-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The early Church never was premil.
Again, only a few early Church Fathers took a very primitive form of Chiliasm, actually it was post mil because it occurred after the second Coming of Christ. Those Fathers all came from what is now Asia Minor or Turkey and they were influenced by the pagan culture of Zorastroism and Gnosticism which held this view. It was first written about mid 1st century by Papias from Cerinthius. It never even got out of Asia Minor and in 381 at the Second Ecumenical Council it was declared a heresy. There has been no false teaching on eschatology within the Church since and what is now called amill is still the understanding of the Church, just as Peter proclaimed in his sermon on Pentecost.
Someone mentioned Preterism in a post and I needed to look it up. Seems it began in the 16th century by the RCC. It was adopted at the Council of Trent. Its purpose was to offset the Reformational idea that the RCC was the anti-Christ. Typical of Rome.
Again, only a few early Church Fathers took a very primitive form of Chiliasm, actually it was post mil because it occurred after the second Coming of Christ. Those Fathers all came from what is now Asia Minor or Turkey and they were influenced by the pagan culture of Zorastroism and Gnosticism which held this view. It was first written about mid 1st century by Papias from Cerinthius. It never even got out of Asia Minor and in 381 at the Second Ecumenical Council it was declared a heresy. There has been no false teaching on eschatology within the Church since and what is now called amill is still the understanding of the Church, just as Peter proclaimed in his sermon on Pentecost.
Someone mentioned Preterism in a post and I needed to look it up. Seems it began in the 16th century by the RCC. It was adopted at the Council of Trent. Its purpose was to offset the Reformational idea that the RCC was the anti-Christ. Typical of Rome.
The Victors in history write the history, so some disagree with you...
Critical Issues Commentary: Pre-Millennialism and the Early Church Fathers
Critical Issues Commentary: Pre-Millennialism and the Early Church Fathers
Christ arose and defeated Satan. He is the victor. He has given His revelation to man for this Messianic Age and has preserved it within the Body He established here on earth. He will always be the victor and man cannot change His revelation.
I noticed your source Only picked a few of the Church Fathers, but never stated what the Church held. The Church never depended on men to interpret or impose their views or theories upon the Church. If they were faithful to the understanding and teachings of the Church they were accepted as authentic messengers. However, if they went astray they were declared heretical which is the case here.
Protestants make two major errors. First they assume the early Church got everything from scripture as per a Bible as modern day men do. The Church has never been sola scriptura. Secondly, they assume that man has authority over God's revelation to man. The Holy Spirit NEVER gave to individual men any authority over His revelation including scripture.
Consequently they interpret Church Fathers as they do scripture. They impose their own personal authority and interpret it to fit their own theories. You can quote Church Fathers over the last 2000 years who have written on every false teaching ever devised by man. If you want to support Universalism use Origin, yet the Church never held this view. If you want to support that Christ was not God, just use Nestorius. I can do this with every false teaching because they all originated within the Church. Paul was even more concerned about the wolves from within than from without. Outside theories are quite easy to determine.
Protestants have no authority except their own personal intellect and ability to deduce whatever they think scripture might mean. Consequently we have thousands of interpretations, all of equal value because it is based solely on someone's best guess and opinion or worse accept one of the false teachings that has been declared heretical centuries ago.
I noticed your source Only picked a few of the Church Fathers, but never stated what the Church held. The Church never depended on men to interpret or impose their views or theories upon the Church. If they were faithful to the understanding and teachings of the Church they were accepted as authentic messengers. However, if they went astray they were declared heretical which is the case here.
Protestants make two major errors. First they assume the early Church got everything from scripture as per a Bible as modern day men do. The Church has never been sola scriptura. Secondly, they assume that man has authority over God's revelation to man. The Holy Spirit NEVER gave to individual men any authority over His revelation including scripture.
Consequently they interpret Church Fathers as they do scripture. They impose their own personal authority and interpret it to fit their own theories. You can quote Church Fathers over the last 2000 years who have written on every false teaching ever devised by man. If you want to support Universalism use Origin, yet the Church never held this view. If you want to support that Christ was not God, just use Nestorius. I can do this with every false teaching because they all originated within the Church. Paul was even more concerned about the wolves from within than from without. Outside theories are quite easy to determine.
