SATAN, NOT BOUND YET

[Davidpt]

Why do you waste time trying to comment on anything related to Amil when you don't have any understanding of what we actually believe?


No Amils believe that. You are clueless. If someone says that we can only be saved during the thousand years and not during Satan's little season then, to me, that's like saying Christ doesn't reign and no one reigns with Him during Satan's little season. But, scripture teaches that He will reign until the last enemy, death, is defeated (1 Cor 15:25-26), and that occurs at the end of Satan's little season, not at the beginning.

The point is, if satan's little season happens before the 2nd coming, though I don't agree that it does, yet if it does, having part in the first resurrection, obviously, thus undeniably, proves that no one can be saved during satan's little season. Except you argue that they can. And you use 2 Peter 3, for one, as an argument. Which, BTW, is a good and valid argument. But even so, the fact that the first resurrection contradicts that anyone can be saved during satan's little season, what that should be telling us is this. satan's little season isn't even meaning before the 2nd coming. Now there is no conflict between the first resurrection, satan's little season, and 2 Peter 3:9-10. IOW, per Premil satan's little season has zero to do with anyone being saved during it to begin with.

Even though I said what I said about maybe some Amils don't even believe the first resurrection has anything to do with salvation, why did I say that to begin with, is what you should be asking yourself? Is it because I actually believe some Amils don't? Or could it be because I'm trying to make a point that Amils can't have it both ways? Either the first resurrection is connected with salvation, or it isn't. Not one person having part in the first resurrection can have part in it without living and reigning with Christ a thousand years. No one can possibly still do that during satan's little season, assuming that is when they are initially saved.

And since salvation is connected with the first resurrection, and that the first resurrection is connected with living and reigning with Christ a thousand years, and if you then think someone can be saved during satan's little season, maybe I have been wrong about you all along, in that case. Even though I might not agree with you about everything, I at least found you being reasonable for the most part. Nothing remotely resembling anyone being reasonable about things if they are insisting someone can still be saved during satan's little season, based on what I have been arguing.

If you at least understood my arguments rather than insisting I don't even understand what Amils believe, which is a lie on your part to begin with, maybe we can get somewhere for once.

 

[WPM]

The point is, if satan's little season happens before the 2nd coming, though I don't agree that it does, yet if it does, having part in the first resurrection, obviously, thus undeniably, proves that no one can be saved during satan's little season. Except you argue that they can. And you use 2 Peter 3, for one, as an argument. Which, BTW, is a good and valid argument. But even so, the fact that the first resurrection contradicts that anyone can be saved during satan's little season, what that should be telling us is this. satan's little season isn't even meaning before the 2nd coming. Now there is no conflict between the first resurrection, satan's little season, and 2 Peter 3:9-10. IOW, per Premil satan's little season has zero to do with anyone being saved during it to begin with.

Even though I said what I said about maybe some Amils don't even believe the first resurrection has anything to do with salvation, why did I say that to begin with, is what you should be asking yourself? Is it because I actually believe some Amils don't? Or could it be because I'm trying to make a point that Amils can't have it both ways? Either the first resurrection is connected with salvation, or it isn't. Not one person having part in the first resurrection can have part in it without living and reigning with Christ a thousand years. No one can possibly still do that during satan's little season, assuming that is when they are initially saved.

If you at least understood my arguments rather than insisting I don't even understand what Amils believe, which is a lie on your part to begin with, maybe we can get somewhere for once.

You do not have a clue what "the first resurrection" actually is. Until you do, you will never understand what Amillennialists believe.

 

[Davidpt]

It is not that he is clueless. He knows what he's doing. He is deliberately misrepresenting Amillennialism on these public forums. That is the only way that he can give any credence to his false teaching.

You just don't comprehend the points I am trying to make. I'm not misrepresenting anybody. If anyone is misrepresenting anyone, it is you misrepresenting me.

 

[WPM]

You just don't comprehend the points I am trying to make. I'm not misrepresenting anybody. If anyone is misrepresenting anyone, it is you misrepresenting me.

