelation (Revelation 13:11-18 and Revelation 20:4) makes Revelation 20:4-6 a marker that indicates that Revelation chapter 20 follows Christ's destruction of the beast in the lake of fire (which we read about for the last time in Revelation 19:11-21).

"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, nor had received his mark on their foreheads, nor in their hands. And they lived [záō] and reigned with Christ a thousand years. This is the first resurrection [anástasis]. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:4-6).

Without exception,every other N.T verse using the word zao is either talking about the living God, or about people who are alive in their bodies.

Same goes for the word anastasis, which only refers to the resurrection of the body - only of the body and always the resurrection of the body.

The idea of a "spiritual" resurrection following the time people were killed for refusal to worship the beast, before the time the beast ascended from the abyss is not written there.

Yet you have implied to me before that this is the case.

You are interpreting it that way because "Amillenniialism if completely true".

"And he cast him into the abyss and shut him up and set a seal on him, that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years should be fulfilled."

In Genesis chapter 3, we read of how Satan appeared in the Garden of Eden and deceived mankind.

Revelation 12:9 calls Satan "the great dragon" and "the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world."

The only reason given for Satan being bound in Revelation 20:1-3 is that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years have expired.

If we look for statements in the New Testament implying that Satan was bound when Jesus died and rose again, all we will ever find is passages stating the opposite:

Jesus called Satan "the ruler of this world" and the New Testament calls him "the prince of the power of the air who works in the sons of disobedience", who we are told will give the beast and false prophet his seat, power and great authority (Revelation Chapter 13). The saints are warned to be weary of his wiles and to resist him, and to put on the full armor of God because "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood" ( John 12:31; 1 Peter 5:8-9; Ephesians 6:11-12; Revelation 2:9-10 & Revelation 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; James 4:7 ).

Ephesians 2:2 tells us about Satan's influence over the societies of this world, this Age.

Revelation Chapters 12-13 portray this current status quo as spanning the entire present Age and culminating in the beast's war against the saints in Revelation Chapter 13 (see Revelation 13:7).

Question: (Based on what you have stated before- to me):

Will the destruction of Satan's works, which took place at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, last only for a thousand years, only to be reversed for a short period at the close of the thousand years, as though his works were merely bound for a thousand years?

No, because

1. Satan's works consist primarily in the death that became part of human experience, and the sin that leads to death.

2. The destruction of Satan's works will not last only for a thousand years, only to be "reversed for a short period at the close of the thousand years", as though his works were merely bound for a thousand years.

But you have said to me that Satan has been "bound" "in the sense of his being restricted so that he can't stop the spread of the gospel, and in the sense that .."

It's because you believe that Amillennialism is perfectly true.

The scriptures do not state that Satan will be bound in the sense that he will be restricted in terms of ..

They state what they state.

But the ".. ism" is perfectly true, so they must be interpreted to comply with the "..ism".

Every "..ism" is the same.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The fact that people being killed specifically for refusing to worship the beast or his image, or receive his mark or the number of his name, is mentioned only twice in the Revelation (Revelation 13:11-18 and Revelation 20:4) makes Revelation 20:4-6 a marker that indicates that Revelation chapter 20 follows Christ's destruction of the beast in the lake of fire (which we read about for the last time in Revelation 19:11-21).

"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, nor had received his mark on their foreheads, nor in their hands. And they lived [záō] and reigned with Christ a thousand years. This is the first resurrection [anástasis]. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:4-6).

Without exception,every other N.T verse using the word zao is either talking about the living God, or about people who are alive in their bodies.

How many of those verses are talking about people that are in heaven? None, unless they refer to Jesus. So, I see no basis for thinking that the word can't be used to refer to the souls of the dead in Christ who are in heaven. Unless you believe in soul sleep. I certainly don't.

Same goes for the word anastasis, which only refers to the resurrection of the body - only of the body and always the resurrection of the body.

Goodness gracious sakes. Are you aware that I have told you probably at least 10 times that I believe the first resurrection is a reference to Jesus Christ's resurrection in particular, which obviously was a bodily resurrection? I believe that having part in the first resurrection is to have part in His resurrection in a spiritual sense. But, I am NOT saying the first resurrection itself is a spiritaul resurrection. It was Christ's bodily resurrection. The only other verse where the phrase "protos anastasis" is found in scripture is in this verse:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise (protos anastis) from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

So, scripture teaches that Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection and I interpret Revelation 20 accordingly.

Now, with this said, I understand that other Amils refer to being saved, which scripture describes as going from being dead in sins to alive in Christ, as a spiritual resurrection and they consider that to be the first resurrection itself. But, I don't consider that to be a core teaching of Amillennialism. What I would consider a core teaching of Amillennialism is that the way in which someone has part in the first resurrection is by being saved and going from being dead in sins to being alive in Christ, but there are a couple different ways of looking at it. The way I look at it (having part in the first resurrection which is Christ's resurrection by way of being spiritually saved and identifying with His resurrection) or the way other Amils look at it (being spiritually resurrected in the sense of going from being dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ). In each case we agree on the way in which someone has part in the first resurrection even if we disagree on what the first resurrection itself refers to exactly.

The idea of a "spiritual" resurrection following the time people were killed for refusal to worship the beast, before the time the beast ascended from the abyss is not written there.

Yet you have implied to me before that this is the case.

I do not believe what you said there, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly. But, I'm not sure if I am or not. Can you elaborate?

You are interpreting it that way because "Amillenniialism if completely true".

Interpreting what in what way exactly? You're losing me here.

Look, let's stop playing games here. I already explained that I don't agree with other Amils on everything and that I believe the basic tenets of Amillennialism are all true. So, when you say you think I believe "Amillennialism is completely true" what does that mean exactly? Define Amillenialism in terms of what I believe about it that is completely true? Certainly, I do not believe the partial preterist version of Amillenialism is completely true, so you need to be specific here and tell me what parts of Amillennialism you think I believe are completely true. I tried to already explain the parts of it that are true, so why can't you accept that? You seem to think that if someone calls themselves an Amillennialist then they are saying they agree with everything that all Amillennialists believe, which is obviously a ridiculous notion.

"And he cast him into the abyss and shut him up and set a seal on him, that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years should be fulfilled."

In Genesis chapter 3, we read of how Satan appeared in the Garden of Eden and deceived mankind.

Revelation 12:9 calls Satan "the great dragon" and "the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world."

The only reason given for Satan being bound in Revelation 20:1-3 is that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years have expired.

If we look for statements in the New Testament implying that Satan was bound when Jesus died and rose again, all we will ever find is passages stating the opposite:

I completely disagree. Of course, it depends on your understanding of what it means for him to be bound. You have decided that it's a good idea to interpret Revelation 20 literally even though it is contained within possibly the most highly symbolic book in all of scripture. I disagree with that approach. But, to say that the NT doesn't say anything relating to his binding is false. It is Premils who think the NT (other than Rev 20) says nothing about his binding and, yet, have no trouble acknowledging that it speaks of other aspects of Revelation 20 like Christ's reign, the resurrection of the dead and the judgment.

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

The significance of this passage should not be underestimated. By His death, Jesus broke the power of the one who had previously held the power of death, which was the devil, who obviously is also called Satan. The result of that has been tremendous. MANY people have been set free from the fear of death and the hopelessness that causes and have acquired the hope of eternal life during the New Testament era. Far more people have been saved in NT times than during OT times. In order for that to happen, Satan had to be bound so that he could not keep the world in spiritual darkness without hope as slaves to the fear of death to the extent he was able to do in Old Testament times.

