This world and the wicked are going up in a puff of smoke when Jesus come - thus negating Premil

[WPM]

Are you admitting your title was a deception to get people to read your OP?

LOL. You come to some absurd conclusions.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. Such a ridiculous question. That's like asking if Revelation 12 is in the wrong location between Revelation 11 and 13 since what is described there does not chronologically follow what is described at the end of Revelation 11.

It is your location of Rev 20 that is wrong. From that, you twist every Scripture to fit your faulty narrative. 1There is no 1000 years mentioned or suggested in Corinthians 15:24. You add it unto Scripture, there and everywhere else.

Explain why Revelation 20 is in the wrong location.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Explain why Revelation 20 is in the wrong location.

No one is saying that it is in the wrong location. Is Revelation 12 in the wrong location since it describes things (the birth and ascension of Christ) that don't occur after things described at the end of Revelation 11?

Is this all you have to offer is weak arguments like this? It appears so. You are in way over your head here.

 

[MatthewG]

Hello @WPM, if you just ask me, I will tell you I believe Jesus came back physically and was seen by the bride of Christ he came back to get. Please make sure you have information correct, at least, in this case, for me, okay?

 

[Timtofly]

You have decided, because of doctrinal bias

You deny bias, but yet accuse others of what you do. I don't ever default to Revelation 12, when the chronological order of Revelation is brought up. I hardly ever call other people's interpretation ridiculous and nonsense.

You admit you could walk away from Amil at any moment and accept Scripture when it points out everything, but Amil thought?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You deny bias, but yet accuse others of what you do.

I'm not biased. I became Amil after deciding not to be biased anymore. I was biased back when I just assumed that what was written about in Revelation 20 must follow what is written about in Revelation 19 chronologically. But, then I realized that did not have to be the case since that is not the case for Revelation 11 and 12, for example. After deciding to study these things objectively, I also realized that interpreting Revelation 19 and 20 that way contradicted other scripture.

I don't ever default to Revelation 12, when the chronological order of Revelation is brought up.

What does that mean?

I hardly ever call other people's interpretation ridiculous and nonsense.

No one's interpretations are more ridiculous and nonsensical than yours. It's only because they are so incredibly ridiculous and nonsensical that I call them that. If your interpretations had at least some semblance of sense and reason to them then I wouldn't say that about them.

You admit you could walk away from Amil at any moment and accept Scripture when it points out everything, but Amil thought?

What kind of question is this? I believe Amil is true, so why would I walk away from it? This is why I call your comments and questions nonsense. What you said here is pure nonsense. How could it make any sense for me to walk away from something I believe is true? It would make just as much sense for you to ask me why giraffes have short necks.

 

[Timtofly]

You interpret other scripture based on your interpretation of Revelation 20. That is a fact. You don't interpret Revelation 20 in light of other scripture, you interpret other scripture in light of your interpretation of Revelation 20. Just like all Premils do.

You have no proof of this. Since you get to tell others how they think, can we start telling you how you think? Most pre-mill think there is sin in the Millennium. I do not. Can you explain how Revelation 20 states that point? Should we just claim you are the same as every other Amil?

 

[Timtofly]

No one is saying that it is in the wrong location. Is Revelation 12 in the wrong location since it describes things (the birth and ascension of Christ) that don't occur after things described at the end of Revelation 11?

Is this all you have to offer is weak arguments like this? It appears so. You are in way over your head here.

It is your location of Rev 20 that is wrong. From that, you twist every Scripture to fit your faulty narrative. 1There is no 1000 years mentioned or suggested in Corinthians 15:24. You add it unto Scripture, there and everywhere else.

Premil have not moved Revelation 20. Are you saying this poster is lying and you agreed to this lie and false accusation?

Once more avoiding the point, and defaulting to a different chapter, not being discussed.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have no proof of this. Since you get to tell others how they think, can we start telling you how you think? Most pre-mill think there is sin in the Millennium. I do not. Can you explain how Revelation 20 states that point? Should we just claim you are the same as every other Amil?

