Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

[iamlamad]

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.

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'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.

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.
And your method of resolving this apparent conflict is to declare one verse as symbolic! Sorry, I won't do that. I don't think what Jesus said tells us that all will rise at one time. That word "hour" can be translated in different ways, such as "season." If that was His meaning, then it would be the "season" of the end times after the 70th week has ended the Jewish age.

You see, your method of resolving an apparent conflict may not be other people's methods. Is my method "wrong" and yours "right" just because you say so? When we know as we are known, we will know the truth.

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.
No, I think His real meaning is a SEASON is coming, when two different resurrections will take place, but not at the same time. I just did get around it. I looked up the Greek word behind "hour."

You can't consider two resurrections 1000+ years apart as being part of one future time (hora). That is completely unreasonable and illogical. But yet God lives outside of time and could write that a thousand years is a day and vice versa. What may seem illogical to you may be very logical to Him. What are you going to do with the verse in Rev. 20 that tells us the second resurrection is after the 1000 years?

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. That is their problem, not mine! I go by the scriptural use of the word "Resurrection" that also agrees with the dictionary use. That word in scripture is speaking of a physical dead body raised back to life.

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. This is one way of looking at it, but I must bring you back to reality: Paul is very clear on when His rapture will take place, it will be JUST before wrath and as the trigger for wrath.

In Revelation I find wrath starting at the 6th seal, before the 7th seal is opened. That cannot be moved to later in the book and be honest with Revelation. AFter the final seal is opened then the BOOK is opened - to reveal the 7 angels with 7 trumpets. The trumpets are written in the book. Therefore it is simply impossible to move the start of wrath - the 6th seal, to a time "after the tribulation of those days."

I know, some people read and study Revelation with no attention to time or timing. I cannot do that. The second time God spoke to me about Revelation , concerning chapters 4 & 5, He said "It shows timing." and a few weeks after that, "It also shows the movement of time." Ever since then, I cannot ignore time in Revelation: I know the Day of His wrath comes before any part of the 70th week and days of tribulation and that that Day of Wrath cannot be moved anywhere else in time. Prewrathers insist that the Day of the Lord starts AFTER the days of GT, some time during the second half of the week. They are miles off from truth.

What am I saying? The bible is very clear that Paul's rapture comes BEFORE the 70th week, not after! Your theory simply does not fit the written word of God.
I'm sorry, but what you said here made no sense to me whatsoever. That is what I have been saying all along: the power of preconceptions BLOCK anything different than what has been learned previously.

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?
It is those pesky preconceptions! Of course it does not make sense to you, because "first resurrection" to you means something totally different that the way John meant it.

Can you set aside what you believe for a moment and imagine a different world?
1. The resurrection of the church happens, just before wrath
2. wrath happens in the trumpets and vials
3. at the 7th vial the OT saints are resurrected with the two witnesses
4. The 70th week has ended.
5. Some unknown time after, Jesus comes to fight the battle of ARmageddon.
6. The judgment of the nations will take place to determine WHO will enter.
7. The sheep are allowed to enter the Millennial kingdom
8. The goats are cast into hell.
9. John gets a glimpse into the millennial kingdom
10: first he sees thrones and resurrected people on thrones judging.
(It is AFTER the "first resurrection: people are already risen)
11. He also sees those that had been beheaded, but were resurrected.
He wrote: this group, 10 and 11 above - having been resurrected - are a part of the first resurrection.
12. But the other people, the damned, have NOT YET been resurrected, Their resurrection will be AFTER the 1000 years: could I say a day later?

What He DID say:
"they lived." But wait - they were beheaded. Why would John write "they lived?" It is very simple, they have been resurrected. Verse 4 is all about physical resurrection. John had to use some words to show these were DIFFERENT than the others. So He told us they were the beheaded. In this case, He used the word "soul" the way Paul used in in counting the number of people on the ship. Paul certainly did not mean there were souls without bodies piloting the ship.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again This is proof again that those he just talked about DID LIVE AGAIN, they were resurrected.

Why then would you say I turned this into something NOT SAID?
JOHN wrote "they lived." John wrote "the rest of the dead lived not again..."

