- Jul 11, 2017
- 1,162
- 392
- 53
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
One of the first things to address here is "amillennialism" versus "pre-millennialism". Pre-millennialism, obviously, was very heavily adopted in the first few hundred centuries, and - not as well obvious or known - amilleniallism was adopted strongly post-'Augustine's City of God'. Which was published in 426 AD, and written during a period as "the Church" began to have strong legitimacy in the Empire. About a hundred years after Constantine ruled.
If you are unfamiliar with the term, or have had it simply seep into your consciousness, without really knowing the background: amillenialism is heavy "Catholic" Church, and deeply influenced both the "Holy Roman Empire" of the West and East. The concept is that Christ has been ruling spiritually since a certain point in time.
This concept remains strongly in modern Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox viewpoints. Even though many, especially in the Protestant fold are pre-millenialists.
The amillenialist viewpoint, basically, argues that we have been in the Millennium for some time, though it has some offshoots, such as arguing that there are Millennium like stages we have been in, instead, such as various "Church ages".
How the amillenialist viewpoint rose, is rather obvious: the "Church" gained legitimacy in the world, and this had to be explained. As Jesus taught that the world was evil, and Satan is the Prince of this World. So, how could the Church be ruling and Satan still be the Prince of this World? Indeed, so you find it today, in popular "mythology" where Satan is depicted as the Prince of Hell, but not the Prince of this World. And the world is considered good, and a place which Christians rule.
Some of the early arguments against pre-millenialism are the same today against pre-millenialism: they boil down to arguing that pre-millenialists are carnal, of the body, of the flesh, and so focused on the hope of a rulership in the flesh for this reason. But, while those arguments surfaced before the rise of the legitimacy of "the Church" in the world, they did not gain much traction until "the Church" obtained significant and inarguable power over the major world empires of the West.
After that happened, it has largely been a "done deal". To argue that Satan is the Prince of this World is to argue that the powers of the "Church" in the world's political and economic fronts are contaminated.
This problem has infected not only the Catholic system, but also the offshoots of that system, Protestantism and Orthodox.
To a certain degree, even those of us who lean towards pre-Millennialism should keep an open mind, as we do not yet know the real meaning of much of the Prophecy of the end. Quite unlike, for instance, how we now know the real meaning of much of the prophecy told to Daniel, which remained steeped in mystery while it was ongoing and yet to be -- not including here concepts of those principles being repeated.
There certainly has been good influence in this ruling of the Church. I would not argue that this system has been pristine, however. Instead, as it is depicted in Revelation, the system is corrupt. Just as the world is.
As for the argument that pre-Millenialists are carnal focused, this is certainly not necessarily true. As this would argue Christ is carnal focused, after all, the saints will rule with Christ. So, how can that be carnal focused? An argument which becomes even more absurd when one considers that amillenialists, ultimately, have been ruling a carnal world, and often showing that their accusations fall on their own heads.
It may be noted that this ruling might be through the spiritual bodies literally being externally shown. Such as the spiritual body of Christ has been shown, in Revelation, in the depictions of the Transfiguration, and depictions of 'one like a son of man'. A body of light, with a face that shines like the sun in full brilliance, and eyes of fire.
Or, as Christ did, these bodies might be temporarily or mostly always, hidden beneath the flesh. Yet, we can expect perfection, regardless. And with that perfection, immortality.
Some argue that the flesh would rule, forgetting that "Babylon" is destroyed shortly before the Millennium and "Armageddon" happens. Forgetting that "the birds" eat the flesh of all, 'great and small'. While some might figure that as literal - and it could be - it also, very well could be metaphorical of a complete decimation of the way people live currently.
Such a decimation of the flesh can be seen in the apocalyptic teachings in the Gospels: both the good and bad find themselves on earth, both are alive, but the good are elevated and the bad are put in darkness, fire, and shame.
The entire world is turned upside down.
Perhaps the time spoken of when the 'nations rage against the ruler', wishing to 'be free of their bonds'. We do not see these bonds currently, though we do see many raging against the ideals of Christ. However, presently, as much as we may see this in the world, we certainly also see this in the churches, as well.
Indeed, I would point out it is very difficult to see the old Catholic system of "worship" and resulting Orthodox and Protestant systems as very much like anything Jesus would have called "worship", at all. Not to argue that all churches are bad, no. But, it is the true Christians among them who make it bad.
It should be pointed out that the time of the Harvest is at the very time right before the Millennium. And that is the Night, when the "workers of the field" find evil seeds mixed in with good. The Harvest is called right before the Millennium by the Angel standing in the sun, and "all" are cut down, with the wicked thrown into the fire. And the good risen up, as if and literally, from the dead.
