The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

[Truth7t7]

You are adding "is to the final battle". The text simply says, "he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled"

He is supposed to deceive the nations after the thousand years.



Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

As has been clearly shown several times, (Deceive The Nations) is defined within its very own context, Revelation 20:7-8 interprets (Deceive The Nations) as seen in Revelation 20:3, and its not satans general evil in the world as many falsely claim Satan can't be bound "Presently" because evil exist in the world "Wrong"

Satan is bound from one specific thing "Presently", and that is (Deceive The Nations) to gather them to battle, simple, clear, very easy to understand

You have been clearly shown when the 6th vial is poured out, Satan will be loosed to deceive the nations to battle, as frogs in devils come out of the mouths of Satan, the beast, the false prophet, to gather the Nations Revelation 16:12-15

Revelation 20:7-8KJV
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
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.

 

[PinSeeker]

Jesus came to His people the Jews of that day.

Hm. Another issue, I guess. True Jews are not necessarily ethnic Jews.

Are you saying Satan was running the Sanhedrin, and Jesus had to literally bind Satan to prevent that from happening?

LOL! I'm not sure how you even came up with this... Jesus said what He said in Matthew 12:28-30, and it is what it is:

"But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."​

He's talking about Himself, obviously, and that He is plundering the "strong man's" (Satan's) "house," and the reason He is able to do so is because He has figuratively bound Satan. This corresponds intensely with Revelation 20:1-3, which, in like manner, is what it is:

"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while."​

John is talking about Jesus, who is the Angel of the Lord, the living one, Who died and is alive forevermore and has the keys of Death and Hades, as Christ Himself says in Revelation 1:8.

It was an analogy.

Okay, well, certainly, you're welcome to your opinion. Call it what you like, but it is what it is. We can certainly make an analogy out of it, as in "This is to this as that is to that." But still, disagree or not, it's symbolic of reality and therefore a metaphor.

There was no literal binding of Satan...

According to Jesus in Matthew 12, there certainly was. But again, you're welcome to your opinion.

Satan even deceived himself, thinking he has power when he obviously does not.

I would argue with that, as we can see clearly in Job that Satan always knew that He can do nothing apart from what God allows or without His permission.

How did John get his writings out of the dream? John was taken by the Holy Spirit to the future.

He was shown a vision of future things in the form of a dream.

John was an eyewitness to the events. John was writing the book while watching what was happening.

Absolutely not. This is the error of the day, basically; you are not alone. Was Jacob an actual eyewitness of angels literally ascending and descending a ladder from earth to heaven in Genesis 28? No, it was a dream, a dream of great significance, but a dream, and not a literal, historical event. Joseph had several dreams, and, because his brothers were depicted as sheaves bowing down to him in one of them and stars bowing down to him in another, were he and his brothers actually sheaves and then later stars? No, of course not, they were dreams, dreams of great significance, but dreams, and not literal, historical events. So it is with John and his revelation.
Nope.

John had to write symbolically.

I agree. His dreams were symbolic of future events.

He was writing about today's life as a first century viewer to first century readers.

This is a strange statement. So yes, John wrote Revelation in the first century, probably about 60 years after Jesus's crucifixion; we agree on that. But the impact of your statement here, it's real implication, whether intended or not is that either a.) what he wrote was irrelevant to readers before today, or b.) or that what he wrote is irrelevant to us today, both of which are untrue. I would argue ~ and I think you would agree, but again, the implication of your statement here is contrary ~ that what he wrote was equally relevant to the people of his day and to people of today and at all times in between... and into the future. Until Jesus comes back, what he wrote in the opening verses is true regardless of past, present, or future:

"Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near." (Revelation 1:3).​

Grace and peace to you.

 

[ewq1938]

As has been clearly shown several times, (Deceive The Nations) is defined within its very own context, Revelation 20:7-8 interprets (Deceive The Nations) as seen in Revelation 20:3, and its not satans general evil in the world as many falsely claim Satan can't be bound "Presently" because evil exist in the world "Wrong"

When satan is imprisoned and bound and locked away etc, he cannot do anything to the outside world. The pit is not just a hole in the ground but is closer to being in another dimension, a spiritual place not even close to this reality.

