Heaven Or Hell

[1Tonne]

Note: I am a little rusty on my knowledge of Revelation. I haven't studied this stuff in 30 years. I rather interpret the more clear texts of Scripture. Plus I would rather @Clare73 deal with you and read her comments. She knows her stuff.

So, you believe in Amillennialism, but you also believe in the rapture? How does that work?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

So, you believe in Amillennialism

This Premill stuff is either made in America or advance in America e.i. Darby and reallly not a part of Historic Christianity.

but you also believe in the rapture? How does that work?

If Jerusalem got nuked tomorrow Premill would collapse.

 

[Clare73]

So, you are saying that according to 1 Thes 4:16-17, He comes from heaven to earth and then he comes again at His second coming.

According to the apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16),
there is the one and only second coming, at the resurrection and rapture at the end of time.

But how can He come a second time if He is already here?an

How do you know that your interpretation is of Christ?

It's not an "interpretation," it is the clear teaching of the apostle Paul.

All apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) is of Christ (Lk 10:16).

It contradicts what the bible says.

It contradicts your personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8) and subject to more than one interpretation.

It does not contradict the apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

So, you should stop putting "of Christ".

ALL apostolic teaching (e.g., 1 Th 4:16-17) is of Christ (Lk 10:16).

You must demonstrate that Jesus got it wrong in Lk 10:16.

You put "of Christ" because it makes it sound as though your interpretation has divine authority. So, until you can be 100% sure that you are 100% correct and everyone else is 100% wrong, you should stop putting that.

Please show me how Matthew 24:39-41 talks about the rapture?

How did all God's elect get from "one end of the heavens to the other"? (Mt 24:31)
They got there by the rapture ("catching up," 1 Th 4:17), which occurs at the end of time, along with the second coming and the resurrection of all mankind (1Th 4:16-17).

Also use the scriptures around the verses to keep it in context.

Okay. . .the context of Mt 24 is the second coming at the end of the (church) age (Mt 24:3).
"At that time (Mt 24:30, when the Son of Man appears in the sky), he will gather the elect. . .from one end of the heavens to the other."
How they got from one end of the heavens to the other. . .that would be the rapture.

He gathers them together to descend with him to earth, to assist in the final judgment (1 Co 6:2).

 

[1Tonne]

If Jerusalem got nuked tomorrow Premill would collapse.

The funny thing is that it has not been nuked. So, Premill still stands.

 

[1Tonne]

According to the apostolic teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16),
1 Th 4:16-17 is the one and only second coming, at the resurrection and rapture at the end of time.

OK. I agree that there is only one second coming. But He comes and then there is still 1000 years as according to the apostolic teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16). You can either accept that the bible says that there is 1000 years or you can deny it.
If Jesus comes, but there is still 1000 years before the last day, please tell me how it is the end of creation as we know it?

It's not an "interpretation," it is the clear teaching of the apostle Paul.

Your view is an interpretation.
Your issue is that you think that all your understanding is perfect, and that God has given you divine wisdom. But you will not explain why you take verses out of context. Like Matthew 24:39-41. Your theology is build on verses taken out of context.
Please explain Matthew 24:39-41 by keeping it in context with the verses around.

ALL apostolic teaching (e.g., 1 Th 4:16-17) is of Christ (Lk 10:16).

You must demonstrate that Jesus got it wrong in Lk 10:16.

Did Jesus get the 1000 years wrong? You have it wrong.
If it is the last day when Jesus returns, then please explain why He comes back for 1000 years before the last day?

How did all God's elect get from "one end of the heavens to the other"? (Mt 24:31)
They got there by the rapture ("catching up," 1 Th 4:17), which occurs at the end of time, along with the second coming and the resurrection of all mankind (1Th 4:16-17).

That is a good point. I did not notice that. Well done. You got me. Aaarrrr.
And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Matt 24:31
So, in Matthew 24:31 it speaks about how He gathers God's elect from "one end of the heavens to the other". These people He gathers are not on earth, it says. They are already in heaven. He gathers them from heaven and returns with them. We see there is several times in Revelation where the martyrs are already in heaven.
Here are a few verses that talk about the martyrs in heaven already.
Revelation 6:9-11 (Fifth Seal – Souls of the Martyrs)
Revelation 7:9-17 (The Great Multitude in White Robes)
Revelation 20:4-6 (The First Resurrection – Martyrs Reign with Christ) They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
So, Matthew 24:31 speaks of when the martyrs are gathered from one end of heaven to the other, given life and come and reign for 1000 years with Christ. This verse is not talking about a rapture since these that are gathered are already in heaven. To call this verse a rapture would be to add your context to the verse.

