Amil can only be proved to be true if Amils accept all of the following terms and convincingly satisfy these terms.

[Spiritual Israelite]

When did I ever say Christ is not currently reigning? I agree He is currently reigning,

Yet, you don't use that to help understand the timing of Revelation 20. I don't get that. I would like you to respond to my post #12 and explain to me how you can reconcile what is written in Revelation 20:6 with premil.

but not like how He will be when He returns to the earth, that being when He sits in the throne of His glory for all upon the earth to behold and to literally see with their own eyes.

He will be delivering the kingdom He has been reigning over to the Father when He comes (1 Corinthians 15:22-24).

Do you believe that Jesus will return at the end of the age? If so, please read this:

Matthew 13:40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

It is at the end of the age, when Jesus returns, that "the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father". Notice He referred to "the kingdom of their Father" there. That means Jesus will have delivered the kingdom He has been reigning over since His resurrection to the Father at that point and will not reign on the earth for a thousand years as you believe.

Likely one of the real reasons you have an issue with what I'm doing, regardless what you and @WPM have told me in the past regarding your view of the beast, is that Revelation 20:4 and the saints martyred for not worshiping the beast fit to a T the era of time involving Revelation 13. And that you can't make that work with Amil.

Sure, you can. Why not? It doesn't say that Satan is bound from persecuting Christians. He has been doing that for the past almost 2,000 years.

Which means that the 42 month reign of the beast can't be after the thousand years.

Who said it is? Not me. You are not addressing my view and that is apparently because you don't understand it. And I don't know what I can do about that. I've explained it to you many times and you just don't get it because you are a futurist and I'm not. You are not able to look at things in any other way except from a futurist perspective.

You all better hope the false prophet is not human

LOL. No need to hope. I already know that for certain. Prophetic beasts are not humans, they are kingdoms (Daniel 7:23).

because no human can live for thousands of years.

LOL. This is very ironic for you to say this to us because you believe the beast is human and it existed before John wrote the book of Revelation (Revelation 17:8). You can't expect us to take you seriously about all this when your understanding of the identity of the beast is so far off base.

The point being, those in Revelation 20:4 martyred for not worshiping the beast, none of that is possible unless the false prophet was also involved in their martyrdom.

No one said otherwise. Again, it doesn't say that Satan is bound from persecuting Christians. Many Christians have been persecuted and killed for the past almost 2,000 years.

Another thing that you are not able to explain is how you can conclude that the dragon, Satan, is not bound while the beast is bound. And Revelation 17:8 indicates that the beast was bound when John wrote the book. Doesn't the dragon depend on the beast to do its bidding, according to Revelation 13? In your view the dragon, Satan, can do everything himself with or without the beast. He doesn't really need the beast to do what he does in your view, but that is not the case in the Amil view. In my view if the beast is bound in the pit, as he was when John wrote the book (Rev 17:8) then the dragon, Satan, must be bound as well since they work together.

Another weakness in your premil view is the denial that Abaddon/Apollyon is Satan despite the fact that Abaddon/Apollyon is an angel and is the king of the locusts. What else can the locusts represent except for the fallen angels since they have an angel as their king? And who is the king of the fallen angels according to scripture? Satan. They are called "his angels" (Rev 12:9, Matt 25:41). Revelation 9 indicates that Abaddon/Apollyon, who fits the description of Satan, is loosed from the pit at the fifth trumpet, which obviously occurs before Christ's return.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


Only someone with doctrinal bias could deny the following---neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. None of that is possible unless it involves the false prophet, which then undeniably tells us that the time of the beast and fp per Revelation 13, it precedes satan's little season, not parallels it instead.

LOL. I don't know what you're thinking when you post things like this. Who claims that Revelation 20:4 parallels Satan's little season? No one. You are the king of strawman arguments. You make them over and over again.

Probably why Revelation 20:10 records that both the beast and the fp are already in the lof before satan too is cast into it. Meaning that nothing pertaining to Revelation 20:7-9 also involves the beast and fp. How could it? Verse 10 has them already in the LOF when satan is loosed. And so does John in chapter 19.

