SATAN, NOT BOUND YET

[Spiritual Israelite]

IOW, since he is an Amil he gets a pass, regardless. It's only those dreaded Premils, such as me, that is the problem, not any Amils.

What are you talking about? A pass for what exactly?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not the reaction I expected. Sad!

It doesn't surprise me. He might be an Amil, but he is very stubborn and has some beliefs all to himself. Or, at least that aren't shared by any other Amils here.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL. Why in the world would I need to tell Amils what they believe?

Great question! You tell us since you're constantly trying to do that. Even after we tell you you're misrepresenting something we believe, you don't accept that and continue on misrepresenting what we believe. That comes across as though you think you can tell us what we believe instead of us telling you what we believe.

Especially if it is not even what they believe. And that I am apparently doing this deliberately. Unlike @Spiritual Israelite where I can at least reason with him to some degree, it is impossible for me to reason with you no matter what the subject might be. You have such a low opinion of me that it's pointless for me even talking to you.

I like to give the benefit of the doubt to people. But, I can't really blame him for thinking that way when you do it so often. Usually, when someone does something like that over and over again it is deliberate. But, I think you're just ignorant and not willing to even try to look at things from the Amill perspective. When you try to force your Premill perspective of things like Satan's binding onto Amill, you end up misrepresenting Amill. You try to say that we believe things that don't make sense if Satan is bound. But that's only if he was bound in YOUR understanding of his binding. In our understanding of his binding, what we're saying makes sense. But, you don't even seem to try to look at it from our perspective.

And why do these things even matter anyway? Since when is Eschatology interpretations still going to be argued and debated throughout all eternity?

You tell us. You have spent a lot of your time debating these things. Why? Especially when you know and have admitted that Premill has problems. Yet, it seems like you would defend it to the death. Why?

In my view, these discussion on this Eschatology forum (not just Amil vs. Premil discussions, by the way) matter because they can affect how people understand who Jesus is right now (He is King of king and Lord of lords now), how people understand whether or not we have authority over the spiritual enemy or not, whether or not people think they will go through a particular time of tribulation in the future and can affect what people think of the modern day nation of Israel and so on. It's not necessarily the case, but what people believe about end times prophecy can affect their personal lives and that's why this is important.

Eventually we're all going to know the real truth, whether it fits with Amil or Premil. In eternity there's not going to be these divisions in the body of Christ because of how one might interpret this or interpret that. There's not going to be Amils on one side of the street and Premils on the other side.

Of course. But, isn't truth important? Why is there so much prophecy in the Bible if we're not meant to understand it? We can't act like it doesn't matter. We all take the Bible seriously, so if we think someone is misinterpreting it and not representing it properly, it's hard to not take the seriously and take it personally.

 

[Davidpt]

To make them angry and want to blame God for their torment or conclude that there is no God since they think if there is a God, He wouldn't allow them to experience that torment. That's the kind of mindset that Satan wants people to have.

What then does that have to with satan deceiving the nations when he is loosed? If Revelation 9 is involving Revelation 20:7, like some of you appear to be saying, in what way by satan tormenting the unsaved does that then help his cause, that being deceiving the nations so that they can come against the camp of the saints and the holy city?

And what about this in the same chapter?


Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.


If God, not satan, can be the one behind what is happening to these in verses 20-21, why can't He also be the one behind what happens to those pertaining to the locusts? I don't mean as in He simply allows something, such as satan via these locusts tormenting the unsaved. No way can we apply satan to verses 20-21 since it would be ludicrous for satan to want any of the unsaved to repent of their deeds. I have a theory then. It is the 2Ws initiating these things not satan. After all, Revelation 11:6 states--and to smite the earth with all plagues , as often as they will. And it's not like Revelation 9 isn't involving plagues. But let's just connect ch 9 with Revelation 20:7-9 instead. That makes better sense, right? If you say so.

It's ironic that you bring up that verse without even taking into consideration that it describes the other fallen angels as "his angels", which makes Satan the king of the other fallen angels. Why would you not see that and make the connection with Revelation 9 where it indicates that Abaddon/Apollyon is the king of the demonic locusts?

Let's assume he is the king of the pit. The first thing to note, nowhere in ch 9 does it ever say where the king of the pit is at at the time. Maybe he is in the pit, maybe he isn't. Maybe the falling star in verse 1 is meaning the king of the pit? And if the king of the pit is satan, but that the falling star is satan, meaning that he was just hurled from heaven to the earth after the war in heaven, it would then be ludicrous to argue that satan is in the pit with the locusts.

