Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

[ewq1938]

I like this, love to ready articles like this

Check this one out when you have time:

Proving the thousand years of Revelation 20 is exactly 1000 years.

 

[Timtofly]

What is the difference? Incorruptible bodies are immortal bodies. Incorruptible bodies can't die and immortal bodies can't die.

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 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.

Definitions of incorruptible and immortal:

incorruptible /ˌinkəˈrəptəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. not susceptible to corruption, especially by bribery.
   
   
2. not subject to death or decay; everlasting.

immortal /i(m)ˈmôrdl/
adjective

1. living forever; never dying or decaying.

Mortal

a human being subject to death, often contrasted with a divine being.
"capacities only possible of God rather than mortals"

Paul is talking about being glorified. No longer a sinful being, but back into the image of God.

The soul died twice. Physically, corruptible body. Spiritually, the spirit of God, was taken away. No longer immortal, but mortal.

A soul is born with a physical corrupt body. That body has to die physically. The spirit is with God. We are mortal, not sons of God. The 5th seal are those in Paradise putting on the spirit. They are glorified. Paul say when Christ returns, those living will get a new body and be glorified instantaneously.

Two deaths, and two changes to the soul. Two births. The first physical, the second wrapped in the spirit of God. We are not afforded our spirit, that which makes us God. The very reason God gives us His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, until we reach Paradise. But even in Paradise the soul is not complete. They only have an incorruptible body. The complete image of God happens in the 5th and 6th seal.

The only difference between me and church theology, is I claim those in heaven already have an incorruptible body. My reasoning: No one could enter Paradise until the Cross, thus all were in Abraham's bosom. They did not have an incorruptible body to enter Paradise before Christ physically died and was resurrected. That was the first Resurrection. The first resurrection in Revelation 20 is NOT a "time" resurrection it is the "type" of resurrection. The first resurrection for all is the moving from the corruptible body to the incorruptible body. The last step is glorification. The full image restored.

Jesus Christ the Lamb is waiting on God to say, "It is time". The Second Coming is when Christ presents to God a complete and glorified church. John symbolizes this event in the 5th seal. John expects the reader to see the return in the 6th seal as Paul's rapture event. Revelation 6-19 does not paint the church in a good light. The harlot. The 6th seal keeps with this theme, but the timing is still Paul's rapture event. Paul shows it as glorious, while John shows the time of judgment and how the church has to answer for her wickedness.

 

[BABerean2]

Mortal

a human being subject to death, often contrasted with a divine being.
"capacities only possible of God rather than mortals"

Paul is talking about being glorified. No longer a sinful being, but back into the image of God.

The soul died twice. Physically, corruptible body. Spiritually, the spirit of God, was taken away. No longer immortal, but mortal.

A soul is born with a physical corrupt body. That body has to die physically. The spirit is with God. We are mortal, not sons of God. The 5th seal are those in Paradise putting on the spirit. They are glorified. Paul say when Christ returns, those living will get a new body and be glorified instantaneously.

Two deaths, and two changes to the soul. Two births. The first physical, the second wrapped in the spirit of God. We are not afforded our spirit, that which makes us God. The very reason God gives us His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, until we reach Paradise. But even in Paradise the soul is not complete. They only have an incorruptible body. The complete image of God happens in the 5th and 6th seal.

The only difference between me and church theology, is I claim those in heaven already have an incorruptible body. My reasoning: No one could enter Paradise until the Cross, thus all were in Abraham's bosom. They did not have an incorruptible body to enter Paradise before Christ physically died and was resurrected. That was the first Resurrection. The first resurrection in Revelation 20 is NOT a "time" resurrection it is the "type" of resurrection. The first resurrection for all is the moving from the corruptible body to the incorruptible body. The last step is glorification. The full image restored.

Jesus Christ the Lamb is waiting on God to say, "It is time". The Second Coming is when Christ presents to God a complete and glorified church. John symbolizes this event in the 5th seal. John expects the reader to see the return in the 6th seal as Paul's rapture event. Revelation 6-19 does not paint the church in a good light. The harlot. The 6th seal keeps with this theme, but the timing is still Paul's rapture event. Paul shows it as glorious, while John shows the time of judgment and how the church has to answer for her wickedness.

