Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

[DavidPT]

Not true.
The time for participating in the 1st resurrection "now is"
as they do not come into judgment in Johns words..., the second death cannot hurt them in Revs words must refer to the same hope, that "Now is"

They possess the same hope at Gods righteous judgment because both text are speaking of the same judgment. They possess this hope long before judgment day arrives on the day of Gods righteous judgment at Jesus appearing.


This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. 6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.

Let's try something different here.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


Assuming Amil and the fact Amils take the thousand years to be meaning the past 2000 years, this verse says the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. What then would be the status of the rest of the dead during the past 2000 years?

To get an idea of what I'm asking here, in the event it's not entrely clear, if one were to ask me that same question, and me assuming Premil, I might answer it like such.

What then would be the status of the rest of the dead during the future 1000 years? Answer: they are already physically dead when the thousand years begin and remain physically dead during the duration of the thousand years. Thus, they play no role in the thousand years one way or the other. They are simply physically dead the entire thousand years, thus are already dead before the thousand years begin.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

As to you trying to help Keras see that he is coming to some absurd conclusions involving some of this, I'm pretty much with you up until what I quoted by you above. You obviously agree that Scripture interprets Scripture, but when one does that with the verses below, now all of a sudden Scripture interpreting Scripture is not such a good idea after all.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Your focus is on this hour and in your mind all of this has to occur during this same hour.

I believe that's obvious. The text very much gives that impression. Do me a favor. Can you paraphrase the passage in the way you think it should be understood? That way it's translated very clearly gives the impression that all of the dead will be raised within the same hour/time/event that Jesus said is coming.

In Revelation 20 it paints a different picture, though.

In your mind it does because you assume the first resurrection refers to the mass bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ that will occur when He returns. But, that's obviously not how I see it.

There is no resurrection event recorded in Revelation 20 that is involving those that have done good, and those that have done bad, being raised the same hour. The following verse below involves 2 resurrection events. These events aren't taking place during the same hour, where you at least agree with that. But even so, the way you try and get around some of this, the first resurrection is not a bodily resurrection event like what is recorded in John 5:29 concerning the resurrection of life, that it's meaning something entirely different altogether.

I'm not trying to get around anything. The foundation of my doctrine is based on clear, straightforward scripture which is how I see passages like John 5:28-29. Revelation 20, on the other hand, is contained within the most symbolic book in all of scripture and is not straightforward.

So, I interpret more difficult passages like Revelation 20 in light of more clear passages like John 5:28-29. I think this is a wise approach, but it's clear to me that you disagree with that approach. You seem to rather form the foundation of your doctrine on more difficult passages like Zechariah 14 and Revelation 20 and you interpret more straightforward passages like 2 Peter 3:10-13 and John 5:28-29 in light of your interpretations of the more difficult passage. I don't think that's a good approach.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Those who have part in the first resurrection don't need to live again after the thousand years are finished. They already do that when they take part in the first resurrection.

As concerning this---But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished--nowhere does that text say any of them too are blessed and holy. Nowhere does that text say any of them too, that the 2nd death has no power over them. Therefore, this resurrection event involving the rest of the dead does not also involve anyone who has part in the first resurrection, thus, though two resurrection events are recorded in Revelation 20:5, neither of those events agree with what is recorded in John 5:28-29 if this hour is supposed to be meaning the same hour.

But if the same hour is not meant, concerning what is recorded in John 5:28-29, in that case both resurrection events recorded in Revelation 20:5 can agree with what is recorded in John 5:28-29, because when the rest of the dead live again after the thousand years, this is meaning the resurrection of damnation, and that the first resurrection is meaning the resurrection of life.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It's coming across as if you think the two passages contradict each other, but we should accept how you interpret Revelation 20 and just ignore John 5:28-29. I'm not that's not what you're intending to say, but I'm not really sure exactly what you're intending to say, though. I've already explained many times how I reconcile the two passages. How do you do it? How exactly do you interpret John 5:28-29? I'd like to see the David paraphrase of that passage so I can see exactly how you interpret it.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

also copy @DavidPT
Satan's power being broken does not mean Satan was thrown into the LOF, does it?

Of course not.

If not, why does it mean he was bound in the abyss and a seal set on him so that he should deceive the nations no longer until the thousand years are finished?

Because it relates to the difference between what he was able to do in Old Testament times (keep people in slavery to the fear of death because he had the power of death) to what he has been able to do in New Testament times (no longer keep a vast majority as slaves to the fear of death because of the hope of eternal life that Christ's death and resurrection brought to the world).

IMO Just as much as it would be a giant leap using the pole-vault of assumption to go from Satan's power being destroyed to Satan having been cast into the LOF, so it is a giant leap using the pole-vault of assumption to go from from Satan's power being destroyed to Satan being bound, especially since all these verses describe Satan running around being very active, both in his attempts to cause disruption in the body of Christ, and in the world:

1 Peter 5:8-9; Ephesians 6:11-12; Revelation 2:9-10 & Revelation 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; James 4:7. These verses plus the two below show that this activity of Satan spans the entire Age:

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 and Ephesians 2:2 tell us about Satan's influence over the societies of this world, this Age.

You say this because of YOUR understanding of what it means to be bound. I'm not obligated to agree with your understanding of his binding.

If a king owns a kingdom and in his kingdom there is an adversary running around causing havoc and dissension against the king's will and authority, then if the king decides to put and end to the adversary's nonsense, he would either need to bind the adversary and put him in a prison in solitary confinement where he can do no harm, or he would need to destroy the adversary.

But if the adversary is running around in the king's kingdom doing what all the above verses tell us Satan is doing, then the king has neither bound him, nor destroyed him, but is allowing him to continue doing this, for the king's own purpose (maybe to see which citizens are loyal to the king and which are not?).

It's a giant leap using the pole-vault of assumption to go from the fact that Satan's power is defeated to "Satan is bound".

