Getting to the heart of the Amil confusion

[Marty fox]

My point would be, none of that matters whether that person was correct or incorrect about the 12 disciples, since it doesn't change the fact that being beheaded can mean in the literal sense in some cases. Maybe not in all cases, though. Maybe in some cases being beheaded is simply another way to express being martyred in general? Why isn't that possible, that it can mean literally be beheaded, and that it can also mean to be literally martyred but not by means of being literally beheaded where someone's head is chopped off? Maybe they are martyred in a different manner, such as being shot to death, for example? And that this falls under the category of being beheaded, meaning, to be martyred?

It can mean many different ways of dying for Christ and that's what I actually believe.

Once again my point was that futurist take revelation literally except when its convenient not too.

 

[ewq1938]

It's not a hard and fast rule, just a rule of thumb, but... yeah... it mostly does...

Which proves it isn't true. I already knew it wasn't.

 

[ewq1938]

Really? Okay, tell me what do you believe the mark is? A physical mark or a spiritual mark?

How could a non-marked person enter a store and buy things if it isn't detectable by other people? Obviously the mark can be either seen or detectable by people so they can deny an unmarked person from buying something.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Even if the mark is something spiritual rather than a literal mark, what does that have to with anything?

Oh yeah...if you have spiritual discerned. :-)

Regardless what it looks like to do the following, until one beast rises out of the sea, another out of the earth, there is no mark to take or refuse to take in the meantime.

I disagree, but its okay if you don't fully understand the nature and purpose of "THEE" mark of the beast on people.

No one could possibly think the 42 months meant in Revelation 13:5 is meaning 6000 years or more of earth history.

The 42-month period is not when the mark of the beast was created. The mark has existed for some time, but in the end times, when the Second Beast—representing the body of false prophets and false christs—emerges, it will enforce the mark upon the unfaithful members of the congregation. This occurs AFTER the congregation is no longer under God’s protection following the thousand-year Millennial Kingdom.

Even if it's not meaning a literal 42 months, it certainly can't be meaning 6000 years or more.

The reference to 42 months does not relate to the 6,000 or 13,000 years of humanity. The mark of the beast is not connected to these 42 months; rather, it highlights how the Second Beast imposes it on the members of the congregation, similar to how the rest of the world, which is already aligned with Satan, is affected. Please read Revelation 9 to find out why God is allowing the locusts (signifying false prophets and christs) to hurt those people WITHIN the congregation that have NOT YET SEALED by God after He has finished sealing all of His Elect.

Nor can it be paralleling the thousand years, assuming the thousand years are supposedly meaning the here and now. Even if the thousand years could somehow be pertaining to the here and now, common sense says that this 42 months would follow the thousand years not equal the thousand years.

Agreed. The 42 month, SPIRITUALLY represents the period AFTER the thousand year of Millennial Kingdom is finished. Remember God has to seal His people on the foreheads FIRST before He allows the Beast to issue mark upon His unfaithful church who have not yet sealed. Selah!

Rev 7:1-3
(1) And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
(2) And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
(3) Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

 

[TribulationSigns]

How could a non-marked person enter a store and buy things if it isn't detectable by other people? Obviously the mark can be either seen or detectable by people so they can deny an unmarked person from buying something.

I think I have explained clearly that the mark of the beast HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SHOPPING FOR FOOD or THINGS. The mark of the beast is SPIRITUAL MARK signify being owned by Satan as long as they are buying and selling the false doctrine of the false prophets and christs that are now running the church! Also, the mark on the right hand signifies doing the WILL of the Devil. Or on the foreheads signifies having the same mind of the Devil. Not a literal mark or chip on the right hand or forehead.

 

[Wick Stick]

Which proves it isn't true. I already knew it wasn't.