Keeping in mind, just so I'm clear here. In no way shape or form am I telling you what you believe. This has zero to do with what you believe. It's not even what I believe. All I'm doing is reasoning through this, assuming satan is meant somewhere in Revelation 9, and what it could mean if so. If only some of you could get that, then remember that, then maybe quit accusing me of misrepresenting your view, or that I'm telling you what you believe. I'm doing none of those things. You just don't understand the manner in which I try and reason through some of these things, assuming this or that is supposed to be true.

Is anyone even saying that Satan gave the orders? You make so many straw man arguments. Over and over again. But, you won't stop. It's incredible. Yes, God gives the order because he wants to test people. Will they get angry and bitter if they are suffering or will they repent? If you continue reading in Revelation 9 you can see the purpose of it all is to get people to repent.

Did I say anyone was? Why can't I simply make a point without some of you taking what I said way out of proportion? At least we agree that God gives the orders. But that doesn't mean we agree as to the reasons why. And I explained some of that earlier when I used Revelation 9:20-21 and the 2Ws as an example.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What then does that have to with satan deceiving the nations when he is loosed?

It has everything to do with it. If he can get people to be angry and bitter towards God or towards religion in general then that would help his effort to destroy the church, which is what his little season is about. Revelation 20:7-9 symbolically describes opposition to the church throughout the world with the goal of destroying it.

If Revelation 9 is involving Revelation 20:7, like some of you appear to be saying, in what way by satan tormenting the unsaved does that then help his cause, that being deceiving the nations so that they can come against the camp of the saints and the holy city?

See above.

And what about this in the same chapter?


Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.


If God, not satan, can be the one behind what is happening to these in verses 20-21, why can't He also be the one behind what happens to those pertaining to the locusts?

Are you not reading everything I'm saying? I said that God is the one making the command in verse 4. So, in a way, God is behind it, but so is Satan. I'll use the example of Job to explain what I mean by that. Who was the one behind what happened to Job? In a sense it was God. He could have prevented what happened, but He didn't. He wanted it to happen. Why? To test Job's faith and I think he knew that story would be written in His Word, so he wanted many people to learn a lesson from Job's life as well. Yet, Satan is the one who killed Job's children and did terrible things to Job, as God allowed. Satan thought he could destroy Job's faith by doing those things, but Job's faith proved to be genuine through it all even though it was a struggle.

Similarly, God is behind what is described in Revelation 9, but so is Satan. That doesn't mean God is the one directly tormenting anyone or telling the demonic locusts to torment anyone. Abaddon/Apollyon, who I obviously believe is Satan, is the one actually directing his fallen angels/demons to torment people, but God puts the limit on who they can torment. So, it's not really an either God or Satan type of situation here. It's both just like it was in Job's situation.

I don't mean as in He simply allows something, such as satan via these locusts tormenting the unsaved. No way can we apply satan to verses 20-21 since it would be ludicrous for satan to want any of the unsaved to repent of their deeds.

Yes, of course. You have a knack for pointing out the obvious.

I have a theory then. It is the 2Ws initiating these things not satan.

Okay, now you lost me. I have a feeling this discussion is now going to go off the rails, but we'll see.

After all, Revelation 11:6 states--and to smite the earth with all plagues , as often as they will. And it's not like Revelation 9 isn't involving plagues. But let's just connect ch 9 with Revelation 20:7-9 instead. That makes better sense, right? If you say so.

Huh?

Let's assume he is the king of the pit. The first thing to note, nowhere in ch 9 does it ever say where the king of the pit is at at the time.

It's strongly implied. How can he be "the angel of the bottomless pit" and the king of the locusts who are in the bottomless pit if he's not actually in the bottomless pit? You sometimes deny the obvious because of your doctrinal bias and this is one of those times. You so badly want Premill to be true that you lose all objectivity.

Maybe he is in the pit, maybe he isn't. Maybe the falling star in verse 1 is meaning the king of the pit? And if the king of the pit is satan, but that the falling star is satan, meaning that he was just hurled from heaven to the earth after the war in heaven, it would then be ludicrous to argue that satan is in the pit with the locusts.

