Your "cycles" do not help me, and I'm completely familiar with all of the visions of Revelation. We know there is conflict, and we know Christ resolves this conflict at his 2nd Coming. We know that Revelation is a series of visions, but I do not see Rev 19 and Rev 20 as being the same vision, or different aspects of the same. There may be similarities, but that does not establish co-identity.Hmmm... well, I think that generally speaking, Revelation 19:11-21 covers the same period as Revelation 20:1-21:8. Revelation is a series of visions that... well, here's an outline of sorts (focus in parentheses)
I don't necessarily disagree with this. For me, the entire Revelation is focused on a single Coming of Christ. The many symbols used are familiar to those who have studied the 2nd Coming--the clouds, the archangel, the trumpet, descent from heaven, etc.The cycles parallel one another. All cover the same period leading up to the Second Coming. But each cycle does so from its own distinct vantage point. Moreover, later cycles concentrate more and more on the most intense phases of conflict and on the Second Coming itself.
Christ's 1st Coming was his earthly ministry. I don't see him coming "secretly" for a world-wide Rapture of the universal Church! Doesn't make sense--it's self-contradictory. How can you have such an enormous event being "secret?" Not only that, but it isn't spelled out *explicitly* in the Bible, and hasn't been believed in for the 1st 1800 years of Christian history. It is modern eschatology at its worst, in my opinion. And I don't mean to be rude.Hm, well, which Coming? I think I know what your answer will be, but I would suggest that Christ's first coming was before God's millennium, and His second coming will be after God's millennium is concluded.
That was my point. I was being referred to Rev 19.22 and it doesn't exist! post (post #279)The last verse of Revelation 19 is verse 21.
Yes, "Amil" is just a term to distinguish between Amills and Premills. We all pretty much know what each position holds to. Amills believe in Rev 20 and the "Millennium," but not in the Premil sense. For them, it is a symbol of the present age, with Christ reigning together with his Church over the forces of Satan.I guess we're already sort of there... I don't really personally like the Amill label, because it seems to insinuate ~ because of the A prefix ~ that there is no millennium. I think it would be more accurate to term it Nuncmill, the prefix meaning now, or current.
Yes, of course. Jesus was physically in the midst of Israel while he was in his earthly ministry. The Kingdom was there in the King, who had humbled himself and was not yet reigning in his Kingdom. We also have a degree of Kingdom power, and yet also are not yet able to reign on earth together with Christ. The Kingdom is "near," but not yet *here.* That's my position as a Premil.But you would acknowledge that Jesus Himself said, 2000 plus years ago, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and "behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (Matthew 4:17; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9; 17:21) would you not? So there is a "now and not yet" quality to it. I would submit that it is here, but not yet in its fullness, but it certainly will be.
Take care. I personally think both positions are "Christian."