John's Revelation

[DavidPT]

Why do you believe in something that you think has issues? That makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Those beliefs have issues, but I guess that doesn't matter to you.

I also believe Amil has issues. Why would I want to believe in that instead? How does that make even better sense? You might not think Amil has issues, but I and plenty of others have already proved multiple times that it does. Just because some of you are in denial about that, so what? That doesn't prove that those of us who have brought to light these issues, that we are wrong just because you're in denial of something. That would be like someone arguing with a JW about Jesus being God, and since JWs are in denial of that fact, thus won't accept it, won't even consider it, that makes them automatically right and the other person automatically wrong then.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Since you don't think the thousand years can be literal, can you explain any of the following?

Some Amils conclude that when one dies who have part in the first resurrection, they continue reigning a thousand years in heaven as souls without physical bodies. That means they have the thousand years back on earth paralleling when they claim the thousand years continue in heaven. That should mean when the thousand years expire on earth they expire in heaven as well. What period of time do Amils call this in heaven? It can't still be the thousand years, in heaven, if it is no longer the thousand years back on earth.

To try and make my point a bit clearer, would Amils already have departed saints reigning in heaven a thousand years before it's even the time of the thousand years back on earth?

No.

If they have the thousand years beginning at the cross would they already have anyone reigning in heaven a thousand years, before the time of the cross back on earth?

No.

Probably not, right? Shouldn't the same logic apply when the thousand years expire on earth, that since no one back on earth are still reigning a thousand years if that thousand years are already in the past, that that should mean no one in heaven is still reigning a thousand years either?

Sure. Once the thousand years ends, obviously no one can be reigning during the thousand years anymore. But, does Christ stop reigning when the thousand years end? Please answer this question.

I thought most ppl believed heaven is a timeless place and not a place where it involves 24 hour days? No matter how you look at it, a thousand years is not timeless, it involves 24 hour days. How could a thousand years possibly be relevant in heaven? It doesn't even matter if a thousand years are meaning 2000 years instead. That still involves 24 hour days.

Revelation 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

What does this verse tell you about whether there is time in heaven or not? You think most people believe heaven is a timeless place. I don't know what you base that on, but it's clearly nothing more than speculation. But, who cares if that was true? What do you believe? Are you beliefs dictated by what you think most other people believe? You wouldn't be a Christian if that was the case.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I also believe Amil has issues. Why would I want to believe in that instead? How does that make even better sense?

That isn't even my point. My point is, why would you believe in anything that you think has issues? I don't believe that makes sense. You think both Premil and Amil have issues. So, why believe in either one in that case? Do you think your belief in Christ as your Lord and Savior and as the One who died for your sins and rose again from the dead has issues?

You might not think Amil has issues, but I and plenty of others have already proved multiple times that it does.

You have only proved that in your own mind. You haven't proven it to me.

Just because some of you are in denial about that, so what?

Exactly. So what? So what that you think we're supposedly in denial about what you think is true. I don't care. That doesn't change what I believe whatsoever.

That doesn't prove that those of us who have brought to light these issues, that we are wrong just because you're in denial of something.

This is all about what we believe. I never have said that what I BELIEVE is proven FACT. So, why are you acting like I did? Yes, I believe strongly that Amil is true. So what? You seem to have a problem with that just because you don't believe in Premil as strongly as I believe in Amil.

That would be like someone arguing with a JW about Jesus being God, and since JWs are in denial of that fact, thus won't accept it, won't even consider it, that makes them automatically right and the other person automatically wrong then.

You're not making any sense here. You seem to be under the impression that I haven't even considered Premil. Do you know that I once was a Premil? That would be kind of hard to be the case if I didn't consider it, right? So, your analogy here makes no sense.

 

[grafted branch]

So, you apparently think Satan was only bound until 70 AD and was loosed at that time? Which means you interpret the thousand years to symbolically represent about 40 years? I don't interpret the thousand years literally, either, but this is taking things too far. Why would a thousand years symbolically represent a time period far shorter than a thousand years?

I think Satan was bound from using the Gentiles to destroy Jerusalem. I think after Christ’s resurrection He gained control of the nations and only allowed Satan a little season to accomplish Jerusalem’s destruction. I want to emphasize that I also believe this prefigures future events but in a spiritual way. First the natural then the spiritual.

