The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

[Davy]

Again you are assuming things that I haven’t said or believe please stick to what I say and stop confusing what I did say.

I never said that Rome will destroy the beast I said that the beast destroyed Babylon the great. I believe that happened in 70 AD when God had Rome destroy Jerusalem.

Impossible, because the Babylon Harlot and Revelation beast has NOTHING TO DO WITH 70 A.D.

It's Preterists that believe most of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 A.D., so EVEN WHAT YOU PROPOSE ABOUT THE BEAST AT THE END is all make-believe of YOUR OWN dreaming.

 

[ewq1938]

11. The beast of Revelation 13 existed in John's time?

Some Amillennialists claim that the beast of Revelation 13 existed in John's time, yet John was told that this beast did not exist in his time. That also eliminates the possibility that the beast could be Rome. The fact that Revelation 13's beast is destroyed at the second coming (Revelation 19) further disproves Amillennial's interpretation of who/what the beast is and when it exists.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go into perdition. And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, they whose name hath not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast, how that he was, and is not, and shall come.

Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour. Yet John was told that this beast did not exist in his time, that it would come to be again in the future.

 

[Davy]

11. The beast of Revelation 13 existed in John's time?

Some Amillennialists claim that the beast of Revelation 13 existed in John's time, yet John was told that this beast did not exist in his time. That also eliminates the possibility that the beast could be Rome. The fact that Revelation 13's beast is destroyed at the second coming (Revelation 19) further disproves Amillennial's interpretation of who/what the beast is and when it exists.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go into perdition. And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, they whose name hath not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast, how that he was, and is not, and shall come.

Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour. Yet John was told that this beast did not exist in his time, that it would come to be again in the future.

All good points, which further reveals that some folks here that claim many things don't actually read their Bible that much, or, they don't understand what they do read.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

2. Apollyon is released out of the pit?

Some Amillennialist's claim that Apollyon, who is "the angel of the pit", was in the pit with the locusts and was also released with them though the scripture does not state this happened.

It says Apollyon is their king, so that means he is one of them and is their king. Why wouldn't he be with them? How can he be their king but not be with them? And, of course, he would leave with them when the pit is opened. This illustrates your problem. You can't believe anything unless it is explicitly stated and spelled out to you.

It is assumed because Amillennialism believes this was the same event in Revelation 20 when satan is released from the pit though there are no similarities in the details or timeframes. In the 5th trump the beast and false prophet haven't even risen yet after Satan is released in Revelation 20 the beast and false prophet have already been defeated and cast into the lake of fire.

This is all just your opinion on the timing of things. You aren't proving anything here.

3. What does "loosed" mean?

Contradicting the above claim in number 2, some in Amillennialism believe there is no such "releasing" of satan from the pit because at times the Greek word translated as "loosed" can imply "destruction". Amillennialism then sometimes believes satan is not "released" but destroyed which contradicts the idea that satan is Apollyon and that he is literally "released" from imprisonment in Revelation 9.

Who believes this? I have never seen any Amil claim this. Satan is clearly not destroyed at the end of the thousand years, but rather is loosed to do what is described in Revelation 20:7-9. At the end of his little season he is then cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

4. The first resurrection? Christ's resurrection?

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Here we have two groups of the dead "living again". One lives again before the thousand years and one must wait until the thousand years are over. In verse 4 "live" is the Greek word Zao. It is the same word in this verse:

Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive (zao) for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Christ used the same exact word for his own physical resurrection. Did Christ not live again physically and in immortality after being dead?

Mat 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live (zao) .

Here is the same word. Anytime someone who is dead is said to "live" (zao) it's a reference to physical resurrection.

Amillennialism changes the "first resurrection" from a reference to the first of two groups of the dead being raised back to life in Revelation 20 to somehow being a reference to Christ's own resurrection found in the gospels. It is clearly not speaking of Christ's resurrection for many contextual reasons. It is speaking of the first of two groups of the dead resurrecting.

