The Day of the Lord is at Hand for all the Nations

[keras]

That doesn't line up with what Paul taught in 1 Thess 4:14-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54, so, no, it's not plain enough for me. Try again so that you don't contradict Paul.

It is you that sees a contradiction.
Revelation 20:4 is plain and what Paul prophesies never says that ALL the dead Christians will be raised at the Return.

Other than 1 Thess 4:14-17, Matthew 24:29-31 and 1 Cor 15:50-54, you mean?

1 Thess 4:16 does mention God's Trumpet and the Archangels shout.
Matthew 24:31 the trumpet sounds after the Return, to gather the elect, as per 1 Thess 4:17
1 Cor 15:52, The trumpet sounding is to raise all the dead for the final Judgment. Obviously not the same as the trumpet sound after the Return.

Even besides verse 46, isn't the following verse clearly a reference to judgment day and a clear parallel verse to Revelation 20:15?

Matthew 25:41 Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

That verse doesn't say when and we know it cannot be immediately, as Rev 20:1-3 tells us that Satan is imprisoned, not immolated at the Return.

 

[eclipsenow]

It is you that sees a contradiction.
Revelation 20:4 is plain and what Paul prophesies never says that ALL the dead Christians will be raised at the Return.

1 Thess 4:16 does mention God's Trumpet and the Archangels shout.
Matthew 24:31 the trumpet sounds after the Return, to gather the elect, as per 1 Thess 4:17
1 Cor 15:52, The trumpet sounding is to raise all the dead for the final Judgment. Obviously not the same as the trumpet sound after the Return.

That verse doesn't say when and we know it cannot be immediately, as Rev 20:1-3 tells us that Satan is imprisoned, not immolated at the Return.

If you can do this with the clearer verses of the New Testament to justify your own personal reading of the most symbolic book of the bible, then don't come crying to us when your precious 'prophesies' of the next 7 years don't pan out. There's no point continuing to go over the same old ground if you're just going to hand wave away every CLEAR New Testament verse that most scholars agree puts everything together on the Lord's Return in the 2 age model. I might be back in a while if I get an appetite for this discussion - or I might not. Either way, you have been told. The rest of the New Testament puts everything together on the great and glorious Return of the Lord - but you want to break it up into various 'episodes'. Your version of eschatology basically turns (warning - metaphor approaching!) Star Wars "A new hope" into a series of prequels that have an ugly great Jar Jar Binks in them - and has kind of wrecked the whole thing.

 

[keras]

If you can do this with the clearer verses of the New Testament to justify your own personal reading of the most symbolic book of the bible

NOTHING could be clearer than Revelation 20:4-5
NOTHING that that any of the Apostles or Jesus say, contradicts this.

Either way, you have been told.

Yes; you have been told the Biblical Truth. When things do pan out how Jesus told His servants it would do, then who will be crying?

Your version of eschatology basically turns (warning - metaphor approaching!) Star Wars "A new hope" into a series of prequels that have an ugly great Jar Jar Binks in them - and has kind of wrecked the whole thing.

The Prophetic Word version of what God has planned to happen, leading up to the glorious Return of Jesus, IS very frightening.
But God has been so kind as to warn us, so to ignore His warnings, is foolishness.

I thank you for our discussions and I do respect your views, they are sincerely held, but sadly wrong. I hope you will continue to study the critically important subject of end time prophecy.
However; even knowing God's plans, cannot really prepare us for the earth shaking to come. We must stand firm in our faith and trust in the Lord for His protection, thru it all.
Blessings to you and yours.

 

[eclipsenow]

NOTHING could be clearer than Revelation 20:4-5

NOTHING could be clearer to those where THEIR special reading of a thing matches THEIR UNIQUE presuppositions around it - and NOTHING can seem LESS CLEAR and cause more COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND A DESIRE TO REJECT IT than learning other people read it differently.

In other words - it's clear, but it's clear to you and you alone! You've had other futurists disagreeing with you in this thread - and that's just this thread!

Many GREAT theologians see it as a martyred Christian's security in heaven.

REV 20
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.
(The heavenly throne room John showed us earlier.)

And I saw the souls

(Souls are in heaven)

of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God.

(They're dead)

They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.

(They were loyal to Christ)

They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

They were dead - but they're reigning WITH CHRIST WHERE CHRIST IS IN HEAVEN IN FRONT OF THE THRONES!

