The 1000 Year Reign... I Wish It Were Literal,but....

[Major]

To get back on track here, Misty, I partly agree that hostis is the cause of uncertainty here, it is a complex word incorporating the definite article. The point of mentioning KAI, is that in place it can mean one of 2 things, omitted, as in the KJV, omitted, it means definitely only one thing. EG. " Those who were beheaded...; those who did not worship....." then inserted, as it is in the original Greek, " Those who were beheaded, ((and (KAI)) those who did not worship" The presence of KAI determines if there is one group or two groups. It also influences the rendering of hostis; 'who' or 'whoever' or 'those who' and similar.
That is why I focused on the omission of KAI as in the Kjv especially when it is present in the Textus Receptus, from which the Kjv was translated, Hence my comment that translations are subject to interpretation by the translator/s
The NAS, ASV(on which the NAS is based) separate those beheaded from those who did not worship. Also Kenneth S. Wuest.... The New Testament---an expanded translation renders the subject text as "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and authority to administer justice was given them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony [they bore to] of Jesus and because of the word of God. And I saw those who were such that they did not worship the wild beast..........." We could go on citing various translation all day and make no significant progress because a lot of 'versions' are based not so much on the Greek texts, but rather just dressing up the language of some translation or other such as ASV >>NAS.


But there are other things to consider:
Those beheaded??? who are they really? John the Baptist was one, not sure about James, but as far as we know, there were only a handful who were or might have been beheaded. Most were being crucified and or fed to the Lions, and or burned alive; Polycarp for one. Over the centuries there might have been beheadings, I'm not aware that there were many though. Again the Reformation and inquisitions saw many burned alive also.

Now, notice that in Rev 13, those who would not worship the image of the beast were to be killed, but the method of execution is not specified.
Notice also that those who refused the mark of the beast were punished with economic sanctions (which would lead to death in many cases), but the idea of capital punishment is not present here.
So taking the whole matter in context, those beheaded, were a small minority to attract so much attention as to have the first resurrection devoted to them alone.

Rev 20:6 if those in the first resurrection are limited to only those executed for defying the beast, all other saints are in danger of the second death. That would be contrary to the rest of God's word.

All Saints must take part in the first resurrection. This means that Rev20 is set at a point in time after the rapture, after the second coming of Christ No saints left behind.
Blessings,
calvin

Calvin......I understood what you meant and I also agree with it.

 

[mistmann]

To get back on track here, Misty, I partly agree that hostis is the cause of uncertainty here, it is a complex word incorporating the definite article. The point of mentioning KAI, is that in place it can mean one of 2 things, omitted, as in the KJV, omitted, it means definitely only one thing. EG. " Those who were beheaded...; those who did not worship....." then inserted, as it is in the original Greek, " Those who were beheaded, ((and (KAI)) those who did not worship" The presence of KAI determines if there is one group or two groups. It also influences the rendering of hostis; 'who' or 'whoever' or 'those who' and similar.
That is why I focused on the omission of KAI as in the Kjv especially when it is present in the Textus Receptus, from which the Kjv was translated, Hence my comment that translations are subject to interpretation by the translator/s
The NAS, ASV(on which the NAS is based) separate those beheaded from those who did not worship. Also Kenneth S. Wuest.... The New Testament---an expanded translation renders the subject text as "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and authority to administer justice was given them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony [they bore to] of Jesus and because of the word of God. And I saw those who were such that they did not worship the wild beast..........." We could go on citing various translation all day and make no significant progress because a lot of 'versions' are based not so much on the Greek texts, but rather just dressing up the language of some translation or other such as ASV >>NAS.


But there are other things to consider:
Those beheaded??? who are they really? John the Baptist was one, not sure about James, but as far as we know, there were only a handful who were or might have been beheaded. Most were being crucified and or fed to the Lions, and or burned alive; Polycarp for one. Over the centuries there might have been beheadings, I'm not aware that there were many though. Again the Reformation and inquisitions saw many burned alive also.

Now, notice that in Rev 13, those who would not worship the image of the beast were to be killed, but the method of execution is not specified.
Notice also that those who refused the mark of the beast were punished with economic sanctions (which would lead to death in many cases), but the idea of capital punishment is not present here.
So taking the whole matter in context, those beheaded, were a small minority to attract so much attention as to have the first resurrection devoted to them alone.

Rev 20:6 if those in the first resurrection are limited to only those executed for defying the beast, all other saints are in danger of the second death. That would be contrary to the rest of God's word.

All Saints must take part in the first resurrection. This means that Rev20 is set at a point in time after the rapture, after the second coming of Christ No saints left behind.
Blessings,
calvin

Sorry for the delay in getting back Calvin. Been doing some promo stuff for MissionaryFromHome.com

I note a couple of times now you have commented about "Kai" (Which is basically "and" in Greek. I note the Interlinear correctly renders it as "and" also) being omitted from the KJV. But as I pointed out in my last post the KJV doesn't omit "kai". It is the "and" in "and (kai) which (hostis) had not worshipped the beast, neither his image,"

KJV actually says "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;"

I note you have "THOSE who had been beheaded" and "And I saw THOSE who were such that they did not worship". Apart from this not being the KJV it also is not a proper translation of the Greek. The second "THOSE" (as in "saw THOSE who were") is not part of the Greek passage as the interlinear also demonstrates. The Greek words are "kai hostis" (meaning "and who" or as some translate it "and whosoever". To insert "THOSE" at this point is to insert a word that does not appear in the original Greek .

As to the first "THOSE" it is not actually a seperate word at this point but is part of the translation of a single greek word that covers the whole phrase "them that were beheaded " That word is rendered by Strong's as "pelekizo", the interlinear renders it as "pepelekismenOn". Basically it means "ones-HAVING-been-HATCHETED".

I note the Interlinear picks up on the variation on"hostis" dependent of contect to mean "who / which" or "whosoever" or as the interlinear puts it "who-any". But as I pointed out in the last post the context supports "who/which" as most of the mainstream translations do, including the KJV. But did you understand the explanation I gave in my other post of why, regardless of whether you choose "who" or "whosoever" there is no way this first resurrection can be the "rapture" at the return of Christ? That argument is quite conclusive as nobody who has died in Christ for the last 1,000 at least, meet the strict requirements for inclusion in the first resurrection. They would not be included in it because they have never been given the opportunity to REFUSE to worship either the beast or his image or to REFUSE to accept his mark.