This means the believers are not taken up and they will face tribulation as it says in Matthew 24:40-41.
(Thanks for proving my point that Jesus returns with the martyrs and reigns for 1000 years.)

 

[1Tonne]

Okay. . .the context of Mt 24 is the second coming at the end of the (church) age (Mt 24:3).
"At that time (Mt 24:30, when the Son of Man appears in the sky), he will gather the elect. . .from one end of the heavens to the other."

Oh. Also forgot to show how this fully aligns with 1 Thessalonians 4.
In verse 14 it says, "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead, so also God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus." So, Jesus will bring with Him those He gathers from one end of the heavens to the other. This is the martyrs.
Then verse 16 reiterates that the martyrs are raised to life first, "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first."
Then verse 17 says, those who remain will be raised at the end of time. So, the last day. "Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord." Rev 20:17

 

[Clare73]

OK. I agree that there is only one second coming. But He comes and then there is still 1000 years as according to the apostolic teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16).

Keeping in mind that prophetic riddles are not given clearly (Nu 12:6-8) and are not teaching (didactics), for they can be interpreted in more than one way. The only thing we can say about prophetic riddles is that their interpretation must be in agreement with apostolic teaching in order to be correct.

You can either accept that the bible says that there is 1000 years or you can deny it.
If Jesus comes, but there is still 1000 years before the last day, please tell me how it is the end of creation as we know it?

Your view is an interpretation.

No, my view (following) is stated NT apostolic teaching, with which your interpretation of prophetic riddles (subject to more than one interpretation) does not agree. You must demonstrate my error from apostolic teaching not subject to more than one interpretation in order to be correct, rather than from prophetic riddles which are subject to more than one interpretation:

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (John 6:39),
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16),
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Matthew 24:39-41),
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Matthew 25:31-33).

Your issue is that you think that all your understanding is perfect

Actually, my issue is that I have NT apostolic teaching, rather than personal interpretation of prophetic riddles, for my understanding.

and that God has given you divine wisdom.

God has given me his clearly-spoken didactical word (four statements above) which is the rule of interpretation for all his prophetic word not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8).

But you will not explain why you take verses out of context. Like Matthew 24:39-41. Your theology is build on verses taken out of context.
Please explain Matthew 24:39-41 by keeping it in context with the verses around.

The context of Mt 24:39-41 is the signs of the end of the age (Mt 24:3),
where in vv. 39-41, Jesus is presenting the unknowability of the day or hour of the end of the age: just as at the flood the people knew nothing until the flood came and took them away, so it will be at the end of the age, people will know nothing until it happens.

Did Jesus get the 1000 years wrong?

No, you got your understanding of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8) wrong, because your understanding is not in agreement with the apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16) which is spoken clearly.

You have it wrong.
If it is the last day when Jesus returns, then please explain why He comes back for 1000 years before the last day?

That "1,000 years" is based on your personal interpretation of prophetic riddles, not on
apostolic authoritative teaching (1 Th 4:16) of Christ (Lk 10:16), in the following:

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (John 6:39),
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16),
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Matthew 24:39-41),
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Matthew 25:31-33).

So the resurrection, rapture, second coming and final judgment all occur in the last day, at the end of time.

Nothing more occurs after the second coming and final judgment in the last day.

That is a good point. I did not notice that. Well done. You got me. Aaarrrr.

Take a deep breath. . .it's really not that bad.

And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Matt 24:31
So, in Matthew 24:31 it speaks about how He gathers God's elect from "one end of the heavens to the other". These people He gathers are not on earth, it says. They are already in heaven.

"The heavens" refers to the skies. "Heaven" is in heaven.

He gathers them from heaven and returns with them

He gathers them from the heavens; i.e., the skies.

Yes, at the second coming at the end of time,
all mankind will be resurrected,
the saints will be caught up (harpazo) to meet the Lord in the air
(will then be gathered from "one end of the heavens to the other" by the angels, Mt 24:31)
to return with him to earth (parousia)
to assist Christ in the judgment of mankind (1 Co 6:2).