I completely disagree and nothing you're saying is anywhere near convincing to make me think otherwise.

@Spiritual Jew Satan did not have to be bound for the gospel to spread, as you implied to @DavidPT . To say so is implying that Satan is more powerful than the Holy Spirit.

This shows that you're not getting what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the gospel of Christ being preached through the power of the Holy Spirit is what binds Satan. So, I'm saying exactly the opposite of what you're claiming that I'm saying. I'm saying that Satan is bound because of the Holy Spirit being more powerful than him. That's why he hasn't been able to stop the gospel from spreading throughout the world and why he hasn't been able to keep people in slavery to the fear of death to the extent that he was able to do in Old Testament times.

The problem with Premils is that they don't take into consideration the tremendous impact that the death and resurrection and subsequent preaching of the gospel of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit has had on Satan. They act like nothing changed as it relates to Satan after Christ died and rose again and the gospel began being preached through the power of the Holy Spirit. I beg to differ.

Sorry, but that assertion is implying that. This earth is Christ's Kingdom. God is infinitely more powerful than Satan, who was already defeated, anyway. The gospel being spread does not require the binding of Satan.

It requires the binding of Satan as I understand the binding of Satan. Maybe it doesn't according to your understanding of the binding of Satan, but that's not my concern.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Let's try something different here.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


Assuming Amil and the fact Amils take the thousand years to be meaning the past 2000 years, this verse says the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. What then would be the status of the rest of the dead during the past 2000 years?

Still dead and awaiting the righteous judgment of God. They missed the opportunity to repent and believe and participate in the fruits of his resurrection that now is.
They are without hope, while those who do believe the Gospel have a blessed hope when he appears again a second time.

 

[Zao is life]

Of course not.

Because it relates to the difference between what he was able to do in Old Testament times (keep people in slavery to the fear of death because he had the power of death) to what he has been able to do in New Testament times (no longer keep a vast majority as slaves to the fear of death because of the hope of eternal life that Christ's death and resurrection brought to the world).

You say this because of YOUR understanding of what it means to be bound. I'm not obligated to agree with your understanding of his binding.

I completely disagree and nothing you're saying is anywhere near convincing to make me think otherwise.

This shows that you're not getting what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the gospel of Christ being preached through the power of the Holy Spirit is what binds Satan. So, I'm saying exactly the opposite of what you're claiming that I'm saying. I'm saying that Satan is bound because of the Holy Spirit being more powerful than him. That's why he hasn't been able to stop the gospel from spreading throughout the world and why he hasn't been able to keep people in slavery to the fear of death to the extent that he was able to do in Old Testament times.

The problem with Premils is that they don't take into consideration the tremendous impact that the death and resurrection and subsequent preaching of the gospel of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit has had on Satan. They act like nothing changed as it relates to Satan after Christ died and rose again and the gospel began being preached through the power of the Holy Spirit. I beg to differ.

It requires the binding of Satan as I understand the binding of Satan. Maybe it doesn't according to your understanding of the binding of Satan, but that's not my concern.

Yeah we disagree. You know what my understanding is, and I know what yours is.

At least both views are based upon Revelation 12's apocalypse being about what happened to Satan after Jesus died, rose again and ascended into heaven (and not about something that will take place at the close of the Age, where some want it to be).

 

[DavidPT]

At least both views are based upon Revelation 12's apocalypse being about what happened to Satan after Jesus died, rose again and ascended into heaven (and not about something that will take place at the close of the Age, where some want it to be).

I agree to a degree, but I do not agree that nothing recorded in Revelation 12 is involving the end of this age. Of course some of it is, at least this part anyway---Revelation 12:17---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

When satan is cast to the earth, the first thing we see him doing is persecuting the woman that brought forth the man child. What should we assume this persecution looks like, and how much time should we assume this persecution involves until the woman is seen flying into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent?

This a time, and times, and half a time, has to have an end eventually, so what does it mean in regards to the woman once this period of time is fulfilled? During this period of time she is nourished, from the face of the serpent. The opposite of that would be that she is no longer nourished, from the face of the serpent, wouldn't it? Yet, while she is being nourished, the dragon instead turns it's attention to these---the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

In Revelation 20, during the thousand years, the fact the dragon is in the pit at the time, it obviously wouldn't be doing this at the time---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. But it would be doing that when it's not in the pit. There are 2 times it is not in the pit. Before the thousand years and after the thousand years, and that when the dragon does this---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ---it would have to mean one of those two times. The question is, which time period should we assign this to?

Once again, though I have mentioned this like a broken record, Revelation 20:4 and the following help us determine the timing----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. This martyrdom is obviously meaning something that takes place before satan is ever loosed from the pit, and that this martyrdom has to be involving this in Revelation 12:17---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ---where that then has to be involving the 42 month reign of the beast recorded in Revelation 13 because that ch records the same things they are martyred because of. Therefore, the 42 month reign of the beast has to precede the beginning of the thousand years. That presents a major problem if the beginning of the thousand years is meaning the time of the cross.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yeah we disagree. You know what my understanding is, and I know what yours is.

I'm satisfied with that for now. It takes a lot of work sometimes just to get people to understand what I believe and why. At least I don't have to worry about you misrepresenting my view the way some others do.

At least both views are based upon Revelation 12's apocalypse being about what happened to Satan after Jesus died, rose again and ascended into heaven (and not about something that will take place at the close of the Age, where some want it to be).

Right.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I agree to a degree, but I do not agree that nothing recorded in Revelation is involving the end of this age. Of course some of it is, at least this part anyway---Revelation 12:17---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Why do you think that only refers to something that occurs at the end of the age? If Satan was cast out of heaven after Christ's resurrection or ascension, which I think you agree with, then how long after that was he making war with Christians? Would the first Christian martyr, Stephen, agree with you that he still hasn't yet started making war with Christians up to this point in time? No, I don't think so.