LOL. Stop telling us what we believe. We can speak for ourselves. You're the last person I would have articulate the Amil position on this forum. You're always misrepresenting it. You have to. That's because you got no rebuttal to it. You don't have a clue about it.

The Bible makes it clear that Christ is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

 

[WPM]

I'm fine with you having that opinion, but we can't know for certain if it's deliberate or not. It could be, but I think he just can't bring himself to look at things from the Amill perspective, so that's why he ends up misrepresenting Amill so often. He can only think of Satan's binding as a literal binding that completely incapacitates Satan, so he tries to refute our beliefs based on that understanding of Satan's binding. Which ends up being a straw man argument because he needs to address what we believe based on our understanding of Satan's binding, not his.

Is there anyone that we have explained this in more detail to than him? I don't think so. He knows what we believe.

 

[TribulationSigns]

It is not that he is clueless. He knows what he's doing.

True.

He is deliberately misrepresenting Amillennialism on these public forums.

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. 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. 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."

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!

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.

 

[WPM]

True.



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. 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. 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."

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!

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.

Calm down bro. I was talking about Davidpt. I'm not sure how you could possibly think I was talking about you. Please amend your last post.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Calm down bro. I was talking about Davidpt. I'm not sure how you could possibly think I was talking about you. Please amend your last post.

Ok. I’ll leave it as is as a reminder for you two and everyone else who may question my stand on amillennial position.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The point is, if satan's little season happens before the 2nd coming, though I don't agree that it does, yet if it does, having part in the first resurrection, obviously, thus undeniably, proves that no one can be saved during satan's little season

No, it does not. Did you not read anything I said? You think you can just claim something and it's true. It's ridiculous. I explained why that is not true. It would be like saying that Christ stop reigning during Satan's little season, which is not the case since scripture says He must reign right up until the last enemy, death, is defeated (1 Cor 15:25-26). And death is not defeated at the beginning of Satan's little season.

Except you argue that they can.

And you use 2 Peter 3, for one, as an argument. Which, BTW, is a good and valid argument. But even so, the fact that the first resurrection contradicts that anyone can be saved during satan's little season, what that should be telling us is this.

LOL. No, the first resurrection does NOT contradict that anyone can be saved during Satan's little season, so stop saying that. Do you also try to say that Christ can't reign and no one reigns with Him during Satan's little season? Saying no one can be saved during that time is basically the same thing.

satan's little season isn't even meaning before the 2nd coming.

Except that it is. Look. Amillennialism is proven by scripture as a whole. You're always cherry picking scripture passages and saying they have to mean this or that, but you interpret them in such a way that contradicts other scriptures. Scripture as a whole overwhelmingly supports Amillennialism, but you don't even want to accept that. It's absolutely true. When does scripture teach that Christ reigns? Since His resurrection (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-23, Rev 1:5-6). It teaches that explicitly. But, Premils dont want to even take that into account. Which unbelievers will be killed when Jesus comes? All of them. That is also taught explicitly in scripture and Premils ignore that. On and one it goes. So, don't tell me that Satan's little season isn't before the 2nd coming. Yes, it is, because scripture teaches that. Scripture does not teach that the thousand years will occur after the 2nd coming. Premil has been refuted extensively on this forum and others and you are too stubborn to acknowledge it.

Now there is no conflict between the first resurrection, satan's little season, and 2 Peter 3:9-10.

Of course there isn't. But, Premil forces a conflict between those scriptures.

IOW, per Premil satan's little season has zero to do with anyone being saved during it to begin with.

Who cares? That's a mistake on the part of Premil. Scripture explicitly teaches that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection. This is undeniable. So, having part in the first resurrection has to have something to do with having part in Christ's resurrection in some way. And it does.

First resurrection:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Having part in the first resurrection:

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Premils do not use other scripture to interpret Revelation 20 and that is a big mistake.