All interpretation of prophetic riddles (Nu 12:6-8) must in agreement with the teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16) to be correct.

 

[Clare73]

Oh. Also forgot to show how this fully aligns with 1 Thessalonians 4.
In verse 14 it says, "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead, so also God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus." So, Jesus will bring with Him those He gathers from one end of the heavens to the other. This is the martyrs.

. . .according to your personal interpretation of prophetic riddles, but nowhere stated by Christ or the apostles in the NT didactics.

Then verse 16 reiterates that the martyrs are raised to life first, "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first."

1) The dead in Christ are nowhere in the NT limited to the martyrs.

2) Christ said he would be returning soon (Rev 22:7, 12):

the biggest point regarding context in understanding the second coming is that the NT Christians, including Paul, thought that Christ would be returning in their lifetime.
So when some of them died before Christ's return, they were grieving because they thought those deceased saints would thereby miss the rapture.
Paul is writing to tell them that those deceased saints will not miss the rapture (1 Th 4:14-15), because the dead in Christ will rise first (resurrection will be before the rapture, 1 Th 4:16-17), and the resurrected saints will be raptured with those still living at the time, that the deceased saints will be resurrected and will not miss the rapture.
So the "dead in Christ" does not refer to martyrs. It refers to all those in Christ who had died since his ascension, whom the early church thought would, therefore, miss the rapture, which they thought would occur in their lifetime ("soon").

Nowhere in NT didactics, are the saints limited to martyrs.

Then verse 17 says, those who remain will be raised at the end of time.

Those who remain (who are still alive on earth when Christ returns, who have not yet been raptured) will be raptured with the risen saints.

So, the last day. "Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord." Rev 20:17

Those who are alive ("who remain" on earth until the second coming) will be caught up with the resurrected saints to meet the Lord in the air.

 

[1Tonne]

Keeping in mind that prophetic riddles are not given clearly (Nu 12:6-8) and are not teaching (didactics), for they can be interpreted in more than one way.

One moment you are saying that your interpretation of the text is the correct way to interpret, then next moment you are saying that there are many ways to interpret. WOW. This is double mindedness.

The only thing we can say about prophetic riddles is that their interpretation must be in agreement with apostolic teaching in order to be correct.

Where do the apostles explicitly teach that the 1,000-year reign of Christ happens on the last day?
You insist that prophetic interpretations must align with apostolic teaching, then you must demonstrate that your view—that the millennium is on the last day—is actually taught by the apostles?

Problems with a "Millennium on the Last Day" View
-Revelation 20 Clearly Distinguishes the 1,000 Years from the Last Day

• Revelation 20:4-6 states that the martyrs come to life and reign with Christ for 1,000 years before the final judgment (Rev. 20:11-15).
• If the 1,000 years happens on the "last day," why is Satan released for a final deception after the 1,000 years (Rev. 20:7-10)?
• The sequence in Revelation 20 contradicts the idea that the millennium and the last day are the same event.

-John 6 and the "Last Day" Resurrection

• John 6:39-40, 44, and 54 mention that believers will be raised on the "last day."
• However, Revelation 20:4-6 describes a first resurrection of the martyrs, which happens before the general resurrection.
• If the first resurrection is just spiritual (as amillennials claim), then why does it explicitly say that these people "came to life" (Greek: ἔζησαν, "they lived")? The same Greek verb is used in verse 5 to describe the rest of the dead coming to life at the Great White Throne Judgment.

-Where do the apostles explicitly teach that the millennium is on the last day?
-How do they reconcile Revelation 20's sequence with their view?

Your argument about "prophetic riddles" sounds like an excuse to ignore Revelation 20’s plain meaning. If you hold to apostolic teaching, you need to explain how your view actually fits what the apostles wrote—not just assert it.

my view (following) is stated NT apostolic teaching, with which your interpretation of prophetic riddles (subject to more than one interpretation) does not agree. You must demonstrate my error from apostolic teaching not subject to more than one interpretation in order to be correct, rather than from prophetic riddles which are subject to more than one interpretation

You are trying to dismiss Revelation 20 as a "prophetic riddle" while elevating your own interpretation as "stated NT apostolic teaching." This is a rhetorical move to avoid engaging with the actual text of Revelation 20.