But as to the number of beheaded the Bible does not specify there has to be any particular number of them, especially thousands. It speaks of a ruling class of priests, not a multitude. John the Baptist was probably the first. I think I read somewhere that Paul might have been beheaded, but there were many beheaded in the great tribulation at the hands of the Pagan Roman Empire that occurred between 70AD and circa 312 AD before Constantine put an end to both the empire and the persecution.

These were not a "multitude" they were those SPECIFICALLY SELECTED to reign with Christ 1,000 years as priests. A smaller number makes much more sense than a vast multitude.

As to the second death point it must be remembered it does not say these will be the ONLY ones not to suffer the second death. It merely say THEY will not suffer the second death. It does NOT say everybody else WILL. That is adding something John did not say.

Consequently there is no argument that says ALL saints MUST be included in the first resurrection. Nowhere does the Bible say it or require it. BUT what it does do is give a very specific criteria for inclusion in the FIRST resurrection that EXCLUDES the majority of those who have otherwise died in christ to date. Therefore it CANNOT be the "rapture" at the return of Christ as described elsewhere in the Bible.

 

[calvin]

G'day Mistmann, I figured you were busy elsewhere.
I sincerely wish the admin here would enable 'nested quotes' as it makes life very difficult without them.

Sorry for the delay in getting back Calvin. Been doing some promo stuff for MissionaryFromHome.com
I note a couple of times now you have commented about "Kai" (Which is basically "and" in Greek. I note the Interlinear correctly renders it as "and" also) being omitted from the KJV. But as I pointed out in my last post the KJV doesn't omit "kai". It is the "and" in "and (kai) which (hostis) had not worshipped the beast, neither his image,"

Misty, that is because it is important to our understanding. I also commented on the fact that KAI could be either a 'connective' or an 'additive' conjunction. This is determined by what follows: ie hOSTIS. ‘hOSTIS' is a relative pronoun. It is therefore 'antecedent' to the clause that introduces the subset of souls who did not worship the beast etc., not those who were beheaded for their testimony etc. Check this out: "The relative pronouns in English are which, that, who, whom, and whose. Who and whom refer only to people. Which refers to things, qualities, and ideas--never to people. That and whose refer to people, things, qualities, and ideas." (quoted material)
So from a grammatical consideration, the KJV is wrong. I can here a few calling for a posse to get me for this. But wrong is wrong. When translating from one language to another, due care with grammar must be taken, otherwise it is no longer a translation, but a transliteration.
Again, a relative pronoun remember, is antecedent to the relative clause that follows.
Since KAI hOSTIS, refers to what is to follow; it forces KAI into being an additive conjunction.
BTW, look up G5100 TIS, it forms the last part of hOSTIS. I think I mentioned before that hOSTIS is a complex or compound word, that is, not a single word but a compound of a few. hOS is nominative, masculine. If you go to the corrected link I posted, you will see the grammar elements for it listed there. All of which proves nothing much I suppose.

I note you have "THOSE who had been beheaded" and "And I saw THOSE who were such that they did not worship". Apart from this not being the KJV it also is not a proper translation of the Greek. The second "THOSE" (as in "saw THOSE who were") is not part of the Greek passage as the interlinear also demonstrates. The Greek words are "kai hostis" (meaning "and who" or as some translate it "and whosoever". To insert "THOSE" at this point is to insert a word that does not appear in the original Greek .

Misti, 'I' did not have "Those..." as being a part of an alleged quote from the original Greek; please. I was merely using it in free speech as a differentiator between 'these here' and 'those there' sort of thing. Here is what I said :” EG. " Those who were beheaded...; those who did not worship....." then inserted, as it is in the original Greek, " Those who were beheaded, ((and (KAI)) those who did not worship" The presence of KAI determines if there is one group or two groups. It also influences the rendering of hostis; 'who' or 'whoever' or 'those who' and similar.”
Sorry, since the object of the discussion here is ‘KAI’, I would have thought that it was obvious that I was only referring to KAI as being inserted or omitted from the Greek, and or the translation of the Greek. Let’s not go down that road.
The (possibly uncomfortable) truth is that the Greek text does require the inclusion of all the souls saved and redeemed by Christ, and hence the first resurrection includes all the saints of God.
There is only one ‘first resurrection’. The Bible does not speak of a second first resurrection or subsequent multiple first resurrections at all. John 5:28,29. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Jesus said it, I believe it. There is no mention of those beheaded. Notice that it is ‘all who are in the graves’, not just some, not just those beheaded. Note also Jesus’ words, He mentions only two resurrections. The resurrection of life and the resurrection of condemnation.
I believe we read further on these two resurrections in Rev chapter 20. In verse 4, we see those who were resurrected to life along with those who are changed it the ‘twinkling of an eye’.
1Cor 15:51,52, Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Also, 1Thes 4:16,17,18, For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18Therefore comfort one another with these words.
The Lord can be in more than one place at a time, but if we are to take comfort from these words, I don’t see a hierarchy even hinted at here, or elsewhere. All saints are included in these verses.
Then in Rev20 verse 5 we read that the ‘rest of the dead’ , that means every other soul of mankind will not live again till the 1000 years are ended. The plain sense of this is that John/Jesus is now talking about the resurrection of condemnation. There is now no further talk of any extras that are saved.
After the 1000 years when Satan is loosed from his confinement, he goes out to gather the nations for battle. The reference to Gog and Magog recalls the prophesies of Eze 38 and 39.
Those not changed in the ‘twinkling of an eye’ at Christ’s return will be those that are not caught up to be with the Lord. They will be the ones gathered together by Satan against Christ and the saints along with those resurrected for condemnation.

But did you understand the explanation I gave in my other post of why, regardless of whether you choose "who" or "whosoever" there is no way this first resurrection can be the "rapture" at the return of Christ? That argument is quite conclusive as nobody who has died in Christ for the last 1,000 at least, meet the strict requirements for inclusion in the first resurrection. They would not be included in it because they have never been given the opportunity to REFUSE to worship either the beast or his image or to REFUSE to accept his mark.