Protestants have no authority except their own personal intellect and ability to deduce whatever they think scripture might mean. Consequently we have thousands of interpretations, all of equal value because it is based solely on someone's best guess and opinion or worse accept one of the false teachings that has been declared heretical centuries ago.
My link refuted your sweeping statement,
I only had quotes from the Church Fathers because it showed your statement false.
I hold to Sola Scriptura, yes, and OT Scripture has oodles of Scriptures pointing to a time of bliss after Christ's 2nd coming.
After 40 days of being taught directly by the resurrected Christ, the disciples asked their Lord a question that revealed a pre-mill expectancy...
"So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Act 1:6)
Christ had come back from the dead and they were expecting perhaps now would be the time Jesus would set up His Kingdom.
Did Jesus tell them, "Look guys, I have been teaching you over 3 years and you still don't get it? Don't you know, from here on out it's all 'spiritual'? " Nope, all He said was, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority." In other words, no rebuke, no denial of a coming physical Kingdom.
Then of course you have this problem. All the prophecies up to that point from the OT were physically fulfilled, why wouldn't one expect the remaining prophecies to be physically fulfilled?
I only had quotes from the Church Fathers because it showed your statement false.
I hold to Sola Scriptura, yes, and OT Scripture has oodles of Scriptures pointing to a time of bliss after Christ's 2nd coming.
After 40 days of being taught directly by the resurrected Christ, the disciples asked their Lord a question that revealed a pre-mill expectancy...
"So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Act 1:6)
Christ had come back from the dead and they were expecting perhaps now would be the time Jesus would set up His Kingdom.
Did Jesus tell them, "Look guys, I have been teaching you over 3 years and you still don't get it? Don't you know, from here on out it's all 'spiritual'? " Nope, all He said was, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority." In other words, no rebuke, no denial of a coming physical Kingdom.
Then of course you have this problem. All the prophecies up to that point from the OT were physically fulfilled, why wouldn't one expect the remaining prophecies to be physically fulfilled?
Total fallacious propaganda against the early 1st - 2nd century Church fathers.
I've already shown from some of their writings, and later Church fathers that quoted them that they held to a thousand year millennium after Christ's second coming. You're only depending on the hope that no one here has ever checked that out. And trying to link them with paganism reveals the depth of your lies you're willing to stoop to.
I've already shown from some of their writings, and later Church fathers that quoted them that they held to a thousand year millennium after Christ's second coming. You're only depending on the hope that no one here has ever checked that out. And trying to link them with paganism reveals the depth of your lies you're willing to stoop to.
crossnote,
I read the entire link. Nothing in it at all about what the Church believed. They selected only a few men who supposedly had a premil which was actually postmil. If it was the teaching of the Church why would the Church declare it heretical? The Holy Spirit does not give false teachings, men have tried to overrule the Holy Spirit but have never been successful. Your failed valient effort is a rationalization that supposedly gives credence to modern theories if a Church Father mentions it. As I stated, every false teaching can be found in some Church Father. The question is what did the Church believe.
If it had been what the Church believed, then all of you should change your views to match precisely the early Fathers. None of them had a dispensational aspect to it, none of them had an earthly reign entailed in it. Yet these are all the hallmarks of the modern theories and how could it be gospel when it has no consensus either with the early Church Fathers nor within the modern plethora of versions. It was a false teaching in the second century, it is still a false teaching in the current time. It will always be a false teaching.
Really?? You are really stretching. They like all Jews of that day were looking for a deliverer fromk the Romans. They were not looking for a spiritual Savior. If this had been the case wouldn't it be very easy for Christ to say, no, it will be after I come again. Yet He did not, and no ploace in scripture is there anything but eternity after Christ's second coming.
They were and will. Christ established His Kingdom here on earth, it is called the Church. A very physical entity, the extension of His Incarnation, which is why it is called the Body of Christ. The only other prophescies still open is all happening in the last day. Christ comes physically, and resurrection physically, and judgement. What is NOT physical about that.