How does what you claim compare to the words of Christ found below?


Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.



.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So I believe that Jerusalem being surrounded by armies and the abomination of desolation are different events.

Matthew 24 and Mark 13 both record the statement except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened. The days being shortened is not recorded in Luke 21 and neither is the term “abomination of desolation”. I think the days were shortened which resulted in the sign to flee no long being the abomination of desolation but Jerusalem being surrounded by armies.

It is worded differently in Luke 21 only because the primary audience of Luke's gospel was the Gentiles. He knew he would need to spell out what the abomination of desolation related to in order for them to understand it. That was not the case in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 since those were primarily addressed to the Jews. That's why it says "let the reader understand" since the Jews would have already known about the teaching regarding the abomination of desolation.

 

[grafted branch]

It is worded differently in Luke 21 only because the primary audience of Luke's gospel was the Gentiles. He knew he would need to spell out what the abomination of desolation related to in order for them to understand it. That was not the case in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 since those were primarily addressed to the Jews. That's why it says "let the reader understand" since the Jews would have already known about the teaching regarding the abomination of desolation.

Ok, thanks for that explanation. I have a follow up question; why would the days need to be shortened if the believing Jews understood and left Jerusalem when they saw the armies? After the believers fled they weren’t in danger regardless of how long the siege would have lasted.

I think it was the days of vengeance that were shortened, would you agree with this or do you see some other time period that’s shortened?

 

[Timtofly]

How does what you claim compare to the words of Christ found below?
Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

God can destroy both soul and body in the lake of fire. What is your point, total annihilation? We are talking about a type of resurrection, not God's judgment on the lost.

 

[Timtofly]

It is worded differently in Luke 21 only because the primary audience of Luke's gospel was the Gentiles. He knew he would need to spell out what the abomination of desolation related to in order for them to understand it. That was not the case in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 since those were primarily addressed to the Jews. That's why it says "let the reader understand" since the Jews would have already known about the teaching regarding the abomination of desolation.

Do you think the Greeks did not know their own history for the last 200 years prior to the time of Christ?

 

[BABerean2]

God can destroy both soul and body in the lake of fire. What is your point, total annihilation? We are talking about a type of resurrection, not God's judgment on the lost.

The point is that your claim about the "souls" in heaven already have an incorruptible body is not found in scripture.

The soul is separated from the body at death.

They will be reunited at the resurrection of the dead, which occurs at the Second Coming of Christ.
See John 5:27-30, and Revelation 11:18, and 2 Timothy 4:1, and 1 Thessalonians 4, and 5.

.

 

[DavidPT]

The point is that your claim about the "souls" in heaven already have an incorruptible body is not found in scripture.

The soul is separated from the body at death.

They will be reunited at the resurrection of the dead, which occurs at the Second Coming of Christ.
See John 5:27-30, and Revelation 11:18, and 2 Timothy 4:1, and 1 Thessalonians 4, and 5.

.

I don't disagree with your post, so not disputing anything, but what about Pretribbers, for instance? How do they assume they enter heaven once they are raptured? Do they enter heaven bodily or as souls, such as the way those that have died enter heaven? If bodily, what kind of body? A mortal body, or an incorruptable immortal body? And assuming Pretrib, and the fact others would die after the rapture but that some would go to heaven because they end up becoming trib saints, wouldn't that mean, if there can be Pretribbers in heaven with an incorruptable immortal body, there can also be those that have died and went to heaven, thus possessing an incorruptable immortal body as well, but not that I agree with that, but wouldn't that be the logic if Pretrib was Biblical?

 

[claninja]

So what? The resurrection of the dead hasn't happened yet. I'm talking about the separation that occurs at that point. That is when all will be gathered before the throne to give an account of themselves (Romans 14:10-12, Matthew 25:31-46).