Satan is bound from one specific thing "Presently", and that is (Deceive The Nations) to gather them to battle, simple, clear, very easy to understand

That isn't what the text says, he is unable to deceive the nations in any sense, not limited just to war. Currently satan is deceiving the nations in every way including to battle. Also, Christ is not ruling the nations with a rod of iron with his saints, so everything tells us we are not in the Millennium. Amills live in a fantasy world thinking they are ruling t5he nations with a rod of iron when they aren't. It's make believe playing like children do.

You have been clearly shown when the 6th vial is poured out, Satan will be loosed to deceive the nations to battle, as frogs in devils come out of the mouths of Satan, the beast, the false prophet, to gather the Nations Revelation 16:12-15

lol, that is nonsense. None of the vials pour until the second coming, and the second coming does not happen until the Great Tribulation is over and it hasn't even started.

Revelation 20:7-8KJV
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
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.

Number 32 in this thread covers that error:

The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

 

[Timtofly]

You have been clearly shown when the 6th vial is poured out, Satan will be loosed to deceive the nations to battle, as frogs in devils come out of the mouths of Satan, the beast, the false prophet, to gather the Nations Revelation 16:12-15

Revelation 20:7-8KJV
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
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.

Satan was not loosed in the 6th vial. Satan had been in control for the last 42 months. Satan was not loosed in the 7th Trumpet. Satan was not loosed in the Seals nor first 6 Trumpets. Satan was never loosed, because Satan was not even bound, until the battle of Armageddon.

Satan is loosed 1,000 years after the battle of Armageddon, where he was bound.

 

[Timtofly]

Hm. Another issue, I guess. True Jews are not necessarily ethnic Jews.


LOL! I'm not sure how you even came up with this... Jesus said what He said in Matthew 12:28-30, and it is what it is:

"But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."​

He's talking about Himself, obviously, and that He is plundering the "strong man's" (Satan's) "house," and the reason He is able to do so is because He has figuratively bound Satan. This corresponds intensely with Revelation 20:1-3, which, in like manner, is what it is:

"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while."​

John is talking about Jesus, who is the Angel of the Lord, the living one, Who died and is alive forevermore and has the keys of Death and Hades, as Christ Himself says in Revelation 1:8.


Okay, well, certainly, you're welcome to your opinion. Call it what you like, but it is what it is. We can certainly make an analogy out of it, as in "This is to this as that is to that." But still, disagree or not, it's symbolic of reality and therefore a metaphor.


According to Jesus in Matthew 12, there certainly was. But again, you're welcome to your opinion.


I would argue with that, as we can see clearly in Job that Satan always knew that He can do nothing apart from what God allows or without His permission.


He was shown a vision of future things in the form of a dream.


Absolutely not. This is the error of the day, basically; you are not alone. Was Jacob an actual eyewitness of angels literally ascending and descending a ladder from earth to heaven in Genesis 28? No, it was a dream, a dream of great significance, but a dream, and not a literal, historical event. Joseph had several dreams, and, because his brothers were depicted as sheaves bowing down to him in one of them and stars bowing down to him in another, were he and his brothers actually sheaves and then later stars? No, of course not, they were dreams, dreams of great significance, but dreams, and not literal, historical events. So it is with John and his revelation.
Nope.


I agree. His dreams were symbolic of future events.


This is a strange statement. So yes, John wrote Revelation in the first century, probably about 60 years after Jesus's crucifixion; we agree on that. But the impact of your statement here, it's real implication, whether intended or not is that either a.) what he wrote was irrelevant to readers before today, or b.) or that what he wrote is irrelevant to us today, both of which are untrue. I would argue ~ and I think you would agree, but again, the implication of your statement here is contrary ~ that what he wrote was equally relevant to the people of his day and to people of today and at all times in between... and into the future. Until Jesus comes back, what he wrote in the opening verses is true regardless of past, present, or future:

"Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near." (Revelation 1:3).​

Grace and peace to you.

