The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

[Timtofly]

you're arguing about all of Scripture and don't even realize it, apparently.

Amil get all Scripture wrong because they call the second birth the first resurrection.

Are you saying when the thief on the Cross died, he was born into Paradise? Or was he resurrected into Paradise? When exactly was the thief born from above?

Premill would say he was born from above the second Jesus, "forgave him", and declared he had eternal life in Paradise. Then when the thief experienced his first death, he immediately experienced, his first resurrection into Paradise. The rest of the dead would not live again until the GWT. The thief was blessed because he experienced the first resurrection.

The first resurrection is not the second birth into the family of God. The first birth, first death, and first resurrection are physical. The second birth, second death are spiritual. A second resurrection would be if one got out of the LOF.

Amill and many Premill make resurrections chronological. They are not. There is only one resurrection and it is a type, physical. This physical resurrection has taken place, and will take place many times. John 5:24-25. Being born from above is submitting to the Holy Spirit, all must be born again, receive the second birth. Raised to walk in newness of life is figurative, a place holder. It is not literal. Being born from above does not give one a permanent incorruptible (without sin) physical body. That is the first, physical resurrection.

I think most realize the figurative nature of life. Yet Amil seem to forget the whole other real life process. In doing so they simply dismiss Revelation 20 as a literal event. It won't fit in their opinions of God's Word. Yet many have to do something with the chapter. They end up misinterpreting all other Scripture to maintain their bias of Revelation 20.

 

[PinSeeker]

Amil get all Scripture wrong because they call the second birth the first resurrection.

You're more than welcome to your opinion. Far be it from me to deprive you of that (as if I could do so anyway...).

Are you saying when the thief on the Cross died, he was born into Paradise? Or was he resurrected into Paradise? When exactly was the thief born from above?

Either on the cross, or sometime in his life previous to being crucified. We do not know when he became a believer, because we are not told; we merely know that He was ~ because of Jesus's reply when the thief asked Him to remember him (Luke 23:42). Actually, I think we can safely say it happened before that, maybe even well before that, because the thief on the right obviously believed in and feared God in view of his rebuking of the thief on Jesus's left in Luke 23:40-41.

Premill would say he was born from above the second Jesus, "forgave him", and declared he had eternal life in Paradise.

Like I said above, maybe, but probably well before Jesus's reply. Jesus didn't forgive the thief there, and we can probably take that as evidence that he had been forgiven before that point, possibly well before. So, I'm not really arguing with you here; we're on pretty much the same page, at least concerning this one thing. But just regarding his being born from above, yes, he was born again from above ~ raised from death in sin to life in Christ ~ indisputably a resurrection. So really, Timtofly, you're making my point for me here, I guess without even realizing it.

Then when the thief experienced his first death, he immediately experienced, his first resurrection into Paradise.

Disagree. See above. No one has experienced the physical resurrection as yet. Like Jesus said in John 5:28-29, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

The thief was blessed because he experienced the first resurrection.

I agree. And, like

The first resurrection is not the second birth into the family of God.

Yes it is. They are raised to newness of life, resurrected in Christ.

The first birth, first death, and first resurrection are physical. The second birth, second death are spiritual. A second resurrection would be if one got out of the LOF.

My goodness. <chuckles> Okay, let's look at this statement from the end and work backwards. Surely we agree (although maybe not, incredibly) that there is not getting out of the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15 says " if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire," and that's the end; there is no "getting out;" this is where those spoken of here spend eternity. These are the ones who follow Satan and his minions into this place of torment and remain there day and night forever and ever (Revelation 20:10). So this cannot be a second resurrection, because a.) they have already been resurrected physically (just prior to standing before Jesus and His great white throne, as we observe in Revelation 20:12), and b) there is no coming back, resurrection or otherwise, from the judgment issued there.