There just is no physical national Isreal which was permanently destroyed in 70 AD as HE promised. That was also quite physical.Total fallacious propaganda against the early 1st - 2nd century Church fathers.
I read the entire link. Nothing in it at all about what the Church believed. They selected only a few men who supposedly had a premil which was actually postmil. If it was the teaching of the Church why would the Church declare it heretical? The Holy Spirit does not give false teachings, men have tried to overrule the Holy Spirit but have never been successful. Your failed valient effort is a rationalization that supposedly gives credence to modern theories if a Church Father mentions it. As I stated, every false teaching can be found in some Church Father. The question is what did the Church believe.
If it had been what the Church believed, then all of you should change your views to match precisely the early Fathers. None of them had a dispensational aspect to it, none of them had an earthly reign entailed in it. Yet these are all the hallmarks of the modern theories and how could it be gospel when it has no consensus either with the early Church Fathers nor within the modern plethora of versions. It was a false teaching in the second century, it is still a false teaching in the current time. It will always be a false teaching.
Really?? You are really stretching. They like all Jews of that day were looking for a deliverer fromk the Romans. They were not looking for a spiritual Savior. If this had been the case wouldn't it be very easy for Christ to say, no, it will be after I come again. Yet He did not, and no ploace in scripture is there anything but eternity after Christ's second coming.
They were and will. Christ established His Kingdom here on earth, it is called the Church. A very physical entity, the extension of His Incarnation, which is why it is called the Body of Christ. The only other prophescies still open is all happening in the last day. Christ comes physically, and resurrection physically, and judgement. What is NOT physical about that.
There just is no physical national Isreal which was permanently destroyed in 70 AD as HE promised. That was also quite physical.Total fallacious propaganda against the early 1st - 2nd century Church fathers.
DP,
I mentioned them long before anyone else did.
You and they all assume the Church believed what a few men stated. These men all lived in Asia Minor. It was a post mil as you stated. But find me the statement or anywere that the Church held to this view at any time since Pentecost. Iraneous even states that others do not hold this view. The Church never adopted views from individual men. Individual men have always been the source of false teachings and this is no exception.
I'll state to you what I stated to Crossnote. If it was actually correct, then why are you arguing for premill and for a dispensational view with an earthly reign of Christ which NONE of these men held. Their view clearly was adopted from the pagan religion of Zorastroism, a dominant religion of that day and well known in Asia Minor. They were not the last to do it. Origin and Tertullian had their troubles as did Augusine as well.
By your reasoning the Church would have held and believed every false teaching that ever existed because a man wrote about it. The Church did not hold to sola scriptura where everything and everything written by men was gospel truth as is done today in the sola scriptura milieu.
However, history clearly shows that the Holy Spirit has preserved His Revelation and has preserved it unchanged for 2000 years within the Church. Your real problem is that you do not trust the Holy Spirit. You need to use other false teachings that existed centuries ago to give credence to modern theories that are not remotely the same in any respect anyway.
But you find a statement that the Church believed and practiced any, either premill, post mill or preterism, you can even separate out dispensationalism and then I will stand corrected. Also explain to me why the Church, if it held the view, would declare it heretical?
I imagine you would say that the Holy Spirit got it wrong the first time and needed to correct it. You see, the Holy Spirit is not confused or the author of all that confusion and chaos called sola scriptura.
I mentioned them long before anyone else did.
You and they all assume the Church believed what a few men stated. These men all lived in Asia Minor. It was a post mil as you stated. But find me the statement or anywere that the Church held to this view at any time since Pentecost. Iraneous even states that others do not hold this view. The Church never adopted views from individual men. Individual men have always been the source of false teachings and this is no exception.
I'll state to you what I stated to Crossnote. If it was actually correct, then why are you arguing for premill and for a dispensational view with an earthly reign of Christ which NONE of these men held. Their view clearly was adopted from the pagan religion of Zorastroism, a dominant religion of that day and well known in Asia Minor. They were not the last to do it. Origin and Tertullian had their troubles as did Augusine as well.