Ok, so then you believe in 2 separations of the righteous and unrighteous, 1 at death post the cross, and 1 at the future end of the universe.

No. We will all partake in the wedding at the same time when Christ returns.

Ok, so no to men and women partaking in marriage with eachother post death, when they go to heaven, right?

Physically, yes. And that is the context of what Luke 20:34-36 is about. It is clearly referring to a man and woman getting married and to physical death. The proof of that is that Jesus indicated it is not until the time of the future resurrection of the dead that the things He mentioned would be true. When Christ returns and the dead are resurrected there will be no more death at that point. And there will be no more marriage between a man and a woman at that point, either, because we will be like the angels, who don't die and don't get married.

But spiritually no, correct?

Some premils see that as a different event and some don't.

ok.

So what? It clearly is a different question. The end of the age has clearly not come yet since people are still getting married and are still dying. What can you do to keep your belief that the end of the age already occurred afloat? Nothing as far as I can tell.

The end of the age clearly had come, according to Paul. So NT scripture disagrees that the end of the ages has not come yet.

1 corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the consummation of the ages has come.

This is ridiculous. You can't just brush these passages aside just because they are parabolic and apocalyptic. Why are those passages even there if we can't learn anything from them? The Luke 16:19-31 passage very clearly indicates that conscious torment occurs in hell. The fact that it's a parable doesn't change the fact of what it clearly portrays. Same thing with Revelation 6:9-11. It would be ludicrous to portray the dead in Christ as being conscious in heaven if they are not in fact conscious in heaven. Talk about trying to keep a doctrine afloat...

Classic premil argument.....

No, we are going to disagree on how to interpret these passages. Which again will lead us further and further away from our original discussion: the little season of satan in revelation 12 and 20........


You seem to take them as literal, like premils do. I however, believe they are parabolic passages.

1.) Luke 16:19-31.

A.) Abraham's bosom was a figure of speech
" A figure of speech used by Jesus in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:22, 23) to designate the state or place of security and significance with which Lazarus was honored upon his death. The figure is drawn from the ancient eastern banqueting custom of reclining upon one’s side on couches at the meal. The configuration of the gathered company was such that the head of one would reach the chest of the one next to him. For purposes of conversation and fellowship, the one would lean his head back against the breast of the other. It was esp. gratifying to be placed next to a special guest, and even more so, next to the host."((Abraham’s Bosom - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway)

B.) therefore, I interpret the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in similar fashion to those (gentiles, likened unto the unclean; dogs) coming from the east and west to sit at the banquet with Abraham in the kingdom of heaven, while SONS OF THE KINGDOM (Jews) being cast out.

Matthew 8:10-12 When Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those following Him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

2.) Revelation 6:9-11

A.) I view the seals and the apocalyptic account of the olivet discourse, and therefore view the 5th seal as symbolic for persecution

Matthew 24:9 Then they will deliver you over to be persecuted and killed, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.

B.) They are resting for only a "little while" and then God will avenge them. The vengeance is found in the destruction of Jerusalem

Matthew 23:25-26 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Luke 21:22 For these are the days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.

That isn't true. Premils are futurists so most of them don't acknowledge that Christ described 2 different events. They are normally more like you in assuming He was only talking about one event throughout the Olivet Discourse.

No arguments from me that Premils interpret the olivet discourses of Matthew and Mark as one event, similar to preterists.

But Amils do the same thing that premils do in regards to the olivet discourse, and they must in order to keep their doctrine afloat.

While premils interpret the armies surrounding Jerusalem in Luke as a different event from the AOD in Mark and Matthew,Amils, like yourself, interpret the 2nd question posed the disciples in Matthew as a completely different question than the 2nd question posed by the disciples in Mark and Luke.

I certainly don't believe that Eusebius, Jonathan Edwards or Charles Spurgeon, which you quoted below, are credible sources. Far from it. Edwards and Spurgeon both taught Calvinist doctrine which I disagree with completely. So, they are not credible at all to me.

Fair enough, although a very subjective argument.

