The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

[GEN2REV]

On the contrary, Pre-mil does not ignore the rest of the New Testament. That's how Premillenniists get to Pre-millennialism.

Here are some of the things Amillennialists ignore:

In Genesis chapter 3, we read of how Satan appeared in the Garden of Eden to beguile mankind, and this took place even during the sabbath rest of God (which is in Christ, the Creator), and it took place while Adam and Eve were living forever after God had breathed life into Adam, and Adam had become a living soul.

Revelation 12:9 calls Satan "the great dragon" and "the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world."

Satan's deception of the nations is also mentioned in Revelation chapter 20:

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.
3 And he cast him into the abyss and shut him up and set a seal on him, that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years should be fulfilled. And after that he must be loosed a little time.

In scripture Satan is called the god of this aion (Age) and prince of the power of the air who works in the sons of disobedience, who will give the beast and false prophet his seat, power and great authority. The saints are warned they should be weary of his wiles and are told to resist him, and to put on the full armour of God because we do not wrestle against flesh and blood (2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Ephesians 2:2; 1 Peter 5:8-9; Ephesians 6:11-12; Revelation 2:9-10 & Revelation 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; James 4:7).

Amillennialists ignore all the above facts and scriptures, which hardly speak of a devil whose already bound.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 and Ephesians 2:2 tell us about Satan's influence over the societies of this world, during this Age.

1 Peter 5:8-9; Ephesians 6:11-12; Revelation 2:9-10 & Revelation 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; James 4:7. tell us about Satan's activities in the world during this Age.

In Revelation chapters 12 through 13 we read about:

1. The dragon being cast out and cast down to earth when the woman's child had been caught up to God and His throne; and
2. The dragon going to war against the woman who had given birth to the Messiah the moment he saw he had been cast down to earth; and
3. When "the earth helped the woman", the dragon then going to war with "the rest of the woman's seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (for the rest of the Age), culminating in the beast and false prophet's war against the saints at the close of the Age (which is seen in Revelation 13:7 & Revelation 13:15).

There's no mention of Satan's binding there either, but Amillenniialists will invent one. I mean, "it's necessary to invent a reference to Satan's binding, so Revelation 12 is as good a place as any" (per Amillennialists).

He's only bound from deceiving the nations to war against God so all that was for nought.

 

[GEN2REV]

2 Peter 3:10 uses the same word for elements that is used in Galatians 4:9. You also ignore what the word eîta translated as "then" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 means when it is used elsewhere, such as in Mark 4:28, where it clearly does not mean following immediately after.

But you must ensure scripture aligns with Amillennial doctrine.

.. and then you throw accusations against the brethren left, right and center that you do not get from Jesus.

Where do you get your treasure-chest of accusations from?

There is no 1,000 year gap between 1 Corinthians 15:23-24. That is imaginary.

Your 'mischief' must twist and distort Scripture to fabricate even the flimsiest foundation for your make-believe doctrine that doesn't follow the Bible's rhythm one bit.

 

[GEN2REV]

How can I stall on answering my question to you that you can't answer?

That sleight of hand doesn't work on me.

 

[GEN2REV]

This resurrection is at the least 42 months after your works are judged and burned up.

So no, you are still going to be judged and your works still burned up. Kind of a nice verse to have around to throw insults at each other, no?

No, actually.

It's speaking of physical works of man; highways, buildings, infrastructure.

Wiped from the face of the world in a flash of justice.
2 Peter 3:10-11

That means the two of you; and all those who loveth and maketh a lie.

 

[Earburner]

No one would say that. Let me ask the same dumb question, Are YOU saying that John is not a beheaded martyr?

Yes, John indeed is a beheaded martyr of the early church, being A WITNESS to Jesus. And so also was Stephen a martyr, along with others like him of that era.
Since there is NO time limit on the Age of God's Grace, the potential for martyrdom is equally relative for all of God's Saints, until the Day that Jesus returns to redeem us unto Himself.

Unfortunately, Premils want to see martyrdom in a myopic view of only being in the "end time church", thereby wanting to forget all about the martyrdoms of the past 2000+/- years, as if how they were martyred doesn't matter, unless they were beheaded.

Stephen was a martyr, being stoned to death.
Therefore in God's eyes, is John's martyrdom more worthy, less worthy or equal to Stephen's martyrdom?
What makes martyrdom in the era of the endtime church more worthy than any other era of church history? It doesn't. All are equal.
List of Protestant martyrs of the English Reformation - Wikipedia

So again, here is my "relevant" guestion:
In which era of time, in this Age of God's Grace, did John and Stephen's martyrdom take place?
1. Early church, for the witness of Jesus.
2. Reformation church, for the word of God.
3. End time church, for not worshipping the beast.