Jesus came in the first century to Jerusalem and the surrounding area. That would be the house where Satan was the strong man needed to be bound, ie the Sanhedrin ran Jerusalem and the Jews.

Unless you can prove the Second Coming was in the first century, John was taken to the future and was a literal eye witness, not just dreaming. What John wrote was determined by God to be put in the NT canon in the first century. That does not mean, those events happened in the first century.

If God had waited until the actual events, Revelation would not exist, but only happen as God's Word when the Second Coming happened.

 

[Truth7t7]

When satan is imprisoned and bound and locked away etc, he cannot do anything to the outside world. The pit is not just a hole in the ground but is closer to being in another dimension, a spiritual place not even close to this reality.






That isn't what the text says, he is unable to deceive the nations in any sense, not limited just to war. Currently satan is deceiving the nations in every way including to battle. Also, Christ is not ruling the nations with a rod of iron with his saints, so everything tells us we are not in the Millennium. Amills live in a fantasy world thinking they are ruling t5he nations with a rod of iron when they aren't. It's make believe playing like children do.



lol, that is nonsense. None of the vials pour until the second coming, and the second coming does not happen until the Great Tribulation is over and it hasn't even started.




Number 32 in this thread covers that error:

The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

We have explained our positions several times

I Disagree

 

[PinSeeker]

Jesus came in the first century to Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

Yes, but was Jesus's coming only for first century residents of "Jerusalem and the surrounding area"? Was what John wrote only applicable to them? No, of course not, and no, of course not.

That would be the house where Satan was the strong man needed to be bound, ie the Sanhedrin ran Jerusalem and the Jews.

So, the answers to the above questions I posed is obviously no, and that renders this statement null and void... even ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Unless you can prove the Second Coming was in the first century...

No need. See above.

John was taken to the future and was a literal eye witness, not just dreaming.

This is totally contrary to what John himself said.

What John wrote was determined by God to be put in the NT cannon in the first century.

Canon (not cannon). Yes, I agree.

That does not mean, those events happened in the first century.

Not even sure what you're talking about here. It is generally accepted that John wrote Revelation around 95 A.D. If you're talking about the events John describes in Revelation, again, what John wrote is relevant to all Christians in these last days, which began after Jesus's ascension and officially at Pentecost.

If God had waited until the actual events, Revelation would not exist, but only happen as God's Word when the Second Coming happened.

Ugh. Yes, like I said, you're welcome to your opinion, convoluted as it may be. You're your own person, for sure.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes, but was Jesus's coming only for first century residents of "Jerusalem and the surrounding area"? Was what John wrote only applicable to them? No, of course not, and no, of course not.

It is your literal application. I said it was an analogy, not literal.

John explained when Revelation stopped being a vision, and was literal: Revelation 4:1-2

"After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne."

 

[PinSeeker]

It is your literal application.

Well... yeah. The application is what it is. It's the same in Matthew 12 as it is in Revelation 20. If that's even what you're talking about here; it's really hard to follow along with you. LOL!

I said it was an analogy, not literal.

Well, it's metaphorical, and symbolic of reality ~ what has been, is, and what will continue to be ~ and literal in that sense.

John explained when Revelation stopped being a vision, and was literal: Revelation 4:1-2

"After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne."​

​

Don't look now, Timtofly, but Revelation 9:17 is... well, obviously after Revelation 4:1-2. There, John says:

"And this is how I saw the horses in my vision and those who rode them: they wore breastplates the color of fire and of sapphire and of sulfur, and the heads of the horses were like lions' heads, and fire and smoke and sulfur came out of their mouths."​

Did his vision cease to be a vision and then start again? The answer to that is an emphatic no, obviously.