Where are they? Heaven. The passage said so.
How are they? Dead - these are the martyred saints.
Why did they come to 'life'? Because they're in heaven - that's what you do until the general resurrection that John hints at in the next verse.

5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.

(It's weird language to us because the western world did not really start talking about dead Christians being 'in heaven' for a long time.)

How do we know they're still dead even though John says they 'came to life'? Because HELL has no power over them! John's saying "They're dead, but they're not in hell they're in heaven!" Check it out.

6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them,

(HELL has no power over them! The only people at risk of hell are dead people - but in contrast these dead Christians 'come alive' in the 'first resurrection' in heaven. It's really not that hard!

"but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

Reigning the way the other verses Spiritual Jew showed us from Ephesians etc says Jesus is reigning - now.

Now if the Millennium verses show Jesus reigning from heaven, are there other verses that say Jesus is reigning now - from heaven - even though he is not physically present?

Matthew 28

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

(This is Jesus authority or reigning over this age as his gospel is declared.)

Ephesians 1

18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

(Seated him = past tense. He reigns now. This is the 1000 years - the gazillion years between his Resurrection and Return.)

Revelation 1

4 John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia:
Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

(He reigns now and we are his kingdom now.)

Yes; you have been told the Biblical Truth. When things do pan out how Jesus told His servants it would do, then who will be crying?

No - I've been told your weird opinion - and it just gets weirder and weirder, like breaking off eternal punishment verses from the sheep and goats because it doesn't fit with your weird unbiblical scheme.

I see EVERYTHING in the New Testament about how sudden and surprising the Lord's return will be - and you're trying to map it out for us. It's just sad. I see NO reason for Christians to even expect to know when the Lord is going to return, NO reason to think Revelation is a future-history if we're just smart enough to 'decode it', NO reason to think Luke 13 has ANYTHING to do with eschatology, and NO reason to trust a single thing you say about the bible after the way you've broken Jesus simple parable of the sheep and the goats.

I'm sad that people like you write on these forums and think you know stuff. It's just really sad, and I think I would have more luck predicting what the 2030's will look like based no my understanding of technological change and climate change than any of the unbiblical swill you've dished up. Just stop!

 

[Timtofly]

It doesn't work that way because other verses show that the new conditions are eternal - not bits and pieces that then fit into whatever eschatology you or Keras make up. When the Lord returns, he judges, and the results are forever. Not for 1000 years, not for this bit and then that bit all because Premil's can't understand that Revelation is metaphorical.

I did not write Revelation 20. What is 1000 itself metaphorical of?

Why do you get to choose what is and is not metaphorical. Is Christ coming out of the sky metaphorical of a return? Why is 1000 not metaphorical of the 1000 years after the coming out of the sky?

 

[eclipsenow]

I did not write Revelation 20. What is 1000 itself metaphorical of?

If you have to ask that - after the thirty or so times we've been over it - then you're either unwilling to pay attention (in which case I'm wasting my time here) or you have really serious comprehension issues (in which case I'm wasting my time here.) Seriously - you should understand your opponent's position if you're going to debunk it. Are you seriously saying you don't know what the 1000 years is a symbol of? Just stop everything and explain back to me what I think the 1000 years is - or this conversation is beyond hopeless.

 

[Timtofly]

Matthew 25:31-46 is the same as the GWT judgment. How many days of judgment do you believe in? Didn't God set one day to judge the world as Paul said here:

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

What is the difference between the following verses:

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Do you not think these are speaking of the same thing?

The Lake of Fire is not sheol. Sheol is cast itself into the lake of fire. So, no sheol was prepared before Adam died, for the angels that rebelled. There are no mention of angels at the GWT. Also at the GWT, no one is said to be awarded eternal life on earth nor the New Jerusalem. Many claim there is no redemption here, because all resolve to still reject God. God is on the throne as the Lord of the earth. Christ is the Son, not the Lord. In Matthew 25 the Son has a different throne. Really trying to avoid that Christ is coming to set up an earthly Kingdom must be tiring after a while. Christ is going to rule on that glorious throne for 1,000 years.

 

[Timtofly]

That is nothing but speculation. Give me solid scripture for once. All you ever do is take scripture from here and there and everywhere and act like it's all related together and you come up with a complete, convoluted mess. That is not the way to interpret scripture! It's no wonder that no one agrees with you.