The word zao is not the one used to describe a resurrection or the act of coming to life. It describes someone being alive. It can be used to describe someone who was dead and is now alive. But, the word is never used to describe a resurrection itself. That word is anazao, which is the word used in Revelation 20:5. The word zao is used in Revelation 20:4 to describe the dead martyrs as being alive and reigning with Christ. If it was describing them as coming alive and being resurrected, then the word anazao would have been used instead. The souls of the dead in Christ are alive in heaven reigning with Him there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

5. First resurrection, a resurrection without a death?

Some in Amillennialism alternatively claim those of the first resurrection never died in the first place despite it saying these were beheaded during the tribulation. Both claims regarding the first resurrection are false and each contradict the other.

Who believes this? It looks like you wasted a lot of time trying to refute things that maybe one person believes or something. You said "some" Amils believe this. Are you sure? It clearly says John saw souls of dead people, so how can anyone say those who have part in the first resurrection never died?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

6. Timeframe of the first resurrection.

Amillennialism believes Christ comes after the Millennium is over yet Christ clearly returns before the Millennium because Revelation 20 mentions the first resurrection occurring before the Millennium begins and the resurrection of the dead in Christ only happens at the second coming. The only resurrection after the thousand years is "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." which means these are the unsaved dead being resurrected.

Amillennialism understands that not all details about certain events are given in every passage that relates to those events. Other scripture indicates that the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the resurrection of the lost happens on the same day or around the same general time.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

Premillennialism believes in two times or two events during which the dead will be resurrected, but Jesus said there will be one. Amillennialism does not dismiss Christ's teaching on this as Premillennialism does. We should interpret more difficult scripture contained in books with a high amount of symbolism based on a foundation of teachings from more clear and straightforward scripture.

Amillennialism also understands that Christ will return at the end of the age (Matt 24:3) and the dead will be resurrected at that time. At that point eternity will be ushered in because Jesus taught that no one will get married or die anymore at that point (Luke 20:34-36).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

7. Return of Christ not found inbetween the end of the Millennium and judgment day.

In Revelation 20 we are shown the beginning and the end of the Millennium and then the Great White Throne Judgement (GWTJ) yet the most anticipated event in human history is nowhere to be found. If Jesus does not return inbetween the end of the Millennium and judgment day, then when did his return actually take place? Look back to Revelation 19.

Premillennialism does not recognize the parallels in the book of Revelation. Not every passage about the return of Christ contains the same details. But, in both Revelation 19 and Revelation 20 there are battles between Satan and his armies/followers and Christ and His armies/followers which results in the destruction of all unbelievers. So, either history is going to basically repeat itself 1000+ years after Christ's return or Revelation 19:11-21 and Revelation 20:9 are describing the same global destruction that will occur when Christ returns.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

9. Satan attacks New Jerusalem?

Revelation 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Some Amillennialist's believe that this attempted attack on Jerusalem is actually against New Jerusalem and satan is trying to access God's throne yet New Jerusalem does not descend from Heaven until after judgment day, Revelation 21.

Are you somehow not aware that we, the church, are part of the new, heavenly Jerusalem in a spiritual sense?

Hebrews 12:18 You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm;...22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. 24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

Premils are ignorant of much New Testament teaching and that is why they do not understand what the book of Revelation is really about.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

10. The first resurrection of Revelation 20 is when a person is born again and is spiritually resurrected?

The problem with this idea is that Revelation 20 specifically says those who are of the first resurrection had died from being beheaded in the great Tribulation. They were beheaded "for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God" which means they were already "spiritually resurrected" ie: born-again Christians before dying so the only resurrection left for them to experience would have to be a bodily resurrection. Revelation 20:4 is depicting dead Christians coming back to life (physical resurrection).

No, it isn't. It is depicting living souls in heaven who had previously spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection, which was the first resurrection.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

I don't see the act of being born again as being the first resurrection itself, I see that as the way in which people have part in the first resurrection, which was Christ's resurrection. When people who have had part in His resurrection die their souls go to be with Him in heaven and reign with Him there, which is what Revelation 20 is depicting.