According to Eusebius, Paul was beheaded by order of Nero. Later, Ignatius was fed to the lions, During the sixth persecution about AD 235 there is record of 44 beheadings During the seventh persecution, only 3 beheadings are recorded. 1 beheading recorded from the period of the 9th persecution AD 270, no beheadings recorded during the 10th persecution which pretty well brings us up to the time of Constanine.
Not so long ago it was reported that three teenage girls were beheaded for being Christian by a group of muslamic extremists. That would certainly have been within the last 1000 years. In fact it was in Indonesia 2005.
Misti, I know that you have put a lot of commendable effort into studying the Byzantine Empire (enjoyed the vid's by the way) However that is your belief and as you indicated, others are free to draw their own conclusions. While I accept in good faith the material you complied I do not agree that period of Byzantine Empire was the literal fulfillment of Rev 20's 1000 years.
For one thing, during the recognized period of that Byzantine Empire it suffered territorial loss. Does the Bible tell us that this will be the plight of the 1000 year reign of the saints with Christ? Will Christ lose ground to Satan?

Blessings,
calvin

 

[Major]

Calvin said.............
"Misti, I know that you have put a lot of commendable effort into studying the Byzantine Empire (enjoyed the vid's by the way) However that is your belief and as you indicated, others are free to draw their own conclusions. While I accept in good faith the material you complied I do not agree that period of Byzantine Empire was the literal fulfillment of Rev 20's 1000 years."

I agree with that comment and have said it before as well. We all have the ability to read, study and believe. It should never lead to arguments nor accusations. I hope this does not happen on this thread as I am enjoying it.

 

[mistmann]

G'day Mistmann, I figured you were busy elsewhere.
I sincerely wish the admin here would enable 'nested quotes' as it makes life very difficult without them.

Misty, that is because it is important to our understanding. I also commented on the fact that KAI could be either a 'connective' or an 'additive' conjunction. This is determined by what follows: ie hOSTIS. ‘hOSTIS' is a relative pronoun. It is therefore 'antecedent' to the clause that introduces the subset of souls who did not worship the beast etc., not those who were beheaded for their testimony etc. Check this out: "The relative pronouns in English are which, that, who, whom, and whose. Who and whom refer only to people. Which refers to things, qualities, and ideas--never to people. That and whose refer to people, things, qualities, and ideas." (quoted material)
So from a grammatical consideration, the KJV is wrong. I can here a few calling for a posse to get me for this. But wrong is wrong. When translating from one language to another, due care with grammar must be taken, otherwise it is no longer a translation, but a transliteration.
Again, a relative pronoun remember, is antecedent to the relative clause that follows.
Since KAI hOSTIS, refers to what is to follow; it forces KAI into being an additive conjunction.
BTW, look up G5100 TIS, it forms the last part of hOSTIS. I think I mentioned before that hOSTIS is a complex or compound word, that is, not a single word but a compound of a few. hOS is nominative, masculine. If you go to the corrected link I posted, you will see the grammar elements for it listed there. All of which proves nothing much I suppose.

"and who" or "and which" makes no difference to the meaning of the sentence. In this instance kai/and is ADDITIVE, it is adding to the list of reasons why these people were beheaded. But remember we are talking of the English of old, not the English of today. We cannot apply the rules of today's English to the English of a few centuries ago. They revise it to make it readable but they only do it when it is deemed necessary for correct understanding, not exacting grammatical perfection. I think your last sentence above sums it up well.

Misti, 'I' did not have "Those..." as being a part of an alleged quote from the original Greek; please. I was merely using it in free speech as a differentiator between 'these here' and 'those there' sort of thing. Here is what I said :” EG. " Those who were beheaded...; those who did not worship....." then inserted, as it is in the original Greek, " Those who were beheaded, ((and (KAI)) those who did not worship" The presence of KAI determines if there is one group or two groups. It also influences the rendering of hostis; 'who' or 'whoever' or 'those who' and similar.”
Sorry, since the object of the discussion here is ‘KAI’, I would have thought that it was obvious that I was only referring to KAI as being inserted or omitted from the Greek, and or the translation of the Greek. Let’s not go down that road.

Sorry, I was merely pointing out that you had the word "those" in the sentence you put up as Rev 20:4 but this word should not be there and Rev 20:4 should not be read with the word "those" in it. The word does not appear in the Greek original nor (as is correct) in most mainstream translations. I merely pointed it out because its incorrect addition altered the meaning of the sentence you wrote from what is actually written in the Bible.

But as to kai I have pointed out that it is not omitted from the KJV. The presence of kai is not an issue. the issue is those who render "hostis" as "who" and those who render it as "whosoever". As it can have both meanings we must look to the context (not the presence of kai but the structure of the whole sentence). As I pointed out previously "who" fits the structure and context of the sentence. "Whosoever" does not. And again I think the last sentence is the way to go.

The (possibly uncomfortable) truth is that the Greek text does require the inclusion of all the souls saved and redeemed by Christ, and hence the first resurrection includes all the saints of God.
There is only one ‘first resurrection’. The Bible does not speak of a second first resurrection or subsequent multiple first resurrections at all. John 5:28,29. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Jesus said it, I believe it. There is no mention of those beheaded. Notice that it is ‘all who are in the graves’, not just some, not just those beheaded. Note also Jesus’ words, He mentions only two resurrections. The resurrection of life and the resurrection of condemnation.
I believe we read further on these two resurrections in Rev chapter 20. In verse 4, we see those who were resurrected to life along with those who are changed it the ‘twinkling of an eye’.
1Cor 15:51,52, Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Also, 1Thes 4:16,17,18, For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18Therefore comfort one another with these words.
The Lord can be in more than one place at a time, but if we are to take comfort from these words, I don’t see a hierarchy even hinted at here, or elsewhere. All saints are included in these verses.
Then in Rev20 verse 5 we read that the ‘rest of the dead’ , that means every other soul of mankind will not live again till the 1000 years are ended. The plain sense of this is that John/Jesus is now talking about the resurrection of condemnation. There is now no further talk of any extras that are saved.
After the 1000 years when Satan is loosed from his confinement, he goes out to gather the nations for battle. The reference to Gog and Magog recalls the prophesies of Eze 38 and 39.
Those not changed in the ‘twinkling of an eye’ at Christ’s return will be those that are not caught up to be with the Lord. They will be the ones gathered together by Satan against Christ and the saints along with those resurrected for condemnation.

This is where traditional teaching so often goes wrong. It reads into the Bible what isn't there. Nowhere does the Bible say that the "rapture" of those alive or dead in Christ at His return is the FIRST resurrection. That is merely an ASSUMPTION people have made. It merely says ALL who are dead in Christ shall arise first THEN together with those who are still alive in Christ shall all rise to meet Him in the air. But consider this, those who are in the first resurrection, if they live forever they are not among the dead in Christ at His coming. And if they only LIVE and reign for 1,000 years are still among the dead in Christ. Either way ALL those who are dead in Christ AT THE TIME of His coming arise at His coming.

