Did Jesus return around 70 AD?

[grafted branch]

You were submitting a convincing argument until you ruined it with this part--And God sent the Beast (Roman) to destroy her. If she has been destroyed 2K years ago why is she still here 2K years later then?

Well, Babylon fell to the Persians in 539 BC, why isn’t she here today so my people can come out of her? (Currently Babylon is an archaeological site in Iraq)

 

[ewq1938]

Jerusalem was a whore. In fact she was the mother of whores. In 30 AD she murdered her husband and she became a widow. In 30 AD the judge gave her death penalty. In 70 AD she was executed by fire.

She's still alive and has been a very long time. When Babylon is destroyed, it is permanent. Jerusalem is not Babylon of Rev 17 and none of that has happened yet.

 

[Jay Ross]

When Babylon is destroyed, it is permanent. Jerusalem is not Babylon of Rev 17 and none of that has happened yet.

Babylon in around 120 BC was devasted and desolated for a period of two ages when the land of Babylon was remembered once more to receive God's cup of wrath. The nation that gained dominion over the land of Babylon when it was remembered once more was Iraq, the fourth segment of the Daniel 2 statue prophecy over the land of Babylon. The many kings that invaded the Land of Babylon in 2003 became the fifth segment having dominion over the Land of Babylon. Perhaps we all know who the king of the north was that lead that invation.

Shalom

 

[SeekTruth]

She's still alive and has been a very long time. When Babylon is destroyed, it is permanent. Jerusalem is not Babylon of Rev 17 and none of that has happened yet.

Jeremiah 32:30-32
Indeed the sons of Israel and the sons of Judah have been doing only evil in My sight from their youth; for the sons of Israel have been only provoking Me to anger by the work of their hands,” declares Yahweh. “Indeed this city has been to Me a provocation of My anger and My wrath from the day that they built it, even to this day, so that it should be removed from before My face because of all the evil of the sons of Israel and the sons of Judah which they have done to provoke Me to anger—they, their kings, their princes, their priests, their prophets, the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

 

[SeekTruth]

You were submitting a convincing argument until you ruined it with this part--And God sent the Beast (Roman) to destroy her. If she has been destroyed 2K years ago why is she still here 2K years later then?

If Jerusalem is still here, where is her temple? Where is her houses? Where is her grass? Where is her trees? Where is that all? It disappeared in 70 AD.

 

[Marty fox]

Jerusalem was a whore. In fact she was the mother of whores. In 30 AD she murdered her husband and she became a widow. In 30 AD the judge gave her death penalty. In 70 AD she was executed by fire.

Yes amen

 

[Marty fox]

You were submitting a convincing argument until you ruined it with this part--And God sent the Beast (Roman) to destroy her. If she has been destroyed 2K years ago why is she still here 2K years later then?

Jerusalem wasn’t just a city and building that were destroyed 2K ago it was the people of the time, apostate Israel that are no more. See that in the verse below

Matthew 23
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings,and you were not willing

 

[ewq1938]

If Jerusalem is still here, where is her temple? Where is her houses? Where is her grass? Where is her trees? Where is that all? It disappeared in 70 AD.

There's grass, trees and houses in Jerusalem.

Rev 18:17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
Rev 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

Jerusalem is not burned down currently and hasn't been since 70AD, nor is it a port city. It simply doesn't fit the description of Babylon or it's demise.


Rev 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

No ships in Jerusalem.


Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Babylon is found no more at all yet Jerusalem still stands today and is still occupied at the end of the thousand years when Satan leads an army to surround it.


Rev 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

When Babylon is destroyed, these things will never exist there again: No sound of harps/harpers, musicians, pipers or trumpeters. No craftsmen, no sound of millstones and no light from candles. No voice of a bridegroom and bride (no weddings). Jerusalem has had these things for many generations and still does to this day. Jerusalem is not Revelation's Babylon. Yes it's a bad place with some bad people. At best it's a mini-Babylon like a type of something to come.

"or by thy sorceries were all nations deceived" Jerusalem/Israel is one of those that shall be deceived by Babylon. The whole world will be.

In Rev 11:2 before the Great Tribulation starts, Jerusalem is called "the holy city" so it was considered holy even right up to just before the Great Tribulation begins. Only during the 42 months of the AC's reign does the city become "Sodom and Egypt" because the abomination of desolation causes a spiritual desolation in Jerusalem. By Revelation 11:8 the Great Tribulation is almost over. Jerusalem is never a single time called Babylon in scripture but it is called Sodom and Egypt,. Jerusalem is a literal city where Babylon is a symbolic city, symbolized by a religious whore that rides the ten horned beast. Babylon must therefore be something far larger (global) than any one literal city. She is all cities and peoples of the entire world who accepts the false religion of the false god/Antichrist.