1. Revelation 20 is Apostolic Teaching

• The book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John, and the early church recognized it as apostolic Scripture.
• If you claim to follow "NT apostolic teaching," then you must account for why you ignore or reinterpret an explicitly apostolic passage.

Is Revelation 20 apostolic teaching? If so, why are you dismissing it as a ‘prophetic riddle’ rather than engaging with what it actually says?”

2. You Must Prove Your Own View from Unambiguous Apostolic Teaching

• You are shifting the burden of proof onto me, but your position—that the 1,000-year reign happens on the last day—is nowhere explicitly taught by the apostles.
• If you claim that the apostles teach this clearly, show me a passage where the apostles explicitly say the millennium occurs on the last day." -You will likely cite passages about the general resurrection (e.g., John 6:39-40, 1 Cor. 15:23-24), but these do not mention the millennium.

If the millennium is the last day, how can Satan be released after it? That makes no sense.

The real question: Does any apostolic writing say that the 1,000 years and the last day are the same event? If not, your claim is just an assumption. You need to tie the 1000 years with the words of "last day" and keep it in context.

If you cannot provide passages to prove the 1000 years is the last day, then you are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of—relying on interpretation rather than clear apostolic teaching.

"The heavens" refers to the skies. "Heaven" is in heaven.

I have never seen people floating in the sky. Who is in the sky that you know of?
Matthew 24:17 does not mention anything about raising people from the earth. Please show me where it says that.
Are you simply going to put your own interpretation on it again? So, it says one thing but because it does not suit your theology, you will give it another meaning? Sadly, this shows how consistent you are in your theology. I keep scripture in context without twisting the context.

1) The dead in Christ are nowhere in the NT limited to the martyrs.

1. If "the dead in Christ" in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 includes all believers, how do you reconcile that with Revelation 20:4-6, which limits the first resurrection to martyrs?
2. If all believers are raised at Christ’s return, who are "the rest of the dead" in Revelation 20:5, who do not come to life until after the millennium?
3. If Revelation 20 explicitly states that the first resurrection is only for the martyrs, where is your biblical evidence that all believers participate in it?

the biggest point regarding context in understanding the second coming is that the NT Christians, including Paul, thought that Christ would be returning in their lifetime.
So when some of them died before Christ's return, they were grieving because they thought those deceased saints would thereby miss the rapture.
Paul is writing to tell them that those deceased saints will not miss the rapture (1 Th 4:14-15), because the dead in Christ will rise first (resurrection will be before the rapture, 1 Th 4:16-17), and the resurrected saints will be raptured with those still living at the time, that the deceased saints will be resurrected and will not miss the rapture.
So the "dead in Christ" does not refer to martyrs. It refers to all those in Christ who had died since his ascension, whom the early church thought would, therefore, miss the rapture, which they thought would occur in their lifetime ("soon").

You are making two key arguments:
1. Paul and the early Christians expected Christ’s return in their lifetime.
2. The "dead in Christ" in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 must refer to all believers who had died, not just martyrs.

I’ll address both points.

1. Did the Early Christians Expect Christ’s Return in Their Lifetime?
It is true that many early Christians anticipated Jesus’ return soon, but Paul never taught that it was guaranteed to happen in their lifetime. Instead, he consistently warned that it could take time:
-2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 – Paul warns that the Day of the Lord will not come until the rebellion happens and the man of sin is revealed.
-Matthew 24:14 – Jesus says the gospel must be preached to all nations before the end comes, implying a long process.
-Matthew 25:5 – In the Parable of the Ten Virgins, the bridegroom is delayed, showing that Jesus prepared His disciples for the possibility of waiting.

The real issue is whether 1 Thessalonians 4:16 refers to all believers who died, or if Revelation 20:4-6 limits this first resurrection to martyrs.

2. Does "The Dead in Christ" Always Refer to All Dead Believers?
You assume "the dead in Christ" in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 must refer to all Christians who have died. But here’s why that assumption is faulty:
-The phrase "dead in Christ" is not explicitly defined in 1 Thessalonians 4.
-Revelation 20:4-6 gives the clearest explanation of the first resurrection, and it explicitly limits it to martyrs.
-If 1 Thessalonians 4:16 includes all believers, how do you explain the "rest of the dead" in Revelation 20:5 who do not rise until after the 1,000 years?