 

[Timtofly]

For example if this verse is literal then what if a saint was killed by the beast in a different way wouldn’t they also rise and reign with Christ?

Who says Satan is chopping off heads? These are not martyrs.

Why would Satan want to send any one to a resurrection and eternal life reigning with Christ? Of course Satan wants them to starve to death with the mark, instead of cutting off their head to avoid the mark. How can one starve to death if they no longer have a head?

This argument that they need the mark just to eat is irrelevant once the head is cut off. People do not die of starvation to avoid the mark, they are beheaded to avoid the mark.

Seems to me, Satan would not want any one to chop their head off. Satan would not want any one resurrected at all. Satan wants people to reject God, not accept God. Satan wants death, not life. Satan does not nor really can go around killing any one just for the fun of it, nor seriously in mere eradication of human life. All Satan can do is deceive people into ending their life on their terms. During the 42 months of utter desolation, Satan does not change his mind. Seems to me Satan would be attempting to convince people not to chop their heads off. Take the easy way out and just receive a mark and enjoy this wicked life, as if that is all there is to existence. Why would Satan want any one to choose God, and chop their head off?

"them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God."

The sole purpose of chopping the head off was to declare there is God and a witness to the reality of Jesus Christ the Prince. So why would Satan want to declare God and witness for Jesus? Seems to me Satan would be actively trying to stop people from being beheaded. The less people around to worship him, is the farthest from his goal of having all worship him.

 

[Timtofly]

He's only bound from deceiving the nations to war against God so all that was for nought.

Obviously not the here and now. When have humans ever stopped killing each other over their views on God. You think killing humans is not an outright attack on God's will? God is not willing that any perish, yet constant war between humans directly goes against God's will and plan for humanity. You claim humans cannot have war if Satan is bound. Then history proves you are wrong, because war has been non stop since the Cross. If Satan was bound for that reason, God failed at binding Satan. Or your interpretation failed. My vote is that your interpretation failed, and Satan has never been bound yet to prevent war.

No, actually.

It's speaking of physical works of man; highways, buildings, infrastructure.

Wiped from the face of the world in a flash of justice.
2 Peter 3:10-11

That means the two of you; and all those who loveth and maketh a lie.

Cool. So you have no works at all. I agree with that 100%. You will just be judged with nothing to show, not even wood, hay, or stubble.

 

[Zao is life]

He's only bound from deceiving the nations to war against God so all that was for nought.

Nice try but it seems like you're used to making sure scripture comply with your Amillennialist theology.

In what book, chapter and verse in the New Testament does it say he's "only bound from deceiving the nations to war against God"?

 

[Zao is life]

That sleight of hand doesn't work on me.

You're obviously incapable of answering the question. How can you expect anyone to engage with you on a mature and serious level when these are the best type of remarks you can come up with?

What is it that the text in Revelation 20 associates with the word resurrection that you are unable to follow?

 

[Zao is life]

There is no 1,000 year gap between 1 Corinthians 15:23-24. That is imaginary.

Your 'mischief' must twist and distort Scripture to fabricate even the flimsiest foundation for your make-believe doctrine that doesn't follow the Bible's rhythm one bit.

OK. So you will ignore the meaning of the word translated as "then" when it suits your doctrine.

As I thought.

You're good at proving my case:

There is no 1,000 year gap between 1 Corinthians 15:23-24. That is imaginary.

Your 'mischief' must twist and distort Scripture to fabricate even the flimsiest foundation for your make-believe doctrine that doesn't follow the Bible's rhythm one bit.

Then [5119 tóte] they will deliver you up to be afflicted and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake. Matthew 24:9

05119
τότε tóte, tot'-eh
from (the neuter of) 3588 and 3753;
the when, i.e. at the time that (of the past or future, also in consecution):--that time, then.


.. then [1534 eîta] comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:24

01534
εἶτα eîta, i'-tah
of uncertain affinity;
a particle of succession (in time or logical enumeration), then, moreover:--after that(-ward), furthermore, then.
See also 1899.

