One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

[Timtofly]

Thanks for the confirmation of what I've just said.

Unless one knew the spiritual truth of Revelation 12:9, one would not know that Satan was present in Genesis 3:15.

Because the literal word "Satan" does not literally appear therein.

John knew that Satan was that old serpent. Did he learn that from reading these post on this forum, or was that common knowledge since the time of Moses?

 

[Timtofly]

There's no 1000 years in Genesis 3:15.

And there's no Satan in Genesis 3:15 when Genesis 3:15 is interpreted literally.

But there certainly is Satan in Genesis 3:15 when Genesis 3:15 is interpreted spiritually.

Which requires spiritual discernment.

Which is a rarity in the futurist camp.

Just read this verse literally instead of making Revelation 20 only symbolic.

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"

So you turn Revelation 20 into a spiritual symbol as an argument that we need discernment to figure out Genesis 3?

Or is there more than one old serpent?

 

[Just The Facts]

Hello Jgr

Well congrats you totally ignored what I said. I understand ........no need to explain.................. very often people run from truths they can not answer.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Hello Jgr

Well congrats you totally ignored what I said. I understand ........no need to explain.................. very often people run from truths they can not answer.

You seem to be doing that to my questions....

 

[Just The Facts]

Hello Jeff

I did not address your question did not even read your post so I will do so now and get back to you.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Hello Jeff

I did not address your question did not even read your post so I will do so now and get back to you.

Thats great. I will be back tomorrow very early Australia time. So give it some thought.
God bless.

 

[Jamdoc]

Will you be answering the question in post 99?

I'm not understanding your question
Yes, in Revelation the serpent, that is called Satan is cast down to earth, and the seed of the woman (seed being commonly used as a term to refer to descendants), so the descendent of Eve, will defeat him during His second coming, first binding him, then later, casting him into the lake of fire.

and I do not see any reason in particular that part of those exchanges will not include Jesus literally stepping on Satan's head.
I do not rule that out as a possibility.
You apparently have.

 

[Just The Facts]

Hello Jeff

I assume you are referring to this.

Quote
Hello.
Where did Jesus and the Apostles teach something future?
Where did Jesus and the Apostles not teach it?
Can you throw some scriptures my way first?
End Quote

[31] "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

Is it really your position that Jesus came in his Glory with the Angels and that is why the Kingdom is already here.

Now Peter

[2] that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. ................................[7] But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. [8]But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. [9] The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. [10] But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.

Once again not happened still to come there are told to remember the words of the prophets this is at about 64AD s forget the resurrection as being the beginning of the Kingdom.

Now Paul

[1] Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, [2] not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

Clearly not come yet according to Paul.

Now James

[7] Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient over it until it receives the early and the late rain.

Yup James says it is still future.

Now John

[28] And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.

Yes John agrees still not here yet.

Ok so that is Jesus and the Apostles and Saints now Early Church Father

Clement 100 AD

And ye know, brethren, that the sojourn of this flesh in this world is mean and for a short time, but the promise of Christ is great and marvelous, even the rest of the kingdom that shall be and of life eternal.

Justin Martyr
"For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistæ, Meristæ, Galilæans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

There we go Jesus The Apostles Saints and Early Church Fathers

You can not ignore Jesus plain words in favour of a twisted view of Paul's words. The Kingdom Comes when the sheep and goats are divided. AND NOT A SECOND EARLIER regardless of how you wish to change it to fit your doctrine of men.

 

[jgr]

I'm not understanding your question
Yes, in Revelation the serpent, that is called Satan is cast down to earth, and the seed of the woman (seed being commonly used as a term to refer to descendants), so the descendent of Eve, will defeat him during His second coming, first binding him, then later, casting him into the lake of fire.

and I do not see any reason in particular that part of those exchanges will not include Jesus literally stepping on Satan's head.
I do not rule that out as a possibility.
You apparently have.

God told the serpent that he would bruise Christ's heel, several thousand years into the future when Christ came.

Would you agree that that was a remarkable lifespan for an individual serpent?

 

[jgr]

Just read this verse literally instead of making Revelation 20 only symbolic.