Now, working back through your assertion from there... What I think we should agree on is that the second (fill in the blank ~ birth/resurrection/death) is a total reversal of the first (fill in the blank ~ birth/resurrection/death). So, logically, that means:

• The first birth is physical (obviously; we agree on this); we are all born physically at some point in time...
• The first resurrection ~ being raised from death in our sin to newness of life in Christ Jesus... born again from above by the Holy Spirit... also the second birth) ~ is spiritual, happening sometime during the course of our physical lives; not all experience this first resurrection, as is easily seen from all of scripture, but most relevantly in this conversation in Revelation 20:5-6 ("This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection!"). And as I said, the first part of verse 5, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" is a statement of clear contrast to the ones who actually share in the first resurrection. The rest are not blessed and holy; they do not share in the first resurrection.
• The first death is physical (again, obviously); it is appointed to every man to die once (Hebrews 9:27)

• The second birth is spiritual, synonymous with (the same event as) the first resurrection ~ being raised from death in our sin to newness of life in Christ Jesus... born again from above by the Holy Spirit; only some experience this second birth (members of God's elect), and everyone else remains dead (spiritually) in their sin
• The second resurrection is physical and general in that it is experienced by all ~ Jesus refers to this resurrection clearly in John 5:28-29 as mentioned earlier ("an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment")
• The second death is spiritual, as they have already been raised/resurrected physically, which was the second resurrection, and is limited to only "the rest" of Revelation 20:5: "...those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

The second (fill in the blank) is a complete reversal ~ by God ~ of the first (fill in the blank).

There is only one resurrection and it is a type, physical.

Timtofly, that there is a "second resurrection" (Revelation 20:5) irrefutably suggests that there is a first resurrection; there cannot be a second without a first. Who's really denying or ignoring Revelation 20:5, my friend? That would seem to be you.

This physical resurrection has taken place, and will take place many times.

There can only be one physical resurrection. We are not raised physically and then re-raised physically (and then re-re, or re-re-re, or re-re-re-re-raised); such is ridiculous.

Being born from above is submitting to the Holy Spirit...

No, it's being given a new spirit and caused to walk in newness of life, and is a work of God, not of man. You did not somehow submit to your mother and father and somehow merit your physical birth, right? So it is with those who are born of the Spirit, Who, like the wind, comes and goes as He wishes. But yes, all must be born again, receive the second birth.

Raised to walk in newness of life is figurative, a place holder. It is not literal.

Oh, it's as literal as can be. Are you not a physical person, walking in newness of life?

Being born from above does not give one a permanent incorruptible (without sin) physical body.

Right, but as a result of this being born from above, the permanent, incorruptible, without-sin physical body is a future certainty. We are assured of this future reality.

That is the first, physical resurrection.

Nope. See above.

I think most realize the figurative nature of life.

Do you not have physical life right now, Timtofly? :) Are you a ghost?

Yet Amil seem to forget the whole other real life process.

Regardless of labels, we Christians have physical and spiritual life right now.

In doing so they simply dismiss Revelation 20 as a literal event.

Not at all.

Yet many have to do something with the chapter.

Well it's a part of God's infallible, inerrant Word, so we all have to do something with it... LOL! :)

They end up misinterpreting all other Scripture to maintain their bias of Revelation 20.

Well, then we can certainly agree that we both have that exact same thought about each other. :)

 

[Timtofly]

You're more than welcome to your opinion. Far be it from me to deprive you of that (as if I could do so anyway...).


Either on the cross, or sometime in his life previous to being crucified. We do not know when he became a believer, because we are not told; we merely know that He was ~ because of Jesus's reply when the thief asked Him to remember him (Luke 23:42). Actually, I think we can safely say it happened before that, maybe even well before that, because the thief on the right obviously believed in and feared God in view of his rebuking of the thief on Jesus's left in Luke 23:40-41.


Like I said above, maybe, but probably well before Jesus's reply. Jesus didn't forgive the thief there, and we can probably take that as evidence that he had been forgiven before that point, possibly well before. So, I'm not really arguing with you here; we're on pretty much the same page, at least concerning this one thing. But just regarding his being born from above, yes, he was born again from above ~ raised from death in sin to life in Christ ~ indisputably a resurrection. So really, Timtofly, you're making my point for me here, I guess without even realizing it.