LOL. You make so many assumptions. That is what your doctrine is based on. You are talking like a pretrib here. They use this kind of logic to conclude that 1 Thess 4:14-17 and Matthew 24:29-31 are different events because there is no mention of the angels gathering the elect in 1 Thess 4:14-17. Is this the way to interpret scripture? No chance. It's an argument from silence. Revelation 20:7-9 does not specifically mention the beast and false prophet one way or another, so you can't conclude anything about them one way or another from that passage. Just because they are not mentioned in that passage does not mean they are not involved in what is happening there any more than the angels not being mentioned in 1 Thess 4:14-17 means that angels are not involved in what is described in that passage. This kind of argument is weak and can't be taken seriously.

 

[Davidpt]

We've been over this before multiple times, so it's amazing to me that you wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Though, I guess it's been awhile since we last went over this.

From what you've said in the past you agree with me that the 42 months/1260 days of Revelation 11 is the same 42 months of Revelation 13:5. Is that correct? If so, then you should see that the beast does not ascend from the bottomless pit until the 42 months/1260 days ends.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. 3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. 7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

When the beast is in the pit, it is not able to kill the two witnesses, but it can do that after it ascends from the pit when the 42 months/1260 days is over. So, how do you reconcile this with your understanding that the beast is loosed from the pit before or at the beginning of the 42 months instead of when the 42 months ends?

No, I do not agree that when the 2Ws are prophesying that this parallels the 42 month reign of the beast. Per my view of things the beast is still in the pit during the time of the 2Ws testimonies. Otherwise, it would obviously be making war with them during their testimonies if it had already ascended out of the pit. Therefore, first there is one 42 month period, keeping in mind 1260 days and 42 months are describing the same of length of time if we assume 30 day months, followed by another 42 month period, meaning Revelation 13:5.

Interestingly, two 42 month periods combined equal 7 years, the length of the 70th week. Therefore, in my mind there is connection here between the 70th week and these two 42 month time periods in Revelation 11 and Revelation 13.

Then if we compare to the following in Revelation 12, it could mean the former is involving the time of the 2Ws and the latter is involving the time of the 42 month reign of the beast. Keeping in mind that I said 'could' which doesn't necessarily mean it does, though I tend to think it likely does.

The former...

Revelation 12:6 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.


The latter...

Revelation 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.


As to the latter, obviously verse 14 is paralleling when this in verse 17 is meaning---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, meaning what I just submitted from verse 17, is obviously paralleling the era of time involving the 42 month reign of the beast.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are trying to foist your faulty Premil understanding of what the binding of Satan is, when it occurs, and what the abyss is, upon Amil, in order to refute it. You do this often. Well, this is not the way it works. You should examine a point of view for what it is, not what you want it to be. Your tactics are therefore very deceptive and underhand.

Exactly. He seems to be incapable of looking at things from an opposing view's perspective without trying to force the opposing view to agree with his futurist perspective and his understanding of things like the beast and the binding of Satan. We are not obligated to have the same understanding of the beast and the binding of Satan as he has.

 

[WPM]

My issue here is mainly with @rwb in this case since I can't grasp what point he is making about disembodied souls living with Christ upon death. As if only the saved live on in a disembodied state upon death but the unsaved don't.

Please don't act stupid. You know what he means. Revelation 20 covers the victorious blessing that awaits the believer upon death, since the first resurrection. They no longer go to Abrahams bosom when they die. They immediately go into paradise to reign with Jesus when they give up the ghost. They do so until the glorious climatic coming of the Lord.

 

[Wick Stick]

Amils then need to show/prove that saints are being martyred during the thousand years and they must show this under the following terms. Anything less is unsatisfactory.

Amils define the millennium differently than other groups. I'm not sure your question here would mean the same thing to them, that it does to you.

 

[WPM]

Amils define the millennium differently than other groups. I'm not sure your question here would mean the same thing to them, that it does to you.

But history show this for 2000 years. He just refuses to accept it.

 

[Wick Stick]

But history show this for 2000 years. He just refuses to accept it.

Shows what?

There seems to be a gap in communication in this topic - people are defining words differently and talking past each other. That was all I was saying before, as well.

 

[WPM]

Shows what?

There seems to be a gap in communication in this topic - people are defining words differently and talking past each other. That was all I was saying before, as well.

I understand. I agree.

The history of the New Testament Church for 2000 years, since the first resurrection, has been martyrdom.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, I do not agree that when the 2Ws are prophesying that this parallels the 42 month reign of the beast.