Keeping in mind, just so I'm clear here. In no way shape or form am I telling you what you believe. This has zero to do with what you believe. It's not even what I believe. All I'm doing is reasoning through this, assuming satan is meant somewhere in Revelation 9, and what it could mean if so. If only some of you could get that, then remember that, then maybe quit accusing me of misrepresenting your view, or that I'm telling you what you believe. I'm doing none of those things. You just don't understand the manner in which I try and reason through some of these things, assuming this or that is supposed to be true.

The only thing I can understand of what you said here is what you said in your last sentence. You're right. I dont understand the manner in which you try and reason through some of these things. I can't help that. But, you take offense to it when I say I don't understand what you're saying, anyway. You know that you reason through these things differnently than anyone else does sometimes, so why would you take offense if someone doesn't understand what you're saying? That makes no sense.

Did I say anyone was? Why can't I simply make a point without some of you taking what I said way out of proportion? At least we agree that God gives the orders. But that doesn't mean we agree as to the reasons why. And I explained some of that earlier when I used Revelation 9:20-21 and the 2Ws as an example.

So, it's all of us who are the problem even though the common denominator here is you. Don't blame us for your inability to communicate clearly at times.

As for the reasons why God gives the orders, is it not obvious that He does it in order to get people to repent? Is that not what Revelation 9:20-21 indicates where it talks about people refusing to repent? What does that have to do with the two witnesses? Nowhere in Revelation 9 is there any reference to the two witnesses. It's the locusts who are said to torment people in Revelation 9, not the two witnesses. Are you saying you think the locusts are the two witnesses? I highly doubt that, so I just can't make sense of the connection you're trying to make there.

 

[Davidpt]

You continually misrepresent Amillennialism. You have to. I've lost count of how many times I've had to cut across you and expose your misrepresentations and lies. That is not the Christian thing to do. So, I do not respect that. That might explain why Amillennialists don't take you serious.

And here you are lying about me again. So guess what? I don't care what you think of me. You are no one important to me, as if I should be bowing down to you or something. When I make posts, I know what I'm meaning. You certainly don't know what I'm meaning. You are not me and you are not God. You don't even have a clue what you are talking about here. But go ahead, believe what you want about me. You'll have to answer for that some day, not me. Except you probably think you are above having to answer for falsely accusing someone of something.

 

[TribulationSigns]

First of all, as WPM pointed out, he wasn't talking about you. You should be embarrassed for not even knowing who he was talking about. Second of all, I have no chip on my shoulder. You just can't handle it when your view is challenged and someone disagrees with you.

I am NOT embarrassed at all. My statement is still valid FOR YOU and WPM. I have handled many more people with your views elsewhere too, so...please.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am NOT embarrassed at all.

But, you should be. That's the point. The fact that you're not shows that you don't even care if you make a fool of yourself like you did by thinking he was talking to you instead of Davidpt. But, you should care because it shows you're not paying careful enough attention to what is being said and who it is being said to.

My statement is still valid FOR YOU and WPM.

Which statement exactly?

I have handled many more people with your views elsewhere too, so...please.

You don't handle it very well, obviously.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Jerusalem and its temple buildings were indeed destroyed with no stone left upon another in 70 AD. You have NOTHING to prove otherwise.

Have fun sitting on a heap of 70AD destruction and build your flawed doctrine over it. You got the wrong stones.

You are lying here. How would you know that the stones you see there in Jerusalem were there in 70 AD? You have no idea. Who do you think you're fooling here? Certainly not me.

Do your homework.

LOL. That's a lie. I am debating it, which make it debatable, and it is not the truth.

Like I have said, I have dealt with many people who believe the same way you do. Many of them have admitted to see the Truth. So just as I thought, you have not been enlightened.

LOL. How would you know? Have you talked to all who see it as I do about this? And, what is my doctrine exactly? You understand that while I do believe that what happened then fulfilled the prophecy about the temple being destroyed, I do not agree with the Preterist understanding of the rest of the Discourse. So, again, what is my doctrine? It's not Preterist or else I would agree with them that all, or at least most of the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation was fulfilled by 70 AD. But, I don't.

You are as blind as the Preterists (even some premillennialists) on the buildings and stones that the Lord talked about. I have quoted you Scripture exactly what Christ talked about. Deny all you want.

Who are "they" that you speak of? How many people are you talking about here? Have you talked to every person who believes that Jesus was being literal about the city and temple being destroyed with no stone left upon another? I highly doubt it.

LOL! You were not there. You are dealing with ME here.