When satan is cast to the earth, the first thing we see him doing is persecuting the woman that brought forth the man child. What should we assume this persecution looks like, and how much time should we assume this persecution involves until the woman is seen flying into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent?

This depends entirely on your understanding of the identity of the symbolic woman. So, what is your understanding of that?

My understanding of the woman is that she represents the spiritual Israel of God. The only offspring that Revelation 12 says she has is Jesus (referenced in verse 5) and "the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.". Is that not a description of the church, which has Christ as its cornerstone and includes those "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ"? So, the woman is nourished in the sense that the gates of hell can not prevail against her even if her offspring are being persecuted because no matter how much persecution occurs, the church cannot be destroyed.

This a time, and times, and half a time, has to have an end eventually, so what does it mean in regards to the woman once this period of time is fulfilled? During this period of time she is nourished, from the face of the serpent. The opposite of that would be that she is no longer nourished, from the face of the serpent, wouldn't it? Yet, while she is being nourished, the dragon instead turns it's attention to these---the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Again, at what point does the dragon, Satan, start persecuting the church? Did he not start persecuting the church long ago already? Why do you act as if he has not yet started persecuting the church? Try telling that to all the persecuted Christians in countries where the governments are hostile towards Christianity or where terrorist groups persecute Christians.

In Revelation 20, during the thousand years, the fact the dragon is in the pit at the time, it obviously wouldn't be doing this at the time---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. But it would be doing that when it's not in the pit.

Where does it say that the dragon, Satan, is bound from making war with Christians? It says that he's bound from deceiving the nations, but not that he is bound from persecuting Christians.

There are 2 times it is not in the pit. Before the thousand years and after the thousand years, and that when the dragon does this---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ---it would have to mean one of those two times. The question is, which time period should we assign this to?

Once again, though I have mentioned this like a broken record, Revelation 20:4 and the following help us determine the timing----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. This martyrdom is obviously meaning something that takes place before satan is ever loosed from the pit, and that this martyrdom has to be involving this in Revelation 12:17---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ---where that then has to be involving the 42 month reign of the beast recorded in Revelation 13 because that ch records the same things they are martyred because of. Therefore, the 42 month reign of the beast has to precede the beginning of the thousand years. That presents a major problem if the beginning of the thousand years is meaning the time of the cross.

What you're saying can only be true if the 42 months/1260 days/"time, times and half a time" are referring to a literal 3.5 year time period before the return of Christ, but I disagree with that interpretation of those time periods.

It's very strange to me that you agree that Satan was cast out of heaven long ago, but at the same time don't think he has yet gone to make war with those "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.". You have to ignore all the persecution that has come against the church for the past almost 2,000 years in order to come to that conclusion.

 

[DavidPT]

Why do you think that only refers to something that occurs at the end of the age? If Satan was cast out of heaven after Christ's resurrection or ascension, which I think you agree with, then how long after that was he making war with Christians? Would the first Christian martyr, Stephen, agree with you that he still hasn't yet started making war with Christians up to this point in time? No, I don't think so.

That's why I asked how long should we assume the persecution against the woman is meaning before she is seen being nourished, from the face of the serpent. The woman and the remnant of her seed can't be meaning the same thing. The remnant of her seed is obviously meaning the church. So who is the woman meaning then?

Who in particular is being persecuted by the dragon when he is persecuting the woman? It can't be the church, because if it is it would mean some of the church is being nourished, from the face of the serpent, while some of the church isn't. An interpretation like that is not much different than Pretrib since that view has some of the church being raptured while some of the church is left behind to face the beast during the trib.

This depends entirely on your understanding of the identity of the symbolic woman. So, what is your understanding of that?

My understanding of the woman is that she represents the spiritual Israel of God. The only offspring that Revelation 12 says she has is Jesus (referenced in verse 5) and "the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.". Is that not a description of the church, which has Christ as its cornerstone and includes those "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ"? So, the woman is nourished in the sense that the gates of hell can not prevail against her even if her offspring are being persecuted because no matter how much persecution occurs, the church cannot be destroyed.

As can be seen from my answer in the beginning of this post, I'm not seeing how the woman and the remnant of her seed can be meaning one and the same group.

To you the spiritual Israel of God and the church are one and the same, right?

Again, at what point does the dragon, Satan, start persecuting the church? Did he not start persecuting the church long ago already? Why do you act as if he has not yet started persecuting the church? Try telling that to all the persecuted Christians in countries where the governments are hostile towards Christianity or where terrorist groups persecute Christians.

When he is cast out he is initially seen persecuting the woman. The woman can't be meaning the church if the remnant of her seed is. Unless you can explain why some of the church would be being nourished, while the rest of the church are being made war against during that same period of time. Again, this would be similar to a Pretrib mindset, because that mindset has some of the church raptured out of harms way while it has others not being raptured out of harms way.

Where does it say that the dragon, Satan, is bound from making war with Christians? It says that he's bound from deceiving the nations, but not that he is bound from persecuting Christians.

Why do you need the dragon doing this during the thousand years---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ? Are you being unbiased and objective when you interpret it like that? One way to find out, does it affect Amil if he is not doing those things during the thousand years? Will Amil still work if he is not doing those things during the thousand years?

As to me, I don't need the text to tell me this because the text indicates that anything involving battling takes place after the thousand years, which then tells me things involving battling don't take place during the thousand years. This means there can be things involving battling taking place prior to the thousand years and after the thousand years, but not during. And besides, satan is in the pit during the thousand years, regardless whether a literal pit is meant or not.

What you're saying can only be true if the 42 months/1260 days/"time, times and half a time" are referring to a literal 3.5 year time period before the return of Christ, but I disagree with that interpretation of those time periods.

Maybe they are literal or maybe not, but one thing is for certain, the time period involved can't be that lengthy because if one compared 42 months with a thousand years, for example, no way can the 42 months be as lengthy as a thousand years would be.