"the total human being, spirit, soul, and body all together" makes no sense. He clearly saw the souls of dead people They were NO LONGER dead. John wrote, "they lived and reigned..." They WERE dead, but now THEY LIVED...and this is the "first resurrection." Resurrection meaning DEAD people raised up to LIVE again.

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

Easy: "soul" is used here as the unseen part of a human. These are martyrs (such as Stephen) before the resurrection. Their bodies were murdered and on earth - perhaps in a grave, or fed to a lion. As I said, "soul" can be used for the unseen part (with natural eyes) or the entire person. We must use the context to determine how it is used.

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
Of course there is, it is the CONTEXT. We can't form doctrine from verses pulled from their context. here the context is martyrs seen in heaven before the resurrection - so OF COURSE that is all there is to see: their bodies are still on the ground.

But in Rev. 20, the context is AFTER the resurrection. How could anyone miss that? "THEY LIVED and reigned!" Hallelujah! We have that promise: if we die in the Lord, we will live again, with a resurrection body!

I understand, people that imagine "resurrection" can be spiritual may not see this the way John wrote it. But then, they would have to explain "they lived!"

My friend, it is very plain you and I read the bible very differently. I see no reason to go any farther. Thanks for the arguments. Disagreements keep us on our toes.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.

Of course. That is all I meant. I'm sorry that wording it that way offended you, so I won't say it that way in the future.

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.

Please calm down. I did not mean to offend you. I only meant that it is "supposed" from an amil viewpoint since we don't believe in a future earthly millennial kingdom.

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?

The issue is that I can account for everything I believe in scripture. I don't believe things that I can't show you being taught in scripture. Whereas you admit to believing things that you can't show me as being taught anywhere n scripture.

Surely, scripture would mention such a significant detail. Here you go again, trying to form doctrine from what is NOT said.

Isn't that what you're doing? What part of my doctrine is not something that I derived directly from scripture? Do I ever say things that I believe but that I don't know where scripture speaks about it as you do? I believe if we're going to make claims that a certain thing is true we should be able to show where it is taught in scripture. Such as what would be the destiny of those who are still left alive in a future earthly millennial kingdom after Rev 20:9 takes place?

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.

Yet, you are saying things about what IS NOT written such as saying that no one would be saved/born again during a 1007 year period on the future.

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.

I asked why you are guessing what the animal sacrifices would be for because I showed you what the prophecy itself says they would be for. How does this response answer that question? Did you see that the prophecy itself says the animal sacrifices would be "sin offerings" for the "atonement of the people of Israel"? If you did then that's why I'm asking why you would be guessing what they would be for. The prophecy itself tells us.

But, to believe that animal sacrifices would be reinstituted as sin offerings for the atonement of the people of Israel's sins, would mean that you don't believe in what Hebrews 10 says about them, which is that they only had the purpose of foreshadowing Christ's once for all sacrifice.

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.

Exactly. So, since Jesus made His sacrifice long ago, why would there ever be a need for animal sacrifices again? Especially to do what the sacrifices described in Ezekiel 40-48 says they would do, which is atone for the sins of the Israelite people.

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?

Why do I have to answer this question over and over again?

I already said that the text itself in the prophecy does not teach that is what the animal sacrifices would be for. It specifically says, as I showed, that they would be sin offerings for the atonement of the sins of the Israelite people. But, Jesus already atoned for their sins, so to do something like that would be a terrible insult to Jesus and the work He already done long ago.

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

Then you also believe that animal sacrifices will be reinstituted as sin offerings to atone for people's sins. Which contradicts other scripture. I am not willing to hold so strong to my understanding of any certain passage to where I'm okay with it if it contradicts other scripture because "it's a part of God's word".

There has to be some other explanation than to think that prophecy in Ezekiel would be fulfilled in the future and thereby contradict other scripture. There are no contradictions in scripture but your doctrine creates one.

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?

Where is it taught then? Please show me the part of the prophecy in Ezekiel 40-48 where it indicates that the animal sacrifices would be performed for the purpose of remembering Christ's sacrifice.

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.

That is 100% false. And, yet, you said "let's be honest". That's ironic. I do not see a conflict between them. There is no conflict between any 2 passages of scripture. Ever. That's the beauty of it. People try and try to find fault with God's Word and it can't be done.