By your reasoning the Church would have held and believed every false teaching that ever existed because a man wrote about it. The Church did not hold to sola scriptura where everything and everything written by men was gospel truth as is done today in the sola scriptura milieu.
However, history clearly shows that the Holy Spirit has preserved His Revelation and has preserved it unchanged for 2000 years within the Church. Your real problem is that you do not trust the Holy Spirit. You need to use other false teachings that existed centuries ago to give credence to modern theories that are not remotely the same in any respect anyway.
But you find a statement that the Church believed and practiced any, either premill, post mill or preterism, you can even separate out dispensationalism and then I will stand corrected. Also explain to me why the Church, if it held the view, would declare it heretical?
I imagine you would say that the Holy Spirit got it wrong the first time and needed to correct it. You see, the Holy Spirit is not confused or the author of all that confusion and chaos called sola scriptura.
Your link selected a few fathers influenced by Jewish tradition, made sweeping claims which could not be proved, assumed what it wanted to assume and ignored all contrary evidence. It is clear that the JEWISH idea of a six thousand year period possessed their minds. They had no Scriptural basis for it.
It was very selective and simply showed how unreliable the early fathers were (as we all know) and how they followed Jewish fables.
They seem to have been omitted from my Bible LOL
How surprising. Having just risen from the dead and seeking to concentrate the Apostles' minds on their future task He did not get involved in a long and detailed pointless theological discussion about irrelevances. But then what you believe IS built on surmises. For you have no proof. So what should I expect?
Yes, and most of what you call 'remaining prophecies' had also been literally fulfilled. It is just that you refuse to see it. Its easy really. I simply take any prophecy and with my inadequate knowledge of History decide if it has been fulfilled or not. Then I dump all the rest in the future and ignore how the New Testament treats them. That's your method.
It was very selective and simply showed how unreliable the early fathers were (as we all know) and how they followed Jewish fables.
They seem to have been omitted from my Bible LOL
How surprising. Having just risen from the dead and seeking to concentrate the Apostles' minds on their future task He did not get involved in a long and detailed pointless theological discussion about irrelevances. But then what you believe IS built on surmises. For you have no proof. So what should I expect?
Yes, and most of what you call 'remaining prophecies' had also been literally fulfilled. It is just that you refuse to see it. Its easy really. I simply take any prophecy and with my inadequate knowledge of History decide if it has been fulfilled or not. Then I dump all the rest in the future and ignore how the New Testament treats them. That's your method.
LOL there were no 1st century fathers who believed in a millennium. There were only one or two 2nd century fathers, and they did it on the basis of a Jewish fantasy about 6000 years of history. What a wonderful foundation on which to make such an inaccurate claim.
Its a pity Jesus and the Apostles hadn't read those 2nd century fathers. Then they too might have believed in a millennium lol As it was they knew nothing about such a thing. And look how big that became IN AMERICA lol
Actually it explains pretribs lol They also picked up on false teaching by extremists and formulated their own ideas on them.
Pity they overlooked what the Scriptures really say.
Its a pity Jesus and the Apostles hadn't read those 2nd century fathers. Then they too might have believed in a millennium lol As it was they knew nothing about such a thing. And look how big that became IN AMERICA lol
Actually it explains pretribs lol They also picked up on false teaching by extremists and formulated their own ideas on them.
Pity they overlooked what the Scriptures really say.
Moreover, it is a simple matter to understand the flow of Rev.19 into Rev.20 and their events in correlation with prophecy in Zechariah 14 and Acts 1, and many other Bible Scriptures about "the day of the Lord".
Today is not Christ's Millennium either, as there are those who try to force that doctrine of men upon some Biblically illiterate believers also.
Today is not Christ's Millennium either, as there are those who try to force that doctrine of men upon some Biblically illiterate believers also.
Oh no! There's that THE day of the lord thing again. Wait a minute! I can't find THE day of the lord in the Hebrew in Zech 14:1. It just says A day comes for YHWH. And that day sounds so much like what Antiochus Epiphanes and Titus did to Jerusalem.