I didn't get this information from any particular source, so I don't know and don't care about that. I disagree strongly on a number of things with most of the people who would be considered supposed credible sources. The only truly credible sources are God and the authors of the Bible themselves who were inspired by God.

Well considering I'm no expert on greek and hebrew language, nor am I an expert on ancient Jewish customs, nor did I live in the 1st century, I rely on those who have stronger backgrounds than me, in those fields, to learn from.

I don't see anything wrong with learning from other scholars, even if my conclusions don't always agree with them.

The old covenant system was removed by Christ with His death on the cross. The veil being torn in two signified the end of the old covenant system and the ushering in of the new covenant system by the blood of Christ.

The covenant system was made obsolete at the cross, but still was practiced by Christian Jews and non Christian Jews leading up to it's destruction. From the death of Christ until 66-70ad, it faded, grew old, aged, and vanished. This is fact established by the NT.

 

[Timtofly]

The point is that your claim about the "souls" in heaven already have an incorruptible body is not found in scripture.

The soul is separated from the body at death.

They will be reunited at the resurrection of the dead, which occurs at the Second Coming of Christ.
See John 5:27-30, and Revelation 11:18, and 2 Timothy 4:1, and 1 Thessalonians 4, and 5.

.

So 2 Corinthians 5 is not in your Bible? I see, that may be your problem. Find a Bible that includes it. Why do you just throw out references? None of them say a bodily exchange. That is your added guessing game.

 

[claninja]

Do you believe the souls and spirits of believers go to heaven when they die or not?

Yes.

Paul said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8). What do you think that means?

This passage is in regards to the resurrection.

When did I say otherwise?

did you not use the spirit going to heaven, as an example of believers going to heaven post the cross?

That is our future hope, but after that he was talking about being away from the body meant to be present with the Lord in heaven. Do you understand that there is a part of us besides our bodies? The resurrection of the dead in Christ will not occur until the last trumpet when He returns (1 Cor 15:20-23,50-54).

Again, 2 corinthians 5 is in regards to the resurrection. being absent from the body and home with the Lord is about the resurrection.

2 corinthians 5:4-5 So while we are in this tent, we groan under our burdens, because we do not wish to be unclothed but clothed, so that our mortality may be swallowed up by life. And God has prepared us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a pledge of what is to come.

This is ridiculous. You can't just brush these passages aside just because they are parabolic and apocalyptic. Why are those passages even there if we can't learn anything from them? The Luke 16:19-31 passage very clearly indicates that conscious torment occurs in hell. The fact that it's a parable doesn't change the fact of what it clearly portrays. Same thing with Revelation 6:9-11. It would be ludicrous to portray the dead in Christ as being conscious in heaven if they are not in fact conscious in heaven. Talk about trying to keep a doctrine afloat...

Classic premil argument style. Did you use to be a premil?

Jesus is in heaven now. He was talking about what the reality would be when He ascended to heaven. Our souls and spirits go to heaven when we die. So, this is clearly referring to that. Our eternal home with Jesus will be on the new earth, so He was not talking about that since His Father's house is currently in heaven and He was talking about where the Father's house was at the time.

It clearly says it's a reality, when he "COMES AGAIN".

John 14:1-3 “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God;a believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

Did you somehow miss the part that says "as they were looking on"? That means they could see Him up until the point where a cloud took Him out of their sight.

Acts 1:9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

They clearly were seeing Him as He was ascending up to the point the cloud took Him out of their sight. Why are you denying the obvious? Just to keep your doctrine afloat?

How did Jesus specifically go "into" heaven. in sight or hidden in a cloud?

To fulfill all that was written in the OT regarding those days of vengeance, including Daniel 9:26. You do understand that the NT was not written yet at that point, right?

I view the NT as a revealing of the OT, not additional brand new information. So yes, the vengenace on Jerusalem in 66-70ad fulfills all that was written.

Do you not think that Jesus will be taking vengeance on His enemies when He returns in the future? How do you interpret 2 Peter 3:3-13?

Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead. Vengeance has been paid in regards to all that was written in the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70ad.