Even though I said what I said about maybe some Amils don't even believe the first resurrection has anything to do with salvation, why did I say that to begin with, is what you should be asking yourself?

I've only seen one Amil who believes that (Truth7t7), but it doesn't make any sense.

Is it because I actually believe some Amils don't?Or could it be because I'm trying to make a point that Amils can't have it both ways? Either the first resurrection is connected with salvation, or it isn't.

It is.

Not one person having part in the first resurrection can have part in it without living and reigning with Christ a thousand years.

I love how you think you can dictate what is possible, which is ridiculous. Do you also conclude that Christ can only reign during the thousand years and not after the thousand years then?

No one can possibly still do that during satan's little season, assuming that is when they are initially saved.

I could use similar logic that you're using here to conclude that Christ only reigns during the thousand years and no other time. Do you think that's a reasonable conclusion? I sure don't.

And since salvation is connected with the first resurrection, and that the first resurrection is connected with living and reigning with Christ a thousand years, and if you then think someone can be saved during satan's little season, maybe I have been wrong about you all along, in that case. Even though I might not agree with you about everything, I at least found you being reasonable for the most part.

I am reasonable. You are not being reasonable. YOu are not even thinking about the fact that the kind of reasoning you're using here would lead us to conclude that Jesus only reigns during the thousand years even though scripture says He will reign up until the last enemy, death, is defeated, and I'm sure you agree that will occur after the thousand years which means He reigns even after the thousand years is over. He just doesn't reign with Satan being bound at the same time at that point.

Nothing remotely resembling anyone being reasonable about things if they are insisting someone can still be saved during satan's little season, based on what I have been arguing.

Wrong. You just think you can say anything and it's true. Ridiculous. Your thinking is always far too narrow. You never look at the big picture.

If you at least understood my arguments rather than insisting I don't even understand what Amils believe, which is a lie on your part to begin with, maybe we can get somewhere for once.

It's not a lie that you don't understand much about what Amils believe. You prove that over and over again by misrepresenting Amil. You are delusional if you think you know what we believe more than we do, so we know when you're misrepresenting our view and it happens often.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Calm down bro. I was talking about Davidpt. I'm not sure how you could possibly think I was talking about you. Please amend your last post.

That same lack of attention to detail is the reason why he believes some things that are not true.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Is there anyone that we have explain this in more detail to than him? I don't think so. He knows what we believe.

Again, it's fine if you believe that, and it could be true, but I think because he is so biased towards Premill that he just does not understand some of what we believe. It seems that he doesn't even try to look at things from our perspective. That's how I see it. Regardless, we agree that he misrepresents Amil often and he tries to deny that, which is ridiculous. As if he can try to tell us what we believe instead of us telling him what we believe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL. Stop telling us what we believe. We can speak for ourselves. You're the last person I would have articulate the Amil position on this forum.

Absolutely agree. It's just completely unbelievable that he thinks he understsands Amil more than Amils do and can speak for us. You can't get any more ludicrous than that. As if we don't fully understand what we believe and need him to tell us what we believe? LOL. Unreal.

You're always misrepresenting it.

And he denies this. As if we somehow don't know when our view is being misrepresented. How can anyone think that way? It's just ridiculous.

The Bible makes it clear that Christ is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

Right. But, will he address that belief from our perspective? No. He tries to force his understanding of the first resurrectoin onto our view and then concludes that our claims can't be true because of his understanding of the first resurrection. Well, no kidding. That's because our view is not based on his understanding of the first resurrection.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You just don't comprehend the points I am trying to make. I'm not misrepresenting anybody. If anyone is misrepresenting anyone, it is you misrepresenting me.

David, how can you think that you understand Amil as well or even better than Amils do? That is completely delusional on your part. Do you think you can't recognize when someone is misrepresenting your view? I'm sure you can, right? Well, so can we. You might not see how you are doing it, but you are. We know what we believe and we know when someone is representing our view correctly or not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What is the logic in satan attacking his own people?

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.

Look what the text says.

Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Especially in light of this.

Mark 3:24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

If satan is the one behind all of the above, obviously he would be hoping to hurt men which have the seal of God in their foreheads, and not men which don't.

Where does it say he wouldn't want to do that? Nowhere. He is just not allowed to. Who do you think is giving the command there? It's God. God is the one in control and decides what can or can't be done.

Clearly then, God is the one behind what is happening here, not satan.

Wow, you do understand.

And besides, nowhere in Revelation 9 does it say satan is the king of this pit.

It says that Abaddon/Apollyon is the angel of the pit and is the king of the locusts. Do you understand that the locusts symbolically represent fallen angels (demons)? Who do the fallen angels have as their king? Satan. That's why they are called "his angels" in Revelation 12:9 and Matthew 25:41. The name Abaddon/Apollyon means "Destroyer" and describes a certain characteristic of Satan, which is that he is a destroyer. He prowls around like a lion seeking who he may devour or destroy.

Take the following, for instance.


Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


All of these are titles for satan. If Abaddon and Apollyon are also titles for satan, why weren't they mentioned here?

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?

Something else to keep in mind, especially for Amils. Nowhere in ch 9 does it say one way or the other where the king of the pit is. Just because the pit might have a king, that doesn't have to mean the king is locked away in the pit with these locusts.

LOL. As if their king would not be where they are. This argument is weak, at best.

Amils, or at least some Amils, assume the king is locked in the pit with these locusts, and that this king is satan. Once again, what is the logic in satan coming out of the pit then tormenting, via these locusts, his own people, the unsaved? That is nonsensical no matter how you look at it.

You always make these bold claims without even really thinking things through. Why do you do that? See what I said above for why Satan would want his own people to be tormented. What happens to many people when they suffer? They get angry and bitter. If they believe in God, they get angry and bitter towards Him and think He doesn't care about them. Or their suffering could cause them to believe there is no God or else they wouldn't be suffering like they are. Clearly, that is exactly how Satan wants people to think.

Verse 4 says this---And it was commanded them. Who should we assume gave these orders? Obviously, satan didn't give these orders. As if it makes sense that satan would be giving out orders such as--- And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree--let alone what the remainder of that verse states. IOW, it is equally nonsensical if satan is the one that gave these orders.

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.

Maybe I just look at things wrong sometimes,

Yeah.

yet, in my mind, we have to at least use a little common sense before we decide how this should be understood, how that should be understood, etc. And the little common sense I might have tells me that Revelation 9 has zero to do with satan being behind any of these things.

How is it common sense to know that the other fallen angels besides Satan are considered to be "his angels" and to see that Abaddon/Apollyon is the king of the fallen angels, symbolically represented as locusts without concluding that Abaddon/Apollyon is just another name for Satan? Do the fallen angels have more than one king or is Satan their king? Clearly, Satan is, so Abaddon/Apollyon can't be some other being. That name simply is given to describe one particular characteristic of Satan, which is that he is a destroyer.

And I'm just going to have to come right out and say it. Only someone with doctrinal bias could possibly disagree with me here. Whether that person is Amil or Premil.

LOL. This is hilarious. You take offense whenever I show confidence in what I believe as if that means I'm being arrogant. Yet, look at you here. You say things like this often. No one without doctrinal bias can possibly disagree with you. Really? I alone prove that wrong. I'm not doctrinally biased or else I'd still be a Premill. It's very hypocritical of you to criticize someone else for showing confidence that what they believe is true when you make these kinds of blanket statements about your own beliefs all the time.

 

[Davidpt]

Ok. I’ll leave it as is as a reminder for you two and everyone else who may question my stand on amillennial position.

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.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Again denial!

Wow... LOL! Denial on full display!

You have no evidence to back up what you were saying and that's why this is all you can say in response. LOL! You can't get any more delusional than to insist that something is true while providing absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up. Jerusalem and its temple buildings were indeed destroyed with no stone left upon another in 70 AD. You have NOTHING to prove otherwise.