Questions
1. If "the dead in Christ" in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 includes all believers, how do you explain Revelation 20:4-6, which says only the martyrs reign?
2. If all believers are raised at Christ’s return, who are "the rest of the dead" in Revelation 20:5?
3. Why does Revelation 20 limit the first resurrection to martyrs if it actually includes all believers?

Your argument assumes that early Christian expectations must dictate doctrine, but Revelation 20 provides the clearest explanation of the first resurrection—and it explicitly applies only to the martyrs.

Those who remain (who are still alive on earth when Christ returns, who have not yet been raptured) will be raptured with the risen saints.

So, you are saying that in Revelation 20:4-6 that all believers are raised on the last day, and they reign for 1000 years and then Satan is set free to deceive the nations.
So, if there is a 1000 year reign, this obviously is not the last day.
My eyes are rolling. WOW. This is amazing that you cannot see your inconsistencies.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

While the principle Scriptura interpretatur Scriptura is valid

Typical of Premill reasoning....the principle is good unless it conflicts with my personal beliefs.

I live by this principle and therefore I am disciplined by Scripture....

No discipline in the Premill camp....just willy nilly interpreting Scripture. Be prophetic about the latest political developments in Israel seems to be the Premill motto. And the Premill prophetic interpretation of Scripture change day to day depending upon the latest political events. A most bizarre way of interpreting Scripture....NO DISCIPLINE. And certianly no set rules for interpreting Scripture...just willy nilly human interpretation.

How anyone could believe in Premill without concrete rules of the interpretation of scripture set in stone ahead of time is beyond belief.

 

[1Tonne]

Typical of Premill reasoning....the principle is good unless it conflicts with my personal beliefs.

I live by this principle and therefore I am disciplined by Scripture....

No discipline in the Premill camp....just willy nilly interpreting Scripture. Be prophetic about the latest political developments in Israel seems to be the Premill motto. And the Premill prophetic interpretation of Scripture change day to day depending upon the latest political events. A most bizarre way of interpreting Scripture....NO DISCIPLINE. And certianly no set rules for interpreting Scripture...just willy nilly human interpretation.

How anyone could believe in Premill without concrete rules of the interpretation of scripture set in stone ahead of time is beyond belief.

I appreciate the discussion, but rather than dismissing premillennialism with broad accusations, I think it’s more helpful to engage with Scripture directly. My belief in a literal 1,000-year reign is based on a straightforward reading of Revelation 20, alongside other passages that point to a future reign of Christ on earth (Daniel 7, Zechariah 14, Isaiah 2, etc.).

You claim that premillennialists have ‘no discipline’ in interpretation, but I would argue that a consistent, literal-historical approach—taking texts at face value unless context demands otherwise—is a disciplined method. Simply saying the 1,000 years must be figurative because other elements in Revelation are symbolic does not prove the case.

If you believe a literal millennium contradicts Scripture, I’d be happy to discuss that. But if the concern is just that there’s no second passage explicitly stating ‘1,000 years,’ I’d ask—where else does Scripture contradict Revelation 20? If there is no contradiction, then why not take it as written?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I’d ask—where else does Scripture contradict Revelation 20?

No parallel passage. Duh. From what I can understand about Premill's is they do believe Scripture interprets Scripture EXCEPT when it comes to Rev. 20. Why?

Shouldn't Premills be honest and say we believe Scripture interprets Scripture with the one EXCEPTION Revelation 20. Just say it and proclaim the EXCEPTION RULE. Just say it publically...for all to know Premill's rules for interpreting Scripture. JUST SAY IT!

 

[1Tonne]

No parallel passage. Duh. From what I can understand about Premill's is they do believe Scripture interprets Scripture EXCEPT when it comes to Rev. 20. Why?

Shouldn't Premills be honest and say we believe Scripture interprets Scripture with the one EXCEPTION Revelation 20. Just say it and proclaim the EXCEPTION RULE. Just say it publically...for all to know Premill's rules for interpreting Scripture. JUST SAY IT!

I have no problem affirming that Scripture interprets Scripture—including Revelation 20. The question is whether there is any passage that contradicts a literal 1,000-year reign. If there isn’t, then rejecting it simply because there’s no ‘parallel passage’ is not a valid reason.