 

[DavidPT]

The end of the age clearly had come, according to Paul. So NT scripture disagrees that the end of the ages has not come yet.

1 corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the consummation of the ages has come.

Something I have noted is this. Per my translation it says ends of the world, not end of the world, and that telos is the Greek word being used for ends.

Doing an exact phrase search in the KJV for --end of the world-- the following are the verses that phrase is found in.


Matthew 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Matthew 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

In every one of these as I far as I can tell, sunteleia is the Greek word being used for end and not telos instead. Obviously then, or at least to me anyway, there is a difference between ends of the world and end of the world.

Doing an exact phrase search in the KJV for --ends of the world-- the following are the verses that phrase is found in.



Psalms 22:27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

Romans 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


Maybe it's only me, but I can't imagine trying to apply the way you are trying to apply ends of the world in 1 Corinthians 10:11, to that of Psalms 22:27 in the same manner. Nor in Romans 10:18, either.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Ok, thanks for that explanation. I have a follow up question; why would the days need to be shortened if the believing Jews understood and left Jerusalem when they saw the armies? After the believers fled they weren’t in danger regardless of how long the siege would have lasted.

I think it was the days of vengeance that were shortened, would you agree with this or do you see some other time period that’s shortened?

I don't think it's reasonable to think that they literally all were able to leave before the Roman armies started attacking them and destroying the city. If those days weren't cut short then no one who was still there would have survived.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Ok, so then you believe in 2 separations of the righteous and unrighteous, 1 at death post the cross, and 1 at the future end of the universe.

I believe the souls of believers have always gone to a different place than the souls of unbelievers. In OT times believers went to "Abraham's bosom" which was separate from where unbelievers were (Luke 16:19-31). So I don't believe in a mass separation of souls at any given time.

The only mass separation of the saved and the lost is on the day of judgment when all will be gathered before Christ to give an account of themselves with the saved (sheep) and lost (goats) separate into two groups (Matt 25:31-46). The saved will inherit eternal life in the kingdom of God prepared for us from the foundation of the world while the lost will be sent to "everlasting fire" for "eternal punishment".

Ok, so no to men and women partaking in marriage with eachother post death, when they go to heaven, right?

Are you purposely trying to be ridiculous or is it by accident? Of course men and women will not get married in heaven. What was the point of this question?

The end of the age clearly had come, according to Paul. So NT scripture disagrees that the end of the ages has not come yet.

1 corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the consummation of the ages has come.

This does not have the same context as passages like Matthew 13:40-43, Matthew 13:47-50 or Luke 20:34-36 which spoke in terms of this temporal age and the eternal age to come.

Classic premil argument.....

No, we are going to disagree on how to interpret these passages. Which again will lead us further and further away from our original discussion: the little season of satan in revelation 12 and 20........

Okay, buddy. We're done. This is the second time you've compared my interpretation of something to premil. That's unacceptable to me and I'm not going to waste my time with this.

 

[claninja]

Maybe it's only me, but I can't imagine trying to apply the way you are trying to apply ends of the world in 1 Corinthians 10:11, to that of Psalms 22:27 in the same manner. Nor in Romans 10:18, either.

1.) the greek word for "worlds" in 1 corinthians 10:11 is not the same in psalm 22:27 (lxx) or Romans 10:18

a.) 1 corinthians 10:11

Aionon
an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.

b.) Romans 10:18

oikoumene
(properly: the land that is being inhabited, the land in a state of habitation), the inhabited world, that is, the Roman world, for all outside it was regarded as of no account.

c.) Psalm 22:27 (lxx)

ges

1. arable land
2. the ground, the earth as a standing place
3. the main land as opposed to the sea or water
4. the earth as a whole
   1. the earth as opposed to the heavens
   2. the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
5. a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region

2.) the greek word for "ends" 1 corinthians 10:11 is not the same in psalm 22:27 (lxx) or Romans 10:18

a.) 1 corinthians 10:11

télos
(a neuter noun) – properly, consummation (the end-goal, purpose), such as closure with all its results.

b.) Romans 10:18

Perata
a boundary, limit, extremity, (b) an end, conclusion.

c.) Psalm 22:27

Perata
a boundary, limit, extremity, (b) an end, conclusion.