Disagree. See above. No one has experienced the physical resurrection as yet. Like Jesus said in John 5:28-29, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."


I agree. And, like


Yes it is. They are raised to newness of life, resurrected in Christ.


My goodness. <chuckles> Okay, let's look at this statement from the end and work backwards. Surely we agree (although maybe not, incredibly) that there is not getting out of the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15 says " if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire," and that's the end; there is no "getting out;" this is where those spoken of here spend eternity. These are the ones who follow Satan and his minions into this place of torment and remain there day and night forever and ever (Revelation 20:10). So this cannot be a second resurrection, because a.) they have already been resurrected physically (just prior to standing before Jesus and His great white throne, as we observe in Revelation 20:12), and b) there is no coming back, resurrection or otherwise, from the judgment issued there.

Now, working back through your assertion from there... What I think we should agree on is that the second (fill in the blank ~ birth/resurrection/death) is a total reversal of the first (fill in the blank ~ birth/resurrection/death). So, logically, that means:

• The first birth is physical (obviously; we agree on this); we are all born physically at some point in time...
• The first resurrection ~ being raised from death in our sin to newness of life in Christ Jesus... born again from above by the Holy Spirit... also the second birth) ~ is spiritual, happening sometime during the course of our physical lives; not all experience this first resurrection, as is easily seen from all of scripture, but most relevantly in this conversation in Revelation 20:5-6 ("This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection!"). And as I said, the first part of verse 5, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" is a statement of clear contrast to the ones who actually share in the first resurrection. The rest are not blessed and holy; they do not share in the first resurrection.
• The first death is physical (again, obviously); it is appointed to every man to die once (Hebrews 9:27)

• The second birth is spiritual, synonymous with (the same event as) the first resurrection ~ being raised from death in our sin to newness of life in Christ Jesus... born again from above by the Holy Spirit; only some experience this second birth (members of God's elect), and everyone else remains dead (spiritually) in their sin
• The second resurrection is physical and general in that it is experienced by all ~ Jesus refers to this resurrection clearly in John 5:28-29 as mentioned earlier ("an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment")
• The second death is spiritual, as they have already been raised/resurrected physically, which was the second resurrection, and is limited to only "the rest" of Revelation 20:5: "...those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

The second (fill in the blank) is a complete reversal ~ by God ~ of the first (fill in the blank).

Timtofly, that there is a "second resurrection" (Revelation 20:5) irrefutably suggests that there is a first resurrection; there cannot be a second without a first. Who's really denying or ignoring Revelation 20:5, my friend? That would seem to be you.


There can only be one physical resurrection. We are not raised physically and then re-raised physically (and then re-re, or re-re-re, or re-re-re-re-raised); such is ridiculous.


No, it's being given a new spirit and caused to walk in newness of life, and is a work of God, not of man. You did not somehow submit to your mother and father and somehow merit your physical birth, right? So it is with those who are born of the Spirit, Who, like the wind, comes and goes as He wishes. But yes, all must be born again, receive the second birth.


Oh, it's as literal as can be. Are you not a physical person, walking in newness of life?


Right, but as a result of this being born from above, the permanent, incorruptible, without-sin physical body is a future certainty. We are assured of this future reality.


Nope. See above.

I think most realize the figurative nature of life.

Do you not have physical life right now, Timtofly? :) Are you a ghost?


Regardless of labels, we Christians have physical and spiritual life right now.


Not at all.


Well it's a part of God's infallible, inerrant Word, so we all have to do something with it... LOL! :)


Well, then we can certainly agree that we both have that exact same thought about each other. :)

I will stick with Jesus' Words in John 3.

You cannot call the second birth the first resurrection.

I know people just hate a physical experience in Paradise. I guess God will change your mind once you get there. You are currently not in Paradise, so you literally have not had a first resurrection.

 

[PinSeeker]

I will stick with Jesus' Words in John 3.

