Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How can Amil be true in light of Rev 13, 17. and 20:4?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How can Amil be true in light of Rev 13, 17. and 20:4?

    Part 1...

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


    I want us to focus on one thing in particular here, meaning this....nd I saw the souls of them...which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

    The first thing that can't be denied, these are martyred because of this beast before satan is ever loosed from the pit. The next thing that can't be denied, these are martyred during the 42 month reign of the beast recorded in Rev 13. In order for them to even be martyred because of this beast, it requires a number of things that have to come to pass first.

    Such as...a beast has to rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. Where one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed.

    Followed by another beast rising out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

    Until all of this happens first, there cannot be any martyrs recorded in Rev 20:4, who are martyred for refusing to worship the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands.

    Rev 17 further proves this.

    Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.


    Clearly, this is meaning the same beast seen rising out of the sea in Rev 13:1.

    As to this beast, here's some more info concerning it.

    Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

    Let's break this down like such.

    A) The beast that thou sawest was

    B) and is not

    C) and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit


    When John received these visions, what was the status of this beast at the time? Was it not B)? If C) means it shall ascend out of the pit, shouldn't B) mean it's in the pit at the time, and that A) means before it ended up in the pit?


    Since the OP is already getting lengthy, therefore I will continue the rest of the OP in post 2.


  • #2
    The OP continued....



    With the following still in mind...

    A) The beast that thou sawest was

    B) and is not

    C) and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit


    Let's now focus on the martyrs recorded in Rev 20:4 who are martyred because of this beast prior to satan even being released from the pit. To take it a step further, when they are martyred because of this beast, is satan even in the pit at the time himself? The answer has to be no. When does Scripture record satan not in the pit? Isn't it before and after the thousand years? Obviously, when these are martyred because of this beast, that also being when satan himself is not in the pit, well it can't be meaning after the thousand years if they have already been martyred beforehand, now can it? Therefore, the only place their martyrdom fits is before the thousand years begin. Either A), B), or C) above proves this.

    If B) above is meaning during John's day when John received these visions, and that the beast would have been in the pit at the time, it is ludicrous to think they are martyred during B) when the beast is not. Anyone that might want to dispute that sounds like one someone is not going to be able to reason with.

    This indicates it's either during A) or C) when they are martyred. If B) is meaning during John's day when he received these visions, A) has to be meaning a time prior to John having these visions, and that C) has to be meaning a time post John seeing these visions.

    If it can't be during B) when they are martyred, and if it can't be during A) when they are martyred, because this would place the 42 month reign as having been fulfilled prior to John having these visions, we then have no choice but to accept that it is during C) when they are martyred. This indicates before the thousand years have even begun, a beast has already risen out of the sea, another out of the earth, and together they cause the martyrdom recorded in Rev 20:4 having to do with not worshiping this beast.

    So how is it that Amils can still claim that Amil is the correct position when the 42 month reign of the beast has already come and gone, not only before satan is released from the put, but also before he is even cast into the pit? According to Scriptures it is the 42 month reign of the beast that precedes the 2nd coming. Everything submitted above will only work with Premil and certainly not with Amil instead.

    Would Amils dare claim that it's either during A) or B) and not during C), when these martyrs in question per Rev 20:4 are martyred, then be expected to be taken seriously? I don't think they would, yet you never know.

    Comment


    • #3
      Jesus debunked the Pharisees millennial doctrine meaning there is no millennium. He brought the kingdom with him per Daniel. But only the born-again can see it, even now. So you need to adjust Revelation to this and not to the Pharisee's version.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by divaD View Post
        The OP continued....


        Would Amils dare claim that it's either during A) or B) and not during C), when these martyrs in question per Rev 20:4 are martyred, then be expected to be taken seriously? I don't think they would, yet you never know.
        Hey Dave!!

        The hurdle with amillennialism is this... while all prophecy given in the Bible, that has been fulfilled, was fulfilled in the physical, the Amil theology sets on a belief that all 'un'fulfilled prophecy in the Bible will not ever again, be fulfilled in the physical.