I didn't just make it up that the prophecy is conditional. I showed where it indicates as such. You can disagree all you want, but but to say I believe what I do just because I can't deal with some CONFLICT I see between Hebrews and Ezekiel is completely false. It's insulting. I only see a conflict between the premil interpretation (not mine) of Ezekiel and what is taught in Hebrews.

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.

I criticize you for turning one time when all the dead are raised into two times when all the dead are raised (some the first time and some the second time). And your explanation for the one time being 1007 (or more) years is not very convincing. Clearly, premil teaches 2 separate times when the dead are raised. How can that fit with Jesus saying there will be one time when all the dead are raised?

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.

That is the problem that we amils see with premil. You put more emphasis on scripture that contains a great deal of scripture than you do scripture that is written in a literal, straightforward manner.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

My friend, it is very plain you and I read the bible very differently. I see no reason to go any farther. Thanks for the arguments. Disagreements keep us on our toes.

I agree. This has gotten to be tiresome at this point and if we keep going we might end up just being mad at each other. Let's stay friends and just agree to disagree. We're mostly just repeating ourselves at this point, anyway.

With that said, I'm not completely caught up on this thread yet, so I may see something you say in another post that I want to respond to, but please don't feel any need to respond in kind if I do. Unless I misrepresent your view (which would be by mistake). Then, please feel free to correct whatever was misrepresented. If you're like me, you can't just let that go. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

yet people like yourself somehow think Paul was talking about something besides global destruction. I know what Paul's "Sudden destruction earthquake is: a worldwide earthquake that will be caused when God pulls together the "dust" that once made up the saint's bodies.

I know I said we can end our discussion and agree to disagree, but I just could not let this go. Where in the following passage (which is the one you're talking about) do you see Paul mention an earthquake?

1 Thess 5
Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

There is no earthquake mentioned here, so please don't call it "Paul's sudden destruction earthquake". Also, it should be noted that this sudden destruction occurs when the day of the Lord arrives "like a thief in the night". I can see no reason at all to not directly relate that to this:

2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

They both are talking about what will happen when the day of the Lord (which they both relate to the second coming of Christ) arrives like a thief (unexpectedly). Paul did not specify what causes the destruction, but Peter did. It said it will be by fire. We should accept what Peter taught and not act as if he was talking about something different than Paul when it's very obvious that they spoke about the same exact thing (destruction occurring on the day of the Lord).

If Jesus was coming more than once, why didn't He mention that? It is a fair question. But then, should we question what God could or should have said? I think I know the answer. The church of today did not exist then and just may not have ever existed. God waited after Pentecost for a reasonable amount of time to see if Israel as a nation would accept Him as their messiah. They did not, so THEN He sent Paul to the Gentiles. The church of today is the result. Make no mistake here:

It was another one of Paul's mysteries:

Roman's 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.

That "fullness" is ongoing.

This is another thing I just can't let go. The New Testament (including Paul's writings) is a revelation of the mysteries of the Old Testament. This is what people like yourself do not understand for whatever reason. There is no mystery to what is taught in the New Testament. It reveals mysteries.

1 Cor 4:1 This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed.

Romans 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

1 Cor 2:6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You make it sound that those during 67 and 70 AD had the same Bible and church upbringing that you have had. No one thought Satan was bound and that this destruction was God’s wrath on the whole world. Nothing in Revelation had even happened yet.

Rev 1:19 “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Per Amil, the first resurrection is not something that only happens 1 time, 1 and 2 happens millions of times throughout their proposed thousand years.

Actually, that's not exactly true, at least as it pertains to how some amils see it. As I (and sovereigngrace) have told you MANY times over the years, we believe Christ's resurrection in particular was the first resurrection because His resurrection was the first unto bodily immortality.

Rev 20:6 talks about people having part in the first resurrection, which we take to mean having part in Christ's resurrection. People spiritually having part in His resurrection does happen every day and has happened millions of times during our understanding of the thousand years (at least you got that part right).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

2. Satan is only cast into the lake of fire after the final rebellion, and the beast and the false prophet are (already) in it. Amils can never tell us how long the beast and false prophet had been in the lake of fire before Satan was cast into it - days, months, hours, years?

Scripture doesn't tell us that, so it's pretty silly to criticize us for not having the exact answer to that question.

