The Doctrine of Millennialism is destroy by Personal Symbolizing of Scripture.

[Marty fox]

Then all animals and fish die there too? How about angels because they have flesh also. You are using a hyper literal approach there. Clearly in context it's all the flesh of the people brought to the area for that battle, not all flesh everywhere.

But it says horses too

Im not the one saying that’s it’s literal you guys are

 

[ewq1938]

But it says horses too

Im not the one saying that’s it’s literal you guys are

You are the one claiming "all flesh" means literally all flesh on the planet which clearly is not what the passage is claiming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

First it says all flesh so if literal it’s all flesh

Second your mistake is that you think the battle in chapter 16 is the same as the battle in chapter 19

So to stay true to scripture Rev 16 is the battle at Armageddon which is the kings and the beast destroying Babylon the great which is confirmed at the end of chapter 17

Rev 19 is a Jesus defeating and the beast and the false prophet

Two different battles with different combatants different outcomes and Armageddon isn’t mentioned in chapter 19 thus they are not the same events

I tend to see them the Battle of Armageddon and the 2nd Coming of Christ the same, although I have to admit--they sound different. I believe they are only the same due to its natural continuity in the narrative. Even more, biblically Christ comes back to destroy the Antichrist. And Antichrist is destroyed at Armageddon, or so it appears with judgments falling upon the kingdom of the Beast.

But there are certainly lots of breaks between visions, and I have to be honest and say I still don't feel I know, or be certain about, a lot of things. I'm not opposed to taking a stab at a particular view, as long as we stay open when the Lord shines a light at some future time.

 

[Marty fox]

You are the one claiming "all flesh" means literally all flesh on the planet which clearly is not what the passage is claiming.

That’s not what I’m claiming at all I’m say that if it’s literal then all flesh means all flesh

Im claiming that it’s symbolic for Jesus defeating all of His enemies over time with the sword of His mouth which is all powerful and the only weapon He needs

 

[Marty fox]

I tend to see them the Battle of Armageddon and the 2nd Coming of Christ the same, although I have to admit--they sound different. I believe they are only the same due to its natural continuity in the narrative. Even more, biblically Christ comes back to destroy the Antichrist. And Antichrist is destroyed at Armageddon, or so it appears with judgments falling upon the kingdom of the Beast.

But there are certainly lots of breaks between visions, and I have to be honest and say I still don't feel I know, or be certain about, a lot of things. I'm not opposed to taking a stab at a particular view, as long as we stay open when the Lord shines a light at some future time.

They are completely different as the text shows different combatants and different outcomes and different purposes.

You also have to separate the antichrist and the beast you even used both terms in the same sentence. Just like John describes the battles differently with different combatants and outcomes and purposes John also describes the antichrist and the beast different with different puposes

 

[Marty fox]

They are completely different as the text shows different combatants, different outcomes, different purposes and even different titles

You also need to separate the antichrist and the beast you even used both terms in the same sentence.

Just like John describes the battles differently with different combatants and outcomes and purposes and titles John also describes the characters of the antichrist and the beast differently with different names and even with different purposes

 

[ewq1938]

That’s not what I’m claiming at all I’m say that if it’s literal then all flesh means all flesh

And all flesh is not slain all over the world so your interpretation is wrong.

Im claiming that it’s symbolic for Jesus defeating all of His enemies over time with the sword of His mouth which is all powerful and the only weapon He needs

lol, except the fire Amills always claim is used. Rev 19 is a battle 66 miles from Jerusalem. It's not symbolic of Jesus defeating enemies through time. It's Jesus defeating CERTAIN enemies right there at that location on that one day.

 

[Adam]

I'm not really part of your discussion, but I found this point interesting. It is interesting to consider the difference between a simple parable and telling it in a way that only Jesus can. What is it that enables Jesus' to put an interesting spin on it? It is, I believe, because it calls people to God's Word as the basis for living, as opposed to the autonomous carnal life of man. It brings us back to God's ultimate intention to make us in His own image, after His likeness. It calls us to our roots, to our foundation. There we find our ultimate purpose, to live in obedience to God's word, and so experience eternal fellowship with our Creator. A wonderful Pinocchio story!