Rule of Thumb:

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[Davidpt]

I think I have explained clearly that the mark of the beast HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SHOPPING FOR FOOD or THINGS. The mark of the beast is SPIRITUAL MARK signify being owned by Satan as long as they are buying and selling the false doctrine of the false prophets and christs that are now running the church! Also, the mark on the right hand signifies doing the WILL of the Devil. Or on the foreheads signifies having the same mind of the Devil. Not a literal mark or chip on the right hand or forehead.

Here's a thought that comes to my mind. Can't speak for anyone else's mind, though.

Matthew 25:9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.


I can't help but think of the following when I read that verse.

Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.


Could there be a connection here? That when they go buy from those that sell, this basically equals falling away during the beast's 42 month reign? As to the buying and selling meant in Matthew 25:9, no one would take that in the literal sense, right? I know I don't. And if there is a connection with that of Revelation 13:17, I don't see it being consistent of someone to not take it in the literal sense per the former, but then take it in the literal sense per the latter. That assuming there is connection between these two passages. If no connection, my point is irrelevant then, right?

BTW, even if these things can be understood in this manner above, that hardly disproves Premil then.

 

[ewq1938]

I think I have explained clearly that the mark of the beast HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SHOPPING FOR FOOD or THINGS.

The mark in the bible is about buying and selling:

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

There are false versions of the mark like the one you believe in that do not originate from the bible. Avoid believing in those.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Because the verse says that they were beheaded. Isn't it supposed to be literal?

Yes, I believe John speaks about actual events that will take place. What I meant to ask is this. If the apostles were not beheaded, how does that change the meaning of the passage, if at all?

 

[CadyandZoe]

You left out important info:

Rev 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.


This limits the timeframe to the 42 months of the trib, Rev 13. The beheaded people John saw being resurrected died in those 42 months because they did not worship the beast, the image, and didn't take the mark. They had their heads cut off as well, not dying from other methods.

You raise an important question. I believe that all of Jesus' followers will be resurrected during that time. While John's reference to the beast and the mark pertains to a specific group of people, I don't think he intended to limit the timeframe to that particular period. Perhaps, but I don't believe that was his primary aim.

Instead, I think John specifically highlighted them to offer encouragement, as that future time will be very challenging for those of faith. John clearly states his purpose for writing the book of Revelation in his opening remarks.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.​

Those who read and hear the words will take encouragement from the fact that God is both able and willing to keep those that are his.

See what I mean?

 

[rwb]

Currently I don't believe in soul sleep. Therefore, your point is moot in my case. Obviously, when Samuel died he lived on in disembodied state somewhere But not in heaven since that wouldn't be possible until Christ died and rose first. Even so, Samuel still lived on in a disembodied state somewhere. Probably somewhere within the earth below it's surface. But it wouldn't be in a place of torment, in his case.

If you believe this, why do you continue to argue that after the first advent of Christ, after He returned to His Father in heaven, after He made atonement for sin, after He defeated death, that disembodied souls cannot be alive with Him in heaven also, since He went there to prepare a place for His saints? Why do you continue to argue the disembodied souls John saw are not the disembodied spiritual body of Christ in heaven after death, after they had lived and reigned with Christ in physical body during this time symbolized a thousand years, when they were martyred for their faith? And also, why do you continue to argue they cannot be alive with Christ until they are bodily resurrected after Christ comes back again?

Clearly you understand the conflict and contradiction that Premillennialism forces upon the Word of God! Yet you continue to argue against Amill, even though it is the only eschatological doctrines that find harmony throughout all of Scripture!

 

[rwb]

Better than being a Preterist and believing in a symbolic interpretation, convenient or not.

Yes, you Premillennialists continue to force contradiction upon the Word of God, then ignore the fact that in doing so you turn the Word of God into man's words and wonder why Amill says you've turned the Word of God into convoluted garbage!

 

[rwb]

You don't seem to be in good company per this thread then. Pretty much all these Amils posting in this thread are pro-preterists to some degree rather than anti like you.