Although... I will say this, that in a certain way what you say is true: Revelation is a series of different visions given to John, each (seven in number) depicting the same thing, basically, but in different ways. This is the mistake many people make in reading it and thus their misunderstanding; they think Revelation to be one long vision from beginning to end. Again, in a sense, that's true, but they miss the fact that the one vision is given in the form of seven different visions, called cycles, each beginning with the coming of Christ and culminating with the victorious return of Christ. The last one begins at Revelation 20:1 and goes to Revelation 21:8.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

Well... yeah. The application is what it is. It's the same in Matthew 12 as it is in Revelation 20. If that's even what you're talking about here; it's really hard to follow along with you. LOL!


Well, it's metaphorical, and symbolic of reality ~ what has been, is, and what will continue to be ~ and literal in that sense.

​

Don't look now, Timtofly, but Revelation 9:17 is... well, obviously after Revelation 4:1-2. There, John says:

"And this is how I saw the horses in my vision and those who rode them: they wore breastplates the color of fire and of sapphire and of sulfur, and the heads of the horses were like lions' heads, and fire and smoke and sulfur came out of their mouths."​

Did his vision cease to be a vision and then start again? The answer to that is an emphatic no, obviously.

Although... I will say this, that in a certain way what you say is true: Revelation is a series of different visions given to John, each (seven in number) depicting the same thing, basically, but in different ways. This is the mistake many people make in reading it and thus their misunderstanding; they think Revelation to be one long vision from beginning to end. Again, in a sense, that's true, but they miss the fact that the one vision is given in the form of seven different visions, called cycles, each beginning with the coming of Christ and culminating with the victorious return of Christ. The last one begins at Revelation 20:1 and goes to Revelation 21:8.

Grace and peace to you.

Hopefully your vision works great reading this post, and you are not dreaming.

But to clarify points, perhaps we should call your posts dreams and mine visions? Since you accept Revelation is just parallel dreams, and only taken as figurative. While I see see literal application for many future events, written using figurative words to describe real actions, people, and places.

In regards to your parallel dreams, I offer Jesus' Second Coming as a systematic final harvest dealing with the church, Israel, and then the Nations in that order. The Day of the Lord being a literal future event encompassing 1,000 years, that starts out with a big bang rivaling even the beginning of creation itself.

 

[PinSeeker]

Hopefully your vision works great reading this post, and you are not dreaming.

LOL! Well-played; I like that...

...perhaps we should call your posts dreams and mine visions?

LOL! Perhaps not, since to do either would be quite ridiculous.

Since you accept Revelation is just parallel dreams...

Dreams, visions... that they are, as John himself says.

...and only taken as figurative.

Well, figurative, but symbolic of very real, very literal things/events. Just because someone understands this or that as figurative and/or symbolic doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that they throw the literal completely out the window. Again, figurative, but symbolic of very real, very literal things/events. Again:

• Regarding Jacob's dream, Jacob was not an actual eyewitness of angels literally ascending and descending a ladder from earth to heaven in Genesis 28; it was a dream, a dream of great significance, but a dream, and not a literal, historical event.

• Again, Joseph had several dreams of great significance, one depicting his brothers as sheaves bowing down to him and another depicting them as stars bowing down to him (both in Genesis 37); but of course they were men and not sheaves or stars. But (to make a longer story short) they did ~ quite literally ~ end up bowing down to him in Egypt, right? Joseph interpreted the dreams of the two men imprisoned with him in Genesis 40 ~ dreams of similar real impact and implicative of real events, but containing symbolic things ~ and of Pharoah in Genesis 41 ~ a dream of far greater impact and implicative of real events, but containing symbolic things.

• Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in his prophecy (Daniel 2). This one is even more directly relevant in the discussion regarding John and Revelation, because much of Daniel's prophecy is of the same genre of literature (apocalyptic) as John's. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is indisputably figurative in the sense that it is symbolic of real things. The dream itself is described by Daniel in Daniel 2:31-35, and the interpretation, which is quite different, is given immediately after, in Daniel 2:36-45.