And the post with all the verses showing 1000 to be everything, but what Revelation 20 means is just as convoluted.

That is not the way to interpret scripture!

 

[Timtofly]

If you have to ask that - after the thirty or so times we've been over it - then you're either unwilling to pay attention (in which case I'm wasting my time here) or you have really serious comprehension issues (in which case I'm wasting my time here.) Seriously - you should understand your opponent's position if you're going to debunk it. Are you seriously saying you don't know what the 1000 years is a symbol of? Just stop everything and explain back to me what I think the 1000 years is - or this conversation is beyond hopeless.

I don't view the 1000 as metaphorical, because 1000 by itself is not metaphorical. Since you have no answer other than gazillion, may I have those 1000 dollars you get at such a great exchange rate?

1000 is not that metaphorical. Your interpretation of 1000 is.

 

[eclipsenow]

The Lake of Fire is not sheol. Sheol is cast itself into the lake of fire. So, no sheol was prepared before Adam died, for the angels that rebelled. There are no mention of angels at the GWT. Also at the GWT, no one is said to be awarded eternal life on earth nor the New Jerusalem. Many claim there is no redemption here, because all resolve to still reject God. God is on the throne as the Lord of the earth. Christ is the Son, not the Lord. In Matthew 25 the Son has a different throne. Really trying to avoid that Christ is coming to set up an earthly Kingdom must be tiring after a while. Christ is going to rule on that glorious throne for 1,000 years.

I saw this movie once where the hero got sucked up by a tornado and her house landed on a witch and she met a strawman, a tinman, and a lionman. They followed the yellow brick road to meet the great and powerful Oz! Relevance? This is kind of how weird it feels reading your posts sometimes when you try to defy the plain teaching of Scripture with your own weird reinterpretations of heaven and hell and basically splitting apart the different elements of Judgement Day into your own unusual timetable. Nevermind! We're off to the see the wizard!

 

[DavidPT]

They were dead - but they're reigning WITH CHRIST WHERE CHRIST IS IN HEAVEN IN FRONT OF THE THRONES!

Where are they? Heaven. The passage said so.
How are they? Dead - these are the martyred saints.
Why did they come to 'life'? Because they're in heaven - that's what you do until the general resurrection that John hints at in the next verse.

What kind of argument is this? Since there is no such thing as soul sleeping or souls dying prior to their resurrection, that means the lost are also alive somewhere while awaiting their resurrection. They might not be alive in heaven but they are alive some place else, in this case, alive in hell, and that they too are souls awaiting a resurrection body. Unless you want to argue, that when the lost die, they either soul sleep or that their soul literally dies, are you then going to argue that the reason they are still conscious somewhere after death, this is because they are in heaven too?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It is you that sees a contradiction.
Revelation 20:4 is plain and what Paul prophesies never says that ALL the dead Christians will be raised at the Return.

When else will they be raised. Show me in the following passage where he indicates that any of the dead in Christ will be raised at some other time than at His return:

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1 Thess 4:16 does mention God's Trumpet and the Archangels shout.
Matthew 24:31 the trumpet sounds after the Return, to gather the elect, as per 1 Thess 4:17
1 Cor 15:52, The trumpet sounding is to raise all the dead for the final Judgment. Obviously not the same as the trumpet sound after the Return.

It's the same trumpet in each case. The same as the seventh trumpet in the book of Revelation which is "the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints" (Rev 11:15-18).

That verse doesn't say when and we know it cannot be immediately, as Rev 20:1-3 tells us that Satan is imprisoned, not immolated at the Return.

What do you mean it doesn't say when? Yes, it does. Matthew 25:31-46 clearly will occur "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

And the post with all the verses showing 1000 to be everything, but what Revelation 20 means is just as convoluted.

That is not the way to interpret scripture!

The way to interpret scripture is to ensure that none of our interpretations of any given scripture passage contradict any other scripture. I believe you fail that test repeatedly. A prime example of this in your case is how you interpret 2 Corinthians 5 in such a way that blatantly contradicts 1 Corinthians 15:50-55.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you have to ask that - after the thirty or so times we've been over it - then you're either unwilling to pay attention (in which case I'm wasting my time here) or you have really serious comprehension issues (in which case I'm wasting my time here.) Seriously - you should understand your opponent's position if you're going to debunk it. Are you seriously saying you don't know what the 1000 years is a symbol of? Just stop everything and explain back to me what I think the 1000 years is - or this conversation is beyond hopeless.