1 John 3:8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.

Here is another verse of tremendous significance that should not be underestimated. This very specifically says that the reason the Son of God, Jesus, appeared (came the first time) was to destroy the devil's work. Did He fail? God forbid! Of course He didn't fail. He said "it is finished" because He knew He successfully finished everything He came to do. And that includes destroying the devil's work. See my comments above to see what that entailed.

Acts 26:15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

So, Paul was sent to the Gentiles, who had previously been "without hope and without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:11-12) to "turn them...from the power of Satan to God". Now, how could that happen without Satan being bound? I don't believe it could. Many millions of Gentiles have been saved and turned from Satan to God in NT times compared to relatively few Gentiles being saved in OT times. And NT scripture attributes this to power being taken away from Satan. I think it's quite reasonable to associate the power that was undeniably taken away from him (not all power, but much of it) with his binding.

Jesus called Satan "the ruler of this world" and the New Testament calls him "the prince of the power of the air who works in the sons of disobedience", who we are told will give the beast and false prophet his seat, power and great authority (Revelation Chapter 13). The saints are warned to be weary of his wiles and to resist him, and to put on the full armor of God because "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood" ( John 12:31; 1 Peter 5:8-9; Ephesians 6:11-12; Revelation 2:9-10 & Revelation 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; James 4:7 ).

As I said, not all of his power was taken away, but the scriptures I posted clearly prove that some of it was. Why do you never say anything about those passages? You give Satan too much credit by ony focusing on the verses that speak of what he can do while saying nothing about the ones that talk about what he can't do any longer to the extent he did before. While 1 Peter 5:8 says that he goes around like a roaring lion seeking who he may devour, the verse after that says we can stand firm and resist him. And then James 4:7 says that if we do resist him then he must flee from us. That authority over Satan was unprecedented before NT times. In OT times people didn't have the ability to resist him because they didn't have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them and giving them authority and the power to resist him.

Question: (Based on what you have stated before- to me):

Will the destruction of Satan's works, which took place at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ, last only for a thousand years, only to be reversed for a short period at the close of the thousand years, as though his works were merely bound for a thousand years?

Yes. Except, of course, I don't see it as a literal one thousand years. You know I'm Amil, so I would think you weren't asking me this in the sense of it being a literal one thousand years.

Anyway, his works are described in the verses I quoted above. His works involved keeping people in slavery to the fear of death and keeping them from seeing the light of God's word. During Satan's little season I believe the gospel will be mostly, if not completely silenced because of severe opposition to the church in favor of atheism and the many false religions, cults and philosophies that people choose to believe in instead. As Jesus Himself said, it will be like the days of Noah before Jesus returns. As He Himself said, many would turn away from the faith and there would be an increase in wickedness before He comes. Paul said the same thing in 2 Thess 2. With that in mind, how can you think that the destruction of Satan's works were permanent, knowing the kind of things he will have a part in before Christ returns?

Regardless of whether you are Amil or Premil, we all believe that Satan will have a short time of unrestrained power before Christ returns during which he has a part in wreaking havoc in the world. One difference between Amils and Premils is that Amils believe Satan is allowed one little season to wreak havoc and Premils believe he will be allowed two little seasons to wreak havoc in the world.

No, because

1. Satan's works consist primarily in the death that became part of human experience, and the sin that leads to death.

2. The destruction of Satan's works will not last only for a thousand years, only to be "reversed for a short period at the close of the thousand years", as though his works were merely bound for a thousand years.

How can you say this when you believe Satan will have a part in causing a mass falling away and increased wickedness for a short time before Christ returns? Did you forget that you believe that or something? How can those things happen if his works aren't "reversed for a short time"?

But you have said to me that Satan has been "bound" "in the sense of his being restricted so that he can't stop the spread of the gospel, and in the sense that .."

It's because you believe that Amillennialism is perfectly true.

You lost me again. Why can't Satan being bound in that sense be true? I don't believe that just because I'm an Amillennialist. I believe that because it makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is to interpret Revelation 20 literally as if it's talking about Satan, a spirit being, having a chain literally put on him so that he is incapacitated.

The scriptures do not state that Satan will be bound in the sense that he will be restricted in terms of ..

Scripture doesn't always state things explicitly. Especially in a highly symbolic book like Revelation.

They state what they state.

Nonsense. That would be like saying the beast is a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns because it states that the beast has seven heads and ten horns.

But the ".. ism" is perfectly true, so they must be interpreted to comply with the "..ism".

I don't care what you say, I never interpret things in such a way that I don't feel confident about, but I do so just because I feel like I have to because of being an Amillennialist. Not at all. Again, I would only say that the basic tenets of Amillennialism are definitely true, but then there are things that some Amillennialists believe and others don't and so on. I would not include those things in your claim that an "ism" is perfectly true. Not all Amils believe everything the same just as not all Premils, not all Pretrib, not all preterists, etc. do not all believe everything the same. The fact that Amils don't agree on everything is proof that we are not tied down to Amillennialism as if the Amillennialist view dictates everything we believe as you are trying to claim. That is simply not the case.

Every "..ism" is the same.

Wrong.

 

[Zao is life]

How many of those verses are talking about people that are in heaven? None, unless they refer to Jesus. So, I see no basis for thinking that the word can't be used to refer to the souls of the dead in Christ who are in heaven. Unless you believe in soul sleep. I certainly don't.

Jesus was not beheaded for refusal to worship the image in the beast. There is no one who had been beheaded for his refusal to worship the image of the beast who is alive in his body in heaven.

Goodness gracious sakes. Are you aware that I have told you probably at least 10 times that I believe the first resurrection is a reference to Jesus Christ's resurrection in particular, which obviously was a bodily resurrection?

Goodness gracious sakes. Jesus was not beheaded for refusal to worship the image of the beast. There is no one who had been beheaded for his refusal to worship the image of the beast who is alive in his body in heaven.

Let's leave out the unnecessary expressions, like yours above that I just repeated. I only repeated it to show you how unnecessary and meaningless they are.

So, scripture teaches that Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection and I interpret Revelation 20 accordingly.

You don't interpret Revelation 20 accordingly. If you did you would understand that your argument asserts that Jesus rose from the dead after He had been beheaded for His refusal to worship the beast and its image or receive the mark or number of the beast's name.

 

[Zao is life]

I believe the basic tenets of Amillennialism are all true.

I need say no more. The "..ism" has become your yardstick of truth by having become the basis upon which all scripture is interpreted by you.

Whether you realize it or not, subconsciously you have ensured that the scriptures themselves are no longer above the "..ism".

You cannot possibly interpret Revelation 20:1-6 in accordance with the plain meaning of the passage, because the cognitive dissonance it causes (as a result of you believing that "the basic tenets of Amilllennialism are all true") would automatically cause you to either ensure that you interpret it in a way which complies with the "..ism", OR abandon your belief that "the basic tenets of Amilllennialism are all true".

This is why you see it as "truth" and believe it to be "truth" when you say that Satan was bound at Calvary, which implies that he has not been deceiving the nations since then - because it implies nothing more, and nothing less than what is written:

"And I saw an angel come down from Heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand [Greek: chílioi] years.
And he cast him into the abyss and shut him up and set a seal on him,
that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years should be fulfilled.
And after that he must be loosed a little time."