I think that one of the sources of Jesus' wisdom is the ability to use a fundamental principle to address a concern. Reducing a complex problem to its simplest parts.

On the surface level - Jesus is saying "follow me and you will inspire others to follow you" - a hopeful message. One can feel insignificant, like they can't change the world, but this story says, you just have to change the minds of one or two people, and that will have a ripple effect that can change thousands.

But he uses the parable of plants growing. It is in fact a principle of our natural world - good things grow and multiply, and bad things wither away. Strong plants bear fruit, weak plants falter. Strong animals breed, weak animals perish. Good people influence those around them to do good, evil people die alone. Good societies have just laws that give them stability to grow, bad societies fall into wars, unrest and decline. The universe is constantly evolving, getting better and better, it is the nature of good and evil for it to do so.

 

[-Phil]

We are free to think whatever we want about Scripture, and decide for ourselves what is symbol and parable only, but once we begin to teach that as the truth of scripture, without any objective proof from Scripture itself, or common understanding, then we become false teachers of our own private interpretation of Scripture, as being true Scripture of God itself.

Thoughts arise & are experienced, but there is no “thinker”. “Thinker” is a thought.
That there is “objective proof” is a subjective belief.
Therein, if there is a “personal interpretation”, it can never actually be someone else’s…
As your interpretation is - that there is such a thing as a”personal interpretation”.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think that one of the sources of Jesus' wisdom is the ability to use a fundamental principle to address a concern. Reducing a complex problem to its simplest parts.

On the surface level - Jesus is saying "follow me and you will inspire others to follow you" - a hopeful message. One can feel insignificant, like they can't change the world, but this story says, you just have to change the minds of one or two people, and that will have a ripple effect that can change thousands.

But he uses the parable of plants growing. It is in fact a principle of our natural world - good things grow and multiply, and bad things wither away. Strong plants bear fruit, weak plants falter. Strong animals breed, weak animals perish. Good people influence those around them to do good, evil people die alone. Good societies have just laws that give them stability to grow, bad societies fall into wars, unrest and decline. The universe is constantly evolving, getting better and better, it is the nature of good and evil for it to do so.

Yea, it's not really about individual heroes, is it? With Jesus, it is just following the laws of nature, which encourage a man to be who he is, healthy, strong, determined, and making choices according to the love of God. The rest takes care of itself, not by the effort of one individual, but by God, who uses all the parts to produce success by orchestrating all the parts Himself.

 

[Randy Kluth]

They are completely different as the text shows different combatants and different outcomes and different purposes.

You also have to separate the antichrist and the beast you even used both terms in the same sentence. Just like John describes the battles differently with different combatants and outcomes and purposes John also describes the antichrist and the beast different with different puposes

Oh that's right--you see the Beast as separate from the Antichrist. That explains our different conclusions.

I see the Beast and the Antichrist emerging from the same prophecy in Dan 7. The Beast imagery comes, in my view, from the 4th Beast of Dan 7, who I think represents Rome.

This Beast, Rome, emerges in the endtimes with the Little Horn coming to preside over it, gathering 10 kings that are also part of the old Roman tradition. 7 of these kings fall, leaving 10 nations and 7 rulers.

So I believe the Beast is used in the book of Revelation for Antichrist, as well as for his Empire. The 2 Beasts in Rev 13 later appear in the Revelation as the Beast and the False Prophet, indicating two individuals. And so, the Beast, for me, is both the imperial power of Rome and the individual who comes to lead it, the Antichrist.

Since our own respective views are predicated on our particular view of the Beast and the Antichrist, I don't think we can argue it further.

 

[ewq1938]

7 of these kings fall, leaving 10 nations and 7 rulers.

5 had already fallen, and one was in the process in John's time. There is no such thing as these Kings falling in the future.

Also, 10 horns means 10 rulers/kings, with the Ac as the ruler above them all. There is never only 7 rulers anywhere in Rev.

