Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

[iamlamad]

...
I prefer glorified instead of immortality. Glorification is the reunion with the spiritual or our spirit.

Why would you prefer something different that the normal bible usage? What words did Paul use?

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Here is what Strong's said about "glorified."

1. to think, suppose, be of opinion
   
   
2. to praise, extol, magnify, celebrate
   
   
3. to honour, do honour to, hold in honour
   
   
4. to make glorious, adorn with lustre, clothe with splendour
   1. to impart glory to something, render it excellent
      
      
   2. to make renowned, render illustrious
      1. to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledged

Only 4 above may come close to how you are using this word.

the reunion with the spiritual or our spirit. What is the meaning? Are you talking about being born again?

Human spirits are either of two types: the first is an Adam spirit inherited from Adam with Adam's DNA. The other is a born again or recreated spirit with God's DNA. Of course, once God recreates a spirit, He places the seal of the Holy Spirit in it.

 

[iamlamad]

Not so. They are "souls." You are forcing your doctrine into the text again. That is Pretrib Premil.

"Souls" are used two ways in scripture; first as the complete human, and second as the unseen part of the human made up of the mind, will, emotions and affections. This is how Paul used the word.

 

[iamlamad]

Can you show me where I said that the rest of the dead don't live again after the thousand years? I'm pretty sure I haven't. So, this is not equivalent to what you do with John 5:28-29 and turn one future time where all the dead are raised into 2 future times when the dead are raised.

You only mentioned one verse (Rev 20:5), but I'm going to assume that you means Rev 20 verses 4 and 5. As I've mentioned many times I believe John saw the souls of dead believers and did not see their bodies and did not see them come to life but rather saw the souls living and reigning with Christ in heaven.

You pointed to John 5 and the verse that shows an "hour" when all in the graves would be resurrected - as iif all in the world who are dead would be resurrected at the same time, within this "hour," as if there would ever be only one resurrection. I am sorry. I guess I did not make myself clear.

I quoted "5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.

The other verse I was comparing was this:
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And I asked:
How can this be understood any other way?" Let me further explain: SOME of the dead will be resurrected BEFORE the 1000 years, and the rest of the dead AFTER the 1000 years. Is not this exactly what verse 5 tells us?

What I did NOT think about: How would someone see this if they symbolize the 1000 years? If so, it would still be difficult to explain why John wrote "but the rest of the dead did not live again..." if all rose at the same time.

I believe John saw the souls of dead believers and did not see their bodies
Let's look together:
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.

(5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.) This is the first resurrection.

First, let's note that "soul" is used two different ways in scripture: one way is as the complete human:

Acts 27:37 And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.

Then "soul" is also used as part of the unseen part of the human: the mind, will, emotions, and affections.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So which way is this word "soul" used here? Notice the context: the context is that it is a resurrection time: "this is the first resurrection."

What does "this" point back to? Everything in verse 4:
I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them
Who are those on the thrones? John does not tell us, but we can know anyway. Who has been resurrected (first resurrection) at this time? The CHURCH, the OT saints, the TWO WITNESSES, and the 144,000. In other words, all the righteous at this time have been resurrected.

That is why John wrote "but the REST of the dead..." The next resurrection, coming later, is a resurrection for the damned.

and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded These would be those whom the Beast and False prophet beheaded. Since this is a part of "the first resurrection" it would seem very silly to guess that they too were not a part of the very resurrection John is writing about. Of course they are resurrrected saints! Notice "they lived." We know they were beheaded and died, but here, after the resurrection, "they lived and reigned."

Therefore, the way John is using "soul" is of a total human being, spirit, soul, and body all together.

Since this is all explained so well here in Revelation, I must therefore look back and what Jesus said and see of it could have another meaning. And I find the Greek word behind "hour" can also mean TIME or SEASON. Therefore I find that what Jesus said in John 5 fits well with what John wrote here in Revelation 20.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Do you actually think that fallen angels are not able to roam around the earth right now? OF COURSE they are able: that is why they are not bound.

And, yet, scripture says this about their current state:

Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

2 Peter 2:4 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;

Despite being bound with chains, you acknowledge that they are still free to roam around. But, for some reason, when it comes to the binding of Satan, a fallen angel, you think it means he is not free to roam around. Where is the consistency in your understanding of what it means for fallen angels to be bound in chains?

If so, I wonder how it is that people get demon possessed? Exactly! People get oppressed and possessed for the very reason that Satan is NOT bound yet. It is FUTURE.

Wait a minute here. Despite scripture saying that the fallen angels are bound with chains, they still can possess people. So, why would that not be true of Satan as well? Again, there is a lack of consistency in how you understand the effect of a fallen angel being bound.

They have meaning but the meaning does not have to resemble the symbol. Who said? An amil? Symbols have means and God does not change the meaning. Example: "7 heads." They always mean 7 kings with 7 kingdoms.

I never said otherwise.

I understand, a head does not look like a kingdom.

That is my point. A head doesn't symbolize a head, it symbolizes something that isn't a head at all. So, why would a dragon being bound in a pit have to symbolize Satan being bound in a pit? It doesn't. It symbolizes Satan being restrained from doing something, which is described as him deceiving the ethnos (nations, heathen).

It doesn't say he is restrained from doing anything at all as premils interpret it because of their mistaken understanding of Satan himself (rather than the symbolic dragon) being bound in a pit. Amil interprets the meaning of "deceiving the ethnos" differently than premil. That should be what we spend time discussing, not whether Satan is literally bound with a chain or not. He's not. The dragon John saw is bound and that is only a symbolic representation of Satan being restrained from deceiving the nations.