You have changed your view since the last time we talked about this then. Because in the past you have said that you see them as being the same time period, but you denied that Revelation 11 indicates that the beast ascends from the pit when the two witnesses finish their 42 month/1260 day testimony.

Per my view of things the beast is still in the pit during the time of the 2Ws testimonies. Otherwise, it would obviously be making war with them during their testimonies if it had already ascended out of the pit. Therefore, first there is one 42 month period, keeping in mind 1260 days and 42 months are describing the same of length of time if we assume 30 day months, followed by another 42 month period, meaning Revelation 13:5.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Since you believe all the time periods in the book of Revelation are literal, this means you have the two witnesses, who I think you interpret as two individuals (correct me if I'm wrong), being killed a literal 42 months/1260 days before Jesus returns. Why would that happen that long before He returns? And what would even be the point of the testimony of the two witnesses in that case?

Interestingly, two 42 month periods combined equal 7 years, the length of the 70th week. Therefore, in my mind there is connection here between the 70th week and these two 42 month time periods in Revelation 11 and Revelation 13.

I don't think I need to tell you what I think of that. Are you then saying you believe that Jesus's death did not occur within the 70th week? If so, how could the things listed in Daniel 9:24 that had to be fulfilled within the 70 weeks be fulfilled apart from His death? Where do you see any reference to anyone confirming a covenant in the book of Revelation? If you think there is a connection there you should be able to show it, but I know that you can't do that. This is a case of just believing what you want to believe while not being able to support your belief with scripture.

Then if we compare to the following in Revelation 12, it could mean the former is involving the time of the 2Ws and the latter is involving the times of the 42 month reign of the beast.

The former...

Revelation 12:6 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.


The latter...

Revelation 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Your doctrinal bias is very obvious. Both verses are referring to the same thing. In each case the woman is protected for a certain time period. Verse 14 is just expanding on what was already said in verse 6. There is no basis for differentiating between those two verses. They just refer to the same time period in two different ways.

As to the latter, obviously verse 14 is paralleling when this in verse 17 is meaning---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, meaning what I just submitted from verse 17, is obviously paralleling the era of time involving the 42 month reign of the beast.

Maybe this, maybe that. Your premil doctrine is based on nothing but speculation and not founded on clear scripture. The 42 months, 1260 days and time, times and half a time are all referring to the same time period. But, you are trying to find any way you can to maniuplate the text to fit your doctrine. That is not how you should interpret scripture, with such obvious doctrinal bias. You should interpret it objectively instead.

 

[Wick Stick]

The history of the New Testament church for 2000 years has been martyrdom since the first resurrection.

Martyrdom has clearly been happening since NT times and even before, but...

From his perspective the millennium hasn't started yet, and your task is to somehow prove that when-it-begins at indeterminate-future-date... that saints will still be martyred during THAT time period.

From your perspective, that question probably doesn't even make sense. Might as well ask if martyrdom will still happen in Tolkein's Middle-Earth.

 

[Marty fox]

These terms are not unreasonable, thus are fair. If Amils are to prove what they allege, that Amil is true, well they can't do that until they first show/prove that saints are being martyred during the thousand years, according to the text of Revelation 20.

After all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, if saints are being martyred during the thousand years, this means Premil is not true, that it has been debunked. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, if no saints are being martyred during the thousand years, this means Amil is not true, that it has been debunked.

Amils then need to show/prove that saints are being martyred during the thousand years and they must show this under the following terms. Anything less is unsatisfactory.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


They have to show/prove using this to do so---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands . IOW, they cannot use speculation, thus they just can't make up stuff, they must produce the Scriptures that show when and how these have been martyred, and how these Scriptures are proving that they were martyred during the thousand years because they refused to worship the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

No need to even bring satan's little season into it. Amils won't make it to that part to begin with. Meaning they won't be able to satisfy all the terms above because they will fail to produce the Scripture that show how and when saints are martyred during the thousand years for having not worshiped the beast.

They obviously can't use anything in Revelation 13 to show/prove that, the fact everything involving that chapter, including it's 42 month reign when it is causing saints to be martyred, means it is no longer in the pit at the time. Except Amils have the beast remaining in the pit the entire thousand years, thus don't have it ascending out of the pit until the thousand years are finished first.