Ah, but don't pay attention to details like that. I'm such a party pooper. Enjoy your narrative (while you can).
Ah, but don't pay attention to details like that. I'm such a party pooper. Enjoy your narrative (while you can).
Last edited:
Originally Posted by valiant
LOL there were no 1st century fathers who believed in a millennium. There were only one or two 2nd century fathers, and they did it on the basis of a Jewish fantasy about 6000 years of history. What a wonderful foundation on which to make such an inaccurate claim.
Its a pity Jesus and the Apostles hadn't read those 2nd century fathers. Then they too might have believed in a millennium lol As it was they knew nothing about such a thing. And look how big that became IN AMERICA lol
Actually it explains pretribs lol They also picked up on false teaching by extremists and formulated their own ideas on them.
Pity they overlooked what the Scriptures really say.
Its a pity Jesus and the Apostles hadn't read those 2nd century fathers. Then they too might have believed in a millennium lol As it was they knew nothing about such a thing. And look how big that became IN AMERICA lol
Actually it explains pretribs lol They also picked up on false teaching by extremists and formulated their own ideas on them.
Pity they overlooked what the Scriptures really say.
We seem to be very short of your claimed 1st century witnesses LOL
I don't deny the existence. I deny the credibility of the authors. Anyone who knows the early fathers knows how wild some of their ideas are. And what they were promulgating was the 6000 year old earth. Now you may believe that rot. I expect you do. I certainly don't
LOL you are so funny.
so because you think rev 19 flows into rev 20, when it clearly does not, we are to believe you? Pull the other one.
Revelation is made up of a series of visions each ending in the second coming. Rev 19 ends with the second coming. Rev 20 ends with the second coming. Thus two separate visions. There is in fact no co-relation between them. Indeed rev 20.1-3 begins with an event that occurred in 9.11. Re 20 is a brief summation of what has gone before depicting the two adversaries. On the one hand Satan. On the other King Jesus and His saints. during this age
By the way please cite all mentions of 'the day of the Lord' in rev 19, 20 and zech14 and Acts 1. I can't find ANY LOL
so because you think rev 19 flows into rev 20, when it clearly does not, we are to believe you? Pull the other one.
Revelation is made up of a series of visions each ending in the second coming. Rev 19 ends with the second coming. Rev 20 ends with the second coming. Thus two separate visions. There is in fact no co-relation between them. Indeed rev 20.1-3 begins with an event that occurred in 9.11. Re 20 is a brief summation of what has gone before depicting the two adversaries. On the one hand Satan. On the other King Jesus and His saints. during this age
By the way please cite all mentions of 'the day of the Lord' in rev 19, 20 and zech14 and Acts 1. I can't find ANY LOL
Last edited:
So Antiochus IV did this?
Zech 14:7-9
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and His name one.
KJV
Of course the "day of the LORD" is written there, and "LORD" is Yehovah, and same as Isaiah 2:12, Isaiah 13:6, Joel 2:31; Joel 3:14; and Malachi 4:5, not to mention Acts 2, 1 Thess.5, and 2 Pet.3:10.
So does your reasoning change any of those events given to occur on that day? Of course not, and by the events is also... how to know the time frame.
Neither Antiochus IV nor Roman Titus fulfilled that. Not only are ignorant of Who that Zech.14 Scripture is about, you are also ignorant of how that could NEVER apply to what Antiochus IV or Titus did in Jerusalem, because neither of those became The LORD!
Zech 14:7-9
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and His name one.
KJV
Of course the "day of the LORD" is written there, and "LORD" is Yehovah, and same as Isaiah 2:12, Isaiah 13:6, Joel 2:31; Joel 3:14; and Malachi 4:5, not to mention Acts 2, 1 Thess.5, and 2 Pet.3:10.
So does your reasoning change any of those events given to occur on that day? Of course not, and by the events is also... how to know the time frame.
Neither Antiochus IV nor Roman Titus fulfilled that. Not only are ignorant of Who that Zech.14 Scripture is about, you are also ignorant of how that could NEVER apply to what Antiochus IV or Titus did in Jerusalem, because neither of those became The LORD!