 

[WPM]

And all flesh is not slain all over the world so your interpretation is wrong.



lol, except the fire Amills always claim is used. Rev 19 is a battle 66 miles from Jerusalem. It's not symbolic of Jesus defeating enemies through time. It's Jesus defeating CERTAIN enemies right there at that location on that one day.

Armageddon is not mentioned in Rev 19. You force it in there where it does not belong. Anyway, you do not see the spiritual application of these literal OT places because it cuts across your error. That is why you cannot address the arguments.

 

[Marty fox]

Oh that's right--you see the Beast as separate from the Antichrist. That explains our different conclusions.

I see the Beast and the Antichrist emerging from the same prophecy in Dan 7. The Beast imagery comes, in my view, from the 4th Beast of Dan 7, who I think represents Rome.

This Beast, Rome, emerges in the endtimes with the Little Horn coming to preside over it, gathering 10 kings that are also part of the old Roman tradition. 7 of these kings fall, leaving 10 nations and 7 rulers.

So I believe the Beast is used in the book of Revelation for Antichrist, as well as for his Empire. The 2 Beasts in Rev 13 later appear in the Revelation as the Beast and the False Prophet, indicating two individuals. And so, the Beast, for me, is both the imperial power of Rome and the individual who comes to lead it, the Antichrist.

Since our own respective views are predicated on our particular view of the Beast and the Antichrist, I don't think we can argue it further.

Read about the fourth beast in Daniel again and then see if the beast of revelation or Daniels fourth beast is described anything like Johns description of the antichrist

Here are the only descriptions of the antichrist in the entire bible

1 John 2:18
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

1 John 2:22
22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2 John 1:7
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Their purposes are also completely different the only purpose of the antichrist is to deceive people to reject Jesus as the Christ and that He came from the father that’s it.

This is nothing like Daniels or revelations beast those beast are bent on persecuting God people

 

[Randy Kluth]

Read about the fourth beast in Daniel again and then see if the beast of revelation or Daniels fourth beast is described anything like Johns description of the antichrist

Here are the only descriptions of the antichrist in the entire bible

1 John 2:18
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

1 John 2:22
22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2 John 1:7
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Their purposes are also completely different the only purpose of the antichrist is to deceive people to reject Jesus as the Christ and that He came from the father that’s it.

This is nothing like Daniels or revelations beast those beast are bent on persecuting God people

I've done studies on the origins of doctrines in the NT Bible. The only place I found where John derived his term "Antichrist" is from the Little Horn in Dan 7, who stood opposed to the coming of God's Kingdom. It is the place where the specific title "Son of Man" is used for the Messiah. And thus, the numerous references to the "Son of Man" in the NT likely is referencing that passage in Dan 7.

Well, actually, the name "Son of Man" was prophetically applied to Ezekiel to make him foreshadow Messiah. But all of the NT eschatological references to the Son of Man appears as having originated, doctrinally, from Dan 7.

We do not find the term "Antichrist" in Dan 7. But we do find a man of sin who opposes and exalts himself over God and all that is worshiped. He makes himself to be God, assuming control over the 4th Beast in its endtime stages, having 7 heads and 10 horns.

This is just how I view it. I agree that the language of the "Beast" is obscure and difficult to apply directly to the book of Revelation. I can only conclude that this is because Daniel was speaking of the origins of the 4th Beast in the ancient Roman Empire, while Revelation was more focused on the future development of the Roman Empire with the appearance of the Little Horn and the 10 Horns.

 

[ewq1938]

Read about the fourth beast in Daniel again and then see if the beast of revelation or Daniels fourth beast is described anything like Johns description of the antichrist

Here are the only descriptions of the antichrist in the entire bible

1 John 2:18
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

1 John 2:22
22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2 John 1:7
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Their purposes are also completely different the only purpose of the antichrist is to deceive people to reject Jesus as the Christ and that He came from the father that’s it.

This is nothing like Daniels or revelations beast those beast are bent on persecuting God people

The AC has many names and does many things not just the things written in the two books you cited from.

 

[Randy Kluth]

5 had already fallen, and one was in the process in John's time. There is no such thing as these Kings falling in the future.