• In the New Testament, Paul says, "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven ~ whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise ~ whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows ~ and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter" (2 Corinthians 12:2-4). Paul does say that only God knows whether this was an in-body or out-of-body experience, probably because this man couldn't even say for sure, the implication being it was a dream and/or vision.

The story is the same throughout the Bible, and so it is with John in Revelation.

While I see see literal application for many future events, written using figurative words to describe real actions, people, and places.

Me, too. I'm not sure why you think otherwise, as I have stated such several times. But... not just future, but also past and present.

In regards to your parallel dreams, I offer Jesus' Second Coming as a systematic final harvest dealing with the church, Israel, and then the Nations in that order. The Day of the Lord being a literal future event encompassing 1,000 years, that starts out with a big bang rivaling even the beginning of creation itself.

Hmmm... not sure if I understand what you're saying here completely; there are several things mentioned here and quite a lot to unpack. I'll just say that I don't completely disagree, and make a couple comments in response:

• Israel and the Church of Jesus Christ are not separate, but one and the same. We can see this in what Paul says, surely not just in Romans 11 but very clearly there ~ the grafting in of the Gentiles and the re-grafting in of believing ethnic Jews is described (Romans 11:11-24), and he finally writes, "...a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.... in this way all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:25-26) ~ and also in Hebrews ~ "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, Whom He appointed the heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2).

• To your comment regarding Christ's second coming, His dealing will be done in very short order, and I would say, really, one big event, as described by Jesus Himself in Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus again in John 5:28-29, Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, and the oft- and in many ways misunderstood Revelation 20, particularly Revelation 20:11-15. Succinctly speaking, Jesus will return, the general resurrection will occur many resurrected to eternal life and the others resurrected to judgment, and He will separate the tares from the wheat, and all will be made new.

• The Day of the Lord begins at His return and has no end, lasting into eternity. This is the age to come.

One final thing: "a big bang"... My goodness. LOL! I'm not even sure what you have in mind regarding that or what you really mean by that, but no matter.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[ewq1938]

Succinctly speaking, Jesus will return, the general resurrection will occur many resurrected to eternal life and the others resurrected to judgment

Yet Revelation 20 says, "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" which proves all are not raised on the same day but there is a thousand years inbetween the two resurrections and judgments. Amillennialism ignores and avoids that part of the verse because it disproves the doctrine. All interpretation of passages speaking of resurrection and judgment must be in alignment with "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" or they will be in error.

 

[PinSeeker]

Yet Revelation 20 says, "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" which proves all are not raised on the same day but there is a thousand years in between the two resurrections and judgments.

Many make that error, yes. And frankly, it's not hard to see why, but still, an error (and a really big one...) it is.

Amillennialism ignores...

Amillennialism ignores nothing. The “rest” who do not come to life until the thousand years are finished/ended (Revelation 20:5) are those who do not believe in Christ and so do not share in the first (spiritual) resurrection. The statement that Amillenniallism ignores anything, much less Revelation 20:5, is itself ignorant. It's a nod toward Revelation 20:12, which is just after the return of Jesus and the second resurrection, when all "the dead, great and small, will stand before the throne," and "the books (are) opened," and they are all judged by Christ. This should be enough, but to be even more thorough:

"The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended," is a statement of contrast (obviously) to the ones John "saw... seated on the thrones, to whom the authority to judge was committed, and the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands" (20:4). The 'this' in "This is the first resurrection" is referring directly to the entirety of Revelation 20:4. There are not two resurrections in view in Revelation 20:4-6, but only one, and it is spiritual and specific to God's elect (rather than general and experienced by all) ~ described vividly by Paul in Ephesians 2:4-6, were we see that God has "made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace we have been saved ~ and has "raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." The second resurrection is physical and general and occurs "after the thousand years are ended," which is when Jesus returns. As Jesus said in John 5:28-29, the "hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." Upon His triumphant return, this physical resurrection happens, and shortly thereafter, this great white throne judgment occurs, unfolding exactly as Jesus described in Matthew 25:31-44.