Well, me too, for sure. Our understandings are different, obviously.

You cannot call the second birth the first resurrection.

Well, I can, and I did.

What Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-10 ~ that "God... even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ... and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" ~ and what Peter says in 1 Peter 1:3-5 ~ we are "born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" ~ are both absolutely synonymous with what John says in Revelation 20:4-6 ~ that we "came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.... (t)his is the first resurrection". I well understand that you disagree, and we can leave it at that.

I know people just hate a physical experience in Paradise. I guess God will change your mind once you get there. You are currently not in Paradise, so you literally have not had a first resurrection.

LOL! Wow. You know there is something in Scripture about not calling unclean what God has made clean, right? :) So yeah, wow.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

What Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-10 ~ that "God... even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ... and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" ~ and what Peter says in 1 Peter 1:3-5 ~ we are "born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" ~ are both absolutely synonymous with what John says in Revelation 20:4-6 ~ that we "came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.... (t)his is the first resurrection". I well understand that you disagree, and we can leave it at that.

Actually John calls what happened in Revelation 20:4 the first resurrection. They came to life physically because they were physically beheaded, not spiritually beheaded.

Paul says we are born through the resurrection of Jesus. Paul never claims the Second birth is a resurrection. Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life. Without the Son of God, there would be no second birth.

Still a lack of defined proclamation that the second birth is the first resurrection.

Amil calling Revelation 20:4, Christ's resurrection in 30AD, is a man made, taught doctrine. It is not what John wrote at all. So yes, I disagree with human interpretation, that changes the meaning of the written Word of God.

Also when we accept the second birth, we are not physically sitting in Paradise. That will physically happen at the first resurrection, when the soul leaves Adam's flesh for God's permanent incorruptible physical body. Then we will physically be seated with Christ in Paradise. That is the first resurrection. The spiritual birth into the family of God is granted by the hope, or guarantee we have in the Holy Spirit, that while on earth, we have a physical place in Paradise waiting for us. You can call that spiritual while we are on earth. It will be physical once the soul leaves Adam's dead flesh.

 

[ewq1938]

This is going to make my list called, "Does Amillennialism understand the difference between being born again and being resurrected bodily from the dead?"



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.

Obviously Amillennialism ignores that these people were KILLED by being BEHEADED, so when John says they lived and reigned with Christ he is not describing them being born again in life ie: accepting Christ as Messiah and being saved. John is clearly describing what happened to a BORN AGAIN, SAVED Christian after they have been KILLED. There comes a time at the second coming when a BORN AGAIN, SAVED Christian will be bodily resurrected.

Amillennialism does not understand the difference between being born again and being bodily resurrected after bodily dying.

Well, me too, for sure. Our understandings are different, obviously.


Well, I can, and I did.

What Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-10 ~ that "God... even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ... and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" ~ and what Peter says in 1 Peter 1:3-5 ~ we are "born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" ~ are both absolutely synonymous with what John says in Revelation 20:4-6 ~ that we "came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.... (t)his is the first resurrection". I well understand that you disagree, and we can leave it at that.


LOL! Wow. You know there is something in Scripture about not calling unclean what God has made clean, right? :) So yeah, wow.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Actually John calls what happened in Revelation 20:4 the first resurrection.

That's... what I said. The rest of your post... we're going in circles. So enough, except... I just gotta call you on the carpet for this:

Still a lack of defined proclamation that the second birth is the first resurrection.

That you can't see it, or won't take it as it is, or whatever the case may be... it is what it is. You disagree. You're not alone. And that's... okay. :)

Amil calling Revelation 20:4, Christ's resurrection in 30AD, is a man made, taught doctrine.

Uh, what??? Amill says no such thing. Actually, I don't know of anyone to believe such a thing. Christ's resurrection is not in view in Revelation 20:4.

Also when we accept the second birth, we are not physically sitting in Paradise.