One thing that has crossed my mind, Jesus was allotted a literal 3.5 year ministry. The beast is also given 42 months to continue. Why would Christ's holy ministry involve 3.5 literal years but that the beast's unholy ministry wouldn't?

It's very strange to me that you agree that Satan was cast out of heaven long ago, but at the same time don't think he has yet gone to make war with those "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.". You have to ignore all the persecution that has come against the church for the past almost 2,000 years in order to come to that conclusion.

As to satan making war against the saints beginning 2000 years back or so, that has to be the case, but as to the 42 month reign of the beast, that's mostly what I'm applying to the end of this age and that Revelation 12:17 pertaining to making war against the remnant of her seed, some of it, so maybe not all of it, is specifically involving the 42 month reign of the beast in the end of this age.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That's why I asked how long should we assume the persecution against the woman is meaning before she is seen being nourished, from the face of the serpent. The woman and the remnant of her seed can't be meaning the same thing. The remnant of her seed is obviously meaning the church. So who is the woman meaning then?

Who in particular is being persecuted by the dragon when he is persecuting the woman? It can't be the church, because if it is it would mean some of the church is being nourished, from the face of the servant, while some of the church isn't. An interpretation like that is not much different than Pretrib since that view has some of the church being raptured while some of the church is left behind to face the beast during the trib.

I believe it's talking about Satan trying to destroy the woman by way of trying to destroy the woman's first offspring, which was Jesus Christ. Satan used people like Herod to try to kill Him before He was able to grow up and do the things He came to do. But, he obviously failed. And, though He was killed later, that also failed because that is what He came to do (die for our sins) and He obviously rose again from the dead after that.

As can be seen from my answer in the beginning of this post, I'm not seeing how the woman and the remnant of her seed can be meaning one and the same group.

To you the spiritual Israel of God and the church are one and the same, right?

Yes, but I see the woman as referring to the Israel of God/church itself as an entity rather than to the people who are part of the Israel of God/church. Remember, Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church. He was speaking of the church as a corporate entity there of which He is the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:19-22). Satan can kill believers, but he can't destroy the church. Killing believers doesn't accomplish that. We end up going to heaven after we die, so he doesn't gain a victory over the church by killing us.

There's clearly a difference between the woman and her offspring and the only offspring of the woman that are mentioned are Jesus and those who follow Jesus. So, what I described above is the only way I can make sense of differentiating between the woman and her seed.

When he is cast out he is initially seen persecuting the woman. The woman can't be meaning the church if the remnant of her seed is. Unless you can explain why some of the church would be being nourished, while the rest of the church are being made war against during that same period of time. Again, this would be similar to a Pretrib mindset, because that mindset has some of the church raptured out of harms way while it has others not being raptured out of harms way.

I agree that looking at it that way does not make sense.

Why do you need the dragon doing this during the thousand years---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ?

When did I say that I need that to be the case? I just happen to believe that is the case.

Are you being unbiased and objective when you interpret it like that?

Sure. Why would I want to be biased towards scripture? I want to know the truth and the only way to find the truth is by being unbiased and objective. If you want to claim that I'm biased, I don't care. I know myself much better than you do.

One way to find out, does it affect Amil if he is not doing those things during the thousand years? Will Amil still work if he is not doing those things during the thousand years?

No, it wouldn't still work with my version of Amil. Maybe it would with someone else's, I don't know. But, you're talking to me here, so what other Amils might believe about this is irrelevant to this particular discussion as far as I'm concerned. You obviously don't agree with other Premils on everything, so, while I'm talking to you, I'm not going to try to disprove something that maybe other Premils believe but you don't.

As to me, I don't need the text to tell me this because the text indicates that anything involving battling takes place after the thousand years, which then tells me things involving battling don't take place during the thousand years.

So, why don't you interpret Revelation 19:11-21 to be talking about an event that occurs after the thousand years then?

This means there can be things involving battling taking place prior to the thousand years and after the thousand years, but not during. And besides, satan is in the pit during the thousand years, regardless whether a literal pit is meant or not.

Again, what does it say he is bound from doing? Making war with Christians? No, it does not say that. So, your argument is far from convincing to me. Especially when I know that he has been making war with Christians for almost 2,000 years now.

Maybe they are literal or maybe not, but one thing is for certain, the time period involved can't be that lengthy because if one compared 42 months with a thousand years, for example, no way can the 42 months be as lengthy as a thousand years would be.

I like how you make up your own rules to how things have to be interpreted. You act as if scripture itself made that rule.

But, you're not thinking about the symbolic significance of numbers in scripture. The number 7 is known to figuratively represent perfection or completion in scripture. It's a number often associated with God. Look at how many times the number 7 is used in the book of Revelation (7 stars, 7 candlesticks, 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 vials, etc.). That isn't by accident. The number has a special significance.

Obviously, 3.5 years is half of 7 years. So, to me, the 42 months/1260 days/"time, times and half a time" figuratively represents a certain part of history rather than all of history. I believe it represents the New Testament time period. I see the two witnesses as figuratively representing the church. How long has the church been witnessing? Obviously, for almost 2,000 years now. So, it wouldn't make sense for me to interpret the two witnesses that way and at the same time take the 42 months/1260 days literally.

One thing that has crossed my mind, Jesus was allotted a literal 3.5 year ministry. The beast is also given 42 months to continue. Why would Christ's holy ministry involve 3.5 literal years but that the beast's unholy ministry wouldn't?

Show me where scripture itself makes that connection and maybe I'd be convinced of this argument. But, as it is, it's just speculation and nothing more.

As to satan making war against the saints beginning 2000 years back or so, that has to be the case, but as to the 42 month reign of the beast, that's mostly what I'm applying to the end of this age and that Revelation 12:17 pertaining to making war against the remnant of her seed, some of it, so maybe not all of it, is specifically involving the 42 month reign of the beast in the end of this age.