Have you been there? Are you able to somehow prove there are stones upon stones there that have been there since 70 AD? If not, then you need to stop talking about this because you're acting as if you have proof of something when you don't.

Like I said, you need to do some homework.

This is all hot air coming from you and no substance. That's what happens when you get challenged. You have nothing to prove what you're saying. So, you just go on and on, thinking the more words you use the more convincing your argument becomes.

In other words, you are in denial and want to call it a lie because you do not like what you hear. This is expected. I was like you before. LOL.

Hello? Of course He wept for the people who were inside the physical city. But, He knew the destruction of the city and the temple would result in people losing their lives.

Oh brother. You need to read the previous verses. Think...

Luk 19:38-40
(38) Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
(39) And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
(40) And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

What stones did Christ talk about here?

Moreover, this physical city of Jerusalem of which Christ "CLEARLY" says would be leveled to the ground and not one stone will be left standing one upon another, to this day has stones standing one upon another. So it is then an undeniable "fact" of any rationally thinking person that if Christ spoke "literally" of the stones not being left standing in that literal "physical city," then 70 AD cannot possibly qualify. And it is clear He wasn't just speaking about the Temple. But if Christ spoke of the city as the Old Covenant congregation representation, and the children as stones of the Old Covenant building, then it makes perfect sense! Because, LISTEN TO THIS, they rejected their CORNERSTONE and "clearly" Old Covenant Israel was as stones spiritually laid even with the ground, their Temple building destroyed, the Kingdom taken from them and the building given unto the Gentiles to. Didn't Christ say plainly, destroy this Temple and in 3 days I will rebuild it? Hello?! This is the Spiritual building of the body of Christ, which the covenant people represent as stones in that Temple. Stones don't always mean literal stones, buildings or physical construction. So many people can't see the forest for the trees, because you can't figure out how the stones immediately cry out if you think Christ was talking about some physical stones?! My goodness.

LOL!!!!!

They were physically destroyed along with everything around them.

Listen carefully. If you believe the physical temple and the city in 70AD were destroyed "as a sign" to the Jews, then what happened after 3 days at that time? You do not make any sense unless, you understand that the temple of HIS BODY was made up of spiritual stones. It is the Jews, HIS PEOPLE, not the Romans, who came and destroyed the CITY and sanctuary because they rejected the cornerstone of THAT temple which fell... hello?? People as a congregation of the temple no longer represented the Kingdom of God as the representation was taken from them and give to those after Christ rebuilt it and filled it with spiritual stones of New Testament believers:

Mat 21:42-43
(42) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
(43) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[TribulationSigns]

But, you should be. That's the point. The fact that you're not shows that you don't even care if you make a fool of yourself like you did by thinking he was talking to you instead of Davidpt. But, you should care because it shows you're not paying careful enough attention to what is being said and who it is being said to.

So?

Which statement exactly?

You knew what post I was talking about. Look it up.

You don't handle it very well, obviously.

Oh, I handled it very well; you don't receive the truth very well, obviously.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Not the reaction I expected. Sad!

Wanna some tissues?

 

[covenantee]

"Small part" of Discourse?? LOL. Not at all. It is a discourse FOR the New Testament congregation (after the fall of Old Testament congregation, stones (people of the congregation) falling, not about the physical temple in 70AD). Where there are spiritual war, spiritual famines, spiritual diseases, and earthquakes IN THE CHURCH right before Second Coming. Nothing to do with physical Judea in the first century at all, no matter how hard you try, even if you try with one verse out of the discourse.

Was Jesus literally physically present during His literal physical first coming at His literal physical Olivet Discourse?

Or was it all only virtual?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Have fun sitting on a heap of 70AD destruction and build your flawed doctrine over it. You got the wrong stones.



Do your homework.


Like I have said, I have dealt with many people who believe the same way you do. Many of them have admitted to see the Truth. So just as I thought, you have not been enlightened.


You are as blind as the Preterists (even some premillennialists) on the buildings and stones that the Lord talked about. I have quoted you Scripture exactly what Christ talked about. Deny all you want.


LOL! You were not there. You are dealing with ME here.


Like I said, you need to do some homework.


In other words, you are in denial and want to call it a lie because you do not like what you hear. This is expected. I was like you before. LOL.

You're all talk. You have provided ZERO evidence to back up your claims. Your words alone amount to nothing without anything to back them up.

Moreover, this physical city of Jerusalem of which Christ "CLEARLY" says would be leveled to the ground and not one stone will be left standing one upon another, to this day has stones standing one upon another.