Agreed. Well, except for "accepting the second birth..." :) Having been given this new birth in the Spirit, it is what it is; all we can do is, you know, be inexpressibly grateful, right? But yes, we are no longer dead in our sin, but spiritually alive, and seated with Christ ~ not physically (yet) but in spirit ~ in the heavenly places, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace you have been saved ~ and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus..."

All these verbs are past tense, Timtofly. In writing to the Christians (who were obviously alive, else he would not be writing to them) in Ephesus, he was telling them ~ and all of us Christians today, by extension ~ that our having been made alive with Christ, raised up with Him (not "through Him") ~ is in the past. Peter does the same thing:

"According to (God's) great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead..."

Past tense.

That will physically happen at the first resurrection, when the soul leaves Adam's flesh for God's permanent incorruptible physical body. Then we will physically be seated with Christ in Paradise. That is the first resurrection.

Nope. The second, which is still to come. And it is general, as is everyone is physically raised, Just as Christ says in John 5:28-29:

"Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

Jesus actually alludes to both the first and the second resurrections in that very passage; I'll quote the whole thing:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." (John 5:25, emphasis mine; this is the first resurrection, and perfectly in line with what we see Paul and Peter saying immediately above) "For as the Father has life in himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And He has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:26-29, emphasis mine; verses 28 and 29 are together the second resurrection)

The spiritual birth into the family of God is granted by the hope, or guarantee we have in the Holy Spirit, that while on earth, we have a physical place in Paradise waiting for us.

Yeah, I... pretty much agree with this, although I might call it kind of a weird way of putting it. :) So, yes. :) But the physical for us will be here on earth, the new heaven and new earth, which will finally be one. This is after the second resurrection and the final Judgment, of course.

You can call that spiritual while we are on earth.

LOL! Well! Thank you so much for your gracious permission... :) Yes, we were once dead in our sin, but have been raised with Christ and are seated with Him in the heavenly places. But, of course, we are not in two places at one time... LOL!

Amillennialism does not understand the difference between being born again and being bodily resurrected after bodily dying.

LOL!

See above. Wow.

Grace and peace to both of you.

 

[WPM]

Amil get all Scripture wrong because they call the second birth the first resurrection.

Are you saying when the thief on the Cross died, he was born into Paradise? Or was he resurrected into Paradise? When exactly was the thief born from above?

Premill would say he was born from above the second Jesus, "forgave him", and declared he had eternal life in Paradise. Then when the thief experienced his first death, he immediately experienced, his first resurrection into Paradise. The rest of the dead would not live again until the GWT. The thief was blessed because he experienced the first resurrection.

The first resurrection is not the second birth into the family of God. The first birth, first death, and first resurrection are physical. The second birth, second death are spiritual. A second resurrection would be if one got out of the LOF.

Amill and many Premill make resurrections chronological. They are not. There is only one resurrection and it is a type, physical. This physical resurrection has taken place, and will take place many times. John 5:24-25. Being born from above is submitting to the Holy Spirit, all must be born again, receive the second birth. Raised to walk in newness of life is figurative, a place holder. It is not literal. Being born from above does not give one a permanent incorruptible (without sin) physical body. That is the first, physical resurrection.

I think most realize the figurative nature of life. Yet Amil seem to forget the whole other real life process. In doing so they simply dismiss Revelation 20 as a literal event. It won't fit in their opinions of God's Word. Yet many have to do something with the chapter. They end up misinterpreting all other Scripture to maintain their bias of Revelation 20.

There is one literal first resurrection where Christ defeated the grave. 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]

(Each of these issues have been presented in threads in various forums by people who believe in Amillennialism. These may or may not be held by every individual of that doctrine.)

Each person who believes in Amillennialism is a good person with good intent regarding scriptural interpretation but Premillennialism very much disagrees with their doctrine, their way of interpretation, and their exegesis of various scriptures. In this list you will see the many problems contained within Amillennialism.


1. Time no longer?

Revelation 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

The "time will stop existing" theory is based on misunderstanding some translations archaic wording. Here "time no longer" simply means there will no longer be a delay before certain events begin to occur not that time somehow actually stops.

Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Scripture never claims that time ends, in fact the eternity is never ending time with a new fruit on the tree of life every month (30 days of time).

Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

World here is AION which is an age or period of time. Usually it speaks of an everlasting period of time. Here the verse not only uses AION but adds "without end" to make clear that time never ends.

The King James Version interprets the passage correctly and in context: chronos ouketi estai – literally meaning: Time – no longer – there shall be’! Historists and Premils have to interpret chronos that way to fit their theology. The English phrase “end-times” cannot typically be found in most of our English translations but the original Greek phrase meaning that actually can. We find that in 1 Peter 1:20 for example. There it tells us of Christ: “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times [Gr. eschatos chronos] for you.”

The Greek word eschatos here simply means end, last, farthest or final. The Greek word chronos means time or times. A more common term in the New Testament is the phrase “the last days.” Also, “the end” is mentioned quite often and is carefully connected to the glorious, triumphant and climactic return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The day of salvation has been ongoing since the Fall (Isaiah 49:8 and 2 Corinthians 6:2). It is the “acceptable time” or “acceptable year” (Isaiah 49:8, 61:2, Luke 4:19) to be saved. “Today” is an age of grace the only day to respond to His voice (Hebrews 3:7-8, 4:7). There is no other day of hope after this day for salvation.

The second coming brings a close to the day of salvation. Repeated Scripture shows that now is the only day of salvation. After showing us the destruction of this earth, the works that are in it, the heavens, the elements when Jesus comes, and after describing the longsuffering of God in the days of Noah before the destruction of all the wicked, Peter responds to the mockers scoffing at the apparent delay in Christ's return: “the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). See also Romans 2:4. He was reaffirming that salvation is limited to this side of the second coming. A sign of the end is that the Gospel must “be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). The second coming brings the curtain down on the great commission. Once the ark door closes it is too late (Matthew 25:10-13, 28:19-20 and Act 3:19-21).

The age to come has no room for "mortals" (Luke 20:34-36, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 and Revelation 21-22) or the unregenerate (Psalm 37:9-11, Luke 17:26-30, 1 Corinthians 6:9, I Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

John 6:39-44, 54, John 11:21-27, John 12:48, Ephesians 1:10 and Revelation 10:5-7 would seem to suggest that time reaches its fullness at the climactic return of Christ. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Luke 20:34-36, Acts 3:19-21, Romans 8:19-23, 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 ,1 Peter 1:3-5 and Revelation 21:1-5) all show that the end of the bondage of corruption occurs when Jesus comes. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

1 Corinthians 13:12, Ephesians 4:13 and Revelation 10:5-7 show that the curtain coming down on the mystery of God, thus confirming we are at the end of time and entering into eternity when all will finally be revealed. This would be a strong argument to me that the second coming is “the end.”

Repeated Scripture locates the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new heavens and earth and incorruption at the second coming. Job 14:12-14, Isaiah 13:9-11, Isaiah 34:1-4, 8, Isaiah 65:17-21, Isaiah 66:22-24, Joel 2:3, Joel 2:10-11, Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 24:29-30, Matthew 24:35-44, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27, Romans 8:18-23, 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 6:13-17, Revelation 16:15-20, Revelation 19:11-16 and Revelation 20:11-15 shows us that this occurs at the second coming. This is indeed the end of time, the end of corruption, the end of the wicked, the end of sin, the end of death, the end for the devil. It is the beginning of eternity. It is the beginning of perfection. It is the beginning of incorruption. It is the beginning of a new arrangement.

It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.

 

[Timtofly]

Past tense

Of course the physical resurrection is past tense. Why do many here put it off to the future?

 

[PinSeeker]

Of course the physical resurrection is past tense.

Jesus's is, yes, absolutely. And His makes ours a certainty.

But now you're taking my previous post wholly out of context (with regard to what I said regarding both Paul's and Peter's past tense verbiage). Which is... not surprising... that being a well-established pattern of yours... :)

Why do many here put it off to the future?