This is also why you come up with a convoluted meaning of people being beheaded for refusing to worship the beast being seen alive in the body (zao) after having experienced the first resurrection, by saying that that their resurrection is referring to Christ's resurrection, though He was not beheaded for refusal to worship the beast.​

 

[DavidPT]

This depends on how you define the "ism". I would define them only by the basics of what they teach. I don't see how my agreeing with the basics of Amillennialism, for example, results in me "forcing the Bible to fit" my ism.

Revelation 20:4 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.


Tenets aside, the ism involving Amil basically means that the thousand years in question here, it is meaning before the 2nd coming, not after the 2nd coming.

A) and I saw the souls of them---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

1) was

2) is not

3) shall ascend out of the bottomless pit


Obviously, when the saints in Revelation 20:4 who were martyred for not having worshiped the beast, neither his image(this obviously involves a 2nd beast, the false prophet--Revelation 13:11-18), neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(this obviously involves a 2nd beast, the false prophet--Revelation 13:11-18)---they are martyred during the era of time involving 3). Not during the era of time involving 1) and/or 2) unless one can convincingly prove Revelation 13:11-18 was already true during when 1) and/or 2) was true, meaning during those eras of time. Because, after all, being martyred for refusing to worship his image obviously requires that a 2nd beast is involved, the false prophet in this case. And if the era of time involving 1), for example, spans a period of time involving 4000 years, one is to then believe that this same false prophet in question, he was alive and active during that era of time?

Obviously, 1), 2) and 3) can't be involving the same era of time. 1) involves an era of time that precedes 2) and 3). 2) involves an era of time that follows the era of time involving 1), and precedes the era of time involving 3). 3) involves an era of time that follows after the era of time 1) and 2) are involving.

But, because Amil must be true, that it means the thousand years precede the 2nd coming, it has to be ignored by some Amils, thus maybe not by all Amils, such as Preterist Amils maybe, that A) above can only be meaning during 3) above since it obviously requires that 3) above has to happen first in order for A) to be involving the reasons they are martyred.

Yet, some Amils, because Amil must be true, that the thousand years precede the 2nd coming, they have the era of time involving 3) which is already involving A), to somehow be meaning after the thousand years rather than prior to it, thus contradicts the texts involved. Therefore, making nonsense out of A) since it is obvious that when A) took place, meaning before they died, then the reasons they died, being because of, not the era of time involving 1) and/or 2), but because of the era of time involving 3).


How can the era of time involving 3) be after the thousand years when A) is already undeniably proving 3) it is not meaning after the thousand years?

Then if we factor the following in, regardless whether or not one takes these events in the literal sense, all of these people have to be alive during the same era of time in order for the the first vial to get poured out on who it does.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

Obviously, when this vial is poured out, it is not poured out during the era of time involving 1) nor 2), it is poured out during the era of time involving 3), the same era of time that was involving A) prior to them having been martyred. But, because Amil must be true, , that the thousand years precede the 2nd coming, one then has no choice but to make complete nonsense out of some of the above, that 3) is not meaning prior to the thousand years, it is meaning after the thousand years, therefore, leaving zero to expain why those per A) were martyred for the reasons they were.

Anyone not being biased because of the ism they have decided is true, is going to conclude from all the texts involving all of the above, that when those martyred per A) are martyred, it is during the era of time involving 3). Therefore, how can the era of time involving 3) begin after the thousand years when A) is already proving that wrong?

Since the era of time involving 3) is obviously meaning before the thousand years begin, to then place the beginning of the thousand years to that of 2000 years ago, is to then place the era of time involving 3) to that of prior to the cross. Except Amils fully realize it can't fit there. Therefore, though they do place the beginning of the thousand years to that of 2000 years ago, they don't place the era time involving 3) prior to that. How is it then that Amils can see that the era of time involving 3) can't fit there, but can't see that the era of time involving 3) can't fit after the thousand years, either?

The solution. Simple. The thousand years in question, they are not meaning before the 2nd coming, they are meaning after the 2nd coming. Not according to the ism of Premil, but according to all of the texts involved above.

 

[DavidPT]

One difference between Amils and Premils is that Amils believe Satan is allowed one little season to wreak havoc and Premils believe he will be allowed two little seasons to wreak havoc in the world.

Yet, Revelation records a little season involving the time of the 5th seal, and a little season involving satan after the thousand years. Obviously, the little season per the 5th seal is involving the final days of this age. It is involving Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 for one. And that this is not meaning satan's little season after the thousand years since there is no indication per Revelation 20:7-9 that the saints being surrounded, some of them are being martyred. If the little season per the 5th seal involves martyrdom, how can it also be meaning satan's little season after the thousand years unless that little season also involves martyrdom?

It's possible, I guess, if I'm at least going to be intellectually honest here, the saints being surrounded per Revelation 20:7-9, this could symbolize the martyrdom during the little season involving the 5th seal. Still doesn't explain why there are already martyrs for having refused to worship the beast, nor it's image, during the era of time Revelation 13 is involving, therefore, the era of time Revelation 13 is involving can't be meaning after the thousand years if it is already meaning prior to that time.

 

[Zao is life]

Revelation 20:4 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.


Tenets aside, the ism involving Amil basically means that the thousand years in question here, it is meaning before the 2nd coming, not after the 2nd coming.

A) and I saw the souls of them---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

1) was

2) is not

3) shall ascend out of the bottomless pit


Obviously, when the saints in Revelation 20:4 who were martyred for not having worshiped the beast, neither his image(this obviously involves a 2nd beast, the false prophet--Revelation 13:11-18), neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(this obviously involves a 2nd beast, the false prophet--Revelation 13:11-18)---they are martyred during the era of time involving 3). Not during the era of time involving 1) and/or 2) unless one can convincingly prove Revelation 13:11-18 was already true during when 1) and/or 2) was true, meaning during those eras of time. Because, after all, being martyred for refusing to worship his image obviously requires that a 2nd beast is involved, the false prophet in this case. And if the era of time involving 1), for example, spans a period of time involving 4000 years, one is to then believe that this same false prophet in question, he was alive and active during that era of time?

Obviously, 1), 2) and 3) can't be involving the same era of time. 1) involves an era of time that precedes 2) and 3). 2) involves an era of time that follows the era of time involving 1), and precedes the era of time involving 3). 3) involves an era of time that follows after the era of time 1) and 2) are involving.

But, because Amil must be true, that it means the thousand years precede the 2nd coming, it has to be ignored by some Amils, thus maybe not by all Amils, such as Preterist Amils maybe, that A) above can only be meaning during 3) above since it obviously requires that 3) above has to happen first in order for A) to be involving the reasons they are martyred.

Yet, some Amils, because Amil must be true, that the thousand years precede the 2nd coming, they have the era of time involving 3) which is already involving A), to somehow be meaning after the thousand years rather than prior to it, thus contradicts the texts involved. Therefore, making nonsense out of A) since it is obvious that when A) took place, meaning before they died, then the reasons they died, being because of, not the era of time involving 1) and/or 2), but because of the era of time involving 3).


How can the era of time involving 3) be after the thousand years when A) is already undeniably proving 3) it is not meaning after the thousand years?

Then if we factor the following in, regardless whether or not one takes these events in the literal sense, all of these people have to be alive during the same era of time in order for the the first vial to get poured out on who it does.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

Obviously, when this vial is poured out, it is not poured out during the era of time involving 1) nor 2), it is poured out during the era of time involving 3), the same era of time that was involving A) prior to them having been martyred. But, because Amil must be true, , that the thousand years precede the 2nd coming, one then has no choice but to make complete nonsense out of some of the above, that 3) is not meaning prior to the thousand years, it is meaning after the thousand years, therefore, leaving zero to expain why those per A) were martyred for the reasons they were.