Look at this verse:

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

What this verse says about those who have part in the first resurrection is a reality now. Does the second death have power over those who are in Christ now, whether they're dead or alive? No. Does someone have to be bodily resurrected in order for the second death to not have power over them? No. We are priests of God and of Christ now as the following passage indicates:

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

This passage indicates that Jesus reigns now, not after His return. This passage indicates that Jesus's resurrection is the first resurrection. This passage indicates that Jesus "made us kings and priests unto God and his Father" long ago already. So, Revelation 20 needs to be interpreted with all of this in mind. But, Premillennialism ignores all of this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

11. The beast of Revelation 13 existed in John's time?

Some Amillennialists claim that the beast of Revelation 13 existed in John's time, yet John was told that this beast did not exist in his time. That also eliminates the possibility that the beast could be Rome. The fact that Revelation 13's beast is destroyed at the second coming (Revelation 19) further disproves Amillennial's interpretation of who/what the beast is and when it exists.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go into perdition. And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, they whose name hath not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast, how that he was, and is not, and shall come.

Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour. Yet John was told that this beast did not exist in his time, that it would come to be again in the future.

No, he did not say that the beast did not exist at the time. You are not reading the verse carefully enough. Notice that it says the beast would come out of the abyss in the future. So, the beast exists in the abyss in John's time. But, that is figurative language. It's not a literal beast being chained up in a literal abyss. So, we have to determine what that means to be in the abyss. The beast being in the abyss has the same effect as the dragon, Satan, being in the abyss. It does not make the dragon and beast completely incapacitated as Premils imagine. They are restrained to an extent, which is described figuratively, but that does not mean they are completely incapacitated and powerless.

The preaching of the gospel shines light into this dark world and prevents the dragon, Satan, and his beast from keeping the world in almost complete spiritual darkness like in Old Testament times. That is what the binding of Satan and the beast in the abyss is about. In the future, the dragon and beast will be loosed and allowed a little season to wreak havoc unrestrained in the world. That is why there will be a mass falling away from the faith in the time just before the return of Christ and our being gathered to Him (2 Thess 2:1-3).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

All good points, which further reveals that some folks here that claim many things don't actually read their Bible that much, or, they don't understand what they do read.

That seems to describe you. But, if you're so knowledgeable then I'm sure you can tell me plainly who or what the beast is and what it means for the beast to be in the abyss/bottomless pit and how it will ascend from the abyss in the future. So, please enlighten us on that.

 

[ewq1938]

The word zao is not the one used to describe a resurrection or the act of coming to life. It describes someone being alive. It can be used to describe someone who was dead and is now alive.

And how they became alive is through a resurrection. Christ said it about himself:

Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive (zao) for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


Christ used the same exact word regarding the result of his own physical resurrection. Did Christ not live again physically and in immortality after being dead?

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived (zao) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Most Amills deny there was a resurrection that caused these people to be alive again but that is wrong. These people experienced the same type of resurrection that Christ did and were alive (ZAO) after having been dead. This proves Premillennialism to be correct in the exegesis of Revelation 20, that it has two different days of resurrection, one before the thousand years and one after it.

 

[ewq1938]

Amillennialism understands that not all details about certain events are given in every passage that relates to those events. Other scripture indicates that the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the resurrection of the lost happens on the same day or around the same general time.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

Premillennialism believes in two times or two events during which the dead will be resurrected, but Jesus said there will be one.

Jesus said there was two, he did above and in Revelation 20 and there are other passages that speak of two as well. Only Revelation 20 tells us how much time is inbetween the two resurrections.

Two resurrections:

1. Those that have done good. Revelation 20:4
2. Those that have done evil. Revelation 20:11-13

 

[ewq1938]

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

This passage indicates that Jesus reigns now, not after His return.

The word reign isn't even in that verse!

This is when Christ rules on this Earth, the 7th trump:

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

At least my verse has the word "reign" lol

 

[GEN2REV]

6. Timeframe of the first resurrection.

Amillennialism believes Christ comes after the Millennium is over yet Christ clearly returns before the Millennium because Revelation 20 mentions the first resurrection occurring before the Millennium begins and the resurrection of the dead in Christ only happens at the second coming. The only resurrection after the thousand years is "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." which means these are the unsaved dead being resurrected.