The first resurrection changes nothing about what is written about the "rapture" at His coming. Revelation is the only place this 1,000 years is mentioned or the first resurrection. Elsewhere talks of the resurrection of those in Christ at His coming and the ressurrection of all for judgement. But nowhere (except Revelation 20) does it declare this is the FIRST or second resurrection. It merely speaks of what will HAPPEN when Christ returns. That it MUST be the first and only resurrection is an erroneous assumption of man, not the word of God.

According to Eusebius, Paul was beheaded by order of Nero. Later, Ignatius was fed to the lions, During the sixth persecution about AD 235 there is record of 44 beheadings During the seventh persecution, only 3 beheadings are recorded. 1 beheading recorded from the period of the 9th persecution AD 270, no beheadings recorded during the 10th persecution which pretty well brings us up to the time of Constanine.
Not so long ago it was reported that three teenage girls were beheaded for being Christian by a group of muslamic extremists. That would certainly have been within the last 1000 years. In fact it was in Indonesia 2005.
Misti, I know that you have put a lot of commendable effort into studying the Byzantine Empire (enjoyed the vid's by the way) However that is your belief and as you indicated, others are free to draw their own conclusions. While I accept in good faith the material you complied I do not agree that period of Byzantine Empire was the literal fulfillment of Rev 20's 1000 years.
For one thing, during the recognized period of that Byzantine Empire it suffered territorial loss. Does the Bible tell us that this will be the plight of the 1000 year reign of the saints with Christ? Will Christ lose ground to Satan?

Blessings,
calvin

OK first we must understand it is the souls of those who are beheaded, not the souls of those history records as being beheaded. We would be naive to think history has accurately recorded every single beheading. You can be quaranteed that far more were beheaded than history records. But understand Rev 20 gives not one single indication as to how many there were. That there had to be a multitude resurrected is merely one of those unfounded assumptions MAN has made but which God has not said. Rev 20 merely speaks of those beheaded, not how many there were.

As to the more recent beheadings remember they were beheaded for a specific reason. Because they REFUSED to bow down and worship the Beast or his IMAGE and REFUSED to accept the mark of the beast on hand or forehead. So unless you have been COMMANDED to bow down and worship or COMMANDED to receive the mark and have REFUSED the command and beheaded for that refusal you still do not fit the criteria. The Bible does not say they were beheaded for merely being Christian but for REFUSING to do certain specific things. Things that the majority of those who are dead in Christ to date have never been commanded to do and therefore have not refused to do. You cannot refuse a command that has not been given. Just getting beheaded is NOT the criteria for the first resurrection.

As to the last paragraph, you say "will Christ lose ground to Satan"? But does not the Bible tell us that after the 1,000 years Satan will be released to go out and DECIEVE the nations and gather them to battle against Israel? As you can see it is a flawed argument.

The next argument will be "but isn't Satan bound for 1,000 years, therefore who is fighting the Byzantine Christian Empire?" The answer to that argument is that Christ has more enemies than just Satan. A great portion of mankind itself is an enemy of Christ. Understand that the Beast is the arrogance of Satan, BUT Babylon has always been about the arrogance of MAN himself.

The final problem with the argument is that it is is built on another one of those unfounded traditional ASSUMPTIONS, not the word of God. Rev 20 merely say certain people will be raised and THEY will reign with Christ 1,000 years. It does NOT say they will be 1,000 years of peace and tranquility or 1,000 years of no opposition to their reign, etc. That is just and idyllic fantasy and assumption MAN has made up. the Bible does not actiually SAY it anywhere.

 

[calvin]

G'day Major, I have just started reviewing this thread and I got as far as your post #6 (not very far really)
Part of what you posted there is:

That is also what it says BUT........it does not say that this is the battle of Ezekiel 38. Some people think it is and who knows...you may be right. But when we read Ezekiel 38:6..........
"Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee."

Clearly we have a problem because Revelation 20:8 does not say that.
"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."

One battle is from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD which inticates universal and the other is only from the NORTH QUARTERS of the earth. I am one who believes that these are in fact 2 different conflicts. I believe the 1st from Ez. 38 takes place in and around the Rapture which leads to the 7 year peace treaty Daniel tells us of and the Rev. battle is as it says at the end of the 1000 year rule. One begins the Tribulation and the other ends the 1000 year rule. In that way, all Scripture fits beautifully into place.

BUT it also tells us something else Calvin and that is there will be live humans who come to Christ during the Tribulation and live through it. I know lots of people do not agree with that and God bless all of them. But.....if we consider that the judgment of the nations AFTER Armageddon is the judgment of un-believers and they are all killed with the sword, the only ones left to form an army in Rev. 20:8 is the children of the Tribulation saints.

You cited Eze 38:6, but I want draw attention to all of the chapter, yes, but also notice the end of v6. "...and many people with thee" Surely these are in addition to, external to those specifically mentioned; GOMAR and TOGARMAH and all their bands.
Next, you compare this assault from the north with the gathering of the nations from the four quarters of the earth and find a glaring discrepancy. But look again Major, there is no discrepancy at all. Those arrayed against Israel under the leadership of Gog, in Ezekiel come from the North, but from where are they all gathered? Where is Tubal, Cush Meshech and so on? They are not in the North as is Togarmah. There was therefore to be a gathering of these ungodlies from all over, and they would march against Israel from the North.
Then in Rev 20 we are told that Satan will gather his ungodlies from the 4 quarters of the earth, but we are not told of the rally point. We are only told that they will march over the breath of the Earth,(maybe from a northern rally point) thereupon they will attack after encircling the camp of the Saints. There is no essential difference between the attack by Gog and Magog as foretold by Ezekiel and that revealed By Jesus through John.
Blessings,
Calvin

 

[calvin]

Misti, here is some food for thought.
You believe the Byzantine Empire was the 1000 year period mentioned in Rev 20.
You believe the souls that John saw were only those who got the chop for their testimony of Jesus and the word of God and who were also the same ones who would not worship the beast and refused his mark etc.
Given the above, you should be able to identify the Beast within factual history, identify the Image, and point to when it was in history that the beast and the false prophet were cast alive into the lake of fire. Rev19:20.
Blessings,
calvin

 

[calvin]

Misti, in post #13 you asked :

But you have to ask yourself WHY would John write that he saw those beheaded for their testimony AND all those killed every which way for doing the same thing and even those who WEREN'T killed for doing the same thing?? Would he not, if that were the case, simply have said "I saw the souls of them that had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands"?? If the first group is incorporated in a larger group and the same thing happens to all of them there is absolutely no point whatsoever singling out the first group, it serve no purpose whatsoever.