Anyone not being biased because of the ism they have decided is true, is going to conclude from all the texts involving all of the above, that when those martyred per A) are martyred, it is during the era of time involving 3). Therefore, how can the era of time involving 3) begin after the thousand years when A) is already proving that wrong?

Since the era of time involving 3) is obviously meaning before the thousand years begin, to then place the beginning of the thousand years to that of 2000 years ago, is to then place the era of time involving 3) to that of prior to the cross. Except Amils fully realize it can't fit there. Therefore, though they do place the beginning of the thousand years to that of 2000 years ago, they don't place the era time involving 3) prior to that. How is it then that Amils can see that the era of time involving 3) can't fit there, but can't see that the era of time involving 3) can't fit after the thousand years, either?

The solution. Simple. The thousand years in question, they are not meaning before the 2nd coming, they are meaning after the 2nd coming. Not according to the ism of Premil, but according to all of the texts involved above.

It's 100% sound what you say above. It's not rocket science to see the consistency in what the Revelation is telling us about this:

(A)

Revelation 17:8: The beast that you saw

1. Was; and
2. is not; and
3. Will ascend out of the abyss and go into perdition; and
4. Those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."

"And all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world. If any man has an ear, let him hear".(Revelation 13:8-9).

"And a third angel followed them, saying with a great voice, If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark in his forehead or in his hand,
he also will drink of the wine of the anger of God, having been mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented by fire and brimstone before the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. And they have no rest day or night, those who worship the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.

Here is the patience of the saints. Here are the ones who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." (Revelation 14:9-12).

"And there was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might both speak, and might cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed." (Revelation 13:15).

"Here is the patience of the saints. Here are the ones who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." (Revelation 14:12).

"And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go and pour out the vials of the anger of God on the earth.
And the first went and poured out his vial on the earth. And a bad and grievous sore fell on the men who had the mark of the beast, and on those who worshiped his image." (Revelation 16:1-2).

(B)

"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, nor had received his mark on their foreheads, nor in their hands.
And they lived (zao) and reigned with Christ * a thousand years. *

* This is the first "the resurrection" (o anastasis). Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:4-6)

* Linked with this are the thrones that John saw, and the judgment given to the souls mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6.
​

Besides this, zao means to be alive in the body in all other N.T verses it's found in (except where the word is referring to the living God); and o anastasis is referring to the resurrection of the body in all verses where it's found.

And this is besides what Revelation 20:1-6 says about Satan being bound.

The only way to interpret this passage in any other way is to have an "..ism" that scripture must comply with.

 

[DavidPT]

It's 100% sound what you say above. It's not rocket science to see the consistency in what the Revelation is telling us about this:

(A)

Revelation 17:8: The beast that you saw

1. Was; and
2. is not; and
3. Will ascend out of the abyss and go into perdition; and
4. Those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."

"And all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world. If any man has an ear, let him hear".(Revelation 13:8-9).

"And a third angel followed them, saying with a great voice, If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark in his forehead or in his hand,
he also will drink of the wine of the anger of God, having been mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented by fire and brimstone before the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. And they have no rest day or night, those who worship the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.

Here is the patience of the saints. Here are the ones who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." (Revelation 14:9-12).

"And there was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might both speak, and might cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed." (Revelation 13:15).

"Here is the patience of the saints. Here are the ones who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." (Revelation 14:12).

"And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go and pour out the vials of the anger of God on the earth.
And the first went and poured out his vial on the earth. And a bad and grievous sore fell on the men who had the mark of the beast, and on those who worshiped his image." (Revelation 16:1-2).

(B)

"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, nor had received his mark on their foreheads, nor in their hands.
And they lived (zao) and reigned with Christ * a thousand years. *

* This is the first "the resurrection" (o anastasis). Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:4-6)

* Linked with this are the thrones that John saw, and the judgment given to the souls mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6.
​

Besides this, zao means to be alive in the body in all other N.T verses it's found in (except where the word is referring to the living God); and o anastasis is referring to the resurrection of the body in all verses where it's found.

And this is besides what Revelation 20:1-6 says about Satan being bound.

The only way to interpret this passage in any other way is to have an "..ism" that scripture must comply with.

The way you went about highlighting A) and B), therefore, showing the connection between the two, that was spot on.

It seems to me, to be one that believes the thousand years are prior to the 2nd coming, is to then believe that the Bible involves a lot of coincedences rather than actual connections, thus Scripture interpreting Scripture. Clearly, what you highlighed per A) fits what you highlighted per B). But, if one is an Amil, there is also a C) to consider, meaning the era of time involving Revelation 20:7-9.

Except how can what you highlighted per A) be a better fit with C) than with B)? Isn't that what some of these Amils are insisting, that what you have highlighed per A) it does not fit what you highlighted per B), but it does fit with C)?

 

[Zao is life]

The way you went about highlighting A) and B), therefore, showing the connection between the two, that was spot on.

It seems to me, to be one that believes the thousand years are prior to the 2nd coming, is to then believe that the Bible involves a lot of coincedences rather than actual connections, thus Scripture interpreting Scripture. Clearly, what you highlighed per A) fits what you highlighted per B). But, if one is an Amil, there is also a C) to consider, meaning the era of time involving Revelation 20:7-9.

Except how can what you highlighted per A) be a better fit with C) than with B)? Isn't that what some of these Amils are insisting, that what you have highlighed per A) it does not fit what you highlighted per B), but it does fit with C)?

Exactly. I'm glad I started this thread. It's been proving itself to be true.They have Revelation 20:7-9 fitting with Revelation 13:2-4; Revelation 13:11-18; Revelation 16:16-21 and Revelation 19:11-21, but they have people refusing to worship the beast long before the false prophet, who causes those who refuse to worship the beast to be killed, even arrives on the scene.

The "..isms" make them get things very jumbled up.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Jesus was not beheaded for refusal to worship the image in the beast. There is no one who had been beheaded for his refusal to worship the image of the beast who is alive in his body in heaven.

What? I have no idea of what you're talking about here. I never said Jesus was beheaded or that anyone is alive in his body in heaven. Only Jesus has His immortal body so far. The rest of us will have ours when He returns.

Goodness gracious sakes. Jesus was not beheaded for refusal to worship the image of the beast.

Why in the world are you saying this? Twice no less. No one said He was. If you're just going to resort to saying ridiculous things like this, then I guess that means you have decided you don't want to be taken seriously.

Let's leave out the unnecessary expressions, like yours above that I just repeated. I only repeated it to show you how unnecessary and meaningless they are.

How do you think you would feel if I told you something that I've already told you 10 times while acting as if I never told it to you before?

You don't interpret Revelation 20 accordingly.

Yes, I do. It's not your job to tell me how I interpret it. I will tell you how I interpret it.

If you did you would understand that your argument asserts that Jesus rose from the dead after He had been beheaded for His refusal to worship the beast and its image or receive the mark or number of the beast's name.

That's nonsense. Where are you coming up with this nonsense? Explain why you are saying ridiculous things like this.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I need say no more. The "..ism" has become your yardstick of truth by having become the basis upon which all scripture is interpreted by you.​

Whatever. Who cares? If I agree with the basic tenets of Amillennialism then of course I'm not going to interpret any scripture which disagrees with those things. This is a problem because....? It's not.

Whether you realize it or not, subconsciously you have ensured that the scriptures themselves are no longer above the "..ism".​

That's a meaningless statement. The scriptures teach what the "ism" teaches. The basics of it, anyway, which I explained already before.