Also, 10 horns means 10 rulers/kings, with the Ac as the ruler above them all. There is never only 7 rulers anywhere in Rev.

This is difficult for me to explain, and it took me many years to get to this place. It may or may not be true, but just FYI this is how I see it.

The entire overall emphasis in the book of Revelation is on the endtime development of the 4th Beast of Dan 7. In the endtime scenario there are 10 horns, who are 10 kingdoms, and 3 of them are defeated, leaving 7 leaders and 10 nations.

And that's just what we have in the book of Revelation, the Beast Empire, centered in Europe/Roman tradition, that has been dividing for some time into independent states. Ultimately, a coalition of 10 will form, and the Antichrist will appear to assume control over them, defeating 3 national leaders. This is how we know it is the Antichrist, in my view.

So in Rev 17, the Harlot is the city of Rome, who has, like ancient Israel, turned away from Christianity to modern paganism. She rides upon the Beast system, or the European confederation of 10 nations. The Antichrist assumes control over this Empire, and at some point burns the city of Rome.

John explains this Beast of 10 horns and 7 heads by cryptically showing Christians that he is indeed referring to the Roman Empire. He dare not come out and say it, because that would appear to be a form of rebellion or sedition. So God leads John to depict "Mystery Babylon" through the use of two figures. The 7 heads of the Beast, John says, present a figure of seven historical kingdoms, the 6th of which is ruling in his own time. The Roman Empire was ruling in John's time, so John was identifying Rome to Christians without coming out and saying it.

The 2nd figure John uses to show the 7 heads represent the Roman Empire is by using the figure of seven, once again, to depict 7 hills. Again, 7 hills were associated with the 7 hills of Rome, which the Christians would've known.

The Harlot is called "Mystery Babylon," indicating it is a cryptic reference. Babylon was the 1st of the 4 Kingdoms that would lead to the Roman Empire. So "Mystery Babylon" is a cryptic reference to the Roman Empire, in my view. And it is clearly identified at the end of the chapter as a city that rules everywhere in that part of the world. It had to have been Rome that John was referring to.

 

[Marty fox]

I've done studies on the origins of doctrines in the NT Bible. The only place I found where John derived his term "Antichrist" is from the Little Horn in Dan 7, who stood opposed to the coming of God's Kingdom. It is the place where the specific title "Son of Man" is used for the Messiah. And thus, the numerous references to the "Son of Man" in the NT likely is referencing that passage in Dan 7.

Well, actually, the name "Son of Man" was prophetically applied to Ezekiel to make him foreshadow Messiah. But all of the NT eschatological references to the Son of Man appears as having originated, doctrinally, from Dan 7.

We do not find the term "Antichrist" in Dan 7. But we do find a man of sin who opposes and exalts himself over God and all that is worshiped. He makes himself to be God, assuming control over the 4th Beast in its endtime stages, having 7 heads and 10 horns.

This is just how I view it. I agree that the language of the "Beast" is obscure and difficult to apply directly to the book of Revelation. I can only conclude that this is because Daniel was speaking of the origins of the 4th Beast in the ancient Roman Empire, while Revelation was more focused on the future development of the Roman Empire with the appearance of the Little Horn and the 10 Horns.

How can you think that John got the antichrist from Daniels little horn when his description is nothing like the little horn? I can understand people thinking that the beast of revelation is like the little horn but not the antichrist

 

[ewq1938]

How can you think that John got the antichrist from Daniels little horn when his description is nothing like the little horn?

There is actually a direct match:

Daniel - ten horned beast arises, little horn comes next and is the person of authority and power over the ten horned beast. Little horn is the antichrist.

Revelation - ten horned beast arises, false prophet with two little horns comes next and is the person of authority and power over the ten horned beast. False prophet is the antichrist.

 

[Marty fox]

There is actually a direct match:

Daniel - ten horned beast arises, little horn comes next and is the person of authority and power over the ten horned beast. Little horn is the antichrist.

Revelation - ten horned beast arises, false prophet with two little horns comes next and is the person of authority and power over the ten horned beast. False prophet is the antichrist.

That description in Daniel is nothing like the description and purpose described by John in his epistles