 

[grafted branch]

Does it say otherwise? No. So, I would say yes, it's possible for someone to be saved after the 1,000 years. If someone thinks that no one can be saved and reign with Christ after the 1,000 years then it seems that would mean Christ doesn't reign after the thousand years, either. And, I hope we can all agree that He will not stop reigning when the 1,000 years ends

I completely agree that Christ’s reign is forever and that He is currently reigning. Revelation 20:5 has the phrase “This is the first resurrection” and since Christ is the first resurrection this is forever. Verse 6 however states that those that take part in the first resurrection reign with Christ for 1,000 years.

Is it your view that believers reigning with Christ is a temporary situation or do you think that the believers continue to reign with Christ through Satan’s little season?

The 1,000 years doesn't represent a time period during which Christ reigns and then stops reigning at the end of it. It represents the time period during which He reigns while Satan is bound. The end of the time period is not marked by Christ no longer reigning and people no longer being saved. The end of that time period is marked by Satan being loosed.

Satan being loosed is also marked by his being able to deceive again. Would you say that Satan will once again be able to prevent Gentiles from being saved by preventing the word of God from reaching them?

 

[grafted branch]

I thought most ppl believed heaven is a timeless place and not a place where it involves 24 hour days? No matter how you look at it, a thousand years is not timeless, it involves 24 hour days. How could a thousand years possibly be relevant in heaven? It doesn't even matter if a thousand years are meaning 2000 years instead. That still involves 24 hour days.

Well all I can say is I believe the 1,000 years aren't meant literally but it is meant as a finite amount of time.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I think Satan was bound from using the Gentiles to destroy Jerusalem.

When do you think he was initially bound? According to Revelation 20, the time of him being initially bound coincides with the beginning of Christ's reign. It doesn't seem like you agree with that, though.

I think after Christ’s resurrection He gained control of the nations and only allowed Satan a little season to accomplish Jerusalem’s destruction. I want to emphasize that I also believe this prefigures future events but in a spiritual way. First the natural then the spiritual.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Christ's resurrection marks the BEGINNING of the thousand years because that is when He began to reign. But, you have His resurrection as marking the END of the thousand years instead because you have Satan being loosed right after His resurrection (if I'm understanding you correctly).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I completely agree that Christ’s reign is forever and that He is currently reigning. Revelation 20:5 has the phrase “This is the first resurrection” and since Christ is the first resurrection this is forever. Verse 6 however states that those that take part in the first resurrection reign with Christ for 1,000 years.

Is it your view that believers reigning with Christ is a temporary situation or do you think that the believers continue to reign with Christ through Satan’s little season?

Yes, I believe they continue to reign with Christ through Satan's little season. Why not? As you said, His reign doesn't end, so why would His followers stop reigning, right?

The thousand years does not represent the time during which Christ reigns and His followers reign with Him as if He stops reigning and they stop reigning with Him when that time is over. That time period represents the time during which Christ reigns with His followers while Satan is bound.

The end of the thousand years doesn't mark the end of Christ's reign and His followers reigning with Him, it marks the end of Satan's binding. Notice that the only thing it says that changes when the thousand years ends is Satan is no longer bound and is loosed. Nowhere does it say that Christ stops reigning or those who reign with Him stop reigning at that point.

Satan being loosed is also marked by his being able to deceive again. Would you say that Satan will once again be able to prevent Gentiles from being saved by preventing the word of God from reaching them?

Yes. But, even when he was able to do that in Old Testament times, some Gentiles were still saved. So, it doesn't mean that it will be impossible for anyone to be saved during his little season. But, it will be difficult because of Satan no longer being bound from keeping the gospel/word of God from spreading the way it has for the past almost 2,000 years.

 

[DavidPT]

Well all I can say is I believe the 1,000 years aren't meant literally but it is meant as a finite amount of time.

The way I look at it, if this thousand years are involving this age rather than after Christ returns, it would not be unreasonable to not take them literally. But if they are instead meaning post the 2nd coming, it is perfectly reasonable to take them literally in that case. The way I have decided whether they are literal or not is based on how other numbers followed by years are interpreted in the Bible. They are always interpreted literally, thus they literally mean the amount of years specified. I find it to be unreasonable, if that is the pattern throughout the Bible, that this same pattern wouldn't also apply to a thousand when it is followed by years. Why wouldn't it? Why does it mean a literal amount of years in all these other verses throughout the Bible, but not if the number is a thousand and it is also followed by years?