You cannot possibly interpret Revelation 20:1-6 in accordance with the plain meaning of the passage,​

LOL. Why would I want to? Doing that contradicts other scripture.

because the cognitive dissonance it causes (as a result of you believing that "the basic tenets of Amilllennialism are all true") would automatically cause you to either ensure that you interpret it in a way which complies with the "..ism", OR abandon your belief that "the basic tenets of Amilllennialism are all true".​

You are not getting it. I believe the basic tenets of Amillennialism are true because of what is taught in scripture as a whole. Naturally, all scripture, including, Revelation 20, will agree with those tenets and not contradict them. The foundation of my doctrine is not Revelation 20, like it is for Premils, it is other scripture like Matthew 24:35-39, Matthew 25:31-46, Matthew 28:18, John 5:28-29, Acts 17:30-31, Ephesians 1:19-23, Colossians 1:12-13, 1 Thess 4:14-5:9, 2 Thess 1:7-10 and 2 Peter 3:3-13.

This is why you see it as "truth" and believe it to be "truth" when you say that Satan was bound at Calvary, which implies that he has not been deceiving the nations since then - because it implies nothing more, and nothing less than what is written:​

You have decided to use the approach that a passage within possibly the most highly symbolic book in all of scripture should be interpreted literally as written. I don't believe that is a wise approach. And we should want to interpret it in such a way that agrees with the rest of scripture. That is my approach and I believe it's a good one.

"And I saw an angel come down from Heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand [Greek: chílioi] years.
And he cast him into the abyss and shut him up and set a seal on him,
that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years should be fulfilled.
And after that he must be loosed a little time."

This is also why you come up with a convoluted meaning of people being beheaded for refusing to worship the beast being seen alive in the body (zao) after having experienced the first resurrection, by saying that that their resurrection is referring to Christ's resurrection, though He was not beheaded for refusal to worship the beast.​

No, no, no, no, no. You have completely misrepresented my view here. I have NEVER said that I believe they are seen alive in the body. I have MANY times said I believe their SOULS are alive in heaven and they reign with Christ there. Also, I did not say their resurrection is Christ's resurrection. You are not reading what I'm saying carefully at all, apparently. I said Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection and believers spiritually have part in it. I never said their resurrection is His resurrection as if I'm saying they have been bodily resurrected themselves. No, not at all.

Are you not aware that we have all spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection? That is what passages like Ephesians 2:1-6 and the following passage are about:

Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

 

[Fervent]

The problem you seem to be identifying is simply an unavoidable issue of the hermeneutical spiral. In order to understand a verse, it must be understood in terms of the whole of Scripture. But to understand the whole of Scripture, we must understand the individual verses. "...isms" are just broad agreements that people have come to for the teaching of the breadth of Scripture, so they are necessarily a part of the interpretive process whether someone claims to hold to one or not.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Revelation 20:4 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.


Tenets aside, the ism involving Amil basically means that the thousand years in question here, it is meaning before the 2nd coming, not after the 2nd coming.

Of course. It talks about Him reigning with those who are His priests during the thousand years shortly after the verse you quoted. When did that begin? Long ago.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Just compare Revelation 20:6 to this passage and that will tell you how to understand the timing of Revelation 20. But, Premils don't take passages like this into account.

A) and I saw the souls of them---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

1) was

2) is not

3) shall ascend out of the bottomless pit


Obviously, when the saints in Revelation 20:4 who were martyred for not having worshiped the beast, neither his image(this obviously involves a 2nd beast, the false prophet--Revelation 13:11-18), neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(this obviously involves a 2nd beast, the false prophet--Revelation 13:11-18)---they are martyred during the era of time involving 3). Not during the era of time involving 1) and/or 2) unless one can convincingly prove Revelation 13:11-18 was already true during when 1) and/or 2) was true, meaning during those eras of time. Because, after all, being martyred for refusing to worship his image obviously requires that a 2nd beast is involved, the false prophet in this case. And if the era of time involving 1), for example, spans a period of time involving 4000 years, one is to then believe that this same false prophet in question, he was alive and active during that era of time?

Obviously, 1), 2) and 3) can't be involving the same era of time. 1) involves an era of time that precedes 2) and 3). 2) involves an era of time that follows the era of time involving 1), and precedes the era of time involving 3). 3) involves an era of time that follows after the era of time 1) and 2) are involving.

We have been over this many times before. The end result? Neither of us have budged in our beliefs. What is the point of doing it again? Nothing will change. It comes down to your understanding of what it means to be in the bottomless pit. Does that mean the beast and the dragon, Satan, are completely incapacitated when they are bound in the bottomless pit? That is how you understand it and that is the basis for everything you're saying here. But, that is not my understanding of what it means to be bound in the bottomless pit, so I am not obligated oto go by your 1,2,3 rules that you're talking about here.

The fact of the matter when it comes to Satan being bound in the pit is that it does not say he is completely bound from persecuting and killing people. So, I think it's safe to assume that is true of the beast being in the pit as well. You have chosen to view it as a literal, physical binding in a literal, physical place. You have decided that taking almost everything literally in the most highly symbolic book in all of scripture is a good approach. I disagree.

But, because Amil must be true, that it means the thousand years precede the 2nd coming, it has to be ignored by some Amils, thus maybe not by all Amils, such as Preterist Amils maybe, that A) above can only be meaning during 3) above since it obviously requires that 3) above has to happen first in order for A) to be involving the reasons they are martyred.

What you're saying is simply not true. It would only be true if your understanding of what it means to be bound in the bottomless pit was correct. But, it's not. You are acting as if seeing it the way you do is the only possible option of how to view these things, which is ridiculous.

Yet, some Amils, because Amil must be true, that the thousand years precede the 2nd coming, they have the era of time involving 3) which is already involving A), to somehow be meaning after the thousand years rather than prior to it, thus contradicts the texts involved.

My view has no contradictions. That would only be true if I agreed with your understanding of what it means to be in the bottomless pit, but I don't.

Therefore, making nonsense out of A) since it is obvious that when A) took place, meaning before they died, then the reasons they died, being because of, not the era of time involving 1) and/or 2), but because of the era of time involving 3).

It's only nonsense from your perspective, not mine. What you have utterly failed to do up to this point in time is prove that something or someone being in the bottomless pit means that they are completely incapacitated. You have also utterly failed to explain who or what exactly the beast is. Why should I take you seriously when you can't even tell me that? How can you know what the beast does, and when it does it, when you don't even know what the beast symbolically represents?

How can the era of time involving 3) be after the thousand years when A) is already undeniably proving 3) it is not meaning after the thousand years?

LOL at "undeniably proving". The only thing you are "undeniably proving" is that your view would be correct if your understanding of the beast and what it means for the beast to be in the bottomless pit was correct. But, that is debatable no matter what you think you have "undeniably" proven.

Then if we factor the following in, regardless whether or not one takes these events in the literal sense, all of these people have to be alive during the same era of time in order for the the first vial to get poured out on who it does.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

Obviously, when this vial is poured out, it is not poured out during the era of time involving 1) nor 2), it is poured out during the era of time involving 3), the same era of time that was involving A) prior to them having been martyred. But, because Amil must be true, , that the thousand years precede the 2nd coming, one then has no choice but to make complete nonsense out of some of the above, that 3) is not meaning prior to the thousand years, it is meaning after the thousand years, therefore, leaving zero to expain why those per A) were martyred for the reasons they were.