I would imagine it's the same amount of time that death and Hades are in the lake of fire before those whose names are not written in the book of life are cast in (Rev 20:14-15). Scripture doesn't tell us that specifically, either. But, I would think it's not long at all.

4. Christ is not seen coming down from heaven at the close of Revelation 20 to destroy the beast and false prophet. Instead, we see fire coming down from heaven and destroying the Gog-Magog armies gathered against the camp of the saints.

I have to say this all the time, but the fact is that not all passages related to the second coming have all the same details. I believe the fire coming down from heaven matches up very well with 2 Peter 3:3-13 which teaches that the entire earth will be burned up when Christ returns.

It's a good idea to interpret all scripture in the light of all other scripture, without trying to make it fit a theological premise:

Exactly. You don't think I do that and I don't think you do that. So be it. We obviously haven't convinced the other to change our minds whatsoever, so it's probably fruitless for us to continue debating these things since we've already covered so much ground already.

Can you see how the very scriptures which you claim "prove" Amil, do not "prove" Amil?

No, not at all.

Do they prove Premil?

Not even close. In my opinion.

This is why I said that after this last post of yours addressed to me, I won't be debating this any longer - because the debate will endure until the Lord returns - because all those scriptures you bring up as "proof" of Amil, are no proof at all (proof in the minds of Amils only).

We both obviously have our minds made up. It's folly for either of us to think we're going to convince the other of anything. So be it.

.. and you have to keep adjusting other things also - like placing the beast's ascension out of the abyss at a point in time after the two witnesses - who are witnesses to Christ - have finished their testimony

What are you talking about? You sometimes have a lack of attention to detail and this is one of those times.

Rev 11:3-7
3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.” 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.

7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them.

Would you agree that when the two witnesses have finished their testimony then it's at the end of the 1,260 days? That should be obvious. Why is it that the beast cannot attack them and overpower them until AFTER they have finished their testimony? It has to be because he was bound in the abyss before that. That should be clear. He is only able to attack them and overpower them AFTER he has been loosed from the abyss. You are letting doctrinal bias cloud your understanding of this passage.

There are too many things that we will continue to disagree on, and there's no point in my mind of continuing to debate it - because Amils will just keep claiming that the verses they quote after they have interpreted them in the "light" of Amil, "prove" Amil, even though Premils can see those verses do not prove Amil at all.

It forces the Premil believer to spend hours answering all the verses and points, attempting to show why the claims made by Amils are not true and their many assumptions incorrect - only to have anything that proves Amil to be a faulty doctrine inspired somewhere along the line in antiquity by human imagination, to be rejected outright, and no one ever gets anywhere - it's because Amils are blinded to the fact that they do not interpret scripture "in the light of scripture" - they believe they do, but they do not - because they indeed interpret all scripture in the "light" of Amil. So in the minds of Amils, "Scripture = Amil, therefore this is how this verse and this passage, and all scripture, must be understood".

And, of course, amils can say the same about premils. Once we get to the point of frustration, as you clearly have, then it's time to end the discussion and just agree to disagree. So, our discussion is now completely over as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Nice observation. That never crossed my mind. But now that you mention it, and assuming that article was correct that early Amils initially took the thousand years literally, that's exactly what they would have been, apparently.

They were not amils. Do you not even know that amillennial means no literal thousand years? But those people believed in a literal thousand years. Amils do not believe in a literal thousand years, so it's completely pointless to try to lump us in with them just because we had one thing in common with them (so does premil).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This is an extremely poor choice of words.

In Christ's resurrection, it was a dead body laying in a grave that came back to life and then was changed.

When someone is saved, they are born again, not resurrected. God creates a totally new spirit. The other spirit is gone. As it is written, "all things become new."

It was not a poor choice of words by sovereigngrace. You only think so because of your apparent lack of understanding of what happens when someone is born again.

Ephesians 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

Paul taught here that when someone is saved/born again they go from being dead in transgressions and sins to alive with Christ because "God raised us up with Christ". If that isn't a resurrection then I don't know what a resurrection is. There is no basis for thinking that a resurrection can only be a bodily one.