        I'll be praying that the scriptures are discussed :-)

        --
        Slug1--out

        ~"In the turmoil of any chaos, all it takes is that whisper that is heard like thunder over all the noise and the chaos seems to go away, focus returns and we are comforted in knowing that God has listened to our cry for help."~

        ~John 6:62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?~ (Jesus is Eternal - existed before becoming a man)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dave L View Post
          Jesus debunked the Pharisees millennial doctrine meaning there is no millennium. He brought the kingdom with him per Daniel. But only the born-again can see it, even now. So you need to adjust Revelation to this and not to the Pharisee's version.
          Care to post some scripture in support of your discussion point?
          --
          Slug1--out

          ~"In the turmoil of any chaos, all it takes is that whisper that is heard like thunder over all the noise and the chaos seems to go away, focus returns and we are comforted in knowing that God has listened to our cry for help."~

          ~John 6:62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?~ (Jesus is Eternal - existed before becoming a man)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Slug1 View Post

            Care to post some scripture in support of your discussion point?
            You must find where Jesus taught a millennial kingdom in the gospels. Or anywhere in the epistles. It's not there. Jesus brought the kingdom with him. But since it is spiritual only the born-again can see it. By his description of the kingdom, he refuted the Pharisee's millennial kingdom of sight, teaching instead that it was an invisible kingdom of faith.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Dave L View Post

              You must find where Jesus taught a millennial kingdom in the gospels. Or anywhere in the epistles. It's not there. Jesus brought the kingdom with him. But since it is spiritual only the born-again can see it. By his description of the kingdom, he refuted the Pharisee's millennial kingdom of sight, teaching instead that it was an invisible kingdom of faith.
              Thank you for your response that so far, avoids provision of an answer. Meaning, I am not able to discuss what you are trying to point out.

              See the part I bolded of your post?

              Refuting a teaching requires words... what scriptures would I go too, to confirm what you are saying?

              Also, so you know, "if" you provide an answer, I will end up going to scripture that the Pharisee's didn't have available to support what they believed, hmmm.
              --
              Slug1--out

              ~"In the turmoil of any chaos, all it takes is that whisper that is heard like thunder over all the noise and the chaos seems to go away, focus returns and we are comforted in knowing that God has listened to our cry for help."~

              ~John 6:62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?~ (Jesus is Eternal - existed before becoming a man)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Dave L View Post
                Jesus debunked the Pharisees millennial doctrine meaning there is no millennium. He brought the kingdom with him per Daniel. But only the born-again can see it, even now. So you need to adjust Revelation to this and not to the Pharisee's version.
                IOW, you are unable to actually prove the OP is wrong by going through what I submitted, explaining why those conclusions are wrong, then providing the correct conclusions instead. If mere opinions alone could prove or disprove something, why are some of us even wasting our time trying to prove or disprove something the hard way?

                How do you suppose that the beast that was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, caused the martyrdom recorded in Rev 20:4, if it was in the pit at the time. meaning when it is not? Obviously, it has to ascend out of the pit first. And the fact these martyrs recorded in Rev 20:4 are already martyred because of this same beast before the thousand years even expires, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it already ascended out of the pit some time prior to the expiration of the thousand years. Would it ascend out of the pit during the thousand years? No. That indicates that when it ascends out of the pit initially, it's before the thousand years even begin.

                The chronology of events are then this...the 42 month reign of the beast from start to finish, where during that period of time the martyrs in question per Rev 20:4 are martyred, followed by the thousand years, followed by satan's little season. Good luck making that work with Amil. But it does work with Premil just fine, though. Because per Premil there is a 2nd coming of Christ that fits after the 42 month reign of the beast and before the beginning of the thousand years. Premil then agrees with the texts involved since Premil would have the 42 month reign of the beast being followed by the 2nd coming, and Amil wouldn't.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by divaD View Post

                  IOW, you are unable to actually prove the OP is wrong by going through what I submitted, explaining why those conclusions are wrong, then providing the correct conclusions instead. If mere opinions alone could prove or disprove something, why are some of us even wasting our time trying to prove or disprove something the hard way?

                  How do you suppose that the beast that was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, caused the martyrdom recorded in Rev 20:4, if it was in the pit at the time. meaning when it is not? Obviously, it has to ascend out of the pit first. And the fact these martyrs recorded in Rev 20:4 are already martyred because of this same beast before the thousand years even expires, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it already ascended out of the pit some time prior to the expiration of the thousand years. Would it ascend out of the pit during the thousand years? No. That indicates that when it ascends out of the pit initially, it's before the thousand years even begin.

                  The chronology of events are then this...the 42 month reign of the beast from start to finish, where during that period of time the martyrs in question per Rev 20:4 are martyred, followed by the thousand years, followed by satan's little season. Good luck making that work with Amil. But it does work with Premil just fine, though. Because per Premil there is a 2nd coming of Christ that fits after the 42 month reign of the beast and before the beginning of the thousand years. Premil then agrees with the texts involved since Premil would have the 42 month reign of the beast being followed by the 2nd coming, and Amil wouldn't.
                  It's just that there is no millennium. The Pharisees invented the doctrine and Jesus refuted it with his spiritual kingdom teaching.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Slug1 View Post
                    Hey Dave!!