You could explain it to him 1000 more times and he still won't get it. I see this kind of thing often on this forum. People try to refute what other people believe without even understanding what the other person believes. So, they end up arguing with imaginary straw men. What is the point of that? Just a complete waste of time.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The Lake of Fire is not sheol. Sheol is cast itself into the lake of fire.

How is the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels not the lake of fire? Does Revelation 20:10 not portray the devil being cast into the lake of fire? It should be clear that the lake of fire is the place prepared for the devil and his angels.

So, no sheol was prepared before Adam died, for the angels that rebelled. There are no mention of angels at the GWT.

Satan is mentioned in Rev 20:10. But, it doesn't matter if they are mentioned or not. Do you think they will be let off the hook or something? Clearly, they will all end up in the lake of fire that was originally prepared for them.

Also at the GWT, no one is said to be awarded eternal life on earth nor the New Jerusalem.

The book of Revelation was originally written in Greek and there were no chapter breaks in the original text. So, Revelation 20:10 to 21:5 is one narrative about what will happen on the day of judgment. Revelation 21:1-5 describes the award that believers get at that time.

Many claim there is no redemption here, because all resolve to still reject God. God is on the throne as the Lord of the earth. Christ is the Son, not the Lord.

What?! This is another one of your private interpretations. Do you not understand that you must confess Jesus as your Lord to be saved? Is Jesus your Lord?

In Matthew 25 the Son has a different throne. Really trying to avoid that Christ is coming to set up an earthly Kingdom must be tiring after a while. Christ is going to rule on that glorious throne for 1,000 years.

It's not tiring at all because it isn't true. You certainly have done nothing to prove it. You offer nothing but random, often incoherent, opinions and never any solid scriptural support for your opinions.

 

[DavidPT]

The way to interpret scripture is to ensure that none of our interpretations of any given scripture passage contradict any other scripture.

Even though I agree with you here, until I see some of you ensuring your interpretation of the 2nd coming does not contradict Zechariah 14:16-19, as an example, all I see you doing here is---do as I say, and not do as I do, instead. Another example, the sheep and goats judgment. The fact that judgment takes place on earth since that is where Christ would obviously be coming to, you contradict this via your interpretation that the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames at the time, which then makes nonsense of this judgment taking place on earth where Christ is returning to. There is zero in Matthew 25 that gives the impression that the entire planet is engulfed in flames, or that Christ is conducting this judgment somewhere else besides earth. And not only that, there is also zero in Revelation 19 that gives the impression that the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames. You contradict all of that via your hyper literal interpretation of some of 2 Peter 3.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Even though I agree with you here, until I see some of you ensuring your interpretation of the 2nd coming does not contradict Zechariah 14:16-19, as an example, all I see you doing here is---do as I say, and not do as I do, instead.

How does my interpretation contradict that passage? It is the futurist interpretation of that passage that runs into problems because, as has been pointed out so many times before, it implies the reinstating of animal sacrifices since observing the feast of tabernacles involved animal sacrifices.

Another example, the sheep and goats judgment. The fact that judgment takes place on earth since that is where Christ would obviously be coming to,

Wait a minute here. It is your ASSUMPTION that He is coming to the earth. Why do I have to agree with your ASSUMPTION? Nowhere does that passage say that it takes place on earth. I honestly could not care less if I contradict your assumptions. That doesn't mean I'm contradicting scripture.

you contradict this via your interpretation that the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames at the time, which then makes nonsense of this judgment taking place on earth where Christ is returning to.

Why can't it take place on the new earth? You are trying really hard here to find a contradiction in my beliefs, but it's completely based on YOUR interpretations of scripture. I'm not contradicting anything based on MY understanding of scripture. Do you understand what I'm saying?

If I was doing that then I would need to step back and re-evaluate how I'm interpreting things, but there are no contradictions in my own understanding of scripture. I don't interpret any given passage in such a way that contradicts my interpretation of another passage.

You are always trying to force Amils to interpret passages according to YOUR understanding of other passages. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to interpret them based on my own understanding of scripture, overall. Not yours.

There is zero in Matthew 25 that gives the impression that the entire planet is engulfed in flames, or that Christ is conducting this judgment somewhere else besides earth.