Jerusalem is not Babylon.

 

[SeekTruth]

There's grass, trees and houses in Jerusalem.

Rev 18:17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
Rev 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

Jerusalem is not burned down currently and hasn't been since 70AD, nor is it a port city. It simply doesn't fit the description of Babylon or it's demise.


Rev 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

No ships in Jerusalem.


Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Babylon is found no more at all yet Jerusalem still stands today and is still occupied at the end of the thousand years when Satan leads an army to surround it.


Rev 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

When Babylon is destroyed, these things will never exist there again: No sound of harps/harpers, musicians, pipers or trumpeters. No craftsmen, no sound of millstones and no light from candles. No voice of a bridegroom and bride (no weddings). Jerusalem has had these things for many generations and still does to this day. Jerusalem is not Revelation's Babylon. Yes it's a bad place with some bad people. At best it's a mini-Babylon like a type of something to come.

"or by thy sorceries were all nations deceived" Jerusalem/Israel is one of those that shall be deceived by Babylon. The whole world will be.

In Rev 11:2 before the Great Tribulation starts, Jerusalem is called "the holy city" so it was considered holy even right up to just before the Great Tribulation begins. Only during the 42 months of the AC's reign does the city become "Sodom and Egypt" because the abomination of desolation causes a spiritual desolation in Jerusalem. By Revelation 11:8 the Great Tribulation is almost over. Jerusalem is never a single time called Babylon in scripture but it is called Sodom and Egypt,. Jerusalem is a literal city where Babylon is a symbolic city, symbolized by a religious whore that rides the ten horned beast. Babylon must therefore be something far larger (global) than any one literal city. She is all cities and peoples of the entire world who accepts the false religion of the false god/Antichrist.


Jerusalem is not Babylon.

2 Kings 23:27
And Yahweh said, “I will remove Judah also from My presence, as I have removed Israel. And I will reject Jerusalem, this city which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, ‘My name shall be there.’”

 

[ewq1938]

2 Kings 23:27
And Yahweh said, “I will remove Judah also from My presence, as I have removed Israel. And I will reject Jerusalem, this city which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, ‘My name shall be there.’”

That doesn't address anything in my post that proves Jerusalem is not Babylon.

 

[SeekTruth]

That doesn't address anything in my post that proves Jerusalem is not Babylon.

Jerusalem was confusion (Babylon). She confused (babylonized) the world with her witchcraft. Read the Old Testament. Read how Israel is described. Israel is described as ruler of the world. For example Joseph who basically ruled the world in Egypt, or for example Solomon who ruled the world. The Old Testament gives many hints. Like I said before, and this is a key to understand why Jerusalem is Babylon: The Jews were always the most blessed.

 

[ewq1938]

Jerusalem was confusion (Babylon). She confused (babylonized) the world with her witchcraft. Read the Old Testament. Read how Israel is described. Israel is described as ruler of the world. For example Joseph who basically ruled the world in Egypt, or for example Solomon who ruled the world. The Old Testament gives many hints. Like I said before, and this is a key to understand why Jerusalem is Babylon: The Jews were always the most blessed.

This still ignores all the evidence I posted that proves Jerusalem is not Babylon. Everyone knows Jerusalem has negative things written about it.

 

[3 Resurrections]

This still ignores all the evidence I posted that proves Jerusalem is not Babylon. Everyone knows Jerusalem has negative things written about it.

Old Jerusalem WAS Mystery Babylon. All the identifiers are there which connect Mystery Babylon with being Jerusalem - the city which killed the prophets and servants of God throughout the ages, according to Christ's accusation in Matthew 23:37. The temple and its entire Levitical priesthood system was once considered to be the nerve center of all Jerusalem, and the city's very reason for existence. Once all that was destroyed down to the last stone in AD 70, this destruction removed it from ever being revived to serve in that role again. For Mystery Babylon / Jerusalem to "be found no more at all" meant that God was going to be totally done with all those "weak and beggarly elements" which made Old Jerusalem once called "the holy city". The New Jerusalem which is from above in Galatians 4:26, which is "the mother of us all" as believers, is now the only unshaken reality which God has given significance to under the New Covenant.