And so what if a thousand doesn't mean in the literal sense every time in the Bible? Who is arguing that is. Does that then mean it can't also be meaning in the literal sense as well at times? Look how Amils argue in regards to this. They use examples not even involving years, as if a cattle on a thousand hills somehow has something in common with a thousand years. Per the former it is meaning every hill. If we apply that same logic to a thousand years, that has to mean it is meaning every single year since the beginning of time, and includes every single year until time is no more, which is ludicrous.

 

[grafted branch]

When do you think he was initially bound? According to Revelation 20, the time of him being initially bound coincides with the beginning of Christ's reign. It doesn't seem like you agree with that, though.

In Matthew 4:8-9 Satan offers the kingdoms of the world to Jesus if He will worship Satan. I would say at this point Satan has control of the nations. In Matthew 24:18 Jesus says all power is given him in heaven and earth. At this point Satan no longer has control of the nations.

 

[grafted branch]

Yes, I believe they continue to reign with Christ through Satan's little season. Why not? As you said, His reign doesn't end, so why would His followers stop reigning, right?

If believers continue to reign after the 1,000 years, what about the 2 witnesses? They are overcome by the beast that ascends out of bottomless pit. I think most Amils have the 2 witnesses as the church. In the messages to the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3 each one is told to overcome.

After the 1,000 years would you say that at least some of the believers no longer reign because they have been overcome?

 

[grafted branch]

The way I look at it, if this thousand years are involving this age rather than after Christ returns, it would not be unreasonable to not take them literally. But if they are instead meaning post the 2nd coming, it is perfectly reasonable to take them literally in that case. The way I have decided whether they are literal or not is based on how other numbers followed by years are interpreted in the Bible. They are always interpreted literally, thus they literally mean the amount of years specified. I find it to be unreasonable, if that is the pattern throughout the Bible, that this same pattern wouldn't also apply to a thousand when it is followed by years. Why wouldn't it? Why does it mean a literal amount of years in all these other verses throughout the Bible, but not if the number is a thousand and it is also followed by years?

And so what if a thousand doesn't mean in the literal sense every time in the Bible? Who is arguing that is. Does that then mean it can't also be meaning in the literal sense as well at times? Look how Amils argue in regards to this. They use examples not even involving years, as if a cattle on a thousand hills somehow has something in common with a thousand years. Per the former it is meaning every hill. If we apply that same logic to a thousand years, that has to mean it is meaning every single year since the beginning of time, and includes every single year until time is no more, which is ludicrous.

I think Jeremiah 31:36 needs to be considered when looking at 2 Peter 3:8.

Jeremiah 31:36 says if the ordinances of the sun, moon, and stars depart from before him, Israel will cease from being a nation before Him forever. Genesis 1:14-18 gives the ordinances of the Sun, moon, and stars.

The ordinances, which define what a day and a year are, are before God in Jeremiah 31:36, which I think everyone would agree with. The same ordinances that define what a day and a year are, do not appear to be before God any longer in 2 Peter 3:8 because one day is not one day, it’s as a 1,000 years.

If the ordinances of the sun, moon, and stars are currently still before God then He doesn’t abide by His own ordinance or 2 Peter 3:8 simply means that God transcends time.

 

[Timtofly]

Well it's a totally different narrative for one thing. The way it pauses to convey the sheer magnitude of the number of pigs illustrates the sheer size of the miracle being performed here. There are also counts in the OT of the size of armies etc. That's a historical account.

You literally accept Satan will be bound for a gazillion years?

 

[Timtofly]

If the thousand years have a beginning point and an ending point, obviously then, once the ending point has arrived, the thousand years would be in the past at that point for everyone. Assuming the thousand years are meaning in this age, no it would not still be possible to have part in the first resurrection after the thousand years for anyone who never had part in it during the thousand years. This would be true for both positions, Premil and Amil.