But they have no root in themselves, but are temporary. Afterward [1534 eîta] when affliction or persecution arises for the Word's sake, they are immediately offended. Mark 4:17

For the earth brings out fruit of itself, first [04412 prōton] the blade, then [1534 eîta] the ear, after that [1534 eîta] the full grain in the ear. Mark 4:28

So because you choose to interpret the word "then" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 to mean the same thing that the word "then" means in Matthew 24:9 (even though there are different Greek words used for a reason) in order to force scripture to comply with your Amil theology, and because you choose to interpret the word "then" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 differently to the same Greek word used in Mark 4:17 and Mark 4:28 in order to force scripture to comply with your Amil theology, that gives you the right to falsely accuse me of doing what you are doing:

Your 'mischief' must twist and distort Scripture to fabricate even the flimsiest foundation for your make-believe doctrine that doesn't follow the Bible's rhythm one bit.

 

[Timtofly]

So again, here is my "relevant" guestion:
In which era of time, in this Age of God's Grace, did John and Stephen's martyrdom take place?
1. Early church, for the witness of Jesus.
2. Reformation church, for the word of God.
3. End time church, for not worshipping the beast.

4. Is John the Baptist the only soul currently reigning with Christ for an indefinite 1,000 years?

 

[GEN2REV]

You claim humans cannot have war if Satan is bound.

No. That's not what I said at all.

Cool. So you have no works at all. I agree with that 100%.

Where do your accusations come from?

 

[GEN2REV]

Nice try but it seems like you're used to making sure scripture comply with your Amillennialist theology.

Interesting that it always does, isn't it?

In what book, chapter and verse in the New Testament does it say he's "only bound from deceiving the nations to war against God"?

"...set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, ... shall be loosed ... And shall go out to deceive the nations ... to gather them together to battle: ..."
Revelation 20:3
Revelation 20:7-8

 

[GEN2REV]

What is it that the text in Revelation 20 associates with the word resurrection that you are unable to follow?

This is a Straw Man.

No need to respond to it.

 

[GEN2REV]

OK. So you will ignore the meaning of the word translated as "then" when it suits your doctrine.

As I thought.

You're good at proving my case.

If Pre-Mil's charade, that there could be a 1,000 year gap between two verses in a letter from Paul to the church of Corinthians, were true, it would throw all of Scripture into question, and into complete disarray.

God is not the author of confusion and your 'mischief' is of the father of lies.

 

[Zao is life]

Interesting that it always does, isn't it?"...set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, ... shall be loosed ... And shall go out to deceive the nations ... to gather them together to battle: ..."
Revelation 20:3
Revelation 20:7-8

The fact that you added "shall be loosed" to Revelation 16:12-16 in order to produce a book, chapter and verse where it says that Satan is currently bound so that he is unable to deceive the nations to gather them to battle is very, very telling. It speaks volumes about your dealing with scripture, whether honestly or (in the case of your post) dishonestly and disingenuously.

 

[Zao is life]

If Pre-Mil's charade, that there could be a 1,000 year gap between two verses in a letter from Paul to the church of Corinthians, were true, it would throw all of Scripture into question, and into complete disarray.

God is not the author of confusion and your 'mischief' is of the father of lies.

OK. So you will ignore the meaning of the word translated as "then" when it suits your doctrine.

As I thought.

You're good at proving my case:



Then [5119 tóte] they will deliver you up to be afflicted and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake. Matthew 24:9

05119
τότε tóte, tot'-eh
from (the neuter of) 3588 and 3753;
the when, i.e. at the time that (of the past or future, also in consecution):--that time, then.


.. then [1534 eîta] comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:24

01534
εἶτα eîta, i'-tah
of uncertain affinity;
a particle of succession (in time or logical enumeration), then, moreover:--after that(-ward), furthermore, then.
See also 1899.

But they have no root in themselves, but are temporary. Afterward [1534 eîta] when affliction or persecution arises for the Word's sake, they are immediately offended. Mark 4:17

For the earth brings out fruit of itself, first [04412 prōton] the blade, then [1534 eîta] the ear, after that [1534 eîta] the full grain in the ear. Mark 4:28

So because you choose to interpret the word "then" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 to mean the same thing that the word "then" means in Matthew 24:9 (even though there are different Greek words used for a reason) in order to force scripture to comply with your Amil theology, and because you choose to interpret the word "then" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 differently to the same Greek word used in Mark 4:17 and Mark 4:28 in order to force scripture to comply with your Amil theology, that gives you the right to falsely accuse me of doing what you are doing:

You insults, slurs, false accusations and disingenuous and blatantly dishonest dealing with scripture has exposed you.

I'd also suggest refraining from the insults, slurs and false accusations against me as well as I refrain from returning the same. It's not a reflection on me when you do this, but on yourself.