Not the stones that were standing before 70 AD! You know the city was rebuilt, right? LOL. This is a joke. You just believe what you want to believe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You knew what post I was talking about. Look it up.

This is incredibly stupid. What you said was in response to what he said to Davidpt and not to you. So, how can what you said apply to me and WPM when he wasn't even talking to you?

Here is what you said after foolishly thinking he was talking to you:

LOL.... well, you (as well as Spiritual Israelite) seem to have come here with a monumental chip on your shoulder, and I suggest you get rid of it.

So, you said this to him based on your mistaken belief that he had been talking to you when he wasn't. So, how can this comment actually apply to him when he wasn't even talking to you? You made the comment only because you thought he was talking to you. But, he wasn't. Yet, you still say your response applies to me and him. That's dumb.

And you clearly didn't listen very well. I certainly didn't misrepresent any "traditional view" of amillennialism because I never spoke one word about a traditional view, nor did I say I was representing a traditional position. You need to get your facts straight before you go flying off at the handle.

Again, everything you said here was based on your mistaken belief that he was talking to you. So, how can you say that anything here applies to what he said when he didn't say it to you? He didn't say that you misrepresented amillennialism, but you want to stick with saying he needs to get his facts straight? No, he doesn't, because he wasn't even talking to you.

I said (as is clearly seen) that I don't know about modern day theologians in general, but I have found that those modern day Amillennial theologians who "do not" locate this in AD 70 are some of the most "thorough" theologians that exist. Where do you get from that statement that I was misrepresenting the traditional view? You pulled that right out of your magic hat. So please, do not misrepresent "me."

Once again here you made a comment based on thinking he was talking to you, but he wasn't. So, how can this comment you made still apply to him when he wasn't even talking to you? He did not accuse you of misrepresenting anything because he was not talking to you. Yet, you still want your post to stand as a reply to him as if he was talking to you. That makes no sense.

Frankly, I could care less about "traditional views" of men, as I have said here many times. In fact, I make it a point to say up-front that I don't follow any man's tradition, eschatology or otherwise. Be they traditions of Luther, Calvin, Matthew Henry, Adam Whatz-his-name, or any of the other people you noted. And we really don't need a history lesson of their views because "this forum" is not for discussing traditions, it is a biblical forum for discussing doctrines from a "biblical" perspective, and with a defense made from the Bible. Selah!

I agree, but you still say what you said in this post is directed towards me and WPM as if we disagree with what you're saying here. Total nonsense.

Could this be the well-oiled "obligatory Straw man" which inevitably seems to crops up when one's views are challenged? Sorry, bud, I'm only interested in "what the Bible says" in harmony with itself, "versus" what you have put forth for our consideration. No smoke screens, no traditions, no history lessons. I'm not interested in Calvin's eschatology, Henry's eschatology, or Josephus's eschatology. I spend my time in the Bible, not in those commentaries or whatever. And so as a result I get a more Biblical on fallen temple, little season, sealing of God's people, etc. rather than your Traditional view.

And, once again, you said this based on your mistake of thinking he was talking to you. He did not say you are not interested in "what the Bible says" or anything like that. Yet, you want your ridiculous post to stand, anyway. But, go ahead and keep it there so we can be reminded how you are not careful to pay attention to who is being talked to. I guess you didn't learn anything from this and you will probably do it again at some point.

 

[Davidpt]

Great question! You tell us since you're constantly trying to do that. Even after we tell you you're misrepresenting something we believe, you don't accept that and continue on misrepresenting what we believe. That comes across as though you think you can tell us what we believe instead of us telling you what we believe.


I like to give the benefit of the doubt to people. But, I can't really blame him for thinking that way when you do it so often. Usually, when someone does something like that over and over again it is deliberate. But, I think you're just ignorant and not willing to even try to look at things from the Amill perspective. When you try to force your Premill perspective of things like Satan's binding onto Amill, you end up misrepresenting Amill. You try to say that we believe things that don't make sense if Satan is bound. But that's only if he was bound in YOUR understanding of his binding. In our understanding of his binding, what we're saying makes sense. But, you don't even seem to try to look at it from our perspective.


You tell us. You have spent a lot of your time debating these things. Why? Especially when you know and have admitted that Premill has problems. Yet, it seems like you would defend it to the death. Why?