I was only talking in terms of your understanding of the timing of the thousand years in relation to the return of Christ and not in terms of everything you believe. Your understanding of that is the same as other Premils. It's what makes you a Premil. But, I know you have some beliefs that other Premils don't have (and that no one else has as far as I know).

So, what I meant was that your understanding of the timing of Satan being bound and Christ reigning and the judgment in relation to the thousand years is entirely based on Revelation 20 without taking into account what other scripture teaches about the timing of things like Christ's reign and the day of judgment in relation to the day He returns.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Premil have not moved Revelation 20.

Neither have Amils. We just interpret it differently than you do. Saying that we try to move it to match our understanding of the order of events is like saying that someone should move Revelation 12 to somewhere before Revelation 11 since it contains descriptions of things (such as Christ's birth and ascension) that obviously occurred well before the seventh trumpet will sound.

Are you saying this poster is lying and you agreed to this lie and false accusation?

What are you talking about?

Once more avoiding the point, and defaulting to a different chapter, not being discussed.

So, we should not use other scripture to help us understand passages in the book of Revelation? That says it all about your approach to interpreting scripture. It's a terrible approach because it indicates that you don't care if you interpret something in the book of Revelation in such a way that contradicts other scripture.

 

[Phoneman777]

So what promise did "Israel mess up" in this verse?

"Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

That promise is for the church, not Israel.

And which verse claims Israel has to repent first, before the fulness of the Gentiles is over?

You will not find a single verse in all of Scripture where God gathered the people back to Israel after scattering them for disobedience before they first repented and turned back to God. The people living in the land of ancient Israel are neither blood descendants of Abraham or repentant sons and daughters of God - they're imposters from the pagan Khazarian Empire which history tells us adopted Judaism.

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;"

So if Israel had obeyed, and not crucified Jesus, God would reward them with this promise?

It's of no use to speculate about what would have happened if the Jews hadn't crucified Jesus because God already knew they would before the foundations of the world.

"Jerusalem" here could mean figuratively as the church, the "Israel of God" or literally the church when after the 1,000 years Satan and his followers come up in the Resurrection of the Damned and surround New Jerusalem, just before fire comes down from God and devours them. It certainly is not referring to literal Israel because every single literal tribe of Israel is lost forever, their bloodlines incurably mixed with pagans.

 

[Phoneman777]

John was writing at the same time he was seeing.

"And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not. And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,"

John was still seeing the same angel after writing down what he was seeing.

Of course they have not happened as of today. They happened when John was writing stuff down. Some of what John was a witness to is even written in past tense. He had already experienced them. He was not prophesying. He was writing during and after each event.

A prophet is one who is shown events to come, either by His voice, a vision, an angel, whatever vehicle God chooses to communicate His revelation. I don't think it's fair to deny John's status as "prophet", especially since the angel confirms him as a brother of the prophets.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm not biased. I became Amil after deciding not to be biased anymore. I was biased back when I just assumed that what was written about in Revelation 20 must follow what is written about in Revelation 19 chronologically. But, then I realized that did not have to be the case since that is not the case for Revelation 11 and 12, for example. After deciding to study these things objectively, I also realized that interpreting Revelation 19 and 20 that way contradicted other scripture.


What does that mean?


No one's interpretations are more ridiculous and nonsensical than yours. It's only because they are so incredibly ridiculous and nonsensical that I call them that. If your interpretations had at least some semblance of sense and reason to them then I wouldn't say that about them.


What kind of question is this? I believe Amil is true, so why would I walk away from it? This is why I call your comments and questions nonsense. What you said here is pure nonsense. How could it make any sense for me to walk away from something I believe is true? It would make just as much sense for you to ask me why giraffes have short necks.

Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

 

[Timtofly]

So, what I meant was that your understanding of the timing of Satan being bound and Christ reigning and the judgment in relation to the thousand years is entirely based on Revelation 20 without taking into account what other scripture teaches about the timing of things like Christ's reign and the day of judgment in relation to the day He returns.

Then please post any verses that are contradictory.

What verse states Satan is not bound at the Second Coming? For that point to contradict other Scripture, you need to provide such Scripture.