Had John only mentioned those who were beheaded, all others would feel 'left out'. Had John not mentioned those who refused the beast, people facing persecution, who might have worried because they did not see themselves suffering decapitation ,such as Polycarp, and many many others might be tempted to doubt their salvation. In a like manner, those who would face decapitation needed to be encouraged to hold fast to their faith. Now I can not say that this was John's motive, but it is feasible and you did ask.

blessings,
calvin

 

[Major]

G'day Major, I have just started reviewing this thread and I got as far as your post #6 (not very far really)
Part of what you posted there is:



You cited Eze 38:6, but I want draw attention to all of the chapter, yes, but also notice the end of v6. "...and many people with thee" Surely these are in addition to, external to those specifically mentioned; GOMAR and TOGARMAH and all their bands.
Next, you compare this assault from the north with the gathering of the nations from the four quarters of the earth and find a glaring discrepancy. But look again Major, there is no discrepancy at all. Those arrayed against Israel under the leadership of Gog, in Ezekiel come from the North, but from where are they all gathered? Where is Tubal, Cush Meshech and so on? They are not in the North as is Togarmah. There was therefore to be a gathering of these ungodlies from all over, and they would march against Israel from the North.
Then in Rev 20 we are told that Satan will gather his ungodlies from the 4 quarters of the earth, but we are not told of the rally point. We are only told that they will march over the breath of the Earth,(maybe from a northern rally point) thereupon they will attack after encircling the camp of the Saints. There is no essential difference between the attack by Gog and Magog as foretold by Ezekiel and that revealed By Jesus through John.
Blessings,
Calvin

Could be, I am not sure. I still believe however that these are TWO different battles, seperated by about 1000 years.

When reading all of Exekiel 38 for context, and I agree that is needed, we see several things that IMO confirm that there are TWO conflicts. Actually, Ezekiel 39 & 39 need to be considered as a unit.

As for your thinking of...........

"...and many people with thee" Surely these are in addition to, external to those specifically mentioned;
GOMAR and TOGARMAH and all their bands".

I believe that is confirmed by verse #5,,,,,,"Persia, Ethopia, & Libya" would seem to confrim that.

Verse 8.........
"After many days, thou shalt be visited: "IN THE LATTER YEARS". That by itself has been pretty much universally accepted as toward the end of the present age we are now in.

The events following the battles are quite different as well.

39:9..
"Then those who dwell in the cities of Israel will go out and set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and bucklers, the bows and arrows, the javelins and spears; and they will make fires with them for seven years.'

I find it very interesting that the Tribulation is also for Seven years.

In Ezekiel the battle of Gog & Magog is used by God to draw Israel to Himself.

In the Revelation battle of Gog & Magog, comes AFTER God has drawn His people to Himself for 1000 years of blessing.

 

[calvin]

G'day Major, this thread isn't dead by any means, I am working on something else at the moment.

But for now, you posted these two things that are very interesting to me.

In Ezekiel the battle of Gog & Magog is used by God to draw Israel to Himself.
In the Revelation battle of Gog & Magog, comes AFTER God has drawn His people to Himself for 1000 years of blessing.

I'm not seeing the Ezekiel battle as you do. Can you explain your thinking here please?
Eze 38:8 is talking about the people brought back to the mountains of Israel.
Eze 39:9 seems to me to imply that the Israelites are already gathered at Jerusalem when Gog is destroyed. They then go out and clean up the mess.
To me it seems that both accounts are about the same battle, and also they occur after the Lord has drawn His people back to Himself, just as in Revelation.
blessings,
calvin

 

[Major]

G'day Major, this thread isn't dead by any means, I am working on something else at the moment.

But for now, you posted these two things that are very interesting to me.

I'm not seeing the Ezekiel battle as you do. Can you explain your thinking here please?
Eze 38:8 is talking about the people brought back to the mountains of Israel.
Eze 39:9 seems to me to imply that the Israelites are already gathered at Jerusalem when Gog is destroyed. They then go out and clean up the mess.
To me it seems that both accounts are about the same battle, and also they occur after the Lord has drawn His people back to Himself, just as in Revelation.
blessings,
calvin

Absolutely.

But sense we do not agree on these battles and there timeing, you will have to remember that it is MY OPINION. OK????

1).
Ezekiel 38:8..........
"After many days you will be visited. In the latter years you will come into the land of those brought back from the sword and gathered from many people on the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate; they were brought out of the nations, and now all of them dwell safely."

That phrase...."IN THE LATTER DAYS" identifies the time of the event as "BEFORE" Armageddon as Biblically, Armageddon ends the day of grace. THE LAST DAYS or LATTER DAYS has always been the accepted time of being BEFORE Armageddon.

We know from Ezekiel 38:4 that it is God Himself who is drawing this NORTHERN force into the Holy Land........
"I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and lead you out, with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all splendidly clothed, a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords."

There are TWO events which made this battle possible:
A. May 14, 1948 Israel was established back in the land as a nation by a U.N. vote.
B. The Russian revolution of 1917 established Russia as an official anti-god state.

So then to answer my comment of......."In Ezekiel the battle of Gog & Magog is used by God to draw Israel to Himself":

The event, followed by God Himself destroying this invading army will accomplish the purpose of glorifying God before the nation of Israel and in fact the world itself and finally restore the much chastened Israel to its God.

Notice Ezekiel 38:16.........
"Then you will come from your place out of the far north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great company and a mighty army. 16 You will come up against My people Israel like a cloud, to cover the land. It will be in the latter days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me, when I am hallowed in you, O Gog, before their eyes.”

Then we need to consider Ez. 38:21-23 to confirm my opinion........
"I will call for a sword against Gog throughout all My mountains,” says the Lord God. “Every man’s sword will be against his brother. 22 And I will bring him to judgment with pestilence and bloodshed; I will rain down on him, on his troops, and on the many peoples who are with him, flooding rain, great hailstones, fire, and brimstone. 23 Thus I will magnify Myself and sanctify Myself, and I will be known in the eyes of many nations. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.”’

Your comment was..................
Eze 39:9 seems to me to imply that the Israelites are already gathered at Jerusalem when Gog is destroyed. They then go out and clean up the mess.

Yes, I agree with that.

