JGR wrote: "But Carlo, the text specifically addresses the coming of Christ.
The whole issue of Pre-mil versus A-Mil has to do with the two comings of
Christ as they relate to the binding of Satan and the 1,000 years."

Please cite the actual passage for me in Revelation 20 where it specifically
addresses the coming of Christ.  I can cite to you exact passages of the
coming of Christ in Rev 19:11-16, specifically.  The text specifically
addresses Christ's coming there.  It does not specifically address Christ's
coming in Rev 20.  Naturally, it doesn't need to, since it is addressed
specifically in Rev 19:11-16.

JGR wrote: "The word Pre-mil means the second coming of Christ takes place
"Pre," or before, the millenail kongdom is ushered in."

The second coming of Christ occurred in Rev 19:11-16.

JGR wrote: "But again, we are talking about Rev. 20. The Pre-mil is using it
as the primary, actually the only, proof text proving that the binding of
Satan in Rev 20 does not take place until the second coming of Christ. The
whole case for Pre-mil is built on Rev. 20. You can't prove the Pre-mil
position without also establishing the point in history when the first and
second comings of Christ take place. That is not a starw dummy, that is
asking for essential biblical exegesis. I am asking for an explanation of
Rev. 20."

Again, the Rev 19:11-16 specifically addresses the second coming of Christ.

JGR wrote: "Accoring to Rev 20, when does the 1,000 year reighn of Christ
begin? At Christ's first or second coming? That is the question I am asking"

It occurs after the second coming of Christ described in Rev 19:11-16.

JGR wrote: "Pre-mils don't put the first coming of Christ any where in Rev
20 simply because it will not fit ito their system! So when does the first
coming take place in the time frames of Rev 20?"

Why on earth would Premillinnialists put the first coming of Christ anywhere
in Rev 20.  This is one of your straw arguments.  The first coming of Christ
was at His incarnation.  Unless there's something about the dispensational
or historic premillennialist arguments I do not know about it, they do not
put the first coming of Christ in Rev 20 because they don't and they don't
have to!

JGR wrote: "But Carlo, the whole argument is the statements in Rev. 20.
Stick with understanding Rev. 20 first. "

snip snip

JGR wrote: "The question remains? According to Rev. 20, at what point in
history does the first coming of Christ take place? "

John, I won't be forced to answer a question about the advent of Christ's
just because you say the text specifically addresses it, when I'm looking at
the passages, I can't find that it does.  I would be happy to address it, if
you can actually point to me a passage where it does.  I've specifically
pointed to verses in Rev 19.  Which is why we can't find verses in Rev 20
about it.