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"

So you turn Revelation 20 into a spiritual symbol as an argument that we need discernment to figure out Genesis 3?

Or is there more than one old serpent?

I've never once mentioned Revelation 20 in this discourse.

 

[jgr]

Hello Jgr

Well congrats you totally ignored what I said. I understand ........no need to explain.................. very often people run from truths they can not answer.

A literal interpretation of Genesis 3:15 is found in post 99.

I presume that you as a literalist agree with it.

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi Jgr

I did answer it and you ignored the answer

 

[jgr]

Hi Jgr

I did answer it and you ignored the answer

Why are you not using the "Reply" or copy/paste/quote to notify the posters that you're responding to?

I can't answer what I'm unaware of.

 

[Just The Facts]

hello JGR

well you quoted the post so I assumed you read it but just ignored what I pointed out

 

[Jamdoc]

God told the serpent that he would bruise Christ's heel, several thousand years into the future when Christ came.

Would you agree that that was a remarkable lifespan for an individual serpent?

No because we know the serpent is Satan, Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2 tells us it is.
angels as far as we know, are immortal beings, until God fulfills Psalm 82, which is final judgement.

 

[jgr]

No because we know the serpent is Satan, Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2 tells us it is.
angels as far as we know, are immortal beings, until God fulfills Psalm 82, which is final judgement.

We know that Satan afflicted Job. Did Job ever report seeing the serpent?

 

[jgr]

hello JGR

well you quoted the post so I assumed you read it but just ignored what I pointed out

Until you decide to use "Reply" or "Quote"/"Insert Quotes", there's no point continuing the conversation.

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi jgr

Really you can't remember what you said a few posts ago. You cant remember quoting my post and then ignoring what it said in that post................... then and asking me a question I answered in the post that you quoted. Go read your post 109 then read the post I quoted ......and quit avoiding the reality as presented.

 

[Jamdoc]

We know that Satan afflicted Job. Did Job ever report seeing the serpent?

Nope, and why would we expect that? Job attributed his suffering to God, not Satan.

 

[DavidPT]

Why is the Millennium as 1000 years equal to a day illogical? What are you trying to prove? It is not logical to put 8 as the next created reality. That would be back to 1. If Sunday is day 8, then there is an easy explanation. The first Sabbath was a Sunday. Sunday is the first day. The punishment was from the 2nd Day to the 7th Day. Now the 8th Day is the 2nd Sabbath.

You misunderstood me somewhere along the way. I never once said that Millennium as 1000 years equal to a day is illogical. Maybe this post will make things clearer?

What I'm saying is, regardless whether Barnabas was correct or not, he mentioned 8 days. 7 of those days he was applying a thousand years to each day. The 8th day he was not still applying a thousand years to. He instead had that day being the beginning of the eternal age. In his view the 8th day is never ending, it is the beginning of a new world, where, by 'world' he was likely meaning age.

To Barnabas the 8 days looked like this, thus why he had to have been Premil rather than Amil.

Day 1---the first literal 1000 years of human history after the 6 days of creation.

Day 2---the second literal 1000 years of human history after the 6 days of creation.

Day 3---the third literal 1000 years of human history after the 6 days of creation.

Day 4---the fourth literal 1000 years of human history after the 6 days of creation.

Day 5---the fifth literal 1000 years of human history after the 6 days of creation.

Day 6---the 6th literal 1000 years of human history after the 6 days of creation---where, by the end of this day this present age ends.

Day 7---the millennium---another 1000 year day, but after the last day of this present age and before the everlasting age---meaning to him before the time of the great white throne judgment.

Day 8---the beginning of a new age, an everlasting age---meaning to him after the time of the great white throne judgment.


How can any person claim this person was Amil? What Amil places a thousand year day after the 2nd coming? Not a single Amil does since that is what a Premil does not what an Amil does. And once again, if Amils still want to dispute this by claiming day 7 and day 8 meant the same day to him, that has to mean day 7 and day 8 meant the same day to him in regards to Christ's resurrection as well, otherwise one is clearly cherry picking. Good luck anyone logically showing how Jesus rose on both day 7 and day 8.