Search results

You go first. First explain how there can be 2 sets of last days, one before Christ was born, the other after He was born. Meaning the last days recorded in both Isaiah 2 and Ezekiel 38. BTW, when was the last day of the last days pertaining to Ezekiel 38? When did that occur? You argue that...

I have noticed that myself. And IMO, what you have in red are meaning the martyrs under the altar during the 5th seal, and the ones you have in blue are meaning their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, after the beast ascends out of the pit. IOW...

Not if we apply 2 Peter 3:8 to the last day. If Christ returns within 2000 years, that would be involving 2 days based on 2 Peter 3:8. And if when He returns it is then the last day of the last days. and that the last day is involving the millennium, I don't see the issue when there is 2 Peter...

With that in mind as an argument, what about the following? Isaiah 30:17 One thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one; at the rebuke of five shall ye flee: till ye be left as a beacon upon the top of a mountain, and as an ensign on an hill. Using your logic that must mean this one thousand is...

It doesn't matter whether you think I understand Amil or not. This is not about that so much, this is about comparing the two accounts and then deciding whether or not Amils are correct to conclude what they do, or if they are incorrect to do so. It's called testing their theory Revelation...

Per Revelation 19 though, you do agree they are up in the sky first per that account, right? Obviously, the rapture precedes Christ and His army confronting the beast and it's armies. Not meaning a Pretrib rapture, though. Meaning a post trib rapture, that that rapture occurs first, thus no...

The first resurrection only involves a bodily resurrection. Not one single time does it involve a resurrection that is not bodily, including Revelation 20:4-6. How can we know for certain? Let's start with the following facts. John only mentions 2 resurrection events in Revelation 20. 1) the...

Why would the 2nd death be relevant in the here and now? The 2nd death involves the LOF and eternal death, regardless how one might interpret eternal death. We can't apply the LOF to the here and now. Therefore, when it has no power over someone and why it has no power over them is because they...

As to B), though. The context pertains to someone literally dead at the time. And the fact everyone dies, regardless, that means when Jesus said anyone that believes in Him shall never die, He wasn't applying the never die part to the here and now. The believing in Him obviously applies to the...

IMO, the first resurrection is a type of resurrection. It is a resurrection only involving the saved righteous. The 2nd resurrection is also a type of resurrection. It is a resurrection only involving the unsaved lost. The first resurrection began with Christ's resurrection. Even if there were...

Allow me to at least explain then what I meant by all of that. And what did I mean by that in context? I meant if we were all Amils it would mean John neglected to mention the most important resurrection event in Revelation 20, the bodily resurrection of saints. Because none of us would believe...

The 2nd death was not applicable in Christ's case. The 2nd death involves being cast into the LOF. Christ was never cast into the LOF when He died. You can't have a 2nd death without a LOF. They go hand in hand. What the wages of sin are, is the 2nd death. Not everyone receives those wages...

Maybe you are right, I don't know. But one thing that seems rather silly to me since John only mentions a total of 2 resurrection events in Revelation 20, not 3 or more, that being the first resurrection and the 2nd resurrection after the thousand years, that he would neglect to mention the most...

I don't think it's reasonable that there can be 2 different sets of last days like you think there is. Unless you have changed your view on this lately but that I'm not aware you did. What in the world am I talking about, right? I'll tell you what I'm talking about. In the OT in Isaiah 2 and...

I view the last days of an era of time that began with the first advent, and that we are still in these same last days even now, and likely continue to be in them throughout the millennium that follows, and satan's little season that follows that, and the great white throne that follows that...

To add to what you said here, we also know it is including OT saints, such as Daniel, based on the following in Daniel 12, for one. Maybe some of it you will agree with, maybe some of it you won't. Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the...

Let's think this through for a moment. If one is convinced that the thousand years precede the 2nd coming, like Amils are convinced of it, it would then be preposterous for them to then agree Revelation 20:4-6 is pertaining to the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ. Because if they did...

Though, I don't agree with his interpretation of the first resurrection recorded in Revelation 20:4-6, the manner in which you insist he is applying is not the manner he is applying it, though. He apparently thinks John simply neglected to mention the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ in...

All one has to do is compare Revelation 20:4 with the following passages, like such, then think outside the box some, and if it wasn't already crystal clear what is meant in Revelation 20:4, it should be now. Unless of course, one brings doctrinal bias into it and places their doctrines above...

Let's be honest here. Amils are mainly the ones who are making the Bible contradict itself, in regards to your point here. Amil won't allow some prophecies to be fulfilled, thus making them false prophecies, the fact, per Amil, there is no era of time for these prophecies to be fulfilled. For...