Mystery Babylon was only a single city in Rev. 18:18 - namely, "that great city" (singular) - NOT "all cities and peoples of the entire world" which give allegiance to an antichrist as you have proposed. For that matter, the word "antichrist" isn't even found in the book of Revelation at all. Mystery Babylon / Old Jerusalem in Rev. 18:18 was "that great city" who was then "reigning over the kings of the earth" as of the time John was writing Revelation (which "kings of the earth" were the high priests of the land of Israel).

HINT: there have been no high priest "kings of the earth" for Jerusalem to reign over since AD 70's destruction of this once-great city.

Rev 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

No ships in Jerusalem.

You're missing the point. Ever heard of an "inland port"? Jerusalem was a cross-roads for the trade routes that ran through this region. Those traders and sea-faring men who had gotten rich with either supplying or transporting goods to and from Jerusalem were wailing after AD 70 when "that great city" with all its potential profits went up in smoke.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Yes, but the question is not where He suffered, but where He was crucified. That was outside of the city of Jerusalem. So, if someone is going to claim that Babylon represents the city of Jerusalem because they think Jesus was crucified in the city of Jerusalem, that is simply not true.

We aren't saying that Christ was crucified inside the city of Jerusalem. I take it you are trying to discount Old Jerusalem as being Mystery Babylon, "that great city...where also our Lord was crucified" since you are saying Christ was not crucified inside the walls of Jerusalem. Actually, the phrase "WHERE also our Lord was crucified" does NOT say "where our Lord was crucified inside the city." That is presuming something that Scripture doesn't say.

Please pay attention to what Luke 9:31 tells us concerning Christ's death. The transfigured Christ was speaking with Moses and Elijah "of His decease which he should accomplish AT Jerusalem". Same thing as Mystery Babylon being defined as "that great city...WHERE also our Lord was crucified". Christ being crucified on the Mount of Olives facing Jerusalem across the Kidron Valley is the same as His dying "AT Jerusalem", and "WHERE" that great city Mystery Babylon / Jerusalem was located.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Guilt of all the deaths of the righteous since Abel is not all prophets dying in Jerusalem. They didn't. Many died before Jerusalem was even founded.

Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon was guilty of the shed blood of all the righteous from Abel until Zacharias, slain between the temple and the altar. This was the charge which Christ was going to bring against first-century Jerusalem in Matthew 23:35-37. "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily, I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee,..."

Since Jerusalem's religious leaders conspired and pressured Rome to put Christ to death, they were guilty of being "the betrayers and murderers" of Christ, as the martyr Stephen accused them. This was the cause for the collective blood guilt of ALL the righteous slain up until that first century generation.

Christ was the representative high priest for all those righteous who had been slain from Abel forward to that time. It's just the same as if a visiting ambassador from another country is murdered in your own nation. By that murder of the ambassador, your nation is now guilty of an offense against the entire nation which that ambassador is representing. Same thing with Christ. All those righteous saints murdered from Abel forward who were "In Him" with Christ as their representative had the guilt for their bloodshed placed upon the city which murdered Christ our high priest "ambassador" representative.

It's not a matter of whether or not those righteous ones were ever slain inside the walls of the city of Jerusalem. Or if they were slain even before Jerusalem existed. That's not the point.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I know this is a controversial matter. I know that many here are now going to call it pathetic, but honestly after I read the New Testament - and am simply objective - it is like the New Testament wants to tell me that Jesus returned around 70 AD. That the Beast was Rome and Babylon was Jerusalem. But somehow this is also confusing.

What would be at all "pathetic" about Christ bodily returning to resurrect His saints in AD 70 at His return? It is exactly what He promised He would do, and when He would do it - and while some of those He had personally spoken to were still alive to see it happen with their own eyes (Matt. 16:27-28). Christ raptured all those resurrected saints from creation until AD 70, and returned to heaven with them, just as Paul had predicted He would do in 1 Thess. 4. The living saints who had not died yet stayed on earth to expand Christ's "stone" kingdom (as in Dan. 2:35) with their continued evangelistic efforts. We today are also to continue doing the same until that "stone" kingdom of Christ becomes a great mountain and fills the whole earth with its effects before Christ's final THIRD coming.

The FIRST ancient Rev. 13 Sea Beast actually WAS in its last Roman phase as John was writing Revelation in AD 59/60. And Nero then actually WAS one of the ten crowned "horns" upon that ancient Sea Beast which already had a 666-years biography of activity up until John was writing Revelation.

The SECOND Rev. 13 "land beast" of Israel's religious two-horned, Pharisee / Sadducee leadership was then operating in support of and in collusion with the Roman phase of the Sea Beast at the time, and in the direct line of sight (Rev. 13:14) of that Sea Beast's Roman fortress of Antonia opposite the temple grounds. "We have no king but Caesar" showed where their allegiance was placed. And those religious leaders of Israel spoke just like the Dragon - deceptively - just like their own "Father of lies" who was the Devil.