What it would mean per Amil is this. Once the thousand years are expired, no one can any longer be saved. It would be impossible. Does this agree with the following, though?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Then the next verse says.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

The question then is, this longsuffering to us-ward, is it meaning all the way up until when the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night, or is it only meaning all the way up until when the thousand years expires?

Per Premil it would mean all the way up until the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, except for maybe Pretrib Premil. Pretrib has the rapture occuring first, then the DOTL happening right after, and that they have ppl still being saved during the DOTL. These are to them tribulation saints that get saved after they are left behind and didn't have part in the rapture. Post Trib Premils typically have the DOTL meaning the 2nd coming, as do most Amils. Post Trib Premils then have God's longsuffering to us-ward meaning all the way up to the 2nd coming.

If Amil is the correct position, Amil does not have God's longsuffering to us-ward meaning all the way up to the 2nd coming, they have it only meaning all the way up until the thousand years end. That would have to be the logical conclusion even if some Amils deny that their position has God's longsuffering to us-ward being cut off at the end of the thousand years.

The Day of the Lord is the whole 1000 year period, with certain events leading up to this time.

Day of the Lord is the symbolic term. 1000 years is the literal term. Day is not a 24 hour time period in this sense.

 

[eclipsenow]

You literally accept Satan will be bound for a gazillion years?

Do you literally accept that the gospel has been going forward for 2000 + years?

 

[eclipsenow]

The Day of the Lord is the whole 1000 year period, with certain events leading up to this time.

Day of the Lord is the symbolic term. 1000 years is the literal term. Day is not a 24 hour time period in this sense.

It certainly isn't - we would have more grounds to believe it was FOREVER based on Old Testament terms - but John says it ends - showing we are in the grounds of 'a gazillion years'.

EG:

Deuteronomy 7:9 - "Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments."

Psalm 105:8 - "He remembers his covenant FOREVER, the promise he made, for a THOUSAND generations"

(Does heaven only last 40,000 years?)

TIME in days
Psalms 84:10 - "Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked."
(This one is saying one day serving God with the righteous is better than a gazillion elsewhere - NOT 2.73 years exactly.)

 

[Spiritual Jew]

In Matthew 4:8-9 Satan offers the kingdoms of the world to Jesus if He will worship Satan. I would say at this point Satan has control of the nations. In Matthew 24:18 Jesus says all power is given him in heaven and earth. At this point Satan no longer has control of the nations.

Right. So, Satan was bound after Christ's resurrection. I agree. But, you think Satan was loosed in 70 AD? That's what you seemed to be saying before.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If believers continue to reign after the 1,000 years, what about the 2 witnesses? They are overcome by the beast that ascends out of bottomless pit. I think most Amils have the 2 witnesses as the church. In the messages to the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3 each one is told to overcome.

After the 1,000 years would you say that at least some of the believers no longer reign because they have been overcome?

What do you think it means for them to be overcome? It just means they are killed. But, that doesn't mean it's saying everyone in the entire church will be killed. Also, a person doesn't stop reigning just because they die, right? Their soul goes to heaven and they reign with Christ there, which is what Revelation 20 portrays. So, I guess I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here. Can you clarify that?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The Day of the Lord is the whole 1000 year period, with certain events leading up to this time.

Day of the Lord is the symbolic term. 1000 years is the literal term. Day is not a 24 hour time period in this sense.

1 Thessalonians 5:1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Paul and Peter both taught that there will be major destruction that occurs when the day of the Lord comes. The scope of it will be such that unbelievers like the scoffers Peter mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-4 "will not escape". How does that line up with your understanding of the day of the Lord being 1000 years in duration?

When exactly do you think the destruction that Paul and Peter described as occurring on the day of the Lord will happen? At the beginning of the 1000 years? At the end of the 1000 years? Throughout the 1000 years?

 

[keras]

Paul and Peter both taught that there will be major destruction that occurs when the day of the Lord comes.

You just assume that Day is the Return.
But it isn't, it will be the Day when the Lord sends His fiery wrath; the Sixth Seal event. The world changer which commences all the end time prophesies.
Proved by how Jesus' Return is not a worldwide disaster. Revelation 19:11
At the Return, the time of distress has passed.... Matthew 24:29-30 and Revelation 15:1

Until people get this right, they will not understand the truth about the end times.