Have you been physically resurrected yet, Timtofly? No, and neither have I. And neither has any previously deceased person (except for Jonah, Lazarus, and Jairus's daughter, who still have not been permanently resurrected, physically speaking). If anyone claims otherwise, one has to wonder what color the skies are in his/her world... :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

There is one literal first resurrection where Christ defeated the grave. 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).

So were the OT redeemed. They had a first physical resurrection to permanent incorruptible physical bodies at the Cross. They were taken out of Abraham's bosom and the firstfruits along with Jesus. They are in Christ as much as all since the Cross.

I am not arguing that Jesus was not. That is a false accusation while Amil are avoiding the fact that the OT redeemed are. All of Christianity knows about Jesus' part in the Resurrection and the Life. That is about all that Amil have, to constantly deny the fact that Revelation 20:4-6 has not happened yet.

There are hundreds of verses in Scripture other than Revelation 20:4-6 that declares what Amil are saying. Revelation 20:4-6 is not one of them.

"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. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

These verses are talking about humanity lost and redeemed. This is not talking about the death and resurrection of Jesus in the first century one bit. Not even figuratively. Jesus does not rule and reign with Christ. Jesus is not "the blessed". Jesus is God. Jesus is not even sitting in judgment. Jesus was not beheaded for the witness of Jesus. This is a future event, not the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in the first century.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus's is, yes, absolutely. And His makes ours a certainty.

But now you're taking my previous post wholly out of context (with regard to what I said regarding both Paul's and Peter's past tense verbiage). Which is... not surprising... that being a well-established pattern of yours... :)


Have you been physically resurrected yet, Timtofly? No, and neither have I. And neither has any previously deceased person (except for Jonah, Lazarus, and Jairus's daughter, who still have not been permanently resurrected, physically speaking). If anyone claims otherwise, one has to wonder what color the skies are in his/her world... :)

Grace and peace to you.

Because none of your post deals with my point.

Lazarus was given a permanent incorruptible physical body. He was dead over 4 days. The other people brought back had near death experiences.

Lazarus was dead longer than Jesus' body was in the tomb. Jesus did not have to prove that to you living 1990+ years later. Jesus made a statement of proof to those religious leaders who were about to sacrifice the next two generations of Jews in their hatred of God being on earth.

Your belief system is not relevant as much as you keep trying to make it so.

My pattern is to avoid what is not God's Word and focus on what is. Most Amil here have a pattern of just calling my post nonsense and avoidance. I am not pushing any taught theology or eschatology. Just pointing out God's Word were human opinion has changed the meaning of the text, and interpretation has replaced God's Word. Of course that is going to go against established doctrine taught by man.

Even if I do try to post how Amil understanding comes across, it is defined as misquoting the poster.

 

[PinSeeker]

...none of your post deals with my point.

Right, because at least many, if not all, your previous "points" are not really points at all, Biblically speaking. Most of what I said was in fact redirections of your "points" to what the Biblical points really are.

Lazarus was given a permanent incorruptible physical body.

Then why did he subsequently die? No need to answer this rhetorical question; it was designed to show the absurdity of your assertion here.

The other people brought back had near death experiences.

LOL! So in all cases, the people around them didn't really know what death was/is? Again, a rhetorical question designed to show the absurdity of your assertion here.

Lazarus was dead longer than Jesus' body was in the tomb.

Quite irrelevant.

Your belief system is not relevant as much as you keep trying to make it so.

I'm pretty sure I have said this before, but far be it from me to deprive you of your opinion (as if I could do so anyway). Regarding "belief systems," they are always relevant as long as people hold them (and some even beyond), but many are out of touch with or unhinged from reality and thus... wrong. :)

Most Amil here have a pattern of just calling my post nonsense and avoidance.

Right. It is what it is.

My pattern is to avoid what is not God's Word and focus on what is.

Well, it certainly seems your intentions are good... :)

I am not pushing any taught theology or eschatology.

LOL!