Mystery Babylon WAS Old Jerusalem, just as Scripture defines "that great city". Nothing confusing here. Mystery Babylon / Jerusalem was riding in a dominant position on the THIRD Scarlet Beast (which was the on-again off-again independent nation of Israel). It was soon "about to arise" to existence again with the AD 66 war against Rome, and would shortly afterward in AD 70 "go into destruction" (Rev. 17:8)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You seem to be using your external framework to determine that Revelation chapter 20 is a recapitulation, instead of chronological to chapter 19.

Yes, of course I am. So what? You seem to have a problem with someone making sure that no verse or passage of scripture contradicts any other verse or passage in scripture. I don't understand your approach to interpreting scripture at all.

The problem is that there is nothing internal, whether grammatical or contextual, to demonstrate that revelation 20 is solely a recapitulation.

So what? When you look at scripture as a whole that is the conclusion you must draw in order to avoid contradictions. I use clear scripture to help interpret more difficult scripture like Revelation 20. You should try that.

Revelation 20:10 states, "where the beast and false prophet are." This points directly back to Revelation 19:20, where the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire. There is nothing in the text to suggest that John is beginning a new account of the same events or resetting the chronological sequence. Rather, the language assumes that the beast and false prophet are already in the lake of fire when Satan is finally thrown in.

That doesn't mean they are thrown in a thousand years before Satan is. They could be thrown in right before he is just as it refers to death and hell (Hades) being thrown in just before those whose names are not written in the book of life. You're not proving anything here.

If Revelation 20:1 begins a recapitulation of the events already described in chapters 19, we would expect some indication that John is returning to an earlier point in the narrative. Instead, Revelation 20:10 reads naturally as a continuation of the preceding judgment: the beast and false prophet have already been judged, and Satan now joins them. The reference to where they "are" reinforces the sequential relationship between these events rather than suggesting a chronological reset.

Why wouldn't the phrase "where the beast and the false prophet are", in Revelation 20:10, contextually refer to a continuity of Revelation 19:20, where they HAD BEEN thrown into the lake of fire?

**example for what I mean: “If the police chief says, ‘The two suspects are in prison,’ and then says, ‘The man who ordered the crime was sent to the prison where the two suspects are,’ wouldn't you naturally understand that as referring to the same prison and the same previously established event? Why would you assume he's restarting the story?”

I do see Revelation 20:10 as a continuation of Revelation 19:20. This shows that you have no understanding of what I believe, which makes trying to discuss these things pointless. But, unlike you, I don't see Revelation 20:1 as a continuation of Revelation 19:20. Revelation 20:10 occurs a thousand years plus Satan's little season after the beginning of the thousand years described in Revelation 20:1-3. Why are you trying to act as if Revelation 20:10 occurs at the beginning of the thousand years? No, it occurs after the thousand years.

The irony is that you rely on these "opinions" just as much as I do, since you read the Bible in English and not in the original language. The opinions of scholars and Greek experts for translation seem to only matter when they agree with your framework. When they disagree with your framework, you label them as "man's opinions", despite you providing no other evidence to back up your claims.

I don't rely completely on those opinions the way you apparently do. I read them and then consider them and study the scriptures for myself like the Bereans did to see if their opinions are true.

It was joke. I think using 2 Peter 3:8-9 to undermine or warp any time statements is a poor argument.

I think that is ridiculous because scripture doesn't always talk about time from man's perspective, but also from the Lord's perspective.

Right, this is your negotiation with the text. Your work around is to claim the clear imminent phrases are not actually imminent in order to justify your framework.

Jesus hasn't returned yet. If they were meant to be taken literally that Jesus was returning soon at that time, then scripture would contain falsehood. But, I know that it doesn't. Why would you want to interpret scripture in a way that forces it to contain false statements?

I can accept the teachings of the Gospels and epistles without necessarily placing the same weight on Revelation. That's hardly unprecedented as much of the early church questioned Revelation's authority, and its acceptance was far from universal. My point is that questioning Revelation doesn't require me to discard the rest of the New Testament. The teachings of Jesus and the apostles can stand on their own merits without requiring me to reconcile every distinctive claim or symbolic framework introduced in John's visions, which frankly don't often fit together.

And yes, I think there are failed predictions in Revelation, unless you can tell me what historical event was "world wide" and "an hour of trial on the whole earth" that the church of philadelphia was kept from around 95ad?