My view is a view based upon sound theology, not an assumption or a guess. It's a fact, which you would know if you bothered to get educated about what you are speaking of. Because anyone (even you) can go to Israel and see for themselves the stones of the city laid one on top of another that have stood the test of time.

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.

It's not even debatable that this is the truth.

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

Even the proponents of your doctrine aren't so foolish as to deny this.

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.

..instead, they take the tactic that "it doesn't matter," or "the city rebuilt with different stones", etc. because it really didn't literally mean not one stone.

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.

I don't know how you define things, but in my dictionary, something readily observable today would be called an indisputable fact seen with our own eyes.

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.

It's not History or something written by others hundreds of years ago by biased reprobates like Josephus. But this is the typical irrational responses we get when people cannot deny the words of scripture concerning things. And in this case, even the physical facts.

The games you typically play, don't really work with truth. They only work when people fail to receive truth, ignore the obvious, and twist scriptures. i.e., the scriptures say not one stone would be left standing one upon another. You "claim" to take that literally as Jerusalem, bt then you can'y overcome the contradiction. You cannot reconcile the fact that in fact there are stones left standing, and so you are frustrated and flustered so that you change the subject to attempt to distract from that fact, or digress into nonsense. What next?

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.

I know for a FACT that Christ did NOT weep for literal stones or for a physical city Jersuaalem, he wept for THE PEOPLE who were the allegorical stones and the city!

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.

Selah! It is "THEY" who would be brought to desolation or total ruin BY THEIR ABOMINATIONS, and laid even with the ground.

They were physically destroyed along with everything around them.

They would never be the representation of theholy city and the Kingdom of God EVER AGAIN, Matthew 21:43. When Christ died, that changed the Holy Temple representation from the Old Covenant Israel to the New Covenant Israel signified by Christ being the new way into the Holiest of Holies.

Hebrews 10:1921

• "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
• By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
• And having an high priest over the house of God."

The stones of the old Temple were the Jews, the cornerstone of it was Christ who was rejected and therefore those stones were thrown down. NOT PHYSICAL STONES! Hello?! The new stones of the Holy Temple are the people of the New Covenant with Israel. This true destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, the holy city, didn't occur in AD 70 as you believe, but at the cross! Period! And it was done by the death of Christ. Have you forgotten that when the Jews asked for a "SIGN" and Christ said "destroy the Temple and in 3 days I will raise it up", He gave them their sign! When the Temple veil was torn in two and the rocks rent, that "symbolized" a new and living way, a New Temple (a rebuilding, or as Biblically put, to "Build again" the city and sanctuary). And in order for the building again to take place, there would have to have been the ruin of the city and Temple before. Selah! That desolation of the city did take place! Not one stone was left one upon another in that city that had to be physical built again. It was by their abominations that the city was destroyed and the Kingdom was taken from them and given to another...IN THREE DAYS. Not 40 years later by Romans! DUH!

Regardless....I know, you'll be whining about how unloving and unchristian I am (in lieu of a Biblical retort). Better you put your nose into the Bible and reconcile your contradictions!

LOL. Wouldn't I have been criticizing you for that before now if I was going to do that. Yes, maybe I have done that before (long before at this point, though) and, yes, I am annoyed at your attitude at times, but whatever. It's all bluster. You think the more authoritative you can make yourself look, the more convincing you will be, which is ridiculous. I can overlook your rudeness. Let's just discuss the scriptures and not worry about hurt feelings.

 

[Davidpt]

LOL. Stop telling us what we believe. We can speak for ourselves. You're the last person I would have articulate the Amil position on this forum. You're always misrepresenting it. You have to. That's because you got no rebuttal to it. You don't have a clue about it.

The Bible makes it clear that Christ is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

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

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

 

[WPM]

Ok. I’ll leave it as is as a reminder for you two and everyone else who may question my stand on amillennial position.

Not the reaction I expected. Sad!

 

[WPM]

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

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

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.