All interpretation of passages speaking of resurrection and judgment must be in alignment with "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" or they will be in error.

I agree with this, actually, but getting that alignment wrong leads to error also.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[ewq1938]

Many make that error, yes. And frankly, it's not hard to see why, but still, an error (and a really big one...) it is.


Amillennialism ignores nothing. The “rest” who do not come to life until the thousand years are finished/ended (Revelation 20:5) are those who do not believe in Christ and so do not share in the first (spiritual) resurrection.

That's another error. The "living again" is a physical resurrection not a spiritual resurrection (which doesn't exist in scripture anyways). Also, being born again in Amillennialism can only happen before or during the Millennium, not after it because Amillennialism believes after the Millennium satan deceives all mortals on the Earth and then Christ returns and kills them all, then they are judged.

 

[PinSeeker]

That's another error.

So you think; I get it, ewq1938. Loud and clear.

The "living again" is a physical resurrection not a spiritual resurrection...

That depends on which "living again" you're talking about, the ones in Revelation 20:4 who are reborn spiritually, or the ones in Revelation 20:5, who live again physically after the thousand years are ended. It seems, ironically, that you're the one ignoring either verse 4 or verse 5. I agreed with you about the concept of alignment that you introduced earlier, but I'm left to wonder if you read the rest of my post, because in it you can clearly see that the alignment is not just in Revelation 20 but in all Scripture.

(which doesn't exist in scripture anyways).

Yes, the spiritual resurrection is a reality, as Jesus (particularly in John 3), Paul (particularly in Ephesians 2, but in all his letters), and Peter (particularly in 1 Peter 1) ~ among others ~ are crystal clear in their teachings and explanations of it.

Also, being born again in Amillennialism can only happen before or during the Millennium, not after it because Amillennialism believes after the Millennium satan deceives all mortals on the Earth and then Christ returns and kills them all, then they are judged.

This is not what Amillennialism teaches, ewq1938. Yes, our being born again, the first resurrection, is spiritual and happens on an individual basis during our physical lives through the course of God's millennium, but Amillennialists do not believe that "Satan deceives all mortals on Earth after the millennium and then Christ returns and kills them all, and then they are judged." My stars, ewq1938, that doesn't even make sense.

I get that you are adamant that this isn't true, but a) Premillennialism is based on a wrong take of Revelation 20 (among other things), and b) most if not all Premillennialists ~ like you ~ either honestly or dishonestly even get what they think they disagree with wrong. It's quite astounding; quite the double-whammy. But... so it goes.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Then stop using the term "Satan is bound", and post the "dragon is figuratively bound".

That is what you mean.

Don't ever tell me what I can say or not say. It is a figurative dragon, representing Satan, that is portrayed as being literally, physically bound with a chain. Obviously it's not a literal dragon being bound with a literal chain in reality, but that is the picture John is painting to illustrate Satan's spiritual binding. So, I can say Satan is bound if I want. I just don't see his binding as being a literal, physical binding that incapacitates him like you do.

 

[ewq1938]

So you think; I get it, ewq1938. Loud and clear.


That depends on which "living again" you're talking about, the ones in Revelation 20:4 who are reborn spiritually, or the ones in Revelation 20:5, who live again physically after the thousand years are ended.

Both speak of a physical resurrection. Neither speak of being born again.

Yes, the spiritual resurrection is a reality

There is no0 such thing as a spiritual resurrection anywhere in scripture. The only resurrection scripture speaks of is a physical one.

, but Amillennialists do not believe that "Satan deceives all mortals on Earth after the millennium and then Christ returns and kills them all, and then they are judged." My stars, ewq1938, that doesn't even make sense.

That is what most Amillennialists believe though.

I get that you are adamant that this isn't true, but a) Premillennialism is based on a wrong take of Revelation 20 (among other things)

No, Premillennialism gets Revelation 20 right, Amillennialism gets it wrong. Amillennialism claims all resurrect on the same day yet Revelation 20 makes clear some resurrect first, and some resurrect after the thousand years were finished. That's two separate days of resurrection but Amillennialism cannot understand Revelation 20 correctly or else they would see how Amillennialism contradicts Revelation 20.