The new earth will not be in flames. Everything you're saying here is based on your own interpretation of things, not mine. Again, I don't care if I'm contradicting your interpretation. I would care if I was contradicting myself or contradicting clear scripture, but I don't believe I am.

And not only that, there is also zero in Revelation 19 that gives the impression that the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames. You contradict all of that via your hyper literal interpretation of some of 2 Peter 3.

Revelation 19 contains a lot of figurative language and 2 Peter 3 does not. For whatever reason, you don't make that distinction. Revelation 19:18 does indicate that "all people, free and slave, great and small" will be destroyed at His coming, but you don't take that literally, do you. So much for you taking it all literally.

 

[keras]

Where are they? Heaven. The passage said so.
How are they? Dead - these are the martyred saints.
Why did they come to 'life'? Because they're in heaven - that's what you do until the general resurrection that John hints at in the next verse.

Revelation 20:4-5 does not say those martyrs resurrected are in heaven. They co-reign with Christ on earth, for the next 1000 years.
The raising of all the dead, everyone who has ever lived, does not happen simultaneously with those GT martyrs. It is 1000 years later, as we are clearly told.

How do we know they're still dead even though John says they 'came to life'? Because HELL has no power over them! John's saying "They're dead, but they're not in hell they're in heaven!" Check it out.

Heaven and Hell, why bring them up? Rev 20 is about earthly events.
Jesus brings the souls of the martyrs killed during the Great Tribulation and raises them back to mortal life. They can die again, but their second death won't affect their Eternal life at the GWT Judgment, after the Millennium.

I'm sad that people like you write on these forums and think you know stuff. It's just really sad, and I think I would have more luck predicting what the 2030's will look like based no my understanding of technological change and climate change than any of the unbiblical swill you've dished up. Just stop!

Your predictions of the 2030's would be good for a laugh to read at that time.
Like most Christians today, you refuse to even consider what God has planned for our future. He has given us all the information, but those who prefer to make up their own future, will not understand.

 

[keras]

When else will they be raised. Show me in the following passage where he indicates that any of the dead in Christ will be raised at some other time than at His return:

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Paul prophesies a sequential order; Christ first, then at His Return, those who proved their faith in Him during the 43 month world control of the 'beast'. Revelation 20:4
Then ALL the rest of the dead, from Adam to the end of the 7000 years, will be raised to Judgment. Rev 20:5 and 11-15
It isn't scriptural or logical for every dead Christian to be raised for the Millennium, their reward comes in Eternity.

It's the same trumpet in each case. The same as the seventh trumpet in the book of Revelation which is "the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints" (Rev 11:15-18).

Conflation of the many trumpets, just leads to confusion.
Obviously the Seventh Trumpet is a prophecy of the soon to happen Return of Jesus, when He brings our rewards with Him. Matthew 16:27

What do you mean it doesn't say when? Yes, it does. Matthew 25:31-46 clearly will occur "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him".

You ignored the distinction that I pointed out: When Jesus Returns, He will chain up Satan, Revelation 20:1-3
Matthew 25:46 says Satan and his followers will go into eternal punishment. That is their final fate.

 

[eclipsenow]

What kind of argument is this? Since there is no such thing as soul sleeping or souls dying prior to their resurrection, that means the lost are also alive somewhere while awaiting their resurrection. They might not be alive in heaven but they are alive some place else, in this case, alive in hell, and that they too are souls awaiting a resurrection body. Unless you want to argue, that when the lost die, they either soul sleep or that their soul literally dies, are you then going to argue that the reason they are still conscious somewhere after death, this is because they are in heaven too?

This is getting a bit off topic, but Presbyterians tend to reject 'soul-sleep' and accept that the dead are either in a foretaste of heaven or foretaste of hell - but awaiting their bodies on the resurrection day. Anglicans have mixed thoughts on this, with (anecdotally from those I've spoken with about this) more seeming to believe the Presbyterian version - but a large number starting with the Hebrew understanding of the integrated view of a human being. We're not physical entities 'with' a soul, we ARE a soul - mind, body, and spirit. To be human is to have bodies and brains and hormones and a nervous system. For these Anglicans, the view seems to be that we die and go straight to the last day - and questions about where we are BEFORE the last day are almost meaningless.
To these Sydney Anglicans John would have had a vision of the martyred saints security in Christ - and however it actually works metaphysically - he wrote it in the symbols and idioms of the time.