Why Amillennialism is wrong

[claninja]

Unfortunately, I'm not understanding what you are meaning via this question. Maybe you can expand on it some more?

The 8th king “was not” at the time revelation was written, according to your position.

However, the 6th king was at the time revelation was written (5 have fallen, one is). Did this 6th not persecute or kill the saints while it existed in the first century? If no, what is your reasoning? If yes, do the saints in revelation 20:4 include those persecuted and killed by the 6th king?

 

[parousia70]

Premil doesn't have this issue since Premil isn't trying to force the time of the beginning of the thousand years to be meaning 2000 years ago, thus making nonsense out of Revelation 13 in the process

Premils are by no means immune from making nonsense out of passages in Revelation. They must turn passages like "must shortly take place for the time is near" into meaninlgess, spiritualized nonsense in order to prop up their position, for taking such text literally, at face value, as written, would completely upend their position. They require such passages to be spiritualized away into meaningless nonsense, else their position can’t stand.

 

[DavidPT]

Premils are by no means immune from making nonsense out of passages in Revelation. They must turn passages like "must shortly take place for the time is near" into meaninlgess nonsense in order to prop up their position, for taking such text at face value, as written, would completely upend their position. They require such passages to be relegated to meaningless nonsense in order for their position to stand.

Does this mean, for example, that you take Revelation 20:10-15 to be entirely fulfilled? After all, it is not being consistent if one is applying 'must shortly take place for the time is near' to everything in Revelation but that, now is it?

As to my point, my point had to do with where the 42 months logically fit, which then matters where one places the beginning of the thousand years. Unless anyone can convincingly prove otherwise, the time of Revelation 13 which involves the beast's 42 month reign, all of the facts show that it is meaning before the beginning of the thousand years.

Obviously, but maybe not to you, in order for Revelation 19:20 to be fulfilled in the end of this age per the 2nd coming, this requires that the 42 month reign has to precede this in the end of this age. Most Amils at least agree with that, that the 42 months precede the 2nd coming. Except these same Amils are contradicting that by forcing the beginning of the thousand years to mean 2000 years ago. This would not necessarily be a problem IF the 42 month reign of the beast is meaning after the thousand years. But it certainly is a problem IF the 42 month reign of the beast is meaning before the thousand years begin. So unless I'm missing something here, IF the 42 month reign is prior to the beginning of the thousand years, only Premil makes sense of the text in that case, Amil certainly doesn't.

 

[DavidPT]

The 8th king “was not” at the time revelation was written, according to your position.

However, the 6th king was at the time revelation was written (5 have fallen, one is). Did this 6th not persecute or kill the saints while it existed in the first century? If no, what is your reasoning? If yes, do the saints in revelation 20:4 include those persecuted and killed by the 6th king?

I think I see where you are coming from now. Thanks for clarifying.

During the time of the 6th king, the fact persecution and martyrdom was obviously taking place, it would be taking place when the beast is not though, meaning to me that the beast is in the pit at the time.

What's in question then, are any of them being martyred because of the following---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands? I don't see how if the beast is in the pit at the time and that this is meaning once the beast ascends out of the pit, something that was still future to John during the time of seeing these visions..

What I have noticed in Revelation 20:4 is that there are more than one set of martyrs in view, meaning they are all not martyred for the same reasons nor during the same era of time.


Let's take John the Baptist for instance. Regardless whether John saw these visions in Revelation before or after 70 AD, one thing that is not being disputed, he saw these visions post that of the martyrdom of John the Baptist. And when he saw these visions he indicated that it was during the time of the 6th king and that the beast 'is not' at the time.

If John the Baptist is martyred during the time of the 6th king, this seems to indicate that it is during when the beast 'is not', therefore, John wasn't martyred because he refused to worship the beast, nor it's image, etc, he was martyred for these reasons instead-- for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God. And though that can equally also apply to those that don't worship the beast's image, etc, it can't in return apply to John the Baptist if there is no image to worship or not worship, if according to John per the book of Revelation, those events were in his future, which makes them in John the Baptist's future as well.

To sum it up, a martyr such as John the Baptist fits this set of martyrs---for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God--and not these---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands---the fact that the latter requires that the beast has to ascend out of the pit first, which couldn't be the case during the time of John the Baptist if the beast was 'is not' at the time. So yes, even those martyred during the time of the 6th king also have part in the first resurrection since the following in Revelation 20:4 takes them into account---for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God.

What I'm basically saying, is this. These reasons for being martyred---for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God---apply to both martyrs such as John the Baptist and those that don't worship the beast's image, etc. While these reasons for being martyred---those that don't worship the beast's image, etc--only apply to someone post that of John seeing these visions since it requires that the beast has to ascend out of the pit first, something that was not the case during the martyrdom of John the Baptist, nor even during the martyrdom of Stephen, as another example.