Rev. 20:10-15 is a symbolic (non-literal, non-linear) re-stating of the events that are literal, and in order, in 1 Cor. 15:20-27.

From: Amillennialism versus Dispensationalism

"There is an interesting parallel between Rev. 20:10-15 and 1 Cor. 15:21-27 that is very significant.

More proof of Pre-Mil being a sham.

Take a look.

These verses: Revelation 20:10-11 align with these verses: 1 Corinthians 15:25-27

These verses: Revelation 20:12-13 align with this verse 1 Corinthians 15:21 and these verses 1 Corinthians 15:25-26

And these verses: Revelation 20:14-15 align with this verse 1 Corinthians 15:26

This passage in 1 Cor 15 clearly shows Jesus returning, one resurrection, judgment of all wickedness including death, the turning over of the kingdom to the Father and THE END.

Therefore, if Rev. 20 is a re-stating of 1 Cor. 15, Pre-Mil has a huge problem. Another one, that is."

 

[GEN2REV]

7. Return of Christ not found inbetween the end of the Millennium and judgment day.

In Revelation 20 we are shown the beginning and the end of the Millennium and then the Great White Throne Judgement (GWTJ) yet the most anticipated event in human history is nowhere to be found. If Jesus does not return inbetween the end of the Millennium and judgment day, then when did his return actually take place? Look back to Revelation 19.

Like all zealous Pre-Mils, you are banking on Revelation being literal and linear. It is your rock-solid evidence of all Pre-Mil doctrine points and claims.

No serious student of Revelation does that. The book itself claims to consist of signs and symbols; Jesus Himself says so in 1:1 and so does the KJV introduction to the book.

Doctrines built upon Revelation alone, with no outside Scriptural support, are castles made of sand.

 

[GEN2REV]

8. Thousand year reign of the saints in Heaven or on the Earth?

Some Amillennialist's claim the resurrected saints that reign for 1000 years are in heaven during that reign, yet some also say the 1000 years doesn't apply to those saints in heaven because "heaven is eternal" and there is no time there. According to Revelation 5:10, the saints reign on the Earth not in heaven therefore the reign of the rod of iron for a thousand years in Revelation 20 is upon the Earth.

And the proper Lord's Prayer in the KJV makes this clear.

Our Father who art (is) in heaven,
hallowed be (is) Thy Name
Thy kingdom (is/has) come
Thy will be (is) done in earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily Bread
and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us
and lead us not into temptation
For Thine IS the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
Matthew 6:9-13

All present tense. All active when Jesus spoke it, as well as right now.

Additional proof is 1 Corinthians 15:24 when Jesus turns HIS KINGDOM over to the Father following His Second Advent.

 

[GEN2REV]

9. Satan attacks New Jerusalem?

Revelation 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Some Amillennialist's believe that this attempted attack on Jerusalem is actually against New Jerusalem and satan is trying to access God's throne yet New Jerusalem does not descend from Heaven until after judgment day, Revelation 21.

No.

This also assumes the legitimacy of Pre-Mil doctrine as a certainty prior to the debate of Satan's armies attacking.

That's called circular reasoning and it's one of many fallacies of Pre-Mil.

 

[GEN2REV]

10. The first resurrection of Revelation 20 is when a person is born again and is spiritually resurrected?

The problem with this idea is that Revelation 20 specifically says those who are of the first resurrection had died from being beheaded in the great Tribulation. They were beheaded "for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God" which means they were already "spiritually resurrected" ie: born-again Christians before dying so the only resurrection left for them to experience would have to be a bodily resurrection. Revelation 20:4 is depicting dead Christians coming back to life (physical resurrection).

Again, you are banking on the assumption that Revelation is literal and linear.

Castles made of sand.

There is no support for a 1,000 year period after Christ's return anywhere in Scripture outside of Revelation 20. And the fact that Rev. 20:10-15 is a re-telling of 1 Cor. 15:20-27 discounts all possibility that this man-made doctrine has any Biblical legitimacy at all.