I don't understand you at all. You don't accept 2nd Peter and Revelation as inspired scripture. I don't want to waste any more time discussing these things with someone who doesn't read the same Bible that I do.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;


Ironically, the very same verse you are using is your own worst enemy, so to speak.

Another baseless claim from you. That's all you have.

In Revelation 19, if satan and humans were also cast into the LOF when the beast and false prophet are, then why didn't John do this in Revelation 19--- Write the things which thou see which shall be hereafter? So be sure to move the goalpost concerning Revelation 1:19 when it comes to your position, but then be sure to use it to argue against someone else's position.

I have no idea of what you're saying here. Are you just completely unable to communicate clearly? The way it's written is just fine as it is and it doesn't go against my beliefs.

So why didn't John write that in ch 19 if he indeed saw satan and humans getting cast into the LOF during when the beast and fp are cast into it?

By linking the command of Revelation 1:19 directly to the text of Revelation 19, you create a textual dilemma that the Amil position cannot answer with the text in ch 19.

You make no sense. The book of Revelation is not written in a clear, literal, straightforward and chronological manner. That should be obvious. Your argument seems to assume that is the case.

John is given a strict, threefold command------Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter

In Revelation 19, John clearly writes what he sees. Does he not?

Yeah, so?

He sees the beast and the false prophet captured and cast alive into the LOF (Rev 19:20). Therefore, he is clearly doing what he was commanded to do in Revelation 1:19--Write the things which thou see which shall be hereafter. But you have him failing to do that if you are correct about the fate of satan and humans during the fate of the beast and false prophet.

There is nothing that says he had to mention Satan and humans being cast there at the exact same time. The book of Revelation is not structured like that. How can you not know this? You don't have what is described in the beginning of Revelation 12 chronologically following what is described at the end of Revelation 11, right? And you don't have what is described in the beginning of Revelation 21 chronologically following what is described at the end of Revelation 20, either. So, why is it okay for you to recognize recapitulations and non-chronological sections in the book, but that is somehow a problem when I do that?

He does not see satan cast in there yet, instead, he sees the rest of the rebellious human army killed with the sword (Rev 19:21). Where does verse 21 ever say any of them then rose from the dead at that time, were judged then sentenced, then cast into the LOF?

If Amil is correct, and Revelation 19 is the final consumption of all wickedness at the second coming, then John failed his 1:19 mandate. He omitted the single most important cosmic entity (satan) and the final judgment of humanity from the very scene where he claims to be recording what he saw.

He recorded that in Revelation 20. So what? You're trying to demand your own man-made rules on the way John should have written the book.

The text itself clearly refutes the idea that everyone went into the LOF at the same time. When satan is finally thrown into the LOF in Revelation 20:10, the Greek text uses a specific present/perfect nuance to describe the status of the first two occupants----where the beast and the false prophet are. The text acknowledges a sequence.


To maintain your view, Amil must look at the silence of Revelation 19 regarding satan's final doom and insert it there anyway. Not to mention, satan is not mentioned in Revelation 19 one single time to begin with. Maybe that's why John never wrote in ch 19 that he also saw satan getting cast into the LOF when the beast and false prophet are.

Imagine that, John didn't disobey any of the commandments in Revelation 1:19 after all, in Revelation 19. He did exactly as commanded, he only wrote what he saw not what he didn't see.

Exegesis = concluding that satan isn't thrown into the LOF in Ch 19 because the text says he is bound in Chapter 20 and that John did not see him cast into the LOF in ch 19.

Eisegesis = insisting that satan is cast into the LOF in Chapter 19 when John did not record in ch 19 that he saw satan cast into the LOF at that time.


If John was commanded to write what he saw, and he did not see satan or human judgment in the Ch 19 LOF scene, you cannot invent it for him. Eisegesis = you are reading your systematic theology into the text rather than drawing it out of the text. Eisegesis = you have John disobeying one of the commands in Revelation 1:19 if he saw both satan and humans cast into the LOF at that time but neglected to write what he saw.

BTW, Amils, like you, do the same with Daniel 7:9-11 as well. You all insist the GWTJ is in view, except there is zero mention of any humans being given to the burning flame when the beast is, let alone satan. And besides, if the GWTJ is in view in Daniel 7:9-11, then point out in Revelation 20:12-15 where you see the beast standing among the dead.

Amil, like the position you hold, fits the definition of eisegesis not exegesis. But you want to pretend like some of the rest of us haven't noticed.

LOL. You are so desperate to try to refute Amil that you have resorted to complete, unintelligible nonsense in your efforts to do so. It's sad to witness.