, and b) most if not all Premillennialists ~ like you ~ either honestly or dishonestly even get what they think they disagree with wrong. It's quite astounding; quite the double-whammy. But... so it goes.

You are confused.

 

[ewq1938]

Don't ever tell me what I can say or not say. It is a figurative dragon, representing Satan, that is portrayed as being literally, physically bound with a chain. Obviously it's not a literal dragon being bound with a literal chain in reality, but that is the picture John is painting to illustrate Satan's spiritual binding. So, I can say Satan is bound if I want. I just don't see his binding as being a literal, physical binding that incapacitates him like you do.

That's because you ignore his imprisonment inside the pit. Amillennialism always ignores that and simply says he is "bound". He isn't only bound!

 

[PinSeeker]

Both speak of a physical resurrection. Neither speak of being born again.

Regarding Revelation 20, Verse 4 is the spiritual resurrection of God's elect, our being born again of the Spirit (John 3, Ephesians 2, 1 Peter 1). Verse 5 is not a resurrection at all, but a statement of contrast to the ones who are resurrected in verse 4, as I said, and a nod to (a foreshadowing of) what will happen at the close of the millennium, when Jesus returns, which is the general, physical resurrection seen in verse 12. There they are all standing before the great white throne, this physical resurrection having just occurred. In it, many are raised to a resurrection to eternal life, and others are raised to a resurrection of judgment (John 5), whereupon the great white throne judgment is executed by Christ, and the ones on His proverbial right (like the thief crucified on his right at Calvary; Luke 23) enter into His kingdom and inherit eternal life, and the ones on His proverbial left (like the thief crucified on his left at Calvary; also Luke 23) depart, because Jesus never knew ~ loved in a sovereign, distinguishing way ~ them (Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 25:31-46), to a place of outer darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22:13). So you're not just arguing about Revelation 20, you're arguing about all of Scripture and don't even realize it, apparently.

There is no such thing as a spiritual resurrection anywhere in scripture. The only resurrection scripture speaks of is a physical one.

That's too bad that you think that, but so be it. And you're kind of all alone in that belief, because not even premillennialists (worth their salt) believe this. Any good amillennialist would agree that, there is a first and second resurrection and the two cannot be both physical, as if they are physically resurrected and then at some later point really physically resurrected. Such a supposition is absolutely ridiculous.

PinSeeker: Amillennialists do not believe that "Satan deceives all mortals on Earth after the millennium and then Christ returns and kills them all, and then they are judged." My stars, ewq1938, that doesn't even make sense.
That is what most Amillennialists believe though.

No, ewq1938, it's not. Not only does it not even make any sense, it's something that you're merely foisting upon them. That's a consistent pattern among premillennialists. They're so personally invested in premillennialism ~ and defensive in it ~ that they refuse to portray amillennialism for what it is but as what it's not, making it into some ridiculous caricature of what it is that they can easily knock down. Some do it intentionally, which smacks of dishonesty, and some do it unintentionally, which smacks of willful ignorance.

No, Premillennialism gets Revelation 20 right...

Nope. Sorry.

Amillennialism gets it wrong. Amillennialism claims all resurrect on the same day...

No, and no. There is a spiritual resurrection for each individual believer as he or she comes to Christ, and this happens on an individual basis throughout God's millennium. To claim that there are two physical resurrections and the second is a thousand years after the first is absolutely wrong; the first is ridiculous and the second is even more ridiculous.

...Revelation 20 makes clear some resurrect first, and some resurrect after the thousand years were finished. That's two separate days of resurrection ...