 

[Timtofly]

So, we should not use other scripture to help us understand passages in the book of Revelation? That says it all about your approach to interpreting scripture. It's a terrible approach because it indicates that you don't care if you interpret something in the book of Revelation in such a way that contradicts other scripture.

How is using Revelation 12 not this point you made?

Please use other Scripture other than your continuing excuse about Revelation 12.

Once again using lies and your "reading my mind" to make a point. Why are you criticizing me? Can't you just address the topic? I asked the poster why he claims Revelation 20 moves, and now you cannot even stop with your critique of my eschatology.

You cannot even give an example of how my post do not contain Scripture. I already know you always use Revelation 12 as an example of "bad chronological order" in Revelation. Revelation 12 has nothing to do with Revelation 20. I already agree that Revelation 12 is not part of the chronology of the Trumpets; much less with the fact, the Trumpets are after the Seals in chronological order.

My interpretation of Revelation 12 is the introduction of the dragon into the narrative of the entire book, not just the point Satan is mentioned only after the 7th Trumpet has sounded. At least by name and the symbolic use of the term dragon. Satan could be mentioned in Revelation 9 along with the details of the 5th Trumpet.

That those rebel angels are cast out of heaven is the direct result of the first woe, and them being loosed out of the pit per Jude 1:6

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

The judgment of that day being the 5th Trumpet/1st woe. They were bound before Eve was deceieved by the original serpent.

Revelation 12 goes all the way back to before Adam was placed in the Garden.

"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth."

They were immediately bound at the moment Satan symbolically cast them out of heaven. We know how they left their habitation. It was Satan.

 

[Timtofly]

That promise is for the church, not Israel.

You will not find a single verse in all of Scripture where God gathered the people back to Israel after scattering them for disobedience before they first repented and turned back to God. The people living in the land of ancient Israel are neither blood descendants of Abraham or repentant sons and daughters of God - they're imposters from the pagan Khazarian Empire which history tells us adopted Judaism.

It's of no use to speculate about what would have happened if the Jews hadn't crucified Jesus because God already knew they would before the foundations of the world.

"Jerusalem" here could mean figuratively as the church, the "Israel of God" or literally the church when after the 1,000 years Satan and his followers come up in the Resurrection of the Damned and surround New Jerusalem, just before fire comes down from God and devours them. It certainly is not referring to literal Israel because every single literal tribe of Israel is lost forever, their bloodlines incurably mixed with pagans.

So any verse dealing with Israel in the OT, you decide it means the church, if it contradicts your eschatology? No wonder you can't find any verses. You are not even trying. You have already determined God's plan and will, for God. You know the future.

 

[Timtofly]

A prophet is one who is shown events to come, either by His voice, a vision, an angel, whatever vehicle God chooses to communicate His revelation. I don't think it's fair to deny John's status as "prophet", especially since the angel confirms him as a brother of the prophets.

As long as you don't diminish he was a witness.

 

[Phoneman777]

So any verse dealing with Israel in the OT, you decide it means the church, if it contradicts your eschatology? No wonder you can't find any verses. You are not even trying. You have already determined God's plan and will, for God. You know the future.

Israel blew it. It now has nothing to do with end times prophecy, according to Isaiah 5. We can accept this if we simply let go of our herd mentality that "God will bless them that bless Israel" - a misnomer that needs to stop, for that promise was to Abraham and his descendants, those that belong to Christ (Galatians 3:29 KJV) - and understand that the "Israel of God" is the church upon who is peace, according to Galatians 6:15-18 KJV, which are those who "walk by this rule" of a "new creature in Christ Jesus".

As for Semites, "wrath has come upon them to the uttermost" and the same people can't have both "peace" and "wrath" upon them at the same time.

 

[Phoneman777]

As long as you don't diminish he was a witness.

Can't he be a "witness" to things shown to him in vision while remaining at home in the first century, and not necessarily need to be transported to the end times to watch them unfold in real time in order to qualify as the same?

Of course, my friend!

 

[Timtofly]

Can't he be a "witness" to things shown to him in vision while remaining at home in the first century, and not necessarily need to be transported to the end times to watch them unfold in real time in order to qualify as the same?

Of course, my friend!

Well he went somewhere because he was caught up. You can remain in the first century if you want to.