 

[Timtofly]

This is just myth upon myth. Sorry, but there is no such thing as a "dead" soul. There is a soul that needs to be renewed by the Word of God. But even in a sinner, their soul is not dead. It is very much alive and trying to drag the flesh into more sin.

Since "death" to God is only "separation," it is the human spirit that is separated from God. It is the human spirit that is the 'candle" of the Lord.

When someone is lost, still a sinner, their spirit, soul and body are all in agreement to sin. Their spirit is separated from God.

When someone is born again, their human spirit is put to death and a NEW spirit is instantly created. It is also called regeneration. NOTHING CHANGES in the mind, the will, the emotions, and the affections: the soulish area of man. Now there is a WAR going on; the memories of the soulish area remembers sin and wants to continue, but the Spirit is recreated into God's image and HATES sin. Therefore, as long as that saved human lives, this war will continue between the Spirit and the flesh. (Here "flesh" would include the body and the soul that do not get "saved.".

Sorry but where did I use the word dead?

All in Christ have passed from death into life, once they accept the relationship of the Atonement.

Sorry but the sinful flesh is dragging the soul into fleshly desires.

Sorry but in Adam we are separated from our spiritual heritage in God. Our spirit is in God's presence. It can be destroyed by sin in our soul at a reprobate state and becomes a demon that at the GWT, God will claim, "I never knew you, and no name can be found in the Lamb's book of life."

Sorry but at the point one accepts God's Atonement, the Holy Spirit is allowed to take control of one's soul, mind, and emotions. The flesh has to be crucified daily, because it will never submit to God or the Holy Spirit.

It is the human body of the saved that dies when the heart stops, and then is resurrected at the rapture. It will look very much like the old body, when it was perhaps 30 years old.

Remember what Paul wrote: we as human beings are spirit - soul - body.

Paul said while we are on this earth we are in our earthly body. When in God's presence we are in our incorruptible body. 2 Corinthians 5
"We know that when the tent which houses us here on earth is torn down, we have a permanent building from God, a building not made by human hands, to house us in heaven.
Therefore, if anyone is united with the Messiah, he is a new creation — the old has passed; look, what has come is fresh and new!"

How can this sinful flesh, just be "made new" at the "end of time"? It cannot. It is biological from Adam's sinful flesh. It was made by "Human Hands". At death we receive an incorruptible body made by God. The difference between a mere tent and a building. The tent is destroyed, the building from God is permanent, without end.

"We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed." Changed at death. The only thing about the rapture is the change. No death, and no resurrection. The living never prevents the change to happen at death. The dead have risen first, because at death, life with Christ is immediate. The rising is for the living. The incorruptible body of those before, come with Christ, because the change already happened for them. They do not have to wait or be prevented by those alive. Christ brings them at His appearing.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

Because the bride of Christ is adorned with beauty.

Your view of the human spirit is different from mine. The spirit is what makes us Glorious as the bride of Christ. The Holy Spirit glorifies God and when others view us on earth they do not see us, but God. Spiritual separation is separation from our Godness. We are not in God's image. The robe or spirit is God covering us. It is the only way we are sons of God. Humanity was God on earth because they had a robe or covering that allowed them to be God. It is how Adam communicated with God, light to light. Revelation says there is no sun and no temple in the New Jerusalem. We are the light and God is the light. When Adam disobeyed that light left. They knew they were no longer like God.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

No the scene is symbolism of the use of the dragon in Revelation 16:

"13 And I saw three unclean spirits that looked like frogs; they came from the mouth of the dragon, from the mouth of the beast and from the mouth of the false prophet.
14 They are miracle-working demonic spirits which go out to the kings of the whole inhabited world to assemble them for the War of the Great Day"

John brings Satan back into the narrative of the battle of Armageddon. The beast and FP were thrown into the lake of fire. If you are confused who the dragon is after the word has not been used since chapter 16, John reminds us. Was the 6th vial and those events literal events about preparing for a literal battle with figurative terms? Even if the battle and destroying of the enemy by Christ was symbolic of Christ actually throwing the other two into the lake of fire, the symbolism is broken because Satan is literally bound in sheol, just like they were literally in the lake of fire. At what point in this literal process can anything be symbolically misunderstood? The FP and beast (image turned into AC) are in the lake of fire. Satan is in the pit. The 1000 years is 1000 years.

