Search results

Thanks for sharing your view, but I can't take it seriously since Jesus obviously did not begin to reign in 968/967 BC, but rather began reigning at the time when you say that Satan's little season began. While the Word was God before becoming flesh, it's talking about Him reigning as Jesus who...

You say those must be parallel while at the same time saying these passages from the same Olivet Discourse are somehow not parallel: Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him...

Why do you act as if tribulation can't refer to God's wrath? That seems to be your whole argument and that argument is clearly false. I have shown you that it refers to God's wrath in verses like these... Romans 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew...

Good post. Part of the reason that Premils misinterpret Revelation 20 is because they have a false understanding of the beast. It's not just a future entity but has been around for a long time already. They seem to ignore that John said the beast "was" before he wrote the book. Despite saying it...

You don't read any of their posts? Why not? Anyway, I'm not talking about this issue with you anymore. Please address what I said in the second post of this thread. No one else seems to want to. You started to address a few things I said there a little bit, but then the discussion fizzled. I'm...

LOL. This is hilarious to me that you are complaining about something you said being misrepresented after you have misrepresented Amil so many times. It doesn't feel very good to have something you say being misrepresented, does it? Maybe you should think about not doing that yourself.

And, for the millionth time, you have misrepresented Amil (and I guess Postmil, also, since you are referring to "Non Premils"). Amils do NOT have Satan doing during the thousand years what it describes him as doing after he is loosed, as if we believe there is no difference between him being...

If the thousand years ended in 60 AD, then when do you think it began? In other words, when do you think that Jesus began to reign and Satan was initially bound?

It does have to be because the word "little" there is translated from the Greek word "mikros" which always means literally small or a little number or amount of something.

I agree. I'm curious if part of your reasoning for this is that you see the fifth seal as being parallel to the fifth trumpet? We're both Amills, so that's why I'm wondering about that. At the fifth trumpet, we can see a description of the bottomless pit (abyss) being opened and it talks about...

You are not even trying to see the point. You are acting as if I said I follow Paul instead of Jesus Christ, which I never said and you know it. Why are you being so dishonest? I'm saying that we can emulate Paul in the way he followed Jesus Christ. By doing that, we too will follow Christ in...

It was a general statement, but I would agree it doesn't apply to literally all Premills. I haven't done that to you, so you don't need to worry about it. It's quite noticeable that you say nothing to them when they make insults which is clearly only because you agree with their pre-trib...

Agree. Also, the Premil doctrine misses or ignores the fact that the dragon, representing Satan, is bound with "a great chain". The word "great" there is translated from the Greek word "megas" which means "large" or "long". They change it into a small or short chain that makes him completely...

Read what he said again. He is saying that is all Premils bring to the table. That's not all I'm doing. I am also bringing scriptural support that no Premils are addressing. Clearly, most Premils on this forum have no problem with bringing ad hominem attacks, so they should not complain about it...

Okay. I was confused as to why you, a preterist, would be arguing with me about that verse since we both believe it relates to what happened in 70 AD.

That's what we see over and over again. Notice how none of these Premils are willing to address any of the scriptures I referenced in the original posts in any kind of detail. They would rather talk about anything else but those scriptures. Meanwhile, they continue to prove my point which is...

LOL. Why do you continue to avoid addressing any of the scriptures I reference in the second post? Show me how you reconcile your beliefs with them. He hasn't stopped the gospel from bringing light into those nations that had never been brought there before. We agree that people have free will...

You use so may words to say nothing. The scriptures I referenced EXPLICITLY teach that Jesus has been reigning for a long time already since His resurrection. And other scripture clearly indicates that His kingdom did not come with observation and is not of this world (John 18:36). So, the idea...

I agree, but you make it complicated with your convoluted interpretations. Here's a prime example of how you make scripture more complicated than it is. You're trying to say that 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 is not the second coming of Christ. Yes, it is. 1 Thessalonians 4:14 For we believe that...

Agree. It should be clear that Jesus will return at the end of the age (Matthew 24:3), and the judgment clearly will occur at that point and not 1,000+ years later. Amillennialism keeps things simple and is based on clear, literal, straightforward passages like those you mentioned.