It's hard to tell what you were intending to say here because you're all over the place. Is it your point here that anyone who ever has the mark of the beast has to be alive at the same time the first vial is poured out? If so, I disagree with that. This would only apply to those who have the mark of the beast and are alive at the time. The only reason you would think otherwise is if you assume the beast is only active in the future, but I disagree with that.

Anyone not being biased because of the ism they have decided is true, is going to conclude from all the texts involving all of the above, that when those martyred per A) are martyred, it is during the era of time involving 3). Therefore, how can the era of time involving 3) begin after the thousand years when A) is already proving that wrong?

Again, you are proving nothing except that you make a lot of assumptions and that what you're saying is only true based on your understanding of what Revelation 17:8 means. I disagree with your understanding of what it means, so I'm not obligated to interpret these other passages according to you 1,2,3 scenario. You are the one who has boxed yourself into that scenario. It doesn't apply to my view.

Since the era of time involving 3) is obviously meaning before the thousand years begin,

I'm just shaking my head here. That is only obvious to you, not to me. Why are you acting as if your view is the only possible one? Your Premil view that contradicts so much scripture outside of Revelation is the only way to understand these texts? That makes no sense.

You are illustrating the problem with Premil here. The foundation of Premil is Revelation 20 and you interpret the rest of Revelation and the rest of scripture based on that foundation. You have decided that making one of the most highly symbolic, debatable passages in all of scripture the foundation of your doctrine. That is not a wise approach. Amil, on the other hand, uses other clear and straightforward scripture as its foundation and then interprets Revelation 20 and the rest of Revelation accordingly.

to then place the beginning of the thousand years to that of 2000 years ago, is to then place the era of time involving 3) to that of prior to the cross. Except Amils fully realize it can't fit there.

What Amills are you talking about? Not me. Everything fits with how I look at things. Sure, it doesn't fit based on how YOU look at things, but I don't care about that, frankly. I'm not obligated to follow this 1,2,3 scenario you have come up with.

Therefore, though they do place the beginning of the thousand years to that of 2000 years ago, they don't place the era time involving 3) prior to that. How is it then that Amils can see that the era of time involving 3) can't fit there, but can't see that the era of time involving 3) can't fit after the thousand years, either?

It only can't fit based on your understanding of the timing of Revelation 13 and your understanding of what it means for the beast to be in the bottomless pit. Amils are not obligated to agree with your understanding of those things.

The solution. Simple. The thousand years in question, they are not meaning before the 2nd coming, they are meaning after the 2nd coming. Not according to the ism of Premil, but according to all of the texts involved above.

What about the texts in the rest of scripture? You can't reconcile your understanding of Revelation 20 and these other scriptures in Revelation with the rest of scripture, which Amils like myself have proven time and time again. Does that not matter to you? Does Revelation trump all other scripture? Or should we be careful to interpret Revelation 20 and other parts of Revelation in such a way that doesn't contradict other scripture? Is that important to you?

For example, other scripture EXPLICITLY indicates that Christ began to reign after His resurrection (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-23, Col 1:12-13, etc.) and also indicates that believers began to be made priests of Christ long ago already (1 Peter 2:9, Rev 1:5-6). Your interpretation of Revelation 20 blatantly contradicts those things. Does that not matter to you?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yet, Revelation records a little season involving the time of the 5th seal, and a little season involving satan after the thousand years.

So? They are the same little season.

Obviously, the little season per the 5th seal is involving the final days of this age.

Yes, and so does the little season of Revelation 20:7-9.

It is involving Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 for one.

Nope. Not Matthew 24:21. That relates to what happened in 70 AD. The little season we're talking about has a global scope, but Matthew 24:15-21 does not.

And that this is not meaning satan's little season after the thousand years since there is no indication per Revelation 20:7-9 that the saints being surrounded, some of them are being martyred.

It doesn't indicate that none of them are being martyred, either. Does every scripture about a certain event contain all the same details about it? Of course not. So, why act as if that was the case?

Another problem here is that you are taking symbolic text literally. It's not talking about billions of people around the world somehow all traveling to one single location. That's ludicrous. It's symbolic text representing the opposition of unbelievers against the church throughout the world.

This is a common problem that you have when interpreting the book of Revelation. You interpret symbolic text literally over and over again. And then you somehow take literal text like Matthew 24:15-21 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 symbolically. This illustrates a major problem with Premil. It often does not properly differentiate between literal and symbolic text.

If the little season per the 5th seal involves martyrdom, how can it also be meaning satan's little season after the thousand years unless that little season also involves martyrdom?

Show me where Revelation 20:7-9 says that it doesn't involve martyrdom. Does it contain every single detail about what happens during Satan's little season? Of course not. So, why act as if it does?

It's possible, I guess, if I'm at least going to be intellectually honest here, the saints being surrounded per Revelation 20:7-9, this could symbolize the martyrdom during the little season involving the 5th seal.

I appreciate you at least acknowledging that as a possiblility. If only you would acknowledge that are other possible interpretations of the timing of Revelation 13 and such as well, you could get away from claiming that you have undeniably proven things that other people like me acknowledge are debatable things and not undeniable things at all.

Still doesn't explain why there are already martyrs for having refused to worship the beast, nor it's image, during the era of time Revelation 13 is involving, therefore, the era of time Revelation 13 is involving can't be meaning after the thousand years if it is already meaning prior to that time.

Key word you said there is "IF". Everything you believe is based on your futurist perspective and your assumptions about what it means for the beast and for Satan to be in the bottomless pit. If you're wrong about those things, your doctrine falls completely apart.

And, again, we have to take other scripture into account as well. For some reason you seem to try to interpret everything in Revelation in isolation from the rest of scripture. That is simply not a good approach.

And, again, if you want to be taken seriously on all this you need to define who or what exactly the beast is. When it says the beast "was", what does that mean? What "was" the beast before John wrote the book? When it says the beast "is not" and associates that with the beast being in the bottomless pit, what does that mean and who or what is the beast while it's in the bottomless pit? When it says the beast will ascend from the bottomless pit, what does that mean and who or what is the beast at that point? If you can't answer these questions, then how am I supposed to take your view of the beast seriously?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It's 100% sound what you say above. It's not rocket science to see the consistency in what the Revelation is telling us about this:

(A)

Revelation 17:8: The beast that you saw

1. Was; and
2. is not; and
3. Will ascend out of the abyss and go into perdition; and
4. Those dwelling on the earth will marvel, those whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."

"And all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world. If any man has an ear, let him hear".(Revelation 13:8-9).

"And a third angel followed them, saying with a great voice, If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark in his forehead or in his hand,
he also will drink of the wine of the anger of God, having been mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented by fire and brimstone before the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. And they have no rest day or night, those who worship the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.

Here is the patience of the saints. Here are the ones who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." (Revelation 14:9-12).

"And there was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might both speak, and might cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed." (Revelation 13:15).

"Here is the patience of the saints. Here are the ones who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." (Revelation 14:12).

"And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go and pour out the vials of the anger of God on the earth.
And the first went and poured out his vial on the earth. And a bad and grievous sore fell on the men who had the mark of the beast, and on those who worshiped his image." (Revelation 16:1-2).

(B)

"And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, nor had received his mark on their foreheads, nor in their hands.
And they lived (zao) and reigned with Christ * a thousand years. *

* This is the first "the resurrection" (o anastasis). Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:4-6)

* Linked with this are the thrones that John saw, and the judgment given to the souls mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6.
​

Besides this, zao means to be alive in the body in all other N.T verses it's found in (except where the word is referring to the living God); and o anastasis is referring to the resurrection of the body in all verses where it's found.