In my view, these discussion on this Eschatology forum (not just Amil vs. Premil discussions, by the way) matter because they can affect how people understand who Jesus is right now (He is King of king and Lord of lords now), how people understand whether or not we have authority over the spiritual enemy or not, whether or not people think they will go through a particular time of tribulation in the future and can affect what people think of the modern day nation of Israel and so on. It's not necessarily the case, but what people believe about end times prophecy can affect their personal lives and that's why this is important.


Of course. But, isn't truth important? Why is there so much prophecy in the Bible if we're not meant to understand it? We can't act like it doesn't matter. We all take the Bible seriously, so if we think someone is misinterpreting it and not representing it properly, it's hard to not take the seriously and take it personally.

If you truly want to understand me, then use the following below as a template since that is basically the way my mind operates when having these discussions. I'm certainly not telling Amils what they believe nor am I acting as if I understand better what they believe than they do themselves. That is absolutely silly and that you are applying all these silly things to me, as if I'm actually that silly.

So what if some of you can communicate your thoughts in writing better than I can? Does that give you the right to portray me as someone silly in the head doing all these silly things you are accusing me of? Think about what you are doing to me for once. Why doesn't that matter? Oh, that's right, I'm silly in the head. I almost forgot that.

But anyway, use the following for a template if you dare to actually care to understand how my mind typically operates.

Keeping in mind, just so I'm clear here. In no way shape or form am I telling you what you believe. This has zero to do with what you believe. It's not even what I believe. All I'm doing is reasoning through this, assuming satan is meant somewhere in Revelation 9, and what it could mean if so. If only some of you could get that, then remember that, then maybe quit accusing me of misrepresenting your view, or that I'm telling you what you believe. I'm doing none of those things. You just don't understand the manner in which I try and reason through some of these things, assuming this or that is supposed to be true.

If you can't understand what I meant here, the problem is not me, it is you, that you have reading comprehension or something. Or that you are purposely, for whatever reason, acting as if I'm so silly in the head that I think I can tell Amils what to believe about their position. I'm doing no such thing. All I'm doing and all I have done is, assuming something is supposed to mean this or that, I then reason through it by assuming that if it means that, what Amils take it to mean, and what it might mean, but not according to Amils, but according to the Scriptures involved. That's what I have to compare with, the Scriptures themselves, and not what Amils insist they are meaning. Why would I want to take your word for it without even bothering to reason through these things first?

For example. If I see Revelation 9 connecting with the 2Ws in REvelation 11, why would I then think Amils could be correct that the loosing of satan is what is in view here? When the 2Ws are giving their testimony, the beast hasn't even risen from the pit yet. Because if it has the text wouldn't be telling us that the beast makes war with them after they finish their testimony. It would be telling us that the beast is making war with them while they are giving their testimony. Therefore, IMO, Revelation 9 isn't involving the beast rising from the pit but Revelation 13:1 is. And take note, in Revelation 13 no unsaved person is being depicted as being tormented by anyone, such as the locusts, when the beast emerges from the pit. It's night and day differences what Revelation 9 is involving compared to what Revelation 13 is involving.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

But anyway, use the following for a template if you dare to actually care to understand how my mind typically operates.

Keeping in mind, just so I'm clear here. In no way shape or form am I telling you what you believe. This has zero to do with what you believe. It's not even what I believe. All I'm doing is reasoning through this, assuming satan is meant somewhere in Revelation 9, and what it could mean if so. If only some of you could get that, then remember that, then maybe quit accusing me of misrepresenting your view, or that I'm telling you what you believe. I'm doing none of those things. You just don't understand the manner in which I try and reason through some of these things, assuming this or that is supposed to be true.

If you can't understand what I meant here, the problem is not me, it is you, that you have reading comprehension or something.

Good grief. Why do you say things like this? You think I'm the only one who has trouble following your train of thought sometimes? If so, you need to think again. So, no, the problem is not my reading comprehension.

Or that you are purposely, for whatever reason, acting as if I'm so silly in the head that I think I can tell Amils what to believe about their position. I'm doing no such thing.

You don't understand what we mean when we say that. Some of your understanding of what we believe is flawed. That's a fact. yet, you insist that your understanding is correct even when we Amils ourselves say that your understanding of what we believe is not correct. What else do you call that except you trying to tell us what we believe? Just accept what we say we believe instead of coming up with your own version of what we believe.

All I'm doing and all I have done is, assuming something is supposed to mean this or that, I then reason through it by assuming that if it means that, what Amils take it to mean, and what it might mean, but not according to Amils, but according to the Scriptures involved.