Just pointing out God's Word were human opinion has changed the meaning of the text, and interpretation has replaced God's Word.

In... your opinion, based on your... interpretation. :)

Even if I do try to post how Amil understanding comes across, it is defined as misquoting the poster.

Well, no, but putting words in Amillennialists' mouths, which they never would have said, for the most part. This is commonly called demagoguery in many cases and strawman argument in others (or both), but above and beyond both, either error or dishonesty or both in all cases.

Okay, I'm gracefully removing myself from this... rather absurd... "conversation." Grace and peace to you.

 

[Keraz]

It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.

But that is not how Revelation 20 reads.
Jesus Returns, then He reigns as King of the world for the next thousand years. Then comes the end and the final Judgment. Rev 20:11-15
It is Jesus' reward, Psalms 2:6-9, the fulfillment of His mission to the world, the rightful ruler on Davids throne.
At the end of the thousand years, He will hand the Kingdom back to the Father. 1 Corinthians 15:24-25......For He is destined to reign....

 

[WPM]

But that is not how Revelation 20 reads.
Jesus Returns, then He reigns as King of the world for the next thousand years. Then comes the end and the final Judgment. Rev 20:11-15
It is Jesus' reward, Psalms 2:6-9, the fulfillment of His mission to the world, the rightful ruler on Davids throne.
At the end of the thousand years, He will hand the Kingdom back to the Father. 1 Corinthians 15:24-25......For He is destined to reign....

You explain away every climatic Scripture by your misplaced understanding of one highly symbolic chapter in the most figurative setting in Scripture.

 

[farouk]

You explain away every climatic Scripture by your misplaced understanding of one highly symbolic chapter in the most figurative setting in Scripture.

Hi @Paul Malcomson I think it's healthy to seek quietly and consistently to continue stedfastly in Acts 2.42 activities: "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

 

[Timtofly]

Right, because at least many, if not all, your previous "points" are not really points at all, Biblically speaking. Most of what I said was in fact redirections of your "points" to what the Biblical points really are.


Then why did he subsequently die? No need to answer this rhetorical question; it was designed to show the absurdity of your assertion here.


LOL! So in all cases, the people around them didn't really know what death was/is? Again, a rhetorical question designed to show the absurdity of your assertion here.


Quite irrelevant.


I'm pretty sure I have said this before, but far be it from me to deprive you of your opinion (as if I could do so anyway). Regarding "belief systems," they are always relevant as long as people hold them (and some even beyond), but many are out of touch with or unhinged from reality and thus... wrong. :)


Right. It is what it is.


Well, it certainly seems your intentions are good... :)


LOL!


In... your opinion, based on your... interpretation. :)


Well, no, but putting words in Amillennialists' mouths, which they never would have said, for the most part. This is commonly called demagoguery in many cases and strawman argument in others (or both), but above and beyond both, either error or dishonesty or both in all cases.

Okay, I'm gracefully removing myself from this... rather absurd... "conversation." Grace and peace to you.

Your assertions being no less absurd. From God's standpoint more so.

 

[Timtofly]

You explain away every climatic Scripture by your misplaced understanding of one highly symbolic chapter in the most figurative setting in Scripture.

This is hardly an argument. More like an excuse.

Sin is brought to climatic end. We get it.

 

[ewq1938]

33. Who binds and imprisons satan in the pit?


Amillennialism sometimes teaches that Christ binds and imprisons Satan in the pit but is that accurate?


Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Revelation 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.


Revelation 12 proves satan is upon the Earth and cannot return to heaven so his binding is here upon the Earth where the pit is said to be located. The pit is a spiritual place not a geographic place but is said to be in the vicinity of the Earth because to get to the pit an angel must leave heaven and come to the Earth.


Christ could not be the one to bind Satan because Christ would have to leave heaven to accomplish that which would have been a second coming. Since we know he only returns one final time since leaving we know it was indeed an actual angel which bound satan. Anyone that believes Christ bound Satan accidentally believes in a second and a third coming because that's the only way Christ could have bound satan himself.