And this is besides what Revelation 20:1-6 says about Satan being bound.

The only way to interpret this passage in any other way is to have an "..ism" that scripture must comply with.

Do you believe that the souls of the dead in Christ are alive in heaven now? Yes or no, please. Note that I'm not asking you if you believe they are alive bodily, but I'm asking you if their souls are alive. If they are alive spiritually, in other words. If you do, then is there any reason why the word "zao" could not be applied to them? To be clear, I'm not asking if you think it is applied to them in Revelation 20. You obviously don't. I'm just asking if you think it could be applied to them if someone were to talk about the souls of the dead in Christ in heaven. If not, please explain why not, especially if you believe that the souls of the dead in Christ are alive in heaven.

Another question I have is regarding "the rest of the dead". When referring to them, the Greek word "anazao" is used to refer to them coming alive after the thousand years instead of the word "zao". If it's talking about the bodily resurrection of the martyrs John saw, as described in Rev 20:4, then why did John use the word "zao" there instead of the word "anazao" like he did when referring to the resurrection of "the rest of the dead"?

 

[Zao is life]

Do you believe that the souls of the dead in Christ are alive in heaven now? Yes or no, please. Note that I'm not asking you if you believe they are alive bodily, but I'm asking you if their souls are alive. If they are alive spiritually, in other words. If you do, then is there any reason why the word "zao" could not be applied to them? To be clear, I'm not asking if you think it is applied to them in Revelation 20. You obviously don't. I'm just asking if you think it could be applied to them if someone were to talk about the souls of the dead in Christ in heaven. If not, please explain why not, especially if you believe that the souls of the dead in Christ are alive in heaven.

Another question I have is regarding "the rest of the dead". When referring to them, the Greek word "anazao" is used to refer to them coming alive after the thousand years instead of the word "zao". If it's talking about the bodily resurrection of the martyrs John saw, as described in Rev 20:4, then why did John use the word "zao" there instead of the word "anazao" like he did when referring to the resurrection of "the rest of the dead"?

The souls of the dead in Christ are alive in Christ, but not living in their bodies (zao). Zao cannot be applied to them, because in every single N.T verse where the word zao appears, it's referring either to the living God, or to humans being alive in their own bodies, without exception (list of all the N.T scriptures using the word zao is below).

By implication, when you speak about the resurrection of Revelation 20:5-6 as Christ's bodily resurrection only (thus denying that it's referring to the bodily resurrection that had been experienced by those who had been beheaded for their refusal to worship the beast, whom John saw alive in their bodies - zao),

you have those who refused to worship the beast, alive in the body of Christ after His resurrection (the first resurrection), after the false prophet caused all who refused to worship the beast to be killed.

Then you can't see how what you say about Revelation 20:5-6 being a reference to Christ's resurrection only, implies that Christ rose from the dead and was seen alive in (His own) body (zao) after rising from the dead only after refusing to worship the beast after the false prophet caused all who would not worship it, to be killed.

.. and then you say that anyone who disagrees is not making sense.

Belief in an "..ism" is causing you not to read this, and a number of other passages and verses in scripture, in such a way as to produce the outcome, but rather to use the "..ism" that you believe in, to produce the outcome.

The false prophet will cause all who refuse to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name, to be killed. John saw the souls of those who had refused, and he saw them living in their own bodies after their own bodies had been resurrected from the dead. The text does not say what you say it says or "means" after you have adjusted its meaning to comply with the "..ism" that you admit you believe in.

List of the New Testament scriptures using the Greek word záō (alive). All of them are referring either to the living (záō) God, or in reference to humans being alive (záō) in human bodies:-

|| Matthew 16:16; Matthew 22:32; Matthew 26:63; Matthew 27:63; Mark 5:23; Mark 12:27; Mark 16:11; Luke 2:36; Luke 4:4; Luke 10:28; Luke 15:13; Luke 20:38; Luke 24:5; Luke 24:23; John 4:10; John 4:11; John 4:50; John 4:51; John 4:53; John 5:25; John 6:51; John 6:57; John 6:58; John 6:69; John 7:38; John 11:25; John 11:26; John 14:19; Acts 1:3; Acts 7:38; Acts 9:41; Acts 10:42; Acts 14:15; Acts 17:28; Acts 20:12; Acts 22:22; Acts 25:19; Acts 25:24; Acts 26:5; Acts 28:4; Romans 1:17; Romans 6:2; Romans 6:10; Romans 6:11; Romans 6:13; Romans 7:1; Romans 7:2; Romans 7:3; Romans 7:9; Romans 8:12; Romans 8:13; Romans 9:26; Romans 10:5; Romans 12:1; Romans 14:7; Romans 14:8; Romans 14:9; Romans 14:11; 1 Corinthians 7:39; 1 Corinthians 9:14; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 3:3; 2 Corinthians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 5:15; 2 Corinthians 6:9; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Galatians 2:14; Galatians 2:19; Galatians 2:20; Galatians 3:11; Galatians 3:12; Galatians 5:25; Philippians 1:21; Philippians 1:22; Colossians 2:20; Colossians 3:7; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 3:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; 1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Timothy 4:10; 1 Timothy 5:6; 1 Timothy 6:17; 2 Timothy 3:12; 2 Timothy 4:1; Titus 2:12; Hebrews 2:15; Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 4:12; Hebrews 7:8; Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:17; Hebrews 10:20; Hebrews 10:31; Hebrews 10:38; Hebrews 12:9; Hebrews 12:22; James 4:15; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 Peter 2:4; 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 4:5; 1 Peter 4:6; 1 John 4:9; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 2:8; Revelation 3:1; Revelation 4:9; Revelation 4:10; Revelation 5:14; Revelation 7:2; Revelation 7:17; Revelation 10:6; Revelation 13:14; Revelation 15:7; Revelation 16:3; Revelation 19:20 (cast alive into the lake of fire); Revelation 20:4. ||

Mankind was created to live on earth, in a body. We were not created to "go to heaven when we die and live forever in heaven".

Revelation 21
1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. And the sea no longer is.
2 And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of Heaven, .."
10 " And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God, .."

The state in-between death (the separation of the soul from the body) and the resurrection of the body is only temporary - praise God the Father and His Son, Jesus our Messiah for this fact.

I don't think you realize the extent to which you have allowed the "..ism" you have placed your faith in, to decide the outcome, instead of allowing scripture to produce its own outcome.

When scripture is allowed to produce its own outcome, it will never result in an "..ism", because all "..isms" are a mixture of true/false.

But unfortunately all "..isms" became the cement that locks the understanding of everyone they have trapped in their theological fortresses - and you prove it by not conceding that Revelation 20:4-6 does not imply that it's speaking about people who died in Christ and are in heaven with Him waiting for the adoption, the resurrection of the body like everyone else who died in Christ before them and are waiting until the return of Christ for the resurrection of the body to be alive in their own bodies again.

 

[Zao is life]

Another question I have is regarding "the rest of the dead". When referring to them, the Greek word "anazao" is used to refer to them coming alive after the thousand years instead of the word "zao".

I answered the first question, already in my previous reply to you.

But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.

The sentence is listed as spurious by Tischendorf's Spurious Passages of the Greek New Testament because

1. It does not appear in the Bible’s oldest Greek manuscript of the Revelation, the Codex Sinaiticus.

2. Nor is it found in the oldest Aramaic manuscript, the Khabouris Codex.

3. It only appears as notes in the margins of some of the other manuscripts.

(I'm only mentioning this as a statement of fact, it's not a statement about whether or not the sentence should be there).