The dragon being cast into a pit is all symbolic. Again, WHO SAID? A amil? It probably does not count! what is symbolic is the dragon. But so what? We know it represents the devil. Amil's IMAGINE the casting into the pit is symbolic. They are wrong.

It is the dragon, specifically, that John saw being cast in the pit. This is what premil misses, along with the fact that other scripture talks about fallen angels being bound with chains, yet still allowed to roam through the earth.

Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

Why would it say "He seized the dragon" if he was seizing Satan himself? He explains who the dragon is (that ancient serpent, the devil, Satan), but what he actually saw in his vision was not Satan himself, but a dragon just like he had seen before in previous visions.

The whole scene is a symbolic representation of Satan being restrained from deceiving the nations. Again, it's the meaning of the deceiving of the nations that we should discuss. Instead, we amils have to constantly spend time showing you how his binding in a pit is symbolic rather than literal.

 

[iamlamad]

But what about the first resurrection is a question you might be asking. It's clear that you do not understand how I interpret Rev 20 as it relates to the mention of the first resurrection and the rest of the dead not living again until after the thousand years.

So, I'm going to cheat a bit here by copying and pasting a post I made that I saved from a different forum several years ago regarding this particular topic. To give you a short preview, my argument is based on understanding that the first resurrection itself is Christ's resurrection (read Acts 26:23) and all believers have part in His resurrection spiritually. The bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ is not specifically mentioned in Rev 20.

Wow! What kind of argument can one have when the other symbolizes or spiritualizes verses to fit a theory? I think the answer is, none. But I always have hope! ;-)

First, I disagree with your take on the "bodily Resurrection" in Rev. 20. John's verses starting with verse 4 are ABOUT bodily resurrection. Trying to use "resurrection" in some spiritual way is to me, changing a scripture to fit a theory. And I wonder why anyone would do that. I will give you the benefit here and guess you are spiritualizing this because you are forced to by your understanding of OTHER scriptures. "Resurrection" is used 40 times in the NT and I cannot find one instance where it is not speaking of bodily resurrection. Where then do you get that idea from?

Can you imagine someone INVISIBLE: "souls" (souls - as in mind, will, etc that cannot be seen my natural people) trying to judge natural people? The natural people could not hear or see them. How then could they possibly be UN-resurrected saints? It makes much more sense to me that those people seen on thrones judging are resurrected saints. After all, Jesus told the disciples they would be judges.

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Other translations use:
that in the regeneration
In the Messianic Age
in the renewed creation
In the age when all things are renewed

All translations add this: "when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne"

Premil of course believes this time to be the 1000 years. In context, this throne MUST be on earth. John writes that He SAW thrones and people seated on them.

Another verse comes to mind:

Luke 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

When? "when he was returned, having received the kingdom..." Again it fits the 1000 year reign. Where did he return from? He has spent the church age in heaven.

I would not call it cheating, if you wrote it. It would be saving time!

 

[DavidPT]

Revelation 20:4 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.



And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them---Amils need to explain this and how it relates to the following---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.

If Amils have this part----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---happening millions of times throughout their proposed thousand year period---the same has to be true of this part, that this also occurs throughout this same thousand years millions of times----And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them

To me anyway, there are some things about Amil that make good sense, that appear to fit Amil better than Premil, yet there are some things about Amil that I can't make sense of, such as what I submitted above, especially in regards to the part about---I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them---and in what way that supports Amil.

Something else I can't make sense of, why would souls that are yet to receive a body, be in heaven being priests to God and Christ while in that state? What exactly are their priestly duties while in heaven, and where are some other Scriptures anywhere in the Bible that explains this further?

And another thing that I can't make sense of, in regards to Amil. After the thousand years comes satan's little season. Yet, Revelation 20:4 is focusing on saints who have already been martyred before this little season even occurs. Per Premil, these martyred saints in verse 4 would be the saints being surrounded. Per Amil, there is zero interaction between the martyred saints in verse 4 and satan's little season.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It seems you are missing something. Yes, OF COURSE those that are raised at Paul's prewrath / pretrib rapture will have resurrection bodies and will not marry. But we will not be all who are around. We will be judging NATURAL people who WILL be married and given in marriage. So that passage is truth, but does not cover those who did not get resurrection bodies.

Why would Jesus not have covered that? See, this is just another problem I see with pretrib. In the Olivet Discourse, pretrib says that Jesus doesn't mention the rapture (for some reason). Why would He have neglected to mention such a significant event related to His second coming?

And, now here, you think that Jesus did not bother to mention in Luke 20:34-36 what would happen to "those who did not get resurrection bodies" in the age to come for some reason. I do not believe Jesus would have failed to mention such significant details as these.

I see no basis at all for thinking that He would have not mentioned these details. He said in the age to come people will not marry or die. If there were any exceptions to that there's no reason to think that He wouldn't have said so. But, you have people marrying and dying in the age to come, which contradicts what He said about the age to come.

Agree, that verse fits eternity, but it also fits the 1000 year reign that you don't know about.

No, it doesn't because people would get married (I assume) and would die during that time.

Do you not understand that to reinstitute animal sacrifices would be an act of blasphemy against Christ?
Surely you have read the last ten chapters or so of Ezekiel - about the millennial temple? What do you make of the animal sacrifices? It may well be that Christ reinstitutes them!