One more point I would like to make is this, while it's on my mind.

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.


These being told to rest a little season would be meaning martyrs such as John the Baptist and Stephen, to name a few. And that these---until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were---are meaning those martyred during the 42 month reign of the beast in John's future. And one more thing to point out is the following.

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


In order to make any sense of this, this obviously means all of these being affected here via this vial, they all have to be alive during the same era of time, which then means that the 42 month reign of the beast can't be spanning centuries like some have proposed. Keeping in mind that it is those that have been worshiping the beast during it's 42 month reign that the first vial is being poured out on, and that this is a one time only event, obviously.

 

[claninja]

I think I see where you are coming from now. Thanks for clarifying.

During the time of the 6th king, the fact persecution and martyrdom was obviously taking place, it would be taking place when the beast is not though, meaning to me that the beast is in the pit at the time.

What's in question then, are any of them being martyred because of the following---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands? I don't see how if the beast is in the pit at the time and that this is meaning once the beast ascends out of the pit, something that was still future to John during the time of seeing these visions..

What I have noticed in Revelation 20:4 is that there are more than one set of martyrs in view, meaning they are all not martyred for the same reasons nor during the same era of time.


Let's take John the Baptist for instance. Regardless whether John saw these visions in Revelation before or after 70 AD, one thing that is not being disputed, he saw these visions post that of the martyrdom of John the Baptist. And when he saw these visions he indicated that it was during the time of the 6th king and that the beast 'is not' at the time.

If John the Baptist is martyred during the time of the 6th king, this seems to indicate that it is during when the beast 'is not', therefore, John wasn't martyred because he refused to worship the beast, nor it's image, etc, he was martyred for these reasons instead-- for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God. And though that can equally also apply to those that don't worship the beast's image, etc, it can't in return apply to John the Baptist if there is no image to worship or not worship, if according to John per the book of Revelation, those events were in his future, which makes them in John the Baptist's future as well.

To sum it up, a martyr such as John the Baptist fits this set of martyrs---for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God--and not these---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands---the fact that the latter requires that the beast has to ascend out of the pit first, which couldn't be the case during the time of John the Baptist if the beast was 'is not' at the time. So yes, even those martyred during the time of the 6th king also have part in the first resurrection since the following in Revelation 20:4 takes them into account---for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God.

What I'm basically saying, is this. These reasons for being martyred---for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God---apply to both martyrs such as John the Baptist and those that don't worship the beast's image, etc. While these reasons for being martyred---those that don't worship the beast's image, etc--only apply to someone post that of John seeing these visions since it requires that the beast has to ascend out of the pit first, something that was not the case during the martyrdom of John the Baptist, nor even during the martyrdom of Stephen, as another example.

One more point I would like to make is this, while it's on my mind.

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.


These being told to rest a little season would be meaning martyrs such as John the Baptist and Stephen, to name a few. And that these---until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were---are meaning those martyred during the 42 month reign of the beast in John's future. And one more thing to point out is the following.

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


In order to make any sense of this, this obviously means all of these being affected here via this vial, they all have to be alive during the same era of time, which then means that the 42 month reign of the beast can't be spanning centuries like some have proposed. Keeping in mind that it is those that have been worshiping the beast during it's 42 month reign that the first vial is being poured out on, and that this is a one time only event, obviously.

I guess I would have to ask, how can the 6th king, which is one of the 7 heads of the beast, be present at the time revelation was written, while at the same, time the beast is not present at the time of revelation?

just thinking out loud, does it make more sense to attribute the “is not, and yet will be, and go to destruction” of the beast to refer to the “has not yet come, but when he does, will only remain for a little while”?

In this case, it would mean that the 6 kings refer to the “was” of the beast, and the 7th king refers to the “is not, and yet will be” of the beast.

This would also mean that the phrase “was, is not, and yet will be” is just simply a generic statement for the entirety of the beast, and not to be understood as the present state of the beast. The present state of the beast is thus revealed in the heads: five fallen, one is, one is not yet, but will be”.

So just to clarify:

The beast “was” = five have fallen and one is

The beast “is not” = the seventh has not yet come

The beast “will be and goes to destruction” = when the seventh does come he will remain for only a little while.

IMHO, This would rectify the question presented at the beginning of my post.

 

[DavidPT]

In this case, it would mean that the 6 kings refer to the “was” of the beast, and the 7th king refers to the “is not, and yet will be” of the beast.

This would also mean that the phrase “was, is not, and yet will be” is just simply a generic statement for the entirety of the beast, and not to be understood as the present state of the beast. The present state of the beast is thus revealed in the heads: five fallen, one is, one is not yet, but will be”.