Why should the dragon, Satan, making war against the saints for the past almost 2,000 years be differentiated from the beast making war with the saints, keeping in mind that the beast gets its power and authority from the dragon (Rev 13:4)? Would Satan make war with the saints without the beast? If so, why would Satan ever need the beasts help in making war against the saints?

You really need to think about why you believe that Satan and the beast would ever act independently. If they do then what is the point of them ever working together? You currently believe that Satan can do all the things he does with or without the beast. I say that because you see Satan as acting alone without the beast in Revelation 20:7-9. For what reason does Satan ever give his power to the beast then?

I think it makes a lot more sense to conclude that if Satan is bound in the pit, so is the beast and vice versa. And, Revelation 17:8 makes it clear that the beast was bound in the pit as of the time John wrote the book of Revelation. I believe you need to reconsider your insistence that being bound in the pit should be understood literally to render whoever or whatever is bound there to be completely incapacitated.

 

[Zao is life]

I agree to a degree, but I do not agree that nothing recorded in Revelation 12 is involving the end of this age. Of course some of it is, at least this part anyway---Revelation 12:17---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Why would Revelation 12:17 be referring only to the close of the Age though?

The chapter divisions in the Revelation were only inserted in the year 1227 A.D. So I see Revelation chapters 12-13 as speaking about the beginning of the Age (Revelation 12:1-16), and the close of the Age (Revelation ch. 13), and Revelation 12:17 as spanning the entire Age. My reasons are as follows:-

The dragon's war against "the rest of the woman's seed who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" is something we read about in 1 Peter 5:8-9; Ephesians 6:11-12; Revelation 2:9-10 & Revelation 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; James 4:7.

Furthermore, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 and Ephesians 2:2 tell us about Satan's influence over the societies of this world, this Age.

It spans the entire Age.

I do not believe that Satan is bound, so for me it's easy to see it.

Revelation ch. 13 shows the dragon's war against "the rest of the woman's seed who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" culminating in the rise of the beast (which the dragon gives his seat, his power and great authority), and which makes war against the saints and overcomes them (Revelation 13:7).

I see Revelation 12:1-16 as talking about the events at the beginning of the Age only. Why?

It's because of the distinction made between the woman who brought the Messiah into the world on one hand, and "the rest of the woman's seed who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" on the other.

* "The rest of the woman's seed who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." only came into existence on the day of Pentecost, exactly 10 days after the woman's child had been "caught up to God and to His throne".

The woman, on the other hand, had come into existence almost two millennia before the woman brought forth her child (the Messiah). "The woman" who brought the Messiah into the world is only talking about the faithful part of the Old Testament Church (a.k.a Israel):

Metaphor: "And he dreamed still another dream, and told it to his brothers. And he said, Behold, I have dreamed another dream. And behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars bowed down to me."

And he told it to his father and to his brothers. And his father rebuked him and said to him, What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I, and your mother, and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the earth before you? Genesis 37:9-10

Jacob was the ruler of his clan. In Genesis 37:9-10 (above) the sun refers metaphorically to Jacob, and the moon to Rachel, Joseph's mother. The stars refer metaphorically to Joseph’s eleven brothers.

Genesis 37:9-10 (above) sets a precedent in the Bible for the use of metaphor in Biblical prophetic and Apocalyptic literature, hence in Revelation 12:1 the stars refer metaphorically to the same 12 tribes of Israel.

Metaphor: "And there appeared a great sign in the heavens, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head." Revelation 12:1.

When satan is cast to the earth, the first thing we see him doing is persecuting the woman that brought forth the man child.

Exactly.

What should we assume this persecution looks like, and how much time should we assume this persecution involves until the woman is seen flying into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent?

This a time, and times, and half a time, has to have an end eventually, so what does it mean in regards to the woman once this period of time is fulfilled? During this period of time she is nourished, from the face of the serpent. The opposite of that would be that she is no longer nourished, from the face of the serpent, wouldn't it? Yet, while she is being nourished, the dragon instead turns it's attention to these---the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

I think it's important that we understand that the woman of Revelation ch 12 is not referring to any part of Israel that was broken off from covenant relationship with God due to unbelief, but only to the faithful remnant who believed in the Messiah, i.e the faithful remnant of Jacob.

We can understand whether or not this "1,260 days" is referring to the beginning of the Age, to the end of the Age, or symbolically to the entire Age by asking ourselves some questions, and answering those questions:

Question 1: Why did the dragon go to war against the woman who had brought the Messiah into the world?

Answer: Because he was enraged when he saw he had been cast out, and down to the earth (Revelation 12:12-16).

Question 2: When was the dragon cast down to the earth?

Answer: When the woman's child had been caught up to God and to His throne (Revelation 12:5-11).

Question 3: What did the dragon do when the earth helped the woman (Revelation 12:16)?

Answer: He went to make war with "the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." * (Revelation 12:17).

In Revelation 20, during the thousand years, the fact the dragon is in the pit at the time, it obviously wouldn't be doing this at the time---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. But it would be doing that when it's not in the pit.

Yes, I agree. That's why, together with the New Testament scriptures I quoted above, I believe that whereas Revelation 12:1-16 is referring to what took place during the first 42 months of the beginning of the Age, Revelation 13 is referring to what is to take place at the end of the Age, and Revelation 12:17 is referring to what is taking place during the Age (Revelation 12:17 spans the entire Age, because the dragon is not in the pit).

* THE WOMAN did not continue to exist as the ethnic elect nation that had brought the Messiah into the world, but "the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" did continue to exist.

HISTORY

For three and a half years following the ascension of Christ, the earliest church remained in Judea, its headquarters in Jerusalem, and consisted of twelve Jewish apostles, and mainly Jewish converts, who were preaching to the Jews, but they were under tremendous attack at the hand of the Jewish authorities in Judea at the time.