I'm sorry. I mean no offense by this, but I cannot understand what you said here. If you want to think it's because I have a reading comprehension problem, go ahead. But, I know that is not the case. You just have a way of communicating that is difficult to follow sometimes. It's not your fault or anyone's fault. It's just the way it is. You've said yourself that you communicate better in person, so I don't doubt that if you explained what you're trying to say here to me in person then I would understand it. So, don't take offense to what I'm saying here. I'm just being honest. That's better than me pretending as if I understood what you said here, right?

That's what I have to compare with, the Scriptures themselves, and not what Amils insist they are meaning. Why would I want to take your word for it without even bothering to reason through these things first?

Who said you should do that? No one. Absolutely no one said that you shouldn't reason through these things while just taking our word for it. Be like the Bereans, please, and study the scriptures to see if what we're saying is true!

For example. If I see Revelation 9 connecting with the 2Ws in REvelation 11, why would I then think Amils could be correct that the loosing of satan is what is in view here? When the 2Ws are giving their testimony, the beast hasn't even risen from the pit yet. Because if it has the text wouldn't be telling us that the beast makes war with them after they finish their testimony. It would be telling us that the beast is making war with them while they are giving their testimony. Therefore, IMO, Revelation 9 isn't involving the beast rising from the pit but Revelation 13:1 is. And take note, in Revelation 13 no unsaved person is being depicted as being tormented by anyone, such as the locusts, when the beast emerges from the pit. It's night and day differences what Revelation 9 is involving compared to what Revelation 13 is involving.

I understand that if you make that connection you mentioned, then it needs to line up with what is said elsewhere. It's good to make sure your interpretation doesn't contradict any other scriptures. I obviously disagree with your interpretations here, but there's no need to go into that. I do see your point here and I would never discourage you from trying to interpret scripture with scripture while being careful not to cause any contradictions.

 

[WPM]

Wanna some tissues?

Grow up! Get a life!

You are not dealing with Premils now!

 

[WPM]

This is incredibly stupid. What you said was in response to what he said to Davidpt and not to you. So, how can what you said apply to me and WPM when he wasn't even talking to you?

Here is what you said after foolishly thinking he was talking to you:

So, you said this to him based on your mistaken belief that he had been talking to you when he wasn't. So, how can this comment actually apply to him when he wasn't even talking to you? You made the comment only because you thought he was talking to you. But, he wasn't. Yet, you still say your response applies to me and him. That's dumb.

Again, everything you said here was based on your mistaken belief that he was talking to you. So, how can you say that anything here applies to what he said when he didn't say it to you? He didn't say that you misrepresented amillennialism, but you want to stick with saying he needs to get his facts straight? No, he doesn't, because he wasn't even talking to you.

Once again here you made a comment based on thinking he was talking to you, but he wasn't. So, how can this comment you made still apply to him when he wasn't even talking to you? He did not accuse you of misrepresenting anything because he was not talking to you. Yet, you still want your post to stand as a reply to him as if he was talking to you. That makes no sense.

I agree, but you still say what you said in this post is directed towards me and WPM as if we disagree with what you're saying here. Total nonsense.

And, once again, you said this based on your mistake of thinking he was talking to you. He did not say you are not interested in "what the Bible says" or anything like that. Yet, you want your ridiculous post to stand, anyway. But, go ahead and keep it there so we can be reminded how you are not careful to pay attention to who is being talked to. I guess you didn't learn anything from this and you will probably do it again at some point.

He exposed himself. He's making a fool of himself now. He doesn't know how to say sorry. No humility. No honesty. No loyalty.

He was describing his own chip on his own shoulder. It is called projection.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He exposed himself. He's making a fool of himself now. He doesn't know how to say sorry. No humility. No honesty. No loyalty.

He was describing his own chip on his own shoulder. It is called projection.

Agree completely. He has acted like this in the past several times, but not as much more recently until now. But, I can see he hasn't changed. He couldn't just own up to his mistake. He had to double down and make things even worse while embarrassing himself even further.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Agree completely. He has acted like this in the past several times, but not as much more recently until now. But, I can see he hasn't changed. He couldn't just own up to his mistake. He had to double down and make things even worse while embarrassing himself even further.

LOL. You say things like this because you did not like the truth when you hear, so I am good. Like I said many times, the Lord judges and I am comfortable with it. :-)