Why would He do that when it would be a complete offense to what He already accomplished long ago by His once for all sacrifice? Do you not understand what His sacrifice accomplished forever? Read the book of Hebrews (especially chapters 8-10) and then tell me how what you read there allows for the possibility of future animal sacrifices that God would accept and be pleased with.

We both know that the animal sacrifices of old did not remove sins - only covered them. Yet, God set up that sacrifical system with it's failures. Now we know they were just pointing ahead in time to when Jesus would be sacrificed.

Yes, exactly! So, they already served their purpose.

Hebrews 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship

What possible purpose would they have in the future?

What then can we make of sacrifices in the future? Since it is not written, we can only guess. My guess is, they will be pointing BACK to the supreme sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is only a guess.

Why would you guess when the purpose of them is spelled out in the prophecy itself? And it has nothing to do with pointing back to Christ's sacrifice. That is not mentioned in that prophecy at all.

Ezekiel 42:13 Then he said to me, “The north and south rooms facing the temple courtyard are the priests’ rooms, where the priests who approach the Lord will eat the most holy offerings. There they will put the most holy offerings—the grain offerings, the sin offerings and the guilt offerings—for the place is holy.

Ezekiel 43:22 “On the second day you are to offer a male goat without defect for a sin offering, and the altar is to be purified as it was purified with the bull.

Ezekiel 43:25 “For seven days you are to provide a male goat daily for a sin offering;

Ezekiel 44:29 They will eat the grain offerings, the sin offerings and the guilt offerings; and everything in Israel devoted to the Lord will belong to them.

Ezekiel 45:15 Also one sheep is to be taken from every flock of two hundred from the well-watered pastures of Israel. These will be used for the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the people, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 All the people of the land will be required to give this special offering to the prince in Israel. 17 It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed festivals of Israel. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the Israelites.

There's no guessing required. The prophecy itself says the animal sacrifices would be "sin offerings" for the purpose of making "atonement for the Israelites".

Has Jesus not already provided for the atonement of their sins (and everyone else's sins) with His once for all sacrifice? Of course He has! To think otherwise would be blasphemy in my view.

Therefore, in order to not contradict clear scripture like we see in the book of Hebrews, we can only conclude that Ezekiel 40-48 will NOT be fulfilled in the future. I know that is hard for someone like you to accept. You might say "But, why would scripture say it would be fulfilled if it's not?". It's a valid question. The answer is because the fulfillment of the prophecy was conditional.

Ezekiel 43:10 “Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider its perfection, 11 and if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the temple—its arrangement, its exits and entrances—its whole design and all its regulations and laws. Write these down before them so that they may be faithful to its design and follow all its regulations.

The fulfillment of the prophecy was conditional upon the Israelite people of that time being "ashamed of all they have done". The time period during which this prophecy was written was during the Babylonian captivity. It ended up that the were not ashamed of what they had done and they did not repent and most of them continued in their wicked ways. So, they ended up building an inferior temple instead.

This post is already pretty long, but if you want me to go into more detail on that, let me know. Or you can look it up for yourself.

 

[iamlamad]

...
The premil paradigm has believers being saved during a future earthly millennium and those people would avoid the second death without overcoming and/or without having part in the first resurrection (which premil sees as occurring on the day Christ returns). In the premil paradigm those who are alive and remain until the second coming of Christ would also avoid the second death without having part in the first resurrection since they would not need to be physically resurrected.[/QUOTE]
Wow. I did not get past your first sentence! I disagree.
The premil paradigm has believers being saved during a future earthly millennium
There is no verse anywhere that I am aware of that shows people being "saved" (would that mean born again?) during the 1000 years. Rather, premil believes people are born again in THIS age, resurrected before the 1000 years, and are judges during the 1000 years.

(timeout): I have pondered a question for years, and still have no answer: Will the born again experience be available even during the 70th week? At this moment in time, I doubt it. I cannot see Paul's gospel anywhere in the messages of the 3 angels in Rev. 14.

Therefore, I don't see people being born again during the millennium either. It will be a time like no other to compare with: Jesus Christ, the risen Lord, ruling earth as King! Just my opinion.

those people (believers being saved during a future earthly millennium) would avoid the second death without overcoming and/or without having part in the first resurrection (which premil sees as occurring on the day Christ returns)
I don't see anywhere in scripture where God tells us what will happen to all those who stay with Jesus after Satan is loosed to deceive again. One could guess they would be either sheep or goats at the judgment of the nations. Neither do I see any resurrection for them after this judgement. Will there be another? I doubt it. They may well remain in natural bodies.

 

[BABerean2]

Paul's point was, after the catching up, there are no believers on earth through which He can work.

Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.


.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Wow! What kind of argument can one have when the other symbolizes or spiritualizes verses to fit a theory? I think the answer is, none. But I always have hope! ;-)

If there was no symbolism in scripture or no need for spiritual discernment to interpret it then I would agree with you. But, that is not the case. I don't spiritualize or symbolize scripture to fit a theory. Instead I make sure not to interpret symbolic scripture in a literal way. Which is wise. And you would agree. The issue here is not that amil spiritualizes or symbolizes scripture and pretrib or premil doesn't. No, pretrib and premil does the same thing when they see fit. The difference is that at times amil interprets a verse literally while premil interprets it symbolically or spiritually and vice versa.

