Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It's all symbolic, but you insist on trying to interpret the most highly symbolic book in the Bible as literally as you can. Your approach to interpreting the book of Revelation is ridiculous. Just keep believing the nonsense you want to believe since that is what you will do no matter what I say.
You didn't answer with a explanation, why are you running away from a detailed response?
I have given many details regarding my understanding of the two witnesses. I don't need to detail every word in the chapter. Get serious. Not every word has a symbolic equivalent. You obviously don't understand how symbolism works. What is being symbolized is the heavy persecution of the church in the time before Christ returns.
You didn't answer above with a explanation to the bold red below, why are you running away from a detailed response?
I don't run away from anything. Should I accuse you of running away when you have no explanation for why the two witnesses are called two candlesticks? Any time I ask you that you refer to a passage that speaks of two olive trees and not two candlesticks. What a waste of time it is trying to discuss these things with you. I'm not wasting any more time. I'm done. You won't even do what you expect me to do. You are completely unreasonable. I have better things to do than to deal with a completely unreasonable person like you.
Once Again:
The thousand years represents a time when Jesus reigns and His followers are considered priests of God and of Christ. Jesus began reigning after His resurrection (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-22) and His followers have been priests since then (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:5-6). So, like Premils, you are mistaken to think that what is described at the beginning of Revelation 20 chronologically follows what is described at the end of Revelation 19.
So, you have no opinion on that at all? When did Jesus begin to reign and when were His followers first considered to be priests in His kingdom? That tells us when the thousand years began.
Not all of the events. Again, you seem to forget about Revelation 1:19. The book contains text regarding the past, present and future in relation to when the book was written. When it talks about things happening soon or that the time was near, it's not talking about literally everything written in the book. Otherwise, Revelation 1:19 would not be true.
Unlike yourself, I keep the rest of scripture in mind when I interpret the book of Revelation. Revelation 19 describes Christ's return. That has not yet happened. What worldwide hour of trial happened in the past? If you can't tell me, then I have no reason to take what you say about this seriously. Sometimes in scripture it talks about things being near or soon in the sense that they are certain to occur and not that they necessarily will literally happen soon. But, you obviously have no understanding of that concept.
Since not all believers who would reign were even alive yet at the time, that's why it says "will reign". It does not mean the kingdom of priests who were alive at the time were not yet reigning. It's worded as "will reign" because it's not just including believers who were alive at the time. The following passage makes it very clear that Jesus was reigning with His followers as priests in His kingdom at the time John wrote the book.
I completely disagree. Again, you are sounding like a Premil. You don't understand how the book of Revelation is formatted. Do you think it's arranged chronologically from beginning to end? If so, good luck trying to support that view with what is written in Revelation 11 and 12.
That's false. You put too much trust in those opinions, which is all they are. According to scripture, the first resurrection was Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Corinthians 15:20,23). So, having part in the first resurrection has nothing to do with being bodily resurrected, but rather has to do with spiritually having part in Christ's resurrection, which all believers do when they spiritually go from being dead in sins to alive in Christ (Eph 1:4-6, Romans 6:9-11, Col 2:12-13).
Do you know what that means? In 2 Peter 3:8-9 it relates to the fact that time has no affect on the Lord. One day or a thousand years make no difference to Him because He created time and exists outside of time. It doesn't say one say equals one thousand year and one thousand years equals a day. No, it says one day is as as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. That means there's no difference between a day and a thousand years to the Lord. This has nothing to do with what the thousand years in Revelation represents.
What ages? In that verse ages should be understood as referring to generations. Not the end of the temporal age that Jesus talked about in Luke 20:34-36 during which people get married and die which He contrasted with the age to come during which people will not get married or die.
You have no understanding of what that means. It's talking about the generation who would say all these things happen. It will not pass away until those things happen first. That all relates to things that happen before Jesus returns. He hasn't returned yet. Until you understand that, you are not going to understand much.
Those speak to the certainty of Christ's return at which all things, as we know them, will end. As described in 2 Peter 3:10-12. That clearly has not yet happened. Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3 about how it may seem like a long time for Jesus to return to some, but to the Lord it's not long because to Him a day is no different than a thousand years. So, Peter was saying if it took Him a thousand years or longer to return then His return was still soon and near to Him. That's the context of verses like those. And they speak to the certainty of His future coming as well. When you take those literally as if they are saying that Jesus was literally coming some time soon at that point it leads to all kinds of confusion, false interpretations and contradictions. I hope some day you will realize this.
Move the goal posts back? What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that some scripture is telling lies that John had to correct in the book of Revelation? I can't comprehend what you're saying at all.
Are you suggesting that John taught something different in Revelation than is taught elsewhere in the NT? That can't be. That would bring everything written in the rest of the NT into question.
It doesn't happen before the Amill second coming. Please don't try to ever speak for Amill. Most Premills, including you, have very little understanding of Amill.
What does this even mean? I could consider some descriptions of the beast and its activities to be written in simple and plain language but that doesn't make the beast a literal beast.