                    The hurdle with amillennialism is this... while all prophecy given in the Bible, that has been fulfilled, was fulfilled in the physical, the Amil theology sets on a belief that all 'un'fulfilled prophecy in the Bible will not ever again, be fulfilled in the physical.

                    I'll be praying that the scriptures are discussed :-)
                    Where's Ezekiel's temple? If all was fulfilled physically? Elijah? etc., etc.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Dave L View Post

                      You must find where Jesus taught a millennial kingdom in the gospels. Or anywhere in the epistles. It's not there. Jesus brought the kingdom with him. But since it is spiritual only the born-again can see it. By his description of the kingdom, he refuted the Pharisee's millennial kingdom of sight, teaching instead that it was an invisible kingdom of faith.
                      I agree with you Jesus didn't teach a literal millennial kingdom either did any NT writer and it is spiritual but I wouldn't go so far as to say that if you can't see it your not born again if that's what you mean.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dave L View Post

                        Where's Ezekiel's temple? If all was fulfilled physically? Elijah? etc., etc.
                        Thank you for your response but you continue to say words that cannot be discussed. If you post the scriptures and then point out how you interpret the verses, then discussion can happen.
                        --
                        Slug1--out

                        ~"In the turmoil of any chaos, all it takes is that whisper that is heard like thunder over all the noise and the chaos seems to go away, focus returns and we are comforted in knowing that God has listened to our cry for help."~

                        ~John 6:62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?~ (Jesus is Eternal - existed before becoming a man)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by marty fox View Post

                          I agree with you Jesus didn't teach a literal millennial kingdom either did any NT writer and it is spiritual but I wouldn't go so far as to say that if you can't see it your not born again if that's what you mean.
                          “Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’.” John 3:3 (NCPB) Now it is true the disciples were born again but had been indoctrinated with the Millennium teaching of the Pharisees. But by time Peter preached the gospel of the kingdom in Acts 2, they knew the truth about the spiritual kingdom and it's presence at that time.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by marty fox View Post

                            I agree with you Jesus didn't teach a literal millennial kingdom either did any NT writer and it is spiritual but I wouldn't go so far as to say that if you can't see it your not born again if that's what you mean.
                            Then you should have no trouble pointing out in the OP all of the wrong conclusions I came to, then explaining why they are wrong conclusions, followed by you then providing the correct conclusions. Your post here is no different that DaveL's posts. Your post is mere opinion as well. It proves or disproves zero. If Amil is the correct position, then Amils need to show how the beast that was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the pit, can ascend out of the pit before the thousand years even begin, in order to cause the martyrdom recorded in Rev 20:4, and still fit Amil rather than fit Premil instead.

                            If Amils are truly correct that Amil is the correct position, then Amils should easily be able to debunk the OP by showing how and why any of those conclusions are wrong, then provide the correct conclusions in their place.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              What Amils can't seem to grasp is this. The 42 month reign of the beast does not occur during the thousand years, nor after the thousand years, it occurs before the thousand years.

                              Let's think this through, assuming Amil for a moment. Per Amil, they have the beginning of the thousand years occurring around the time of the cross, or maybe around the time of the ascension, depending on which Amil you are conversing with. As to the visions John saw, involving the book of Revelation, those visions were after the time of the cross, therefore indicating, that before John even had these visions, and before anyone was even aware of this thousand years in particular, John was already living in these thousand years, that according to Amil.

                              With all of that still in mind, there is still this deal with the beast that was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the pit, that needs to be factored in here. Pretty much everyone agrees, that when John was given these visions, the status of this beast at the time was that it is not, meaning it was in the pit at the time.

                              If Rev 20:4 records that there are martyrs because of this same beast before the thousand years expires, plain common sense at least tells us this beast has to ascend out of the pit first, in order to even be responsible for their martyrdom.

                              And if Amils place the thousand years around the time of the cross, and the fact that the 42 month reign precedes the thousand years, though Amils deny that, this indicates, per Amil, that this places the 42 month reign of the beast during a time when it is not, and not during a time when it has ascended out of the pit first. Amils try and get around this by illogically claiming that the 42 month reign of the beast is not before the thousand years like Scripture clearly proves, it is instead after the thousand years, which then makes nonsense out of the martyrs recorded in Rev 20:4, the fact they have already been martyred during the 42 month reign of the beast before satan's little season even begins.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X