As for the length of the unfolding of Revelation, some would argue "these are things we scribes, we intellectual theologians will be able to note when it happens", and they set many timings and dates. But, remember, the same sort of people rejected Jesus when Jesus came, refusing to come to him as disciples. Instead, they ignored the great miracles he worked and the great words he spoke. And stuck to "studying and studying Scripture instead of coming to me".
Likewise, Revelation may have played out over a very long period, with gaps between the more strict timings. (Which is exactly how it appears to be played out, if you can get traditional interpretations out of your head and see it new.)
Issues like the two witnesses people might find hard to believe could happen so the world would not understand who they are -- even though the text is quite clear they do not. And they may have already come. That they would have been famous is beyond a doubt. Recognized specifically for being who they are? No, not consciously, on earth.
Or, as for the first woe, Satan and his angels being released from the Abyss: light may have come onto the beings of the Abyss who do rule this world, light which enabled them to come up with more powerful attacks against the world then what old organized religion had previously allowed. Which could explain the proliferation of atheism, Communism, and Nazism, amongst other profound evils. Evils of a much higher level of sophistication then the organized pseudo-Christian religious systems of the Middle Ages.
Finally, it should not be thought that Armageddon is against Jesus ruling spiritually on earth, so this does tie into some 'amillenial' type concepts. But, the "Babylon" concept raises two major depictions of Babylon: one, is the Babylon who forsook God and tried to build a tower to the Heavens, with everyone working as one people. Two, is the Babylon of the first empire in Daniel. The Babylon who exiled Israel, and the Babylon which the exiles, along with Joshua and Zerubabbel, escaped from. (Reference, Zechariah and other prophets during the time of the return of the exiles.)
Symbolically, those two are one, which also throws a wrench in the cogs of thinking that Revelation is trivial metaphor that modern scribes understand.
Symbolically, the 144,000 represent a small number who escape Babylon, just as a small number left and headed home.
Remember, we have a lot of modern "scribes" who rely on traditional teachings. They do not want to be seen as scribes, and will make every effort not to do so. We do have free will and a responsibility to use honest, accurate reasoning in all matters. To not be biased in our scales and weights of reasoning.
When you come across unreasonable people, be forewarned, especially in these sorts of matters. Being unreasonable is not a hallmark of godly people.
Making statements that do not have facts backing them, and refusing to reason, these are the hallmarks of dictators, of tyrants. Jesus is no tyrant. Jesus is the opposite of a tyrant, as is God. (Yet, people refuse to worship God since the beginning, desiring instead tyrants to God.)
If you are unfamiliar with the term, or have had it simply seep into your consciousness, without really knowing the background: amillenialism is heavy "Catholic" Church, and deeply influenced both the "Holy Roman Empire" of the West and East. The concept is that Christ has been ruling spiritually since a certain point in time.
This concept remains strongly in modern Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox viewpoints. Even though many, especially in the Protestant fold are pre-millenialists.
The amillenialist viewpoint, basically, argues that we have been in the Millennium for some time, though it has some offshoots, such as arguing that there are Millennium like stages we have been in, instead, such as various "Church ages".
How the amillenialist viewpoint rose, is rather obvious: the "Church" gained legitimacy in the world, and this had to be explained. As Jesus taught that the world was evil, and Satan is the Prince of this World. So, how could the Church be ruling and Satan still be the Prince of this World? Indeed, so you find it today, in popular "mythology" where Satan is depicted as the Prince of Hell, but not the Prince of this World. And the world is considered good, and a place which Christians rule.
Some of the early arguments against pre-millenialism are the same today against pre-millenialism: they boil down to arguing that pre-millenialists are carnal, of the body, of the flesh, and so focused on the hope of a rulership in the flesh for this reason. But, while those arguments surfaced before the rise of the legitimacy of "the Church" in the world, they did not gain much traction until "the Church" obtained significant and inarguable power over the major world empires of the West.
After that happened, it has largely been a "done deal". To argue that Satan is the Prince of this World is to argue that the powers of the "Church" in the world's political and economic fronts are contaminated.
This problem has infected not only the Catholic system, but also the offshoots of that system, Protestantism and Orthodox.
To a certain degree, even those of us who lean towards pre-Millennialism should keep an open mind, as we do not yet know the real meaning of much of the Prophecy of the end. Quite unlike, for instance, how we now know the real meaning of much of the prophecy told to Daniel, which remained steeped in mystery while it was ongoing and yet to be -- not including here concepts of those principles being repeated.
There certainly has been good influence in this ruling of the Church. I would not argue that this system has been pristine, however. Instead, as it is depicted in Revelation, the system is corrupt. Just as the world is.