First, I disagree with your take on the "bodily Resurrection" in Rev. 20. John's verses starting with verse 4 are ABOUT bodily resurrection. Trying to use "resurrection" in some spiritual way is to me, changing a scripture to fit a theory. And I wonder why anyone would do that. I will give you the benefit here and guess you are spiritualizing this because you are forced to by your understanding of OTHER scriptures. "Resurrection" is used 40 times in the NT and I cannot find one instance where it is not speaking of bodily resurrection. Where then do you get that idea from?

Goodness gracious. Did you read my post? Did you miss that I said "the first resurrection" is particularly referring to Christ's resurrection and we have part in His resurrection spiritually when we are born again? I clearly made that point, so how did you miss it unless you didn't read it?

Scripture itself says that Jesus's resurrection was the first resurrection.

Acts 26:23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.

Obviously, this is not speaking literally as if He was the first to ever rise from the dead in any sense as we know Lazarus and a few others rose from the dead before Jesus did. But, the context is in relation to rising form the dead unto immortality with immortal bodies. Jesus was the first to do that and then, at His coming, we too will rise from the dead unto immortality.

1 Cor 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

The dead in Christ being bodily resurrected is the second resurrection, not the first resurrection (a first implies a second).

A lot of your issues with amil are a result of misunderstanding what amil believes. We can't have fruitful discussions if you continue to not understand our view. Of course, not all amils believe all the same things, but I hope you can at least better understand my now.

Can you imagine someone INVISIBLE: "souls" (souls - as in mind, will, etc that cannot be seen my natural people) trying to judge natural people? The natural people could not hear or see them. How then could they possibly be UN-resurrected saints? It makes much more sense to me that those people seen on thrones judging are resurrected saints. After all, Jesus told the disciples they would be judges.

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Other translations use:
that in the regeneration
In the Messianic Age
in the renewed creation
In the age when all things are renewed

All translations add this: "when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne"

I believe your understanding of what it means to judge "when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne" is flawed.

Matt 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.

This establishes that Jesus is talking about the time period you mentioned above, wouldn't you agree? Then He goes on to say this:

32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

How can anyone see this as speaking of the time when an earthly millennial kingdom is ushered in when it says that the righteous will inherit eternal life in "the kingdom prepared" for them "since the creation of the world" while the wicked "will go away to eternal punishment" in "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels".

How can the wicked being cast into "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels be seen as anything but the same thing as this:

Rev 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

How can the righteous being seen inheriting an eternal kingdom (rather than a temporal millennial kingdom) be seen as anything besides the same as this:

Rev 21:1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

Again, Matt 25:31-46 shows believers inheriting an eternal kingdom that has been prepared since the creation of the world. How can a temporal earthly millennial kingdom be the kingdom that has been prepared since the creation of the world? What a letdown that would be. The new heavens and new earth where there will be no more death is far more exciting. That is what Peter said we should look forward to in accordance with the hope of Christ's second coming (2 Peter 3:13).

I would not call it cheating, if you wrote it. It would be saving time!

Yes, exactly. I was just joking about it being cheating. I know I come across as very serious (that is because we're discussing serious topics), but I like to throw a little joke in there once in awhile.

 

[iamlamad]

Why would Jesus not have covered that? See, this is just another problem I see with pretrib. In the Olivet Discourse, pretrib says that Jesus doesn't mention the rapture (for some reason). Why would He have neglected to mention such a significant event related to His second coming?

And, now here, you think that Jesus did not bother to mention in Luke 20:34-36 what would happen to "those who did not get resurrection bodies" in the age to come for some reason. I do not believe Jesus would have failed to mention such significant details as these.

I see no basis at all for thinking that He would have not mentioned these details. He said in the age to come people will not marry or die. If there were any exceptions to that there's no reason to think that He wouldn't have said so. But, you have people marrying and dying in the age to come, which contradicts what He said about the age to come.

I cannot form doctrine from what is NOT said. I must go by what WAS said. One can always ponder about what was not said, but there is no way to form doctrine that way.

What I think you are missing: I see the church of today as a Gentile church. You don't. I see the reason Jesus might not have mentioned thing is very simple: they might not happen. The Gentile church of today would have exist as it is, with blindness on the Jews, if Israel had accepted Jesus as their Messiah. Someone might wonder, what on earth is God WAITING FOR?

I think it is difficult, reading over the Olivet discourse, to pick out verses that are pointed to the church of today. One might pick out "one taken and one left" for that would fit the rapture. But Jesus concentrated on "the abomination of desolation and what would follow. That abomination is what will divide the week - the 70th week - of DANIEL. It is pointed to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. A lot of Revelation is pointed to the Jews also: chapters 8 to 16 is THEIR 70th week. Of course, in the earlier verses of Matthew 24, Jesus is talking about the church age, but I think from a Jewish perspective. Case in point, He mentioned synagogues. Perhaps that is a language thing. Can you point to any verses in the Olivet discourse that you think are pointed towards the church of today?

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

I see two verses that show us what God is waiting for. One verse is this one: God is waiting for more Gentiles to come in - get born again - become a part of the body of Christ on earth. The other verse is the 5th seal martyrs of the church age, where God is waiting for the full number of martyrs. Then of course there is the verse "He is not willing that any should parish."

If God is waiting for the fullness of the Gentiles, and they are becoming a part of the Body of Christ on earth, then it is a Gentile church. Yes, there are a few Jews who have been born again, but as a percentage, a very small amount. Most of the church of today is made up of Gentiles in the natural.

