Do Amills seem to struggle (find it too symbolic) with the understanding of Daniel abd Revelation? It seems to be a common observation.
Unlike Amillennialism, Premillennialism is based on assumptions and speculation rather than on any clear, straightforward scriptures
- Thread starter Spiritual Israelite
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Surely All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching preaching etc. At different times in my life some books have meant more to me than others. Hopefully as we transition for milk..
Sorry, but I have no idea of what you're trying to say here. Please be more specific so that I don't have to guess as to what you are intending to say.
Everyone struggles with understanding parts of those books or else we wouldn't have so many different interpretations of them. Any honest person will admit that a good portion of those books are difficult to interpret because of the amount of symbolism in the books.
You make some very good points here. Especially when you made this point and similar points---"Why don't you mention scriptures talking about Satan being bound so that he is unable to go about as "the prince of the power of the air who works in the sons of disobedience", deceiving the nations, etc etc"?
I haven't read this entire thread yet but have read from page 1 up to this point. So then, did @Spiritual Israelite eventually ever get around to talking about any of those things?
- With the coming of Christ to this earth came the introduction of His spiritual kingdom.
- With the introduction of His spiritual kingdom came a direct challenge to the power and influence of Satan on planet earth.
- With the direct challenge to the power and influence of Satan on planet earth came the spiritual empowerment of the people of God to confront and overcome Satan and his demonic angels.
Which i believe, He has rescued us and we are part of His kingdom.
My presumption is that you've spent time studying the book of Daniel and the you have linked the association between each of the visions in Dan 2, Dan 7, Dan 8, Dan 11. Which shows what the meaning of beasts are and the sequence which leads to the rise of the AC or little horn.
Have you got an understanding of Daniel with respect to those chapters?
He was attempting to "triangulate" as a deflection against responding to things I'd said. I don't get into that.
If I call someone on something inappropriate they said, and the response to me is, "But what about that fellow over there?", I don't go along with that.
Much love!
He did not specifically address any of the points I made in the original posts, but, of course, you expect me to address all of his points. That's typical of both you and him. You both want to have one way discussions where you control the narrative and don't have to specifically address any of the points others are making. To this day no Premil has yet specifically addressed the original posts that I made. How about you being the first to do so?
Right. So, He reigns now and has been reigning since His resurrection. I believe we should interpret Revelation 20 accordingly instead of acting as if He hasn't started reigning yet.
Go back and read the original posts in this thread. How many times do I have to say that I base my doctrine on clear, straightforward passages? I gave several examples in the second post of this thread. I do not base my doctrine on undeniably difficult passages like Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 11. I can give an opinion on what I think those mean, but when it comes to determining whether Premil or Amil are true, I look to more clear passages to determine that and to help determine what books like Daniel and Revelation are all about. If you disagree with my approach, then there's really nothing I can do about that and there's nothing for us to talk about. You can't try to force me to take the same approach as you do.
There's no need to bring things up that were said 3 months ago. We had both moved on.
They are only undeniably difficult if you dont understand them. If you understand them, it fits beautifully.
You THINK you understand them, but they are not written in literal, straightforward text that can be easily discerned with little effort. I prefer to base my doctrine on clear, straightforward passages that don't contain a bunch of symbolism. I don't know why I keep making that point to you. If you disagree with that approach, so be it, but I think it's wise to take that approach and then use those more clear, straightforward passages to help understand more difficult passages. That's all I'm going to say about that. I've said it enough at this point.
Not from you, no. I don't mean any offense by that. I just know that I disagree strongly with your end times doctrine other than your post-trib belief, so I can't say that I trust your understanding of the book of Daniel. And, when did I say I don't understand? I didn't. I can't say I know for sure what all of it means, but we're talking about whether Premil or Amil is true here. You don't have to understand all of Daniel to determine that.
No, I don't believe you can. Especially when I see how you interpret what I believe to be very straightforward passages like 2 Peter 3:10-13 that should be easy to interpret.
So Dan 2,do you consider relevant for us, or is it history? Just to get a further understanding of your position.
Clearly, history. It's beyond clear that the first kingdom is the one King Nebuchadnezzar was reigning over at the time which was ancient Babylon and then other kingdoms followed the Babylonian empire in succession.
As for my position, did you forget what this thread is about? It's about whether Amil or Premil is true. My position is clearly Amil. Not sure why you need to know every little detail about my position beyond that.
Similar threads