You cant' compare ends of worlds as being the same in 1 corinthians 10:11 and Romans 10:18/psalm 22:27, as both words for "world" and "end" are completely different words as shown above.

Please bare in mind, that synteleia (matthew 13:39) is combination of syn and telos. Telos being the word found in 1 corinthians 10:11 and aion is the same word found in Matthew 13:39 and 1 corinthians 10:11.

Regardless, the author of Hebrews places Jesus' 1st advent at the end (synteleia) of the ages (aionon), and the Paul has his generation living at the end (tele) of the ages (aionon).

Hebrews 9:26 or then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end (synteleia) of the ages (aionon) to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Matthew 13:39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end (synteleia) of the age (aionos), and the reapers are angels.

1 corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end (tele) of the ages (aionon) has come.

 

[claninja]

I believe the souls of believers have always gone to a different place than the souls of unbelievers. In OT times believers went to "Abraham's bosom" which was separate from where unbelievers were (Luke 16:19-31). So I don't believe in a mass separation of souls at any given time.

The only mass separation of the saved and the lost is on the day of judgment when all will be gathered before Christ to give an account of themselves with the saved (sheep) and lost (goats) separate into two groups (Matt 25:31-46). The saved will inherit eternal life in the kingdom of God prepared for us from the foundation of the world while the lost will be sent to "everlasting fire" for "eternal punishment".

Right, so you believe in 2 separations of the good and bad, 1 at death, 1 at the end of the physical universe. This has already been established in your previous responses.

Are you purposely trying to be ridiculous or is it by accident? Of course men and women will not get married in heaven. What was the point of this question?

Heaven forbid, I ask a question to clarify your answer.......

Your first response, which was confusing to me because I wasn't asking about the consummation between the church and Christ, I was asking if the men and women still partake in marriage when they die and go to heaven:

"No. We will all partake in the wedding at the same time when Christ returns."

Your 2nd response, clearly answers the question:

"Of course men and women will not get married in heaven"

Good, so we are in agreement when believers in Christ go to heaven upon death, they do not partake in earth like marriage.

This does not have the same context as passages like Matthew 13:40-43, Matthew 13:47-50 or Luke 20:34-36 which spoke in terms of this temporal age and the eternal age to come.

This argument makes no sense.

How exactly does the context change the meaning of end of the age?

And of course the context in Luke 20 is different, luke 20:34-36 is about the age to come, not the end of the age.....

Okay, buddy. We're done. This is the second time you've compared my interpretation of something to premil. That's unacceptable to me and I'm not going to waste my time with this.

You are free to disengage at any time.

 

[Zao is life]

My Closing Post in this thread (not saying I don't expect others to continue to post in this thread, if they wish).

There are some Biblical facts that you just can't get Amils to acknowledge, and so I've given up. For example, aside from the facts produced in the OP, I've pointed out the following facts in this thread:-

1. The difference between breaking the nations with a rod of iron and shepherding the nations with a rod of iron:

Psalm 2:8-9
"Ask of Me, and I shall give the nations for Your inheritance; and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession.
You shall break (Hebrew: râ‛a‛) them with a rod of iron; You shall dash (Hebrew: nâphats) them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

râ‛a‛ means to break in pieces, and nâphats means to dash to pieces or scatter.

Revelation 2:27
"And he who overcomes and keeps My works to the end, to him I will give power over the nations.
And he will rule (Greek: poimaínō) them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of a potter they will be broken to pieces, even as I received from My Father."

poimaínō means to tend as a shepherd of (figuratively, superviser):--feed (cattle), rule. It's the same Greek word used in:

Revelation 12:5
"And she bore a son, a male, who is going to rule (Greek: poimaínō) all nations with a rod of iron. And her child was caught up to God and to His throne."