Since it is a predominately Gentile church, and it exists only because Israel did not accept Jesus as their Messiah, then there is good reason why Jesus did not talk much about the church of today. If there was to be no church, then of course there would be no rapture of the church. Since you are a "Spiritual Jew," I would think you of any here would see this.

Why would He have neglected to mention such a significant event related to His second coming? The only "coming" the Jews were expecting was His coming to set up His kingdom. They did not know while Jesus was alive that Israel would reject Him as their Messiah, that the Jewish church would die out, and that God would send Paul to the Gentiles. That is why the "coming" shown in the Olivet discourse is only His coming as shown in Rev. 19 - really His THIRD coming.

|------OT-----|Jesus death, resurrection|--NT--(Gentile church)-- 70th week.

One could insert a small time for the Jewish church between NT and Gentile church. The Gentile church of today is a parentheses inserted into Jewish time. The moment of the pretrib rapture TIME will go right back to the Jews. When Jesus was asked about "the end," He spoke of THEIR end: the 70th week.

Why was the revelation of the rapture given to Paul? Why not to Peter? It was because we are to be judged by PAUL'S GOSPEL. The Pauline Epistles are pointed straight to the Gentile church of today. Some people are so far out in left field, they think Paul MISSED IT! Paul was sent to the Gentiles, while the 11 were sent to the dispersed Jews. It makes good sense that the rapture revelation was given to Paul.

And, now here, you think that Jesus did not bother to mention in Luke 20:34-36 what would happen to "those who did not get resurrection bodies" in the age to come for some reason.
Jesus was not laying out the future, per se, here, he was answering a question of the Saducees.

27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,

28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

Therefore to try and form doctrine on what He did NOT SAY I think is not wise. We don't form doctrine for isolated passages but from ALL end time passages. I am pretrib and premil because I think it fits what is written better than any other theory.

I see no basis at all for thinking that He would have not mentioned these details. Now I have given you basis. I hope you don't ever write this again. However, I well know the power of preconceptions.

If there were any exceptions to that there's no reason to think that He wouldn't have said so. Yes there IS! He was only answering a question meant to trip Him. If you were trying to form doctrine about the question they asked, this would be a good verse to use. But trying to form end time doctrine from an answer to a silly question meant to trick Jesus is, in my mind, not wise.

You have people marrying and dying in the age to come, which contradicts what He said about the age to come. No it doesn't! He was only talking of those who were resurrected. Why? Because that was the question asked! My friend, you need to learn the importance of CONTEXT.

 

[iamlamad]

No, it doesn't because people would get married (I assume) and would die during that time.

Why would He do that when it would be a complete offense to what He already accomplished long ago by His once for all sacrifice? Do you not understand what His sacrifice accomplished forever? Read the book of Hebrews (especially chapters 8-10) and then tell me how what you read there allows for the possibility of future animal sacrifices that God would accept and be pleased with.

because people would get married (I assume) and would die during that time.
Go back to my previous answer: You are trying to form doctrine from what was NOT said, when Jesus was only answered a question of the Sadducees.
I am not sure anyone will die during the millennial reign.

WHY have animal sacrifices again? First off, I did not write Ezekiel. It is not really up to me to answer. We can ask when we get there! ;-)

My opinion: people have short memories. Most of the world today has forgotten what happened then - when GOD came to earth to die for our sins. Animal Sacrifices in the future may well be used to TEACH about what Jesus accomplished.

 

[iamlamad]

...
Yes, exactly! So, they already served their purpose.

Hebrews 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship

What possible purpose would they have in the future?


Why would you guess when the purpose of them is spelled out in the prophecy itself? And it has nothing to do with pointing back to Christ's sacrifice. That is not mentioned in that prophecy at all.

Ezekiel 42:13 Then he said to me, “The north and south rooms facing the temple courtyard are the priests’ rooms, where the priests who approach the Lord will eat the most holy offerings. There they will put the most holy offerings—the grain offerings, the sin offerings and the guilt offerings—for the place is holy.

Ezekiel 43:22 “On the second day you are to offer a male goat without defect for a sin offering, and the altar is to be purified as it was purified with the bull.

Ezekiel 43:25 “For seven days you are to provide a male goat daily for a sin offering;

Ezekiel 44:29 They will eat the grain offerings, the sin offerings and the guilt offerings; and everything in Israel devoted to the Lord will belong to them.

Ezekiel 45:15 Also one sheep is to be taken from every flock of two hundred from the well-watered pastures of Israel. These will be used for the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the people, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 All the people of the land will be required to give this special offering to the prince in Israel. 17 It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed festivals of Israel. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the Israelites.

There's no guessing required. The prophecy itself says the animal sacrifices would be "sin offerings" for the purpose of making "atonement for the Israelites".

Has Jesus not already provided for the atonement of their sins (and everyone else's sins) with His once for all sacrifice? Of course He has! To think otherwise would be blasphemy in my view.

Therefore, in order to not contradict clear scripture like we see in the book of Hebrews, we can only conclude that Ezekiel 40-48 will NOT be fulfilled in the future. I know that is hard for someone like you to accept. You might say "But, why would scripture say it would be fulfilled if it's not?". It's a valid question. The answer is because the fulfillment of the prophecy was conditional.

Ezekiel 43:10 “Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider its perfection, 11 and if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the temple—its arrangement, its exits and entrances—its whole design and all its regulations and laws. Write these down before them so that they may be faithful to its design and follow all its regulations.