Ezekiel 39:9
9 “Then those who dwell in the cities of Israel will go out and set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and bucklers, the bows and arrows, the javelins and spears; and they will make fires with them for seven years.
It appears to me that the process of cleaning up after this conflict will take 7 years which is what the Bible says will be the Tribulation period. That being the case then the event of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39 appears will take place 7 years before Armageddon and the 1000 year rule of Christ.
2)
Then you commented that............"In the Revelation battle of Gog & Magog, comes AFTER God has drawn His people to Himself for 1000 years of blessing".
Correct IMO.
Ezekiels Gog and Magog(From the North parts) then 7 years of Tribulation, ended by Armageddon then the 1000 year rule of Christ ended by the Revelations Gog & Magog(From the FOUR corners of the Earth). God will HAVE DRAWN His people to Himself and given the people 1000 years of rule by the Lord Jesus Christ. But just as Adam and Eve did when living in a perfect state, the people born to the humans during the 1000 years.............when temped by Satan when he is loosened at the end of the 1000 year rule, will sin and reject God which brings the final God and Magog battle of judgment to those who gave in to the temptation of Satan.

 

[calvin]

Errata and notes:
In post #9, I said that KAI(and) was missing from the KJV. Misty pointed out that it is there. It is indeed there. I tend to use the Nkjv instead of the KJV because the latter is cluttered up somewhat with Strong's numbers.( in my software copies that is).
It is in fact absent from the NKjv......My appologies.

In the same post, I referred to that conjunction as being used either as a connective or an additive marker; this is true.

Ancient Greek had no punctuation marks such as commas, full stops etc.
It was one long and continuous concatenation of characters.
It did not even separate words by using spaces.

KAI then has a dual role( rarely though it can also have 3rd role). It serves as a marker for a new thought or sentence and it can serve as an connective marker, much the same way as we use 'and ' today.

I had previously indicated that the use of KAI was additive. This also was an error as grammatically, it is clearly connective. That is to say that it connects those who John saw who were beheaded, with those (John saw) who had not worshiped the Beast. In referring to KAI, BDAG has the following to say:

According to the BDAG3, it is generally a "marker of connection" ("and"). So it is normally used when adding or connecting any word, phrase, clause or sentence to whatever preceded it ("and, also"). Or it can be applied as "a marker to indicate an additive relation that is not coordinate to connect clauses and sentences" ("also, likewise, too, even, but, indeed, namely"). Sometimes it is used to contrast or compare ("but"). Since it links sentences having a logical relationship, a sentence which does not begin with a καί may indicate the beginning of a new thought or a new paragraph. When it is found between a statement of a condition and a statement of a result, it may be translated as "yet, but, still." When it is repeated in a sentence -- set before related words, terms, phrases or clauses -- it may indicate relationships between them: "both [this] ... and [that] ..." or, "not only [this] ... but also [that] ..."

I realize this has been rather tedious, however it is necessary to gain a proper understanding of what John wrote. It dispels grammatically, the idea that those beheaded as a reward for not worshiping the Beast etc. were/are a select group as distinct from all other saints as far as the first resurrection is concerned.
Next, I have a little snippet from my BDAG which I trust is not in breach of that sopa thing, since I include the Authors.
(BDAG is pretty much the Gold Standard when it comes to things Greek)

ὅστις, ἥτις, ὅ τι (Hom.+.—On the orthography of ὅ τι s. W-S. §5, 6; Mlt-H. 179); in our lit. as well as in the pap occurring usu. in the nom.
① any person,whoever, every one who, in a generalizing sense:
ⓐ w. pres. ind. foll. Mt 5:39; 13:12ab; Mk 4:20; 8:34 v.l.; Lk 14:27; Gal 5:4. Pleonastically πᾶς ὅστιςMt 7:24.
ⓑ w. the aor. ind. Ro 11:4; Rv 1:7; 20:4.πᾶς ὅστιςMt 19:29.
1 Arndt, William ; Danker, Frederick W. ; Bauer, Walter: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2000, S. 729
Hom Hom , VIII b.c.—List 5
W-S. W-S. = GWiner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, ed. PSchmiedel—List 6
Mlt-H. Mlt-H. = JMoulton/WHoward, A Grammar of NT Greek II: Accidence and Word-formation—List 6
lit. lit. = literal(ly); literature (refererences to [scholarly] literature)
pap pap = papyrus, -yri
usu. usu. = usually
pres. pres. = present
ind. ind. = index
foll. foll. = followed, following
v.l. v.l. = varia lectio (variant reading)
aor. aor. = aorist
1Arndt, William ; Danker, Frederick W. ; Bauer, Walter: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2000, S. 729

The Strong's concordance is nice, but it is really only meant as a reference for those who know a little Greek. It gives only the lexal, not the word as it is actually written in the text. The actual text has οιτινες not hOSTIS. No big deal, except that the better meanings can be understood when the various morphological changes are taken into consideration.
So....at long last we have part of Rev20-4 reading And I saw the souls of those who were beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God and(any person,whoever, every one who) did not worship the beast etc.
Good! Having cleared that up, I would like to go on to examine the nature of the 1000 year reign of the saints with Christ.
Blessings,
calvin

 

[Major]

If I grasp what you are saying...............it means that what I said in the begionning was also correct in that there "will be living humans living through the tribulation".

 

[calvin]

First of all Major, I wanted to establish as best as I am able that the first resurrection as spoken of by John includes all the saints of God. This I have endeavored to do by appeal to the Greek grammar. rather than rely too much on freedom of interpretation.
As for the tribulation period, well, no, and yes, and no.
Major, I have not settled that tribulation period in my own mind and understanding yet, so I can't agree or disagree with you on that point. I do think that it is very much related to the topic in hand, but there is a lot of scripture to process.
You seem to be seeing the 1000 year reign as the 'Great tribulation' period and maybe it is...but you are ahead of my thinking so far.
blessings,
calvin

 

[Major]

First of all Major, I wanted to establish as best as I am able that the first resurrection as spoken of by John includes all the saints of God. This I have endeavored to do by appeal to the Greek grammar. rather than rely too much on freedom of interpretation.
As for the tribulation period, well, no, and yes, and no.
Major, I have not settled that tribulation period in my own mind and understanding yet, so I can't agree or disagree with you on that point. I do think that it is very much related to the topic in hand, but there is a lot of scripture to process.
You seem to be seeing the 1000 year reign as the 'Great tribulation' period and maybe it is...but you are ahead of my thinking so far.
blessings,
calvin

Calvin.........IF I gave you the impression that the 1000 year rule IS the Great Tribulation then I need to correct that misunderstanding to you.