I believe that we can safely assume that the dragon was "spewing out water like a flood after the woman" (false doctrines and denial of the resurrection of Christ), and the woman being nourished "in the wilderness" is not meant to be taken literally, but "the wilderness" is a metaphor for the fact that most of Israel had been broken off through their unbelief and had not entered into the promised land (spiritually speaking),

I believe that the only possible thing to assume about the three and a half years of the woman in the wilderness is that it's literally speaking about the period in-between the ascension of Christ and the stoning of Stephen, after which the gospel began to be taken to the Gentiles.

It may not have been exactly 1,260 days, but I think we can assume that it is literally referring to a period of exactly 1,260 days (I don't know how long after the ascension of Christ Stephen was martyred, or what is the date he was martyred - but we also don't know the exact dates for anything that took place in that seven year period).

I believe we should bear in mind that "the woman" who brought the Messiah into the world ceased to exist as an ethnic elect nation from that earliest period (the close of the seven years) onward, but the dragon's war against "the rest of her seed who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" has continued unabated, and will culminate with the beast's war against the saints at the close of the Age.

So I don't believe that the period that the woman spent in the wilderness refers to anything to take place at the close of the Age, nor do I believe that Revelation 12:17 refers only to the close of the Age, but spans the entire Age:

In Revelation 20, during the thousand years, the fact the dragon is in the pit at the time, it obviously wouldn't be doing this at the time---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. But it would be doing that when it's not in the pit. There are 2 times it is not in the pit. Before the thousand years and after the thousand years, and that when the dragon does this---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ---it would have to mean one of those two times. The question is, which time period should we assign this to?

Once again, though I have mentioned this like a broken record, Revelation 20:4 and the following help us determine the timing----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. This martyrdom is obviously meaning something that takes place before satan is ever loosed from the pit, and that this martyrdom has to be involving this in Revelation 12:17---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ---where that then has to be involving the 42 month reign of the beast recorded in Revelation 13 because that ch records the same things they are martyred because of. Therefore, the 42 month reign of the beast has to precede the beginning of the thousand years. That presents a major problem if the beginning of the thousand years is meaning the time of the cross.

 

[keras]

Why would Revelation 12:17 be referring only to the close of the Age though?

Because Revelation 12:6-17 is an end times prophecy.
It describes how the Lord will protect His faithful people during the Great Tribulation; the final 1260 days before Jesus Returns.

The holy people of God, now every faithful Christian, who will be living in peace and prosperity in all of the holy Land, Isaiah 62:1-5, do get taken over by the leader of the One World Govt; the Anti-Christ. This will happen at the midpoint of the last 7 years before Jesus Returns and it is because they failed to trust solely on the Lord for their protection.

Daniel 9:27 and Isaiah 28:14-15 tells of a treaty, that God calls; a treaty with death.
We see in Daniel 11:32, how the Christian peoples are divided into 2 groups, those who agreed to this seven year peace treaty with the AC, and those who refused to violate their covenant with God. This conquest and division of the people, at the mid point of the seven years, is also seen in Zechariah 14:1-2.

Then in Revelation 12:6-17, those two groups of Christians are described; the faithful ones are taken to a place of safety during the 3 1/2 years, [or 42 months or 1260 days] and the other group remain, as per Revelation 12:17.
Then Jesus Returns, destroys the Anti-Christ's army and chains him up. Jesus sends out His angels to gather His people from their place of safety and all who have refused the mark of the beast, Matthew 24:31, to where He is; that is in Jerusalem, from where He will rule the world for 1000 years.
Those Christians who remain, who do keep their faith and are beheaded for it, are the ones which Jesus will resurrect and will be His priests and co-rulers for the Millennium. Revelation 20:4

 

[DavidPT]

Why would Revelation 12:17 be referring only to the close of the Age though?

I mainly think that some of it is, thus not all of it is, and the part that is, is involving the 42 month reign of the beast. Amils might disagree, but no one is being warred against since the cross or the ascension, by the beast and false prophet. That doesn't happen until in the end of this age and that I can't see 42 months symbolizing a long time period such as 2000 years.

You apparently already agree with the following, and apparently Amils don't because of their doctrinal bias, that satan would not be waging war with anyone while he is in the pit. If Revelation 12:17 is spanning the past 2000 years, where I agree that it does, per Amil this would mean Revelation 12:17 is parallelling the thousand years when satan is in the pit. This is not a reasonable conclusion to arrive at, therefore the thousand years can't be pertaining to this age.

The only way out of this for Amil is that Revelation 12:17 isn't meaning the past 2000 years, that it is future instead, that it is meaning satan's little season. Except Amils are not going to agree with that, which means they have to conclude that satan is waging war during the entire thousand years when he is locked up in the pit.

 

[Zao is life]

I mainly think that some of it is, thus not all of it is, and the part that is, is involving the 42 month reign of the beast. Amils might disagree, but no one is being warred against since the cross or the ascension, by the beast and false prophet. That doesn't happen until in the end of this age and that I can't see 42 months symbolizing a long time period such as 2000 years.

You apparently already agree with the following, and apparently Amils don't because of their doctrinal bias, that satan would not be waging war with anyone while he is in the pit. If Revelation 12:17 is spanning the past 2000 years, where I agree that it does, per Amil this would mean Revelation 12:17 is parallelling the thousand years when satan is in the pit. This is not a reasonable conclusion to arrive at, therefore the thousand years can't be pertaining to this age.

The only way out of this for Amil is that Revelation 12:17 isn't meaning the past 2000 years, that it is future instead, that it is meaning satan's little season. Except Amils are not going to agree with that, which means they have to conclude that satan is waging war during the entire thousand years when he is locked up in the pit.

When you and I talk about Revelation 12, it may be a better idea not to include what Amils believe, because we could easily misrepresent the way they see it.