The fulfillment of the prophecy was conditional upon the Israelite people of that time being "ashamed of all they have done". The time period during which this prophecy was written was during the Babylonian captivity. It ended up that the were not ashamed of what they had done and they did not repent and most of them continued in their wicked ways. So, they ended up building an inferior temple instead.

This post is already pretty long, but if you want me to go into more detail on that, let me know. Or you can look it up for yourself.

Yes, exactly! So, they [animal sacrifices] already served their purpose.
What possible purpose would they have in the future?
They may well serve another purpose, REMINDING and teaching people what Jesus did.

Considering the OT sacrifices for sin offerings and atonement:

Ezekiel 40-48 will NOT be fulfilled in the future.
Why would Jesus have scripture that would NEVER be fulfilled? As you have probably said, "that does not make sense."

to make atonement for the Israelites. Question: did the OT sacrifices REALLY make atonement - or did it just point ahead to Jesus Sacrifice?

a sin offering Question: was it REALLY a sin offering that would remove sin - or did it just cover sin for a season but point ahead to Jesus Sacrifice?

offerings to make atonement for the people We already know that the blood of bulls and goats cannot possibly remove sin or the guilt of sin. Was this a TRUE atonement for sin, or was in done on credit (Master charge) pointing to Jesus Christ?

What think you?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You pointed to John 5 and the verse that shows an "hour" when all in the graves would be resurrected - as iif all in the world who are dead would be resurrected at the same time, within this "hour," as if there would ever be only one resurrection. I am sorry. I guess I did not make myself clear.

I quoted "5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.

The other verse I was comparing was this:
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And I asked:
How can this be understood any other way?" Let me further explain: SOME of the dead will be resurrected BEFORE the 1000 years, and the rest of the dead AFTER the 1000 years. Is not this exactly what verse 5 tells us?

How does this agree with what Jesus taught which is that ALL (not SOME) will be resurrected at one future time? You have done nothing convincing whatsoever to show how your view lines up with what Jesus said in John 5:28-29 so far.

You have Him saying that 2 hours are coming when the dead are raised rather than one. You can't get around that, in my opinion. If you agree that He said one time is coming then that means He said "the thousand plus year time period is coming when all the dead will be raised". Does that sound like something He would have said? Not to me. You can't consider two resurrections 1000+ years apart as being part of one future time (hora). That is completely unreasonable and illogical.

What I did NOT think about: How would someone see this if they symbolize the 1000 years? If so, it would still be difficult to explain why John wrote "but the rest of the dead did not live again..." if all rose at the same time.

Not if you don't see the first resurrection as being the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ. Amils don't see the first resurrection that way. The rest of the dead living again specifically refers to the wicked being bodily raised after the thousand years, but it does not mean the righteous can't be resurrected at the same time as them. Not all details are given in every passage. It's the same with 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54. Just because it only mentions the resurrection of the dead in Christ there doesn't mean the wicked can't be resurrected at the same time.

If that was a valid way to interpret scripture (that every related passage has to have all the same details) then we couldn't even relate 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54 together since they don't both mention being changed and don't both mention being caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

I believe John saw the souls of dead believers and did not see their bodies
Let's look together:
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.

(5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.) This is the first resurrection.

First, let's note that "soul" is used two different ways in scripture: one way is as the complete human:

Acts 27:37 And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.

Then "soul" is also used as part of the unseen part of the human: the mind, will, emotions, and affections.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So which way is this word "soul" used here? Notice the context: the context is that it is a resurrection time: "this is the first resurrection."

What does "this" point back to? Everything in verse 4:
I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them
Who are those on the thrones? John does not tell us, but we can know anyway. Who has been resurrected (first resurrection) at this time? The CHURCH, the OT saints, the TWO WITNESSES, and the 144,000. In other words, all the righteous at this time have been resurrected.

That is why John wrote "but the REST of the dead..." The next resurrection, coming later, is a resurrection for the damned.

and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded These would be those whom the Beast and False prophet beheaded. Since this is a part of "the first resurrection" it would seem very silly to guess that they too were not a part of the very resurrection John is writing about. Of course they are resurrrected saints! Notice "they lived." We know they were beheaded and died, but here, after the resurrection, "they lived and reigned."

Therefore, the way John is using "soul" is of a total human being, spirit, soul, and body all together.

Since this is all explained so well here in Revelation, I must therefore look back and what Jesus said and see of it could have another meaning. And I find the Greek word behind "hour" can also mean TIME or SEASON. Therefore I find that what Jesus said in John 5 fits well with what John wrote here in Revelation 20.

I'm sorry, but what you said here made no sense to me whatsoever. I know that "soul" can mean different things, so I'm not talking about that. But, you concluding that the term is supposed to be understood as John seeing "the total human being, spirit, soul, and body all together" makes no sense. He clearly saw the souls of dead people (since they are described as having been killed). Why not just accept that instead of turning it into something that is not said there?

How do you understand this passage:

Rev 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.

The altar is in heaven and there's no indication here that the ones he sees are physically alive since it says they had been killed, so this shows that John could see the souls of physically dead believers. There's no reason at all to see Rev 20:4 in any other way.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

because people would get married (I assume) and would die during that time.
Go back to my previous answer: You are trying to form doctrine from what was NOT said, when Jesus was only answered a question of the Sadducees.
I am not sure anyone will die during the millennial reign.

How would you not know such a significant detail about that supposed future time period? I see this as being a significant hole in your doctrine. Surely, scripture would mention such a significant detail. Why wouldn't it? My answer would be because it doesn't teach of such a time period.