IMHO the 1000 year rule of Christ comes AFTER the 7 year Tribulation ending with the 2nd Battle of Gog and Magog. The hang up for many people is the idea that there will be humans who live through the Tribulation Period and go into the 1000 yera rule as born again believers who are human beings. IF not........then what is the purpose of the Judgment of the Nations AFTER Armageddon???

The 1000 year rule IS THE Kingdom that was promised by all the prophets of the Old Test.

Sorry if I confused you.

 

[mistmann]

Errata and notes:
In post #9, I said that KAI(and) was missing from the KJV. Misty pointed out that it is there. It is indeed there. I tend to use the Nkjv instead of the KJV because the latter is cluttered up somewhat with Strong's numbers.( in my software copies that is).
It is in fact absent from the NKjv......My appologies.

In the same post, I referred to that conjunction as being used either as a connective or an additive marker; this is true.

Ancient Greek had no punctuation marks such as commas, full stops etc.
It was one long and continuous concatenation of characters.
It did not even separate words by using spaces.

KAI then has a dual role( rarely though it can also have 3rd role). It serves as a marker for a new thought or sentence and it can serve as an connective marker, much the same way as we use 'and ' today.

I had previously indicated that the use of KAI was additive. This also was an error as grammatically, it is clearly connective. That is to say that it connects those who John saw who were beheaded, with those (John saw) who had not worshiped the Beast. In referring to KAI, BDAG has the following to say:


I realize this has been rather tedious, however it is necessary to gain a proper understanding of what John wrote. It dispels grammatically, the idea that those beheaded as a reward for not worshiping the Beast etc. were/are a select group as distinct from all other saints as far as the first resurrection is concerned.
Next, I have a little snippet from my BDAG which I trust is not in breach of that sopa thing, since I include the Authors.
(BDAG is pretty much the Gold Standard when it comes to things Greek)

The Strong's concordance is nice, but it is really only meant as a reference for those who know a little Greek. It gives only the lexal, not the word as it is actually written in the text. The actual text has οιτινες not hOSTIS. No big deal, except that the better meanings can be understood when the various morphological changes are taken into consideration.
So....at long last we have part of Rev20-4 reading And I saw the souls of those who were beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God and(any person,whoever, every one who) did not worship the beast etc.
Good! Having cleared that up, I would like to go on to examine the nature of the 1000 year reign of the saints with Christ.
Blessings,
calvin

Sorry for the delay in getting back Calvin, I am working on several projects connected with MissionaryFromHome.com at the moment and can only snatch time here and there to get back here. Just on the above while your references are interesting to note they have not changed the situation at all. But I do note that you have drawn a conclusion that is not supported by the information you have given when you said: "It dispels grammatically, the idea that those beheaded as a reward for not worshiping the Beast etc. were/are a select group as distinct from all other saints as far as the first resurrection is concerned." Grammatically nothing is changed by the references you quote as they are actually saying nothing different to what was already established.

WE must also be very careful not to presume that we know Greek better than the language experts. I do not discount Strong's because I think I am able to recognise a better explanation of Greek when *I* see it. Rather I respect Strongs opinions EQUALLY as a highly esteemed and widely recognised and accepted authority on the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible by those who are far more knowledgeable than I.

But the problem of context still remains. IF John intended to include ALL who refused to worship or receive the mark whether beheaded or not there is absolutely no logical reason or purpose in specifically mentioning those who were beheaded for this is the only group specifically singled out. Like I said in my prevoius example it is like saying all who died of stroke in the town and all who died or didn't die for whatever reason who are also in the town. The only logical reason for John to single out those beheaded is if those alone are being referred to.

Then there is still that other problem that it is specifically referring to those who REFUSE to worship and REFUSE to accept the mark. Anybody in Christ who has died having never been COMMANDED to worship the beast or his image, or COMMANDED to receive the mark has not REFUSED either, therefore do not meet the criteria of the first resurrection. This means the majority of those who have died in Christ up until now do not "qualify" for inclusion in the first resurrection.

EVERYTHING points to only those beheaded for their testimony and refusal being in the first resurrection. One actually has to FIGHT and STRUGGLE AGAINST all the accumulated evidence and written words of the Bible to try and MAKE the Bible say the rapture at the coming of Christ happened before the 1,000 years. The only reason to do this is if the person simply cannot accept or believe what the Bible is actually saying. It is a VERY common problem in the Christian community. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why Christ MUST return before the 1,000 years. This is just an assumption certain people have made because it fits THEIR theology. Theologies that immediately fall over dead as a dodo if they have to admit the Bible actually does NOT say Christ returns BEFORE the 1,000 years.

If people wish to defend their theologies that is up to them. I am merely pointing out the things the Bible actually says in the words used, and the reality of it. People must choose for themselves what they will and will not believe. Sadly many of them choose to believe something other than what the Bible actually says but I can't do anything about that. All I can do is keep pointing to the reality of what the words the Lord has written actually say.

I am not intending this as a put down of anybody merely trying to emphasis that I am not arguing and debating these things, merely pointing out things that people might not be aware of or might want to seriously think about if they have not already done so. That others disagree with me is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned because I will always believe what the Bible actually says over what any man TELLS me it says. I am merely encouraging others to think about these things for themselves and make up their own minds.

 

[mistmann]

Misti, here is some food for thought.
You believe the Byzantine Empire was the 1000 year period mentioned in Rev 20.
You believe the souls that John saw were only those who got the chop for their testimony of Jesus and the word of God and who were also the same ones who would not worship the beast and refused his mark etc.
Given the above, you should be able to identify the Beast within factual history, identify the Image, and point to when it was in history that the beast and the false prophet were cast alive into the lake of fire. Rev19:20.
Blessings,
calvin

It is not so much that I believe the 1,000 year Byzantine Empire to be the 1,000 years John spoke of. Rather it is that the incredible parallels of the BCE, and how it began and by who it began and how long it lasted are so numerous and detailed that I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that it is all just incredible and amazing random chance coincidence. The reality is I have not heard a single convincing argument as to why it is NOT the 1,000 years John spoke of. ALL the evidence and facts point to it being the 1,000 years of Revelation. There is NO evidence that points to it NOT being.

Conspiracy can also be ruled out because it would not have been HUMANLY possible for Constantine, Eusebius, and all the others alive at the start of the BCE to know it would last for the next 1,000 years.

John SAYS HE saw the souls of those who were beheaded for the reasons he listed. I am merely believing the words of John himself.