As for the argument that pre-Millenialists are carnal focused, this is certainly not necessarily true. As this would argue Christ is carnal focused, after all, the saints will rule with Christ. So, how can that be carnal focused? An argument which becomes even more absurd when one considers that amillenialists, ultimately, have been ruling a carnal world, and often showing that their accusations fall on their own heads.
It may be noted that this ruling might be through the spiritual bodies literally being externally shown. Such as the spiritual body of Christ has been shown, in Revelation, in the depictions of the Transfiguration, and depictions of 'one like a son of man'. A body of light, with a face that shines like the sun in full brilliance, and eyes of fire.
Or, as Christ did, these bodies might be temporarily or mostly always, hidden beneath the flesh. Yet, we can expect perfection, regardless. And with that perfection, immortality.
Some argue that the flesh would rule, forgetting that "Babylon" is destroyed shortly before the Millennium and "Armageddon" happens. Forgetting that "the birds" eat the flesh of all, 'great and small'. While some might figure that as literal - and it could be - it also, very well could be metaphorical of a complete decimation of the way people live currently.
Such a decimation of the flesh can be seen in the apocalyptic teachings in the Gospels: both the good and bad find themselves on earth, both are alive, but the good are elevated and the bad are put in darkness, fire, and shame.
The entire world is turned upside down.
Perhaps the time spoken of when the 'nations rage against the ruler', wishing to 'be free of their bonds'. We do not see these bonds currently, though we do see many raging against the ideals of Christ. However, presently, as much as we may see this in the world, we certainly also see this in the churches, as well.
Indeed, I would point out it is very difficult to see the old Catholic system of "worship" and resulting Orthodox and Protestant systems as very much like anything Jesus would have called "worship", at all. Not to argue that all churches are bad, no. But, it is the true Christians among them who make it bad.
It should be pointed out that the time of the Harvest is at the very time right before the Millennium. And that is the Night, when the "workers of the field" find evil seeds mixed in with good. The Harvest is called right before the Millennium by the Angel standing in the sun, and "all" are cut down, with the wicked thrown into the fire. And the good risen up, as if and literally, from the dead.
As for the length of the unfolding of Revelation, some would argue "these are things we scribes, we intellectual theologians will be able to note when it happens", and they set many timings and dates. But, remember, the same sort of people rejected Jesus when Jesus came, refusing to come to him as disciples. Instead, they ignored the great miracles he worked and the great words he spoke. And stuck to "studying and studying Scripture instead of coming to me".
Likewise, Revelation may have played out over a very long period, with gaps between the more strict timings. (Which is exactly how it appears to be played out, if you can get traditional interpretations out of your head and see it new.)
Issues like the two witnesses people might find hard to believe could happen so the world would not understand who they are -- even though the text is quite clear they do not. And they may have already come. That they would have been famous is beyond a doubt. Recognized specifically for being who they are? No, not consciously, on earth.
Or, as for the first woe, Satan and his angels being released from the Abyss: light may have come onto the beings of the Abyss who do rule this world, light which enabled them to come up with more powerful attacks against the world then what old organized religion had previously allowed. Which could explain the proliferation of atheism, Communism, and Nazism, amongst other profound evils. Evils of a much higher level of sophistication then the organized pseudo-Christian religious systems of the Middle Ages.
Finally, it should not be thought that Armageddon is against Jesus ruling spiritually on earth, so this does tie into some 'amillenial' type concepts. But, the "Babylon" concept raises two major depictions of Babylon: one, is the Babylon who forsook God and tried to build a tower to the Heavens, with everyone working as one people. Two, is the Babylon of the first empire in Daniel. The Babylon who exiled Israel, and the Babylon which the exiles, along with Joshua and Zerubabbel, escaped from. (Reference, Zechariah and other prophets during the time of the return of the exiles.)
Symbolically, those two are one, which also throws a wrench in the cogs of thinking that Revelation is trivial metaphor that modern scribes understand.
Symbolically, the 144,000 represent a small number who escape Babylon, just as a small number left and headed home.
Remember, we have a lot of modern "scribes" who rely on traditional teachings. They do not want to be seen as scribes, and will make every effort not to do so. We do have free will and a responsibility to use honest, accurate reasoning in all matters. To not be biased in our scales and weights of reasoning.
When you come across unreasonable people, be forewarned, especially in these sorts of matters. Being unreasonable is not a hallmark of godly people.
Making statements that do not have facts backing them, and refusing to reason, these are the hallmarks of dictators, of tyrants. Jesus is no tyrant. Jesus is the opposite of a tyrant, as is God. (Yet, people refuse to worship God since the beginning, desiring instead tyrants to God.)