Is the FP and AC just figurative for sin and wickedness during this current 1990 years since the Cross? Is Satan just figurative for disobedience during this current 1990 years since the Cross? No bad guys, no war, nor destruction of this earth at the end of this current 1990 years since the Cross? As soon as the 6th seal is opened, reality changes and we are immediately in the NHNE? Nothing after that was necessary for John to write other than us to figure out it never happens anyway?

Sounds great to me, until reality kicks you in the head and you realize you are still on earth.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

The age to come is the age change at the Cross. The earthly kingdom becoming spiritual and residing in Paradise. No more procreation in Paradise. For 1990 years and counting.

If the Jews could not grasp He was the Messiah, why confuse them with a rapture? The Cross had to happen and Paul (a Pharisee) had to figure it out and put it into writing.

On top of that Jesus emphasis was on the short period He would be on earth with His disciples (later John informs us of the 144K) collecting the final harvest. That a church would be first to leave had nothing to do with the harvest and judgment at all. How would Jesus explain that a church was coming that would apostasize like the religious of His day? Sounds like a great motivation speach for the church to the Jews. Join me and 1990 years later or even 200 years later, the church will be a harlot worse than the two kingdoms of your fathers. Endure to the end, but apostasy will claim, "you will be raptured out!" I will be with you always, but leave you with Satan for 42 short months.

 

[Timtofly]

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".

This is the final harvest. Those living are separated into death. Death has to happen before eternal state can begin. The millennium is the return to the Genesis 1 condition. The NHNE was not created before this one. The goats are placed into Death. Death is emptied into the lake of fire at the GWT. The sheep are placed into death, until after Satan’s 42 months. This is not about the church. It is about God choosing some from Adam's sinful flesh, to be restored into the Millennium, Revelation 20, but more so to have reproduction in the NHNE. Those still alive at the end of the millennium on earth will stay on earth. The church comes down in the New Jerusalem. The final harvest is for the earth in the NHNE either way. It is not the church. Instead of God creating a whole new race of humanity from scratch, we are given the first resurrection in Revelation 20 for those humans who will forever live on earth.

 

[Timtofly]

That would mean He must have a giant throne up there.

GWT

 

[Timtofly]

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).

So thankfully Adam never ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

The Second Coming is the end of such punishment and need for salvation from Adam's punishment. That is A Lord's Day. No sin and no death by sin. Disobedience though is immediate death into Death. Death shows up at the 4th seal. Death will be collecting all those who reject God for 1006 years. Revelation 6:7-8

7 When he broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living being say, “Go!”
8 I looked, and there in front of me was a pallid, sickly-looking horse. Its rider’s name was Death, and Sh’ol followed behind him. They were given authority to kill one-quarter of the world by war, by famine, by plagues and with the wild animals of the earth.

 

[Timtofly]

Rev 1:19 “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.

When is now? 90 AD? What takes place later happens now in 2020. John is seeing it unfold now. John is the witness of the whole of Revelation. One of two witnesses who will face death. John is writing as an actual witness. John has to seal up some of what happens now, and not declare it to the 1st century church. John sees aspects of the 7 churchs then. John sees the rest as a witness. Revelation 1:2

2 who bore witness to the Word of God and to the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah, as much as he saw.

John was in the Spirit. John had his physical restored body, soul, and spirit. It is the only way he could enter heaven. Flesh and blood cannot enter heaven. But not only that, John was not restricted by time. John in His Gospel never writes about the mount of transfiguration. Yet in John 1:14 He says he did see that glory. John was on the mount of transfiguration, but left that detail out of his own gospel.

Can you prove from Scripture John was having a dream? Revelation 1:10-11

10 I came to be, in the Spirit, on the Day of the Lord; and I heard behind me a loud voice, like a trumpet,
11 saying, “Write down what you see on a scroll, and send it to the seven Messianic communities.

The Day of the Lord. Not Sunday, the Lord's Day, the end of time. John wrote about the time leading up to Satan's 42 months, the Day of the Lord, and the NHNE, even New Jerusalem. Did he live every second of the Millennium? We are not told.