In the Epistle of Barnabas, he held the idea of one day to God is as a thousand years from 2 Pet.3, and that all would be finished in 6 days (6 thousand years) and as The LORD rested on the 7th day, likewise when Jesus comes the second time He will destroy the time of the wicked on earth and hold judgment over the ungodly, and then truly rest on the 7th day. That is a direct a reference to the "thousand years" reign of Christ after His second coming.
Justin Martyr proclaimed the resurrection and then a thousand years rule in Jerusalem, referencing the Book of Ezekiel. The Ezekiel 40 thru 47 chapters are about that future thousand years.
And I have always said 1st and 2nd century Church fathers, just so you know. The fact that some in the latter 2nd century, like Irenaeus also held to Christ's thousand years reign after His second coming is even more proof of how those early Church fathers were well familiar with the premillennial coming of Christ and thousand years reign subject as written in Scripture.
Justin Martyr proclaimed the resurrection and then a thousand years rule in Jerusalem, referencing the Book of Ezekiel. The Ezekiel 40 thru 47 chapters are about that future thousand years.
And I have always said 1st and 2nd century Church fathers, just so you know. The fact that some in the latter 2nd century, like Irenaeus also held to Christ's thousand years reign after His second coming is even more proof of how those early Church fathers were well familiar with the premillennial coming of Christ and thousand years reign subject as written in Scripture.
You're obviously the one trying to pull one's leg here. There is a direct correlation flow, because when these following events are over, notice what Rev.19:20 reveals...
Rev 19:15-21
15 And out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations: and He shall rule them with a rod of iron: and He treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And He hath on His vesture and on His thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of Him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of His mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
KJV
That is the same group of events to occur on the 7th Vial per Rev.16 and involves the final battle Armageddon. Within the 6th Vial timing, Jesus warns His Church on earth that He comes "as a thief", which correlates to the timing Apostles Paul and Peter proclaimed in conjunction with the "day of the Lord" (1 Thess.5, 2 Pet.3:10). That included the "sudden destruction" Paul taught there, and the time of God's consuming fire that Peter taught there.
That event of destruction upon the wicked also is correlated in the Ezekiel 39 chapter, which in Ezekiel 40 begins events involving the Ezekiel temple in Jerusalem. The FLOW from the end of Rev.19 into Rev.20 is doing the same.
Per Rev.19:20, the beast and false prophet are destroyed, the dragon (Satan) is not.
Then at the first of Rev.20 we are shown why the dragon is not yet destroyed...
Rev 20:1-4
20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
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.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
KJV
It is THOSE events that must correlate with the idea of Christ's servants reigning with Him.
It is obvious those events have NEVER happened to this day.
So pull my other leg, and it plays Jingle-Bells, because you are not LOL at me; you are laughing at God's Word.
Rev 19:15-21
15 And out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations: and He shall rule them with a rod of iron: and He treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And He hath on His vesture and on His thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of Him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of His mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
KJV
That is the same group of events to occur on the 7th Vial per Rev.16 and involves the final battle Armageddon. Within the 6th Vial timing, Jesus warns His Church on earth that He comes "as a thief", which correlates to the timing Apostles Paul and Peter proclaimed in conjunction with the "day of the Lord" (1 Thess.5, 2 Pet.3:10). That included the "sudden destruction" Paul taught there, and the time of God's consuming fire that Peter taught there.
That event of destruction upon the wicked also is correlated in the Ezekiel 39 chapter, which in Ezekiel 40 begins events involving the Ezekiel temple in Jerusalem. The FLOW from the end of Rev.19 into Rev.20 is doing the same.
Per Rev.19:20, the beast and false prophet are destroyed, the dragon (Satan) is not.
Then at the first of Rev.20 we are shown why the dragon is not yet destroyed...
Rev 20:1-4
20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
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.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
KJV
It is THOSE events that must correlate with the idea of Christ's servants reigning with Him.
It is obvious those events have NEVER happened to this day.
So pull my other leg, and it plays Jingle-Bells, because you are not LOL at me; you are laughing at God's Word.