Assuming the sentence should be there, the word anazao confirms that John or whoever he was dictating to meant that those who had just been mentioned as being zao, were living again in their own bodies - unless of course you have an "..ism" that requires you to see it as having nothing to do with the fact that John had just mentioned those who had refused to worship the beast and said they were zao (alive in their own bodies).

The words "..did not live again (anazao).." confirm that John had just spoken about souls he saw living again in their own bodies after they had been beheaded, it does not contradict it.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The souls of the dead in Christ are alive in Christ, but not living in their bodies (zao). Zao cannot be applied to them, because in every single N.T verse where the word zao appears, it's referring either to the living God, or to humans being alive in their own bodies, without exception (list of all the N.T scriptures using the word zao is below).

You just ignore all my points. Why should I bother with you any longer? I probably shouldn't. How many times does scripture even refer to those who are in heaven? Rarely, right? So, how can you declare that the word "zao" can't be applied to them? It's only applied elsewhere to those who are alive on earth because that is who scripture refers to a vast majority of the time. There is no rule that says it can be applied to those who are in heaven. Unless you think they are not alive in heaven. Do you believe that they are alive in heaven? Yes or no. If yes, then why can't that word be used to apply to them? What other word do you think should be used instead?

By implication, when you speak about the resurrection of Revelation 20:5-6 as Christ's bodily resurrection only (thus denying that it's referring to the bodily resurrection that had been experienced by those who had been beheaded for their refusal to worship the beast, whom John saw alive in their bodies - zao),

you have those who refused to worship the beast, alive in the body of Christ after His resurrection (the first resurrection), after the false prophet caused all who refused to worship the beast to be killed.

Then you can't see how what you say about Revelation 20:5-6 being a reference to Christ's resurrection only, implies that Christ rose from the dead and was seen alive in (His own) body (zao) after rising from the dead only after refusing to worship the beast after the false prophet caused all who would not worship it, to be killed.

.. and then you say that anyone who disagrees is not making sense.

Belief in an "..ism" is causing you not to read this, and a number of other passages and verses in scripture, in such a way as to produce the outcome, but rather to use the "..ism" that you believe in, to produce the outcome.

The false prophet will cause all who refuse to worship the beast or his image or receive his mark or the number of his name, to be killed. John saw the souls of those who had refused, and he saw them living in their own bodies after their own bodies had been resurrected from the dead. The text does not say what you say it says or "means" after you have adjusted its meaning to comply with the "..ism" that you admit you believe in.

List of the New Testament scriptures using the Greek word záō (alive). All of them are referring either to the living (záō) God, or in reference to humans being alive (záō) in human bodies:-

|| Matthew 16:16; Matthew 22:32; Matthew 26:63; Matthew 27:63; Mark 5:23; Mark 12:27; Mark 16:11; Luke 2:36; Luke 4:4; Luke 10:28; Luke 15:13; Luke 20:38; Luke 24:5; Luke 24:23; John 4:10; John 4:11; John 4:50; John 4:51; John 4:53; John 5:25; John 6:51; John 6:57; John 6:58; John 6:69; John 7:38; John 11:25; John 11:26; John 14:19; Acts 1:3; Acts 7:38; Acts 9:41; Acts 10:42; Acts 14:15; Acts 17:28; Acts 20:12; Acts 22:22; Acts 25:19; Acts 25:24; Acts 26:5; Acts 28:4; Romans 1:17; Romans 6:2; Romans 6:10; Romans 6:11; Romans 6:13; Romans 7:1; Romans 7:2; Romans 7:3; Romans 7:9; Romans 8:12; Romans 8:13; Romans 9:26; Romans 10:5; Romans 12:1; Romans 14:7; Romans 14:8; Romans 14:9; Romans 14:11; 1 Corinthians 7:39; 1 Corinthians 9:14; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 3:3; 2 Corinthians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 5:15; 2 Corinthians 6:9; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Galatians 2:14; Galatians 2:19; Galatians 2:20; Galatians 3:11; Galatians 3:12; Galatians 5:25; Philippians 1:21; Philippians 1:22; Colossians 2:20; Colossians 3:7; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 3:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; 1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Timothy 4:10; 1 Timothy 5:6; 1 Timothy 6:17; 2 Timothy 3:12; 2 Timothy 4:1; Titus 2:12; Hebrews 2:15; Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 4:12; Hebrews 7:8; Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:17; Hebrews 10:20; Hebrews 10:31; Hebrews 10:38; Hebrews 12:9; Hebrews 12:22; James 4:15; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 Peter 2:4; 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 4:5; 1 Peter 4:6; 1 John 4:9; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 2:8; Revelation 3:1; Revelation 4:9; Revelation 4:10; Revelation 5:14; Revelation 7:2; Revelation 7:17; Revelation 10:6; Revelation 13:14; Revelation 15:7; Revelation 16:3; Revelation 19:20 (cast alive into the lake of fire); Revelation 20:4. ||

Mankind was created to live on earth, in a body. We were not created to "go to heaven when we die and live forever in heaven".

Revelation 21
1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. And the sea no longer is.
2 And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of Heaven, .."
10 " And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God, .."

The state in-between death (the separation of the soul from the body) and the resurrection of the body is only temporary - praise God the Father and His Son, Jesus our Messiah for this fact.

I don't think you realize the extent to which you have allowed the "..ism" you have placed your faith in, to decide the outcome, instead of allowing scripture to produce its own outcome.

When scripture is allowed to produce its own outcome, it will never result in an "..ism", because all "..isms" are a mixture of true/false.

But unfortunately all "..isms" became the cement that locks the understanding of everyone they have trapped in their theological fortresses - and you prove it by not conceding that Revelation 20:4-6 does not imply that it's speaking about people who died in Christ and are in heaven with Him waiting for the adoption, the resurrection of the body like everyone else who died in Christ before them and are waiting until the return of Christ for the resurrection of the body to be alive in their own bodies again.

That's nonsense. Your obsession with "isms" is causing you to only think about that and not what people talking to you are saying.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I answered the first question, already in my previous reply to you.

But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.

The sentence is listed as spurious by Tischendorf's Spurious Passages of the Greek New Testament because

1. It does not appear in the Bible’s oldest Greek manuscript of the Revelation, the Codex Sinaiticus.

2. Nor is it found in the oldest Aramaic manuscript, the Khabouris Codex.

3. It only appears as notes in the margins of some of the other manuscripts.

(I'm only mentioning this as a statement of fact, it's not a statement about whether or not the sentence should be there).

Assuming the sentence should be there, the word anazao confirms that John or whoever he was dictating to meant that those who had just been mentioned as being zao, were living again in their own bodies - unless of course you have an "..ism" that requires you to see it as having nothing to do with the fact that John had just mentioned those who had refused to worship the beast and said they were zao (alive in their own bodies).

The words "..did not live again (anazao).." confirm that John had just spoken about souls he saw living again in their own bodies after they had been beheaded, it does not contradict it.

This was not a convincing answer at all. The word "zao" is never used to describe a resurrection from the dead in scripture, but the word "anazao" is. Yet, you think the word "zao" is used to describe people being bodily resurrected from the dead in verse 4. The word "zao" is used to describe people as being alive, not to describe the act of someone being bodily resurrected from the dead. The word "anazao", however, can be used that way. So, there is really no reason at all that the word "zao" would be used to describe a bodily resurrection regardless of the word "anazao" being used in verse 5 or not.