WHY have animal sacrifices again? First off, I did not write Ezekiel. It is not really up to me to answer. We can ask when we get there! ;-)

I showed you very clearly what the prophecy itself says the animal sacrifices would be for: they would be sin offerings made to "atone for the people of Israel". So, why are you still guessing as to what they would be for if that prophecy were to be fulfilled in the future?

My opinion: people have short memories. Most of the world today has forgotten what happened then - when GOD came to earth to die for our sins. Animal Sacrifices in the future may well be used to TEACH about what Jesus accomplished.

Where does scripture teach that? Nowhere that I can see. You believe in things that scripture does not teach anywhere. Why?

 

[iamlamad]

Dupicate

For those in charge: there should be a "DELETE" link somewhere!

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Hey! This is something you and I agree on!

That's always something to celebrate!

But, let me give you a few more important things that I'm pretty sure that we agree on.

Repentance for our sins and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way by which human beings can be saved and attain eternal life.

Jesus Christ conquered death by rising from the dead 3 days after He was killed on the cross.

Jesus Christ ascended to heaven bodily to the right hand of the Father 40 days after rising from the dead.

Jesus will descend from heaven and bring us to Himself to meet Him "in the air" and we will then be with Him forever (1 Thess 4:13-17).

 

[iamlamad]

How would you not know such a significant detail about that supposed future time period? I see this as being a significant hole in your doctrine. Surely, scripture would mention such a significant detail. Why wouldn't it? My answer would be because it doesn't teach of such a time period.

I showed you very clearly what the prophecy itself says the animal sacrifices would be for: they would be sin offerings made to "atone for the people of Israel". So, why are you still guessing as to what they would be for if that prophecy were to be fulfilled in the future?

Where does scripture teach that? Nowhere that I can see. You believe in things that scripture does not teach anywhere. Why?

First off, it is NOT a "supposed future time period:" it is very much a part of scripture. It is only "supposed" to amil people.

Is the river of life "supposed?"
Are the streets of Gold "supposed?"
Is the city foursquare "supposed?"
I wonder.....or are the only things "supposed" are what don't fit your theory? Are you consistent? These things also must be symbolic.

How would I know? I cannot find a scripture pointing to the millennial reign that tells me death will occur. But that time Jesus will have conquered death for many - and maybe for all. The truth is, God has given us only a tiny glimpse of that period of time.
I see many holes in your doctrine. So what?

Surely, scripture would mention such a significant detail. Here you go again, trying to form doctrine from what is NOT said. Do you do this often? You will have to ask God why He did not give us a whole book on the millennial reign of Christ. I can't answer for what He did not give us. Again, we form doctrine by what IS written.

So, why are you still guessing as to what they would be for if that prophecy were to be fulfilled in the future? Very simple: I don't believe God would have chapters of prophecy that would not be fulfilled. That is only YOUR (one man's) opinion that they will not be fulfilled. I don't believe you on that.

Let's go over this again: did the blood of bulls and goats under Moses law really remove sins - and the guilt of sins? Or did it just cover them for a season? The answer must be NO. All that was only pointing FORWARD to a time in the future when Jesus would be sacrificed.

Why then could not similar offerings be made in the future pointing BACK to Jesus' Sacrifice - since there is no power in animal sacrifices to accomplish true atonement?

I believe that temple will certainly be built. It is a part of God's word.

Where does scripture teach that? Nowhere that I can see. You believe in things that scripture does not teach anywhere. Why?

The truth is, the bible DOES teach it but it is YOU who try to explain it away. Why would you try to explain away God's written word?

Let's be honest. Is it not because you see a CONFLICT between the scriptures in Hebrews and in Ezekiel? Your answer to this conflict is to say that was prophecy that will never be fulfilled. You put far more weight on the Hebrew's scripture than on the Eze. scripture. It is the way we solve conflicts. I understand that.

Yet, when I found a conflict between:
John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
(which seems to say all will rise at the same time) And
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. (which seems to say all WON'T rise at the same time)

You criticize me for not believing John 5. Both are scripture found in the word of God. Both are truth. Both MUST fit together. I think there will be a season when both the righteous and the damned will rise, but as Revelation shows, not at the same exact time. Both will happen during the Day of the Lord. I put more weight, so to speak, on the Revelation scripture.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Revelation 20:4 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.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them---Amils need to explain this and how it relates to the following---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.

If Amils have this part----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---happening millions of times throughout their proposed thousand year period---the same has to be true of this part, that this also occurs throughout this same thousand years millions of times----And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them

I don't see what you said here as being a problem at all. Why is it a problem for amil? You really confuse me sometimes with the way you look at things.

Rev 3:21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

Where is His throne? In heaven. Notice that even though it says He sits with His Father on the Father's throne, He also sits on His own throne. So, going to sit with Jesus on His throne means you sit on your own throne as well. So, when does that happen? Must be at the point one is found to be "victorious" (the KJV says "to the one who overcomes"), so let's see when that happens.

Rev 2:10 Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.

To be victorious, in the sense that Jesus meant in Rev 3:21, means to "be faithful, even to the point of death". It is right then when Jesus gives the one who was faithful unto their death the "victor's crown". It is when the soul and spirit of the person who overcomes and is victorious goes to heaven that they receive their "victor's crown" and get to sit on their own throne at the right hand of Jesus on His throne. The crowns and thorns should be understood in a symbolic and spiritual sense or else you would have Jesus and the dead in Christ all literally sitting on His throne.