And that Revelation 13 is involving events after it has ascended out of the pit first. IOW, it is ludicrous, that in Revelation 13, the beast is still in the pit the entire time. It is equally ludicrous that these in Revelation 20:4---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands--that they are not martyred during the era of time involving the beast in Revelation 13 after it has ascended out of the pit first. Of course they are. It's called Scripture interpreting Scripture.

Hi David did you see post#8?

 

[Davidpt]

Amils define the millennium differently than other groups. I'm not sure your question here would mean the same thing to them, that it does to you.

I realize they do. What's in question, where does the millennium fit? Do things recorded in Revelation 20:4, for instance--- which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands--provide any clues as to where it fits? Especially if we were to factor in the following as well.

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.


If this is a one time event, obviously everyone that is the target of this vial, they all have to be alive during the same era of time. The text does not say---some of the men which had the mark of the beast, and them which worshipped his image, no noisome and grievous sore fell upon them. The text instead says, all of the men which had the mark of the beast, and them which worshipped his image, fell a noisome and grievous sore upon them.

Which then at least tells us that nobody in the past, meaning anyone living before this era of time involving the first vial, had the mark of the beast, and worshipped his image. How could they? Until a beast rises out of the sea first, another out of the earth, meaning the false prophet, there is no such thing as having the mark of the beast, nor anyone worshiping his image in the meantime. Are we supposed to just throw Revelation 13 into the trash and pretend it's is not even recorded in the Bible?

Where is Amil's proof that the false prophet has been around since the beginning of time, and that he or it too is in the pit when the beast is in the pit? What if the false prophet is human?

 

[WPM]

Martyrdom has clearly been happening since NT times and even before, but...

From his perspective the millennium hasn't started yet, and your task is to somehow prove that when-it-begins at indeterminate-future-date... that saints will still be martyred during THAT time period.

From your perspective, that question probably doesn't even make sense. Might as well ask if martyrdom will still happen in Tolkein's Middle-Earth.

So, why can it not be happening throughout the whole millennium, allowing for the fact that there are martyrs in heaven during that time?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Amils define the millennium differently than other groups. I'm not sure your question here would mean the same thing to them, that it does to you.

Yeah, him forcing us to prove our view under his terms is just ridiculous. It obviously isn't hard to show that many people have been martyred during the time period that we believe the thousand years symbolically represents (the New Testament era), but for some reason he thinks we need to do that on his terms. No, we don't.

 

[Wick Stick]

[This] tells us that nobody in the past, meaning anyone living before this era of time involving the first vial, had the mark of the beast, and worshipped his image. How could they? Until a beast rises out of the sea first, another out of the earth, meaning the false prophet, there is no such thing as having the mark of the beast, nor anyone worshiping his image in the meantime. Are we supposed to just throw Revelation 13 into the trash and pretend it's is not even recorded in the Bible?

Where is Amil's proof that the false prophet has been around since the beginning of time, and that he or it too is in the pit when the beast is in the pit? What if the false prophet is human?

That's IS a problem for amils, but not a fatal one. It basically forces them (us?) to go identify some historical person as the false prophet and/or beast. And perhaps to provide some explanation of the mark. There are a number of competing theories. Wanna hear a few?

The cult of Mithras was popular during the 1st and 2nd centuries. Members of the cult did in fact get a tattoo in either their hand or forehead (or both). The cult also had some fascination with the number 666.

Alternately...

The Jewish leader Bar Kochba (ca 135AD) purportedly forced his troops to prove their bravery by cutting off one of their own fingers - a mark of sorts. Also, the Jewish scholar Rabbi Akiba declared him to be the Jewish messiah.

For transparency, my eschatology isn't firmly decided, but I do consider amil to be a reasonable position. I also find post-trib reasonable, and I think there are probably other views that can be supported from Scripture. I think pre-trib can be ruled out based on the Bible.

edit: hit enter too early!

 

[Davidpt]

I understand. I agree.

The history of the New Testament Church for 2000 years, since the first resurrection, has been martyrdom.