Then [5119 tóte] they will deliver you up to be afflicted and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake. Matthew 24:9

05119
τότε tóte, tot'-eh
from (the neuter of) 3588 and 3753;
the when, i.e. at the time that (of the past or future, also in consecution):--that time, then.


.. then [1534 eîta] comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:24

01534
εἶτα eîta, i'-tah
of uncertain affinity;
a particle of succession (in time or logical enumeration), then, moreover:--after that(-ward), furthermore, then.
See also 1899.

But they have no root in themselves, but are temporary. Afterward [1534 eîta] when affliction or persecution arises for the Word's sake, they are immediately offended. Mark 4:17

For the earth brings out fruit of itself, first [04412 prōton] the blade, then [1534 eîta] the ear, after that [1534 eîta] the full grain in the ear. Mark 4:28

So because you choose to interpret the word "then" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 to mean the same thing that the word "then" means in Matthew 24:9 (even though there are different Greek words used for a reason) in order to force scripture to comply with your Amil theology, and because you choose to interpret the word "then" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 differently to the same Greek word used in Mark 4:17 and Mark 4:28 in order to force scripture to comply with your Amil theology, that gives you the right to falsely accuse me of doing what you are doing:

 

[GEN2REV]

OK. So you will ignore the meaning of the word translated as "then" when it suits your doctrine.

As I thought.

You're good at proving my case:



Then [5119 tóte] they will deliver you up to be afflicted and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake. Matthew 24:9

05119
τότε tóte, tot'-eh
from (the neuter of) 3588 and 3753;
the when, i.e. at the time that (of the past or future, also in consecution):--that time, then.


.. then [1534 eîta] comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:24

01534
εἶτα eîta, i'-tah
of uncertain affinity;
a particle of succession (in time or logical enumeration), then, moreover:--after that(-ward), furthermore, then.
See also 1899.

But they have no root in themselves, but are temporary. Afterward [1534 eîta] when affliction or persecution arises for the Word's sake, they are immediately offended. Mark 4:17

For the earth brings out fruit of itself, first [04412 prōton] the blade, then [1534 eîta] the ear, after that [1534 eîta] the full grain in the ear. Mark 4:28

So because you choose to interpret the word "then" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 to mean the same thing that the word "then" means in Matthew 24:9 (even though there are different Greek words used for a reason) in order to force scripture to comply with your Amil theology, and because you choose to interpret the word "then" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 differently to the same Greek word used in Mark 4:17 and Mark 4:28 in order to force scripture to comply with your Amil theology, that gives you the right to falsely accuse me of doing what you are doing:

Many within your 'mischief' love to point out that context is everything.

If the nonsense, that you are struggling to support with extra-biblical sources, were even close to accurate, there would be very clear context around that verse to support it.

There is none.

"Context is everything!"

Right?

 

[GEN2REV]

The fact that you added "shall be loosed" to Revelation 16:12-16 in order to produce a book, chapter and verse where it says that Satan is currently bound so that he is unable to deceive the nations to gather them to battle is very, very telling. It speaks volumes about your dealing with scripture, whether honestly or (in the case of your post) dishonestly and disingenuously.

Revelation 20:7, num-nuts.

 

[Marty fox]

Who says Satan is chopping off heads? These are not martyrs.

Why would Satan want to send any one to a resurrection and eternal life reigning with Christ? Of course Satan wants them to starve to death with the mark, instead of cutting off their head to avoid the mark. How can one starve to death if they no longer have a head?

This argument that they need the mark just to eat is irrelevant once the head is cut off. People do not die of starvation to avoid the mark, they are beheaded to avoid the mark.

Seems to me, Satan would not want any one to chop their head off. Satan would not want any one resurrected at all. Satan wants people to reject God, not accept God. Satan wants death, not life. Satan does not nor really can go around killing any one just for the fun of it, nor seriously in mere eradication of human life. All Satan can do is deceive people into ending their life on their terms. During the 42 months of utter desolation, Satan does not change his mind. Seems to me Satan would be attempting to convince people not to chop their heads off. Take the easy way out and just receive a mark and enjoy this wicked life, as if that is all there is to existence. Why would Satan want any one to choose God, and chop their head off?

"them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God."

The sole purpose of chopping the head off was to declare there is God and a witness to the reality of Jesus Christ the Prince. So why would Satan want to declare God and witness for Jesus? Seems to me Satan would be actively trying to stop people from being beheaded. The less people around to worship him, is the farthest from his goal of having all worship him.

Sorry but I have no idea what your talking about I’m talking about Rev 20:4

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

I didn’t say satan I said the beast and so does this verse