As to identifying the beast and the false prophet humanists (aka Atheists) have successfully hidden a whole 1,000 year empire from the attention of the world for a long time now. I doubt it is the only history they are trying to hide. I am slowly piecing a lot of things together from the writings of the Ante Nicene church leaders and the histories of Eusebius, etc.

THIS I do know so far. The Christians before the BCE went through greater tribulation as a whole than has ever been since. BUT they were not persecuted because they were Christians. They were punished tortured and killed because they REFUSED to bow down and worship the Roman Emperor as a GOD. I also know from the writings of Irenaeus "Against Heresies" that it was a common practice among many cults and religions of the day to physically mark their followers for identification. One should also consider that if the Romans were engaged in a program to make all Christians bow down and worship the Roman Emperor as a God it would not be unreasonable for them to have a system of being able to identify those who comply from those who refuse to comply.

As to the image it was common practise for the Roman emperors to have statues of themselves erected for the purpose of having people worship them. Just as a quick example here is an extract from an article about Ephasus from the Oklahoma Christian University ( http://www.oc.edu/president/greece_turkey_tour/Ephesus.aspx ).

4. The Temple to Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. This trio of Roman Emperors, a father, Vespasian, and his two sons, were honored by a huge temple in the heart of ancient Ephesus. Titus was the Roman general who led in the destruction of Jerusalem . The temple was three stories high with the actual place of worship above the third level. It occupied a space about 60 yards wide and 550 yards long. One set of two columns, extending to the second story, has been re-constructed. The head and arm from Domitian's statue at this site may be seen in the Ephesus Museum. Domitian was the Roman emperor (81 to 96 AD) who helped make emperor worship an important part of Roman life. It was this emperor worship that placed Christians of the late first and the second and third centuries in the difficult position of either accepting the emperor as god, thus denying Christ, or confessing Christ and thus being subject to terrible persecutions. The book of Revelation was written to Christians facing such persecution to help them remain faithful. This huge temple to three Roman emperors placed in the very center of Ephesus speaks to the magnitude of the emperor worship problem which led to the greatest persecution the church has experienced since its beginning.

It would not be difficult to identify the pagan Roman Empire and its emperors as the beast, especially as the last Pagan Roman Emperor and the empire itself was destroyed at the battle of Milvian Bridge with Constantine claiming victory under the sign of the Cross and in the name of Jesus Christ which he (and indeed his whole army) had written on his vestments, shield, etc.

To know who was the false prophet we woiuld have to find out who in the Pagan Roman Empire was responsible for having the statues erected and forcing people to worship them. etc. Perhaps one of the emperors, perhaps one of the Generals. We know they were all killed or died. What happened to them AFTER they died is beyond historians to know or record. But, of course, as far as the Lord is concerned death of flesh and blood is nothing and those who have died in the flesh are still alive to the Lord. If the Bible tells us anything it tells us that life survives the death of flesh and blood. EVERYBODY not in the Book of Life, even if they are currently dead in the flesh WILL be ALIVE when cast into the Great Lake of Fire. We must be careful not to limit ourselves to "flesh and blood thinking" when the Lord speaks of being "alive"

 

[Major]

My friend Mistmann states that................

"There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why Christ MUST return before the 1,000 years. This is just an assumption certain people have made because it fits THEIR theology. Theologies that immediately fall over dead as a dodo if they have to admit the Bible actually does NOT say Christ returns BEFORE the 1,000 years."

The problem with that are the words in Revelation 19:11-21...........
"I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh."

Misty encourages us all to read and believe what the Bible says and I do that as well because it is the Word of Truth. Now my friend states these words..............................

"That others disagree with me is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned because I will always believe what the Bible actually says over what any man TELLS me it says. I am merely encouraging others to think about these things for themselves and make up their own minds."

I agree 100 % with that statement as well which is exactly why I posted Revelation 19:11-21.
As we can all see in those verses the visible coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Second coming.

Then as we follow the chronological order we come to Revelation 20:1-5............

"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.
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".

It can not be any clearer that that. Now you can clice it and dice to fit your thinking, but The Word of God is plain and clear.

The "Amillennialists" employ a dual hermeneutic in interpretation and find NO earthly reign of Christ here.

It is abundently obvious from the Bible account that chapter 20 of Revelation follows chapter 19. We can confirm that simply by looking at the FIRST word in chapter #20......"AND".

THAT IS A CONNECTIVE WORD WHICH EXTENDS CHAPTER #19 AND FOLLOWS THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EVENTS FROM #19 TO #20.

Therefore the opening verses of chapter #20 describe what is to follow the Tribulation Period and it is the MILLENNIUM (1000 year rule of Christ).

 

[mistmann]

Misti, in post #13 you asked :


Had John only mentioned those who were beheaded, all others would feel 'left out'. Had John not mentioned those who refused the beast, people facing persecution, who might have worried because they did not see themselves suffering decapitation ,such as Polycarp, and many many others might be tempted to doubt their salvation. In a like manner, those who would face decapitation needed to be encouraged to hold fast to their faith. Now I can not say that this was John's motive, but it is feasible and you did ask.

blessings,
calvin

The point is IF John was so worried about others feeling "left out" WHY speak of those beheaded at all?? Why not just speak of those who refused or of those who were killed without specifying the method of death? The point I was making is that John has no logical or rational reason to specify those beheaded UNLESS he is speaking ONLY of those beheaded. Your observation here actually drives home that point even more.

If John WERE speaking of everybody who refused or were killed by whatever method it is illogical and irrational to speak of seeing those beheaded raised up. Would John not have seen ALL of them raised up WITH their heads? If all were raised up there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to single out those who were beheaded. Indeed unless they were raised up headless John would not even know which ones were beheaded and which ones weren't.

Whichever way you want to look at it it makes absolutely no sense at all for John to single out those beheaded UNLESS he was speaking of ONLY those beheaded being raised up. (Which is what his words actually say).

 

[Major]

Misti, here is some food for thought.
You believe the Byzantine Empire was the 1000 year period mentioned in Rev 20.
You believe the souls that John saw were only those who got the chop for their testimony of Jesus and the word of God and who were also the same ones who would not worship the beast and refused his mark etc.
Given the above, you should be able to identify the Beast within factual history, identify the Image, and point to when it was in history that the beast and the false prophet were cast alive into the lake of fire. Rev19:20.
Blessings,
calvin

That is an excellant observation.

So, then Misty.....who was in fact the anti-christ ?????