See, amillennialists would absolutely agree with this on its face, but disagree with the nature that premillennialists suppose the two to be. Plus, it seems that you're even contradicting yourself, because you apparently see three physical resurrections in Revelation 20, one in verse 4, one in verse 5, and then another immediately preceding verse 12. Maybe not, but still, it's all quite ridiculous. At any rate, this is yet another... well either deliberate (and therefore dishonest) mischaracterization or accidental (and therefore ignorant)... misunderstanding of amillennialism. Since it happens over and over and over again, though, it's really kind of impossible to think it's the latter and not the former.

Amillennialists cannot understand Revelation 20 correctly or else they would see how Amillennialism contradicts Revelation 20.

If you bothered to get amillennialism right, you might see how there is no contradiction. I guess you can't allow yourself to do that. And that would seem to indicate a total lack of humility. But, so be it.

You are confused.

LOL! Nobody's really "confused," ewq ~ though I get, for sure, that you feel this need to pin that on others. That's called building the self up by tearing others down, which... no one should do, especially Christians regarding other Christians. But some are certainly mistaken, and that would include you, my friend.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[ewq1938]

Regarding Revelation 20, Verse 4 is the spiritual resurrection of God's elect, our being born again of the Spirit (John 3, Ephesians 2, 1 Peter 1).

No, it is not them being born again. They were beheaded for the witness of Christ, and for refusing the mark etc which means they were physically murdered then verse 4 happens which can only be a bodily resurrection. They were born again BEFORE they were murdered not AFTER. You have things way out of proper order.

Verse 5 is not a resurrection at all

Not yet but it does speak of a future bodily resurrection for "the rest of the dead" not coming back to bodily life as those did in verse 4.

, but a statement of contrast to the ones who are resurrected in verse 4, as I said, and a nod to (a foreshadowing of) what will happen at the close of the millennium, when Jesus returns, which is the general, physical resurrection seen in verse 12. There they are all standing before the great white throne, this physical resurrection having just occurred. In it, many are raised to a resurrection to eternal life, and others are raised to a resurrection of judgment (John 5)

No, the second resurrection of Revelation 20 is only the unsaved who are resurrected and then judged to the lake of fire. There are no righteous among them because they are resurrected before the thousand years.

,

That's too bad that you think that, but so be it. And you're kind of all alone in that belief, because not even premillennialists (worth their salt) believe this. Any good amillennialist would agree that, there is a first and second resurrection and the two cannot be both physical, as if they are physically resurrected and then at some later point really physically resurrected. Such a supposition is absolutely ridiculous.

Your supposition is yours alone. Premills don't believe in that nonsense. This is called a strawman fallacy.


Revelation 20 has dead saints (already born again BEFORE dying) come back to life which is the only kind of resurrection the bible speaks of. Then a thousand years takes place, and then shortly after "the rest of the dead" physically resurrect.

No, and no. There is a spiritual resurrection for each individual believer as he or she comes to Christ, and this happens on an individual basis throughout God's millennium.

There is no such thing as a spiritual resurrection anywhere in scripture. There is being born again which happens before and during the thousand years according to Premillennialism. After being physically killed, the only resurrection possible is a physical one. That's found in Revelation 20:4. Being born again is not found in that verse.

To claim that there are two physical resurrections and the second is a thousand years after the first is absolutely wrong

Not according to Revelation 20 which presents two resurrections and judgments. "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" proves you wrong.

See, amillennialists would absolutely agree with this on its face, but disagree with the nature that premillennialists suppose the two to be. Plus, it seems that you're even contradicting yourself, because you apparently see three physical resurrections in Revelation 20, one in verse 4, one in verse 5, and then another immediately preceding verse 12.

There are only two resurrections in Revelation 20, not three.

LOL! Nobody's really "confused," ewq ~ though I get, for sure, that you feel this need to pin that on others. That's called building the self up by tearing others down, which... no one should do, especially Christians regarding other Christians. But some are certainly mistaken, and that would include you, my friend.

This is pure hypocrisy. I said you were confused and you protest strongly then end with "some are certainly mistaken, and that would include you, my friend"

I guess I should have said, "You are confused, MY FRIEND." ?? Is that better? The way you do it?