You again speak what you do not understand. Believing historical fulfillment of things that came to pass in 70 AD does not mean one must be a preterist to some degree. Do you deny that what Christ wrote would become of Jerusalem and the temple did not literally happen in the past? If you say you believe it did literally come to pass, does that make you also a preterist to some degree?

 

[rwb]

BTW, do you have a problem answering the following question?

I've discovered that Davidpt seldom answers questions. What he likes to do is to keep asking more questions so he doesn't have to deal with the fact that his answers to our questions would force contradictions into the Word of God.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Disembodied souls are not alive. Even if they were conscious, without sensory organs, they would exist in darkness and remain unable to function.

 

[WPM]

I've discovered that Davidpt seldom answers questions. What he likes to do is to keep asking more questions so he doesn't have to deal with the fact that his answers to our questions would force contradictions into the Word of God.

This is true. Most of what he presents is misrepresentations of Amil because over the years he has learned he has no rebuttals for that position. He cannot carry a discussion or passage to it's logical conclusion.

His tactic is: try to create an issue where there is none, then hit and run.

 

[Davidpt]

I've discovered that Davidpt seldom answers questions. What he likes to do is to keep asking more questions so he doesn't have to deal with the fact that his answers to our questions would force contradictions into the Word of God.

Except Amils need to be the ones answering questions not Premils. After all, the Premil position is not questionable, the Amil position is. It only stands to reason that if something is questionable a lot of questions are going to be asked.

BTW, I answered his question. Maybe not the way you think I should have. Yet I answered it in my own way.

 

[Davidpt]

This is true. Most of what he presents is misrepresentations of Amil because over the years he has learned he has no rebuttals for that position. He cannot carry a discussion or passage to it's logical conclusion.

His tactic is: try to great an issue where there is none, then hit and run.

I don't misrepresent Amil. You just don't understand how my arguments work. If I'm assuming that I'm interpreting something correctly, that is the POV I am arguing from and that I then proceed to show why Amil can't be the correct position because it contradicts this or that, etc, based on my assumed correct interpretation or some other Premil's assumed correct interpretation of the passage/s in question. That does not equal misrepresenting Amil. That equals debunking Amil.

As to this hit and run allegation. In my mind I am arguing 2 + 2 = 4. Amils are arguing it equals 5. Therefore, in my mind I'm already holding the trump card that can't be trumped. Since I'm arguing 2 + 2 = 4, a million arguments against that is not going to change the fact that it equals 4. You need to prove 2 + 2 does not equal 4. IOW, you need to prove how your 2 + 2 = 5 argument trumps my 2 + 2 = 4 argument and why I should even consider your argument/s. BTW, I know you know that 2 + 2 = 4. But that is the beside the point.

 

[WPM]

I don't misrepresent Amil. You just don't understand how my arguments work. If I'm assuming that I'm interpreting something correctly, that is the POV I am arguing from and that I then proceed to show why Amil can't be the correct position because it contradicts this or that, etc, based on my assumed correct interpretation or some other Premil's assumed correct interpretation of the passage/s in question. That does not equal misrepresenting Amil. That equals debunking Amil.

Not so! You constantly invent red herrings and then run with your imagined misrepresentation. When that is debunked you run. You love talking on our behalf. But, you are not qualified to do that.

Your aim is to discredit Amil at any cost, even if it means misrepresentation.

The sad part is, you do not seem to be convicted when you do that. You do not seem interested in what we believe.

That is why no Amil takes you serious.

 

[WPM]

Except Amils need to be the ones answering questions not Premils. After all, the Premil position is not questionable, the Amil position is. It only stands to reason that if something is questionable a lot of questions are going to be asked.

BTW, I answered his question. Maybe not the way you think I should have. Yet I answered it in my own way.

LOL. This has been your mistaken mantra for years. The reality is: you cannot defend your position with corroboration. Your position is dead. You're in love with what you've been taught not what the Bible teaches.