Is that supposed to mean anything to me? No matter how many people believe something that is false, it's still false.
And, if you actually paid any attention to what the earliest Chiliasts (before Victorinus in 270 AD) believed, you would know that their overall view had just as much or more in common with Amill as it did with modern day Premill. Like Amills, they believed that there would be no sin and death after Christ returned. A number of them were skeptical about including the book of Revelation in canon because they believed Jesus would rid the world of sin and death when He returned like Amills do and the idea of Satan's little season following that did not make any sense to them which is why none of them wrote about Satan's little season until Victorinus around 270 AD.
LOL!!!! I'm still waiting for you or any other Premil to produce the writing of anyone before 270 AD who believed that sin and death would occur on the earth after Jesus returned. I'm waiting!!!!!!
So why do you think your opinions should matter to me, if mine doesn’t matter to you. Futurists and Historicists believe all the eschatological views of amills are false. Such arguments are futile, so why bring them up as you do? The point is that the seven churches have been accepted as prophetic by scholars for over two hundred years, without your approval.
Well, there you go. If the Chiliasts had accepted Revelation as cannon, which it certainly is, then sin and death are shown to persist amongst the nations, insomuch the Satan is released to gather a final rebellion in Revelation 20. As Chiliasts, they would have interpreted Revelation 20 as Premillennialists, not amills!
That’s why you had to bring up they were skeptical about including the book as cannon, because Revelation affirms that sin and death persists with the nations when Christ returns according to Revelation 20, as does the persistence of the nations in Matthew 25:32-33. There are also numerous passages in the OT that affirm this also.
The parable in Matthew 25 also affirms the sheep and goats represent the NATIONS, while 1 Peter 2:9 and Matthew 21:43 maintain the bride is a NATION.
And I still don’t see any citation from any amill before the Roman beast takes control of the Church. That’s because Premillennialism predates amill.
Furthermore, you amills have goats in Christ's kingdom, Premillennialism doesn't.
If two groups are standing next to each other right in front of the throne, neither group is at His right hand or left hand yet at that point. It's talking about separating them completely from each other with the sheep being off to one side and the goats to the other.
Not at all. But, again, I can't possibly sound as dumb as you actually are. It's not possible.
I have metaphorically trounced you six feet under, so you have no idea of what you're talking about.
Again, you make dumb comments. If they must be separated completely, as you say, it means they were mixed beforehand.
That’s how grammar and the definitions work. Obviously, you have no command of either.
But the passage destroys your dumb comment,
Matthew 25
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations:
and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
The passage says the NATIONS, plural, shall be gathered in front of Christ on EARTH and THEN he separates the sheep from the goats, which means they were TOGETHER when gathered before Christ.
Of course, those who grasp grammar and definitions know the sheep can’t represent bride because she was separated prior to the event depicted in Matthew 25 according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.
Like I said, you like getting a metaphorical theological trouncing, don't you?