So just to clarify:

The beast “was” = five have fallen and one is

The beast “is not” = the seventh has not yet come

The beast “will be and goes to destruction” = when the seventh does come he will remain for only a little while.

Can't say I ever looked at like that before. In a way I can somewhat see the logic in what you are proposing. Yet, when looking at it like that, none of that takes into account the 6th king, though. If when the beast was, that this involves the 5 fallen kings, and that when the beast is not and that it shall ascend out of the pit, that this involves the 7th king, what part then involves the 6th king?

My reasoning is this. In order for the beast to ascend out of the pit, this requires that the beast has to be in the pit first. And to me 'is not' seems to fit that, meaning that it is not active in anything taking place on the earth at the time, but will be once it ascends out of the pit. Similar to the locusts in Revelation 9. While they are in the pit they are not active on the earth at the time, but once the pit is open they become active on the earth.

 

[claninja]

Can't say I ever looked at like that before. In a way I can somewhat see the logic in what you are proposing. Yet, when looking at it like that, none of that takes into account the 6th king, though. If when the beast was, that this involves the 5 fallen kings, and that when the beast is not and that it shall ascend out of the pit, that this involves the 7th king, what part then involves the 6th king?

And how can the beast be “is not”, but one of the heads “is” at the same time?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

How is any of that relevant, though?

For example, assuming one can be martyred for not worshiping the beast while it's depicted as 'is not', apparently meaning when it's in the pit, why then does it even need to ascend out of the pit to begin with?

Where does it indicate that the beast being bound in the pit has something to do with keeping it from physically persecuting people? Is that what you think Satan's binding is about, too? It's for the purpose of keeping him from physically persecuting people? It certainly doesn't indicate that anywhere.

Also, you should not pretend to know anything at all about the beast unless you can identify who or what the beast represents. Can you do that?

Premil doesn't have this issue since Premil isn't trying to force the time of the beginning of the thousand years to be meaning 2000 years ago, thus making nonsense out of Revelation 13 in the process, the fact those events were still future to when John saw those visions, not something already in the past instead.

How does what you're saying here make any sense? John saw a vision of the birth and ascension of Christ as well (Revelation 12:5). Does that mean Christ's birth and ascension hadn't happened yet when John saw that vision? Obviously not. So, I don't think the point you were trying to make here makes any sense. John wrote about things that had happened in the past, things that were happening at the time and things that would happen from then on (Revelation 1:19).

 

[oikonomia]

Only one point makes the doctrine of Amillennialism fall into pieces. Revelation tells us that the Millennial Kingdom will take place after the Antichrist is destroyed by Jesus. This is especially clear in Revelation 20:4 because it says that the Christians who were executed during the reign of the Antichrist will be resurrected and will reign with Christ for 1000 years. What does this passage tell us? That the Antichrist and his reign are already a thing of the past and that the Millennium will come only afterwards. But Amillennialism teaches that the millennium began in a symbolic way on Pentecost of the year 30 A.D.. So, if the millennium started 30 AD, it means that the Antichrist must have been there before 30 AD. But, of course, that can't be true, and I think everyone will agree with that.

As you can see, the amminalism has been refuted by this passage alone. It is as simple as that.

I agree with you.

And I think that we have to have a little empathy with the Christians who came up with an Amillennial view.
You see, after the Lord's second coming tarried, and tarried, and tarried it is understandable imo that some dear brothers decided -

"Well, maybe this Church gets more and more influencial, fixes the world first, then the end comes."

I think I can understand as the decades and centuries rolled on they adopted a Amillennial view of eschatology.
Sometimes we need to understand where such thoughts arose in the hearts of Christians and why.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I agree with you.

And I think that we have to have a little empathy with the Christians who came up with an Amillennial view.
You see, after the Lord's second coming tarried, and tarried, and tarried it is understandable imo that some dear brothers decided -

"Well, maybe this Church gets more and more influencial, fixes the world first, then the end comes."

I think I can understand as the decades and centuries rolled on they adopted a Amillennial view of eschatology.
Sometimes we need to understand where such thoughts arose in the hearts of Christians and why.

You are referring to the Postmillennial view here, not the Amillennial view. Postmils believe things get better and better right up until the end, not Amils. Amils believe things get worse for a "little season" (Rev 20:7-9) just before the end comes when Christ returns.

 

[oikonomia]

You are referring to the Postmillennial view here, not the Amillennial view. Postmils believe things get better and better right up until the end, not Amils. Amils believe things get worse for a "little season" (Rev 20:7-9) just before the end comes when Christ returns.

Oh. Thanks.