Whatever they believe about in what manner Satan was bound at Calvary, I don't think that Amils deny that Satan has been as active in the world as these verses say he is:

1 Peter 5:8-9; Ephesians 6:11-12; Revelation 2:9-10 & Revelation 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; James 4:7; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; and Ephesians 2:2.

I don't think Amils deny the above at all. I haven't heard Amils equating Satan's binding with total inactivity on his part (it's you and I that equate Satan's binding with total inactivity on Satan's part).

Getting back to Revelation 12, I believe the woman who gave birth to the Messiah refers to the faithful remnant of the ethnic elect nation who are descended from Jacob. God's election has not been connected to an ethnic nation since Acts 7:59-Acts 8:1:

"..And in that day there was a great persecution on the church at Jerusalem, and all were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles."

Maybe this scattering is "the woman" "fleeing into the wilderness", I don't know. But I can't see how the 1,260 days of "the woman" being "in the wilderness" can extend any later in time than the time that "the woman" existed as an ethnic elect nation. That would make no sense.

@DavidPT That's why I have Revelation 12:1-16 at the beginning of the Age, Revelation 13 at the close of the Age, and Revelation 12:17 as spanning the entire Age, culminating in what we read about in Revelation 13.

 

[Timtofly]

The dead are raised before the GWT. Read it. That is the general resurrection before the second coming.

Revelation 20:4 states prior to the 1000 years.

 

[Timtofly]

It seems like you have a real issue with the text here. You are reacting to it, not me. I am simply quoting it verbatim! This is talking expressly about "the dead." You may not like that but it is what Scripture teaches.

The end of the millennium/Satan's little season is the second coming. This is corroborated by multiple Scripture, some of these you are skipped around as if they do not exist. Premil on the other hand enjoys zero corroboration on this matter. If I am wrong: prove it! The conclusion of your reasoning is: the dead are judged twice, which is preposterous.

Not verbatim. No where in the text after the 1000 years is there a physical resurrection, nor a return for that matter. You change/add to the text to fit Amil bias.

Of course Pre-mill understand and go with the assumption Amil try to give. It is wrong, even if we understand it. Pre-mill understand it as wrong.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I mainly think that some of it is, thus not all of it is, and the part that is, is involving the 42 month reign of the beast. Amils might disagree, but no one is being warred against since the cross or the ascension, by the beast and false prophet. That doesn't happen until in the end of this age and that I can't see 42 months symbolizing a long time period such as 2000 years.

You apparently already agree with the following, and apparently Amils don't because of their doctrinal bias, that satan would not be waging war with anyone while he is in the pit. If Revelation 12:17 is spanning the past 2000 years, where I agree that it does, per Amil this would mean Revelation 12:17 is parallelling the thousand years when satan is in the pit. This is not a reasonable conclusion to arrive at, therefore the thousand years can't be pertaining to this age.

The only way out of this for Amil is that Revelation 12:17 isn't meaning the past 2000 years, that it is future instead, that it is meaning satan's little season. Except Amils are not going to agree with that, which means they have to conclude that satan is waging war during the entire thousand years when he is locked up in the pit.

In John 12:31-33 Christ predicted, shortly before He defeated the power of Satan at the cross, “now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die” (John 12:31-33).

Here was the time of his casting down - after the cross. Here was the time of the unblinding of the nations (the Gentiles). Here Christ gloriously dethroned Satan from his previous, largely unchallenged, global earthly rule and his place of accusation in heaven. Satan’s movement, liberties and sway on earth and in heaven received a severe blow.

Revelation 12:5-11 places the defeat of Satan at the resurrection/ascension: "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death."

Previous to Satan's eviction, God was Israel's God, not the Gentiles God. Satan ruled the nations. But through this casting out of Satan, after man's penalty had been paid in full, he no longer had anything to accuse the elect over. It was indeed finished! The powerful spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles lifting the deception that kept them bound. Satan was now bound. The boot was on the other foot. With the global expanse of the great commission the Gentiles now are without excuse. The ignorance is gone. The veil is lifted. The means by which God lifts deception is the preaching of the Word of God. This has now been successfully ongoing throughout the nations for 2000 years.

Satan's defeat came through His sinless life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection. Here is when He got His eviction notice, and here is "when" salvation came to the "whole world" - not just one nation Israel. The deception enveloping the Gentiles was lifted - praise God. They are now without excuse, just like those in the OT that rejected salvation. Salvation has now come to the nations. But Satan had to first be cast down. He had to be defeated. Christ’s life, death and resurrection safely secured that. As a result the Church becomes a militant overcoming organism.

He is talking about sin being judged on the cross, and the immediate result it had upon Satan - he was evicted from heaven. He lost all grounds to condemn the elect anymore. Sin had been paid for in full, and hell had been defeated for all who would take a hold of the cross-work. The accuser has nothing to accuse the elect for as sin - past, present and future - has been fully penalized. Another result was Hades (Abraham's bosom) being emptied of the elect. That happened for the same reason. Hell (and the second death) had been defeated for God's people.

One of the main effects of Satan being evicted from heaven and being spiritual bound was that the nations would be enlightened. But another immediate effect was that dead believers were released from the captivity of Abraham’s bosom and ushered into the heavenly abode.

 

[Timtofly]

What totally defeats your paradigm is the fact that the inspired text talks (without qualification) about "the dead." Premils have to add to the text to make it either "the righteous dead" or "the wicked dead" according to what fits their bias theology at any given time. This is horrible hermeneutics. Amils on the other hand let the Scripture speaks for itself: "the dead" being "the dead." This is another example that exposes the Premil boost about being literalists. As we have discovered over the years, the opposite is the truth. If any text forbids Premil it is swiftly dismissed or spiritualized away. 2 Peter is a recent case-in-point.

No we don't. Only the wicked dead stand at the GWT. The other dead were judged 1000 years prior. The church was judged on the Cross. What other judgment do the righteous stand at?

 

[DavidPT]

In John 12:31-33 Christ predicted, shortly before He defeated the power of Satan at the cross, “now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die” (John 12:31-33).