Revelation 19:5
"And out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, so that with it He should strike the nations. And He will shepherd (Greek: poimaínō) them with a rod of iron. And He treads the winepress of the wine of the anger and of the wrath of Almighty God."

Obviously the scriptures are telling us that the Lord will break/shatter the rebelliousness of the nations with a rod of iron at His return, then shepherd them with a rod of iron.

Some Amils felt the need to protest and bicker with me about the word "shepherd" in the above Revelation verses, as though I wrote the Revelation. Well, I never chose the word "shepherd" and anyone who has a problem with it, should go and bicker with the people who penned the New Testament over the choice of Greek word.

2. "Under His feet" (but not yet, according to Hebrews):

Psalm 8:6
"You made him rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet:"

1 Corinthians 15:25
"for it is right for Him to reign until He has put all the enemies under His feet."

Ephesians 1:22
"And He has put all things under His feet and gave Him to be Head over all things to the church."

Hebrews 2:8
"You have subjected all things under his feet." For in order that He put all things under him, He did not leave anything not subjected. But now (Greek: nŷn) we see not yet all things having been put under him."

nŷn means "of present time" (in other words, of present time we see not yet all things under His feet).

John 8:36
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight so that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But now (Greek: nŷn) My kingdom is not from here."

Revelation 11:15
"And the seventh angel sounded. And there were great voices in Heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ. And He will reign forever and ever."

3. I've also pointed out that till now there has only been one death, and one resurrection from the dead.

Adam = mankind and Adam's death came to all mankind. Christ is the last Adam. His resurrection from the dead comes to all mankind (but each in His own order):

1 Corinthians 15:20-23
"But now Christ has risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruit of those who slept. For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming."

4. I pointed out that there is no such thing as a 'spiritual' resurrection in the New Testament - only a resurrection of the body:-

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed [ nâphach ] into his nostrils the breath [ neshâmâh ] of life; and man became a living soul [nephesh]."

When Adam sinned, he died. The Spirit of God was no longer dwelling in him, so death entered into him:

John 3:7
"That which is born (γεννάω [gennáō]) of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born (γεννάω gennáō) of the Spirit ( πνεῦμα [pneûma] ) is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born (Greek: γεννάω [gennáō]) from above (Greek: ἄνωθεν [ánōthen]). "

I pointed out that the context of every single New Testament verse talking about "The Resurrection", or about being raised from the dead or rising again from the dead, is the resurrection of the body - never "resurrection" of soul or spirit.

I met with protest, so I spent hours listing all the New Testament verses talking about resurrection, and quoting the actual verses:-

OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS: Resurrection Verses

Naturally, the 2nd death cannot take place before the resurrection from the dead of those who will suffer the 2nd death.

Though some Amils finally admitted that there are no New Testament verses talking about soul or spiritual "resurrection" (because they could not find any), yet they have simply ignored this fact, and continued to talk about 'spiritual' resurrection anyway, and continue to falsely claim that the souls who were beheaded in Revelation 20, who are seen living and reigning with Christ a thousand years, are those who were born again, and it's their 'spiritual' resurrection being referred to.

In order to uphold Amil, some Amils add more deaths and resurrections than the first death (Adam's death); and the first resurrection (the last Adam's resurrection); and the 2nd death (which can only come after the resurrection of those who will experience the 2nd death. They don't want to admit that the scriptures speak of mankind's death (through Adam), mankind's resurrection (through Christ, the last Adam), and the 2nd death - and no more.

They don't understand, and refuse to acknowledge that these theories that have developed about 'spiritual' resurrection etc, are the children of the original Amil theory, which keeps producing new theories to explain the anomalies in the Amil theory.

But Amils will merely continue to tell you you are wrong (often belligerently).

So I've given up.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So I've given up.

And we're all thankful for this since you've repeated the exact same words in your posts a thousand times already and I think that's enough. But not literally a thousand times.

 

[Zao is life]

On the other hand, some Amils, though they cannot prove Amil, nevertheless are good at proving my point that I raised regarding belligerence in their posts.