It wouldn't surprise me if you take the thrones to be literal, which would make what I said above confusing to you because it would have all the dead believers sitting with Christ on His throne while sitting on their own thrones. That would mean He must have a giant throne up there.

But, if the thrones were meant to be understood literally then how can the Father be on a literal throne, knowing that He is spiritual and not physical (John 4:24)? And, knowing that heaven itself is His throne (Isaiah 66:1).

To me anyway, there are some things about Amil that make good sense, that appear to fit Amil better than Premil, yet there are some things about Amil that I can't make sense of, such as what I submitted above, especially in regards to the part about---I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them---and in what way that supports Amil.

With this being the case why are you so passionate about defending premil and opposing amil? Seems like you would instead say that you're just not sure what you believe yet without committing to fully supporting either doctrine.

Something else I can't make sense of, why would souls that are yet to receive a body, be in heaven being priests to God and Christ while in that state? What exactly are their priestly duties while in heaven, and where are some other Scriptures anywhere in the Bible that explains this further?

Did you not see where I already responded to this question before? You run into so many problems with understanding scripture because of your strong tendency to be hyper-literal. The Bible very clearly (read 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev 1:5-6) says we (you and I and all believers) are currently priests of God in His kingdom. So, what priestly duties do you perform in terms of how we would normally think of priestly duties? Do you make offerings to God like the OT priests did? What do you even mean by "priestly duties"?

No, it has nothing to do with being literal priests. Our being priests rather has to do with our status and position of belonging to Christ. Our belonging to Him and having that status in His kingdom doesn't change when we die.

And another thing that I can't make sense of, in regards to Amil. After the thousand years comes satan's little season. Yet, Revelation 20:4 is focusing on saints who have already been martyred before this little season even occurs. Per Premil, these martyred saints in verse 4 would be the saints being surrounded. Per Amil, there is zero interaction between the martyred saints in verse 4 and satan's little season.

Now, you have really confused me. More than ever. You are saying that you think the ones who Satan and his army (whose number is as the sand of the seashore) surrounds in Rev 20:7-9 are saints who were once martyred and had been resurrected with immortal bodies at that point?

How can that possibly make sense? Do you think that Satan doesn't know what scripture teaches? He does. Do you think that he somehow wouldn't know that resurrected believers would be immortal at that point? Of course he would. So, why would he go to attack and kill immortal people? That is completely illogical. That can't possibly be who he is attacking in Rev 20:7-9. The ones he is attacking would have to be mortal since he is aiming to kill them.

As for no interaction between the souls John saw and what's going on in Satan's little season, that's because the souls are in heaven while Satan's little season occurs on earth. Here is how the souls are thinking while things on earth are going on:

REv 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

This is just speculation, but the "little season" for them to wait could be a reference to Satan's little season, which would place it just after the fifth seal has been opened. I don't like to speculate like that too often since there's no real way to prove it, but it's something interesting to consider.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

...
The premil paradigm has believers being saved during a future earthly millennium and those people would avoid the second death without overcoming and/or without having part in the first resurrection (which premil sees as occurring on the day Christ returns). In the premil paradigm those who are alive and remain until the second coming of Christ would also avoid the second death without having part in the first resurrection since they would not need to be physically resurrected.
Wow. I did not get past your first sentence! I disagree.
The premil paradigm has believers being saved during a future earthly millennium
There is no verse anywhere that I am aware of that shows people being "saved" (would that mean born again?) during the 1000 years. Rather, premil believes people are born again in THIS age, resurrected before the 1000 years, and are judges during the 1000 years.

(timeout): I have pondered a question for years, and still have no answer: Will the born again experience be available even during the 70th week? At this moment in time, I doubt it. I cannot see Paul's gospel anywhere in the messages of the 3 angels in Rev. 14.

Therefore, I don't see people being born again during the millennium either. It will be a time like no other to compare with: Jesus Christ, the risen Lord, ruling earth as King! Just my opinion.

My goodness, does this post sadden me. Believing that in a future time period people will not be able to be saved/born again? That would mean no one during that time period no one can enter the kingdom of God because you must be born again to see and enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3-7). What is the purpose of that time period (the 7 year trib + 1000 years) then? Seems like a colossal waste of time. I don't see God as being a God who would waste His time like that.

Doesn't scripture say that God wants all people to repent (Acts 17:30-31, 2 Peter 3:9) and to be saved (1 Tim 2:4)? But, somehow that will no longer be the case at some point in the future and then won't be the case for 1007 years? Oh my goodness, say it isn't so (thankfully, it isn't).

those people (believers being saved during a future earthly millennium) would avoid the second death without overcoming and/or without having part in the first resurrection (which premil sees as occurring on the day Christ returns)
I don't see anywhere in scripture where God tells us what will happen to all those who stay with Jesus after Satan is loosed to deceive again. One could guess they would be either sheep or goats at the judgment of the nations. Neither do I see any resurrection for them after this judgement. Will there be another? I doubt it. They may well remain in natural bodies.

Why would scripture not have anything to say about those people in terms of what happens to them in eternity? This is a significant weakness in your doctrine.

How can anyone remain in their natural bodies forever? They can't. If they remained in their natural bodies then that would mean they will die because our natural bodies are mortal. So, what would happen to them after they die?

This won't surprise you, but I would say that the reason you don't have answers to these questions is because scripture does not teach a future 7 year tribulation or a future 1000 year earthly kingdom where people are no longer saved/born again. That's the only way it would make sense for scripture not to ever have any explanation for the things you mentioned above.