No one denies, including Premils, that saints have been being martyred since the time of Christ's ascension back into heaven. That's not disputable. What is disputable, is that same past 2000 years meaning the millennium recorded in Revelation 20? If Amils have both the beast and satan in the pit this entire past 2000 years, who then are Amils claiming are behind all this martyring of saints over these past 2000 years? Are Amils claiming that while the beast and satan are locked in the pit, they are active outside of the pit at the same time? If that's true, prove your point per the locusts recorded in Revelation 9. Because, while they are depicted locked away in the pit, it's as if they don't even exist since there is not one sign of them doing anything on the earth while in the pit.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I realize they do. What's in question, where does the millennium fit? Do things recorded in Revelation 20:4, for instance--- which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands--provide any clues as to where it fits? Especially if we were to factor in the following as well.

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.


If this is a one time event, obviously everyone that is the target of this vial, they all have to be alive during the same era of time.

Where does it say that everyone who ever has the mark of the beast has to be alive at that time? It doesn't.

The text does not say---some of the men which had the mark of the beast, and them which worshipped his image, no noisome and grievous sore fell upon them. The text instead says, all of the men which had the mark of the beast, and them which worshipped his image, fell a noisome and grievous sore upon them.

Which then at least tells us that nobody in the past, meaning anyone living before this era of time involving the first vial, had the mark of the beast, and worshipped his image.

More assumptions. The text also does not say that all of them who ever will have the mark of the beast and worship his image experience what is described in that verse. You can't conclude that all who ever will have the mark of the beast are all alive at the same time from that verse. It does not say that.

How could they? Until a beast rises out of the sea first, another out of the earth, meaning the false prophet, there is no such thing as having the mark of the beast, nor anyone worshiping his image in the meantime. Are we supposed to just throw Revelation 13 into the trash and pretend it's is not even recorded in the Bible?

You ASSUME that the beast has not yet risen out of the sea or the second beast, false prophet, has not yet risen out of the earth, but the rest of us are not obligated to agree with you about that!

Where is Amil's proof that the false prophet has been around since the beginning of time, and that he or it too is in the pit when the beast is in the pit? What if the false prophet is human?

Prophetic beasts are kingdoms.

Daniel 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

The false prophet is a prophetic beast.

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

The dragon, beast (from the sea), and false prophet (beast from the earth) work together hand in hand. Because of that, if one of them is in the pit then it can be assumed that they all are.

 

[Davidpt]

Yeah, him forcing us to prove our view under his terms is just ridiculous. It obviously isn't hard to show that many people have been martyred during the time period that we believe the thousand years symbolically represents (the New Testament era), but for some reason he thinks we need to do that on his terms. No, we don't.

No one is forcing you to do anything. I don't have a gun to your head. It's all about being transparent, if nothing else. Don't you want to be transparent? If Amil is correct then you should be able to prove with Scripture what Scripture shows how and when these recorded in Revelation 20:4 were martyred--which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands--and how it proves Amil. Because clearly, these martyrs I just listed are martyred after the beast has ascended out of the sea, and after a 2nd beast has ascended out of the earth, the false prophet in this case. The false prophet is your main problem. He has to be alive when Christ returns, and he has to be the one behind the worshiping of this image in question, and this mark in question. IOW, without the false prophet there is no image to worship, there is no mark to take or not take in the meantime, because if there was Amils would be able to produce the Scriptures that plainly say so.

 

[WPM]

That's IS a problem for amils, but not a fatal one. It basically forces them (us?) to go identify some historical person as the false prophet and/or beast. And perhaps to provide some explanation of the mark. There are a number of competing theories. Wanna hear a few?

The cult of Mithras was popular during the 1st and 2nd centuries. Members of the cult did in fact get a tattoo in either their hand or forehead (or both). The cult also had some fascination with the number 666.

Alternately...

The Jewish leader Bar Kochba (ca 135AD) purportedly forced his troops to prove their bravery by cutting off one of their own fingers - a mark of sorts. Also, the Jewish scholar Rabbi Akiba declared him to be the Jewish messiah.

For transparency, my eschatology isn't firmly decided, but I do consider amil to be a reasonable position. I also find post-trib reasonable, and I think there are probably other views that can be supported from Scripture. I think pre-trib can be ruled out based on the Bible.

edit: hit enter too early!

Lol. How about a biblical one?

The beast, mystery of iniquity, and antichrist, were on the go during and before NT times. The mark is the spiritual mark of reprobation upon the wicked. The false prophet is false religion. These demonic entities are not limited to the last few years of time before Jesus comes, as Premils think.