Here was the time of his casting down - after the cross. Here was the time of the unblinding of the nations (the Gentiles). Here Christ gloriously dethroned Satan from his previous, largely unchallenged, global earthly rule and his place of accusation in heaven. Satan’s movement, liberties and sway on earth and in heaven received a severe blow.

Revelation 12:5-11 places the defeat of Satan at the resurrection/ascension: "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death."

Previous to Satan's eviction, God was Israel's God, not the Gentiles God. Satan ruled the nations. But through this casting out of Satan, after man's penalty had been paid in full, he no longer had anything to accuse the elect over. It was indeed finished! The powerful spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles lifting the deception that kept them bound. Satan was now bound. The boot was on the other foot. With the global expanse of the great commission the Gentiles now are without excuse. The ignorance is gone. The veil is lifted. The means by which God lifts deception is the preaching of the Word of God. This has now been successfully ongoing throughout the nations for 2000 years.

Satan's defeat came through His sinless life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection. Here is when He got His eviction notice, and here is "when" salvation came to the "whole world" - not just one nation Israel. The deception enveloping the Gentiles was lifted - praise God. They are now without excuse, just like those in the OT that rejected salvation. Salvation has now come to the nations. But Satan had to first be cast down. He had to be defeated. Christ’s life, death and resurrection safely secured that. As a result the Church becomes a militant overcoming organism.

He is talking about sin being judged on the cross, and the immediate result it had upon Satan - he was evicted from heaven. He lost all grounds to condemn the elect anymore. Sin had been paid for in full, and hell had been defeated for all who would take a hold of the cross-work. The accuser has nothing to accuse the elect for as sin - past, present and future - has been fully penalized. Another result was Hades (Abraham's bosom) being emptied of the elect. That happened for the same reason. Hell (and the second death) had been defeated for God's people.

One of the main effects of Satan being evicted from heaven and being spiritual bound was that the nations would be enlightened. But another immediate effect was that dead believers were released from the captivity of Abraham’s bosom and ushered into the heavenly abode.

My main point had to do with Revelation 12:17, and since that appears to be spanning from the time of the ascension until the time of the 2nd coming, and that most of this 2000 years that this covers, Amil has that involving the thousand years, this adds up to that Amil has satan making war with the church when he is locked up in the pit.

Why would satan be waging war with anyone while he is depicted as shut up in a prison?

A lot of Premils, so not all Premils then, tend to think all of Revelation 12:12-17 is future still, not something that began 2000 years ago. I don't tend to agree with that myself. To me it makes better sense that satan is kicked out of heaven around the time of the ascension.

Obviously, before he is kicked out of heaven he is not bound yet. His binding can only be meaning a time after he has been kicked out of heaven.

Revelation 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

This is what he does first. None of this is depicting someone that is locked up in a prison, therefore, as of this verse satan is not in the pit yet. And if one looks at the final 3 verses in Revelation 12, none of those are depicting someone that is locked up in a prison either. Yet, satan has to be cast into the pit eventually, otherwise we were misled in Revelation 20:1-3. The following is when he is cast into the pit---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ----not meaning during any of that though, but at the end of that, that is where the thousand year binding fits since it can't fit anywhere else in that chapter.

 

[sovereigngrace]

My main point had to do with Revelation 12:17, and since that appears to be spanning from the time of the ascension until the time of the 2nd coming, and that most of this 2000 years that this covers, Amil has that involving the thousand years, this adds up to that Amil has satan making war with the church when he is locked up in the pit.

Why would satan be waging war with anyone while he is depicted as shut up in a prison?

A lot of Premils, so not all Premils then, tend to think all of Revelation 12:12-17 is future still, not something that began 2000 years ago. I don't tend to agree with that myself. To me it makes better sense that satan is kicked out of heaven around the time of the ascension.

Obviously, before he is kicked out of heaven he is not bound yet. His binding can only be meaning a time after he has been kicked out of heaven.

Revelation 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

This is what he does first. None of this is depicting someone that is locked up in a prison, therefore, as of this verse satan is not in the pit yet. And if one looks at the final 3 verses in Revelation 12, none of those are depicting someone that is locked up in a prison either. Yet, satan has to be cast into the pit eventually, otherwise we were misled in Revelation 20:1-3. The following is when he is cast into the pit---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ----not meaning during any of that though, but at the end of that, that is where the thousand year binding fits since it can't fit anywhere else in that chapter.

As every Amil has told you countless times, you are deliberately misrepresenting Amil. That is deceitful! You obviously cannot deal with what we really believe or examine our beliefs in the light of our true position. This battle has been won a long time ago online. Many have seen the error of your position. The support you receive is totally negligible today compared to a few years ago. That is a powerful testimony as to how lame and unconvincing your arguments are.

I think your aim is to provoke Amils because this is getting old. How can we respect this or take anything you say serious?

Eric has corrected you many times and you have refused to apologize for your continuous misrepresentations. He has exposed your underhand tactics. I will let him speak:

As you've been told many times now, Amil does not see the deceiving of the nations as being a reference to deception in general the way you do since we don't see Satan's binding as being a case of him being incapacitated as you do. If we did see it that way (Satan being loosed results in him deceiving people who are already deceived), then you'd have a point, but we don't…

It is YOUR interpretation that the beast and Satan being in the bottomless pit/abyss means they are completely inactive as a result, not mine. You're talking to me as if I'm supposed to have the same understanding of what it means to be in the bottomless pit as you do.

How can the beast ascend from the abyss in the future if it isn't there now? If the beast is not in the abyss now then when will the beast be cast into the abyss so that it can later ascend from it?

What impact do you believe that Christ's death and resurrection and the subsequent preaching of the gospel of Christ has had on Satan in terms of what he was able to do in Old Testament times compared to New Testament times, overall?

Now, address the facts, if you can!