We are not told a lot of things. We do know some things, and John uses the word know many times. Does he write with symbolism for the sake, of the whole 1900 years, the church would read Revelation? Yes!!! Do we know more today than those in the 2nd century about history? I hope some do. We do not know everything the disciples and apostles knew. We in the last 20 years have talked about the subject with our thoughts (online and in person) way more than they ever could.

 

[DavidPT]

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.

I'll try and address other parts of your post at a later time, assuming I don't get sidetracked and forget. But I want to take this on for now.


I'm not Catholic, but here are what Catholics have to say about this subject, below, 3rd paragraph. And I don't see any of that involving offerings to God like the OT priests did. Obviously, I'm not meaning priests in the sense they were priests in OT times, to begin with. I don't know why you are even bringing things like that up to begin with?

---------------
The primary function of all priests is administering the church's seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, confession, holy communion, marriage, holy orders, and anointing of the sick. Diocesan priests also visit the sick, oversee religious education programs, and generally provide pastoral care to their parishioners.
---------------


In what way would souls in heaven awaiting a bodily resurrection even remotely be administering the church's seven sacraments, while in that state? Who in heaven would need to be baptized? Who in heaven would be sick where they are in need of anointing? So on and so on. So by duties, maybe not the best word to use to describe what I was inquiring about, so meaning like these sacraments above, as some examples.

To me, anything priestly would be involving something earthly, not something heavenly, in regards to humans. And the same goes for the thousand years. That involves time, something earthly. Heaven couldn't possibly be going by earth time where it consists of 24 hour days up there. It is impossible that a thousand years do not involve 24 hour days, regardless whether it's a literal thousand or not, therefore the thousand years are only relevant to something earthly, and not relevant to anything taking place in heaven where God dwells.

 

[Timtofly]

It has to be because he was bound in the abyss before that. That should be clear. He is only able to attack them and overpower them AFTER he has been loosed from the abyss. You are letting doctrinal bias cloud your understanding of this passage.

"It has to be that he was bound" is that your doctrinal bias? The pit was opened prior to the 42 months. I agree. Revelation 13:11

11 Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth.

This is "an introduction" to Satan. The pit was opened back in the 5th Trumpet, Revelation 9:1-2

1 The fifth angel sounded his shofar; and I saw a star that had fallen out of heaven onto the earth, and he was given the key to the shaft leading down to the Abyss.
2 He opened the shaft of the Abyss, and there went up smoke from the shaft like the smoke of a huge furnace; the sun was darkened, and the sky too, by the smoke from the shaft.

So Satan was free to roam the earth from the 5th Trumpet on. However in the historical Revelation 12:17-18

17 The dragon was infuriated over the woman and went off to fight the rest of her children, those who obey God’s commands and bear witness to Yeshua.
18 Then the dragon stood on the seashore;

The Dragon could stand on the seashore, enter and exit the pit at will.

The reason why the pit was open does not seem to be for Satan's benefit. He can enter and leave his abode at will. In the 5th Trumpet is was to show those on earth the doorway to sheol. Up until the battle of Armageddon. At that defeat Satan was placed under "house arrest". The pit was closed not for Satan's benefit. Sheol was once again removed from the presence of those living on the earth. Wiped from memory. Because it happened before the first resurrection. I mean wherever these dead sheep and wheat and those beheaded were held. We are not told about their souls place of rest, only they died and now are resurrected in incorruptible bodies. Were they the guest at the wedding??? Sin and death by sin left in the past. We are not told about the knowledge of good and evil. All we know is Adam's punishment was over that was passed on to all his descendants. Revelation 10:5-7

5 Then the angel I saw standing on the sea and on the land lifted his right hand toward heaven
6 and swore by the One who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it: “There will be no more delay;
7 on the contrary, in the days of the sound from the seventh angel when he sounds his shofar, the hidden plan of God will be brought to completion, the Good News as he proclaimed it to his servants the prophets.”

The 7th Trumpet is the completion of the hidden plan of God. The Gospel was the revealed plan. The hidden plan was the removal of sinful flesh from physical earth. Death is still lurking, because it is the last thing to be subjected, at the GWT. There is also the small detail of the dragon's 42 months. People still die.

 

[Timtofly]

6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

What are the coming ages, plural? Are we in Christ in the heavenlys in Paul's age? What other age or ages?