Many doctrines are built on clear singular passages—like the 144,000 in Revelation 7 & 14, the mark of the beast in Revelation 13, and even elements of the new heavens and new earth. Unless you can show me a passage that contradicts Revelation 20, the burden isn’t on me to explain why I take it literally, but on you to prove why I shouldn’t.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

It's one or the other.

Have you heard this before?
Growing up, I have heard this, multiple times.... "The good go the heaven. The bad go to hell. One place (heaven) is rejoicing and bliss. The other place (Hell), is torment and anguish... eternally."

Then in my early 20s, I came to learn that this is not true at all. Thanks be to God.
All good people do not go to heaven, and bad people do not experience literal torment and anguish eternally.

What is interesting, is that I learned this truth from the Bible... the same book persons claim teaches the opposite.
What should you believe - (A) All good people go do heaven, and all bad people go to hell. Or (B) All good people do not go to heaven, and both bad and good people go to "hell"?

What the Bible says, is that B is correct, and A is not true.
This is very important to know, because it opens the door for us to know the truth, as taught in the Bible, and reveals the truth about our loved ones that have died, and their future, and ours.

Let's look at it together.
Let's start by asking three questions ...

1. Was King David a good man?
2. When King David died, did he go to heaven?
3. Where is King David now?

It is a bit of both really, salvation although by faith is accompanied by right living. This does not mean a sinner who repents can not be saved, but repentance is needful.

Rom 2:6-8 who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,​

Joh 14:15-17 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth​

Joh 3:19-21 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."​

1. Was King David a good man?

David was a man who spent his time in God's presence, singing and writing songs. He also had a strong faith that saw Goliath defeated when everyone else had fear. But David, like all people, fell into a sin. But he was remorseful and repented before God.

1. When King David died, did he go to heaven?

Yes, David went to heaven.

1. Where is King David now?

He is in heaven.

 

[1Tonne]

It is a bit of both really, salvation although by faith is accompanied by right living. This does not mean a sinner who repents can not be saved, but repentance is needful.

Rom 2:6-8 who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,​

Joh 14:15-17 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth​

Joh 3:19-21 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."​

1. Was King David a good man?

David was a man who spent his time in God's presence, singing and writing songs. He also had a strong faith that saw Goliath defeated when everyone else had fear. But David, like all people, fell into a sin. But he was remorseful and repented before God.

1. When King David died, did he go to heaven?

Yes, David went to heaven.

1. Where is King David now?

He is in heaven.

Here is an apologetic that I have copied and kept that may go towards your discussion:

What about those who never heard about Christ? Are they all going to hell?
We also know that there are going to be many people in heaven who never heard about Jesus. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Rahab the gentile prostitute. They were hundreds of years before him, but in humility, they put their faith in God. Now, Moses was a murderer and Abraham lied about his wife saying that she was his sister. They were not good. But they put their faith in God and God accounted it to them as righteousness. They're going to be in heaven because God loves them and applies the death of his son to their life. So, if people have never heard of Jesus but they put their faith in God the Creator and honour Him, God will be fair.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

If there isn’t, then rejecting it simply because there’s no ‘parallel passage’ is not a valid reason.

Sure it is. Just not valid to you.

I reject Mormon usages of I Cor. 15:29 concerning baptism of the dead. And Mormonism is small potatoes compared to number of Premills adhering to their interpretation of Rev. 20..... a one-off verse.

No one knows exactly what Paul is speaking about in I Cor. 15:29 as it has no parallel text....and I do not and would never build an entire theology around a one-off passage of Scripture such as I Cor. 15:29.

Scripture gives us its own principles for interpreting itself. Two or more witnesses establishes valid testimony.

One witness just doesn't cut it. A parallel passage of Scripture is not a high bar to cross.

 

[1Tonne]

Sure it is. Just not valid to you.

I reject Mormon usages of I Cor. 15:29 concerning baptism of the dead. And Mormonism is small potatoes compared to number of Premills adhering to their interpretation of Rev. 20..... a one-off verse.

No one knows exactly what Paul is speaking about in I Cor. 15:29 as it has no parallel text....and I do not and would never build an entire theology around a one-off passage of Scripture such as I Cor. 15:29.

Scripture gives us its own principles for interpreting itself. Two or more witnesses establishes valid testimony.

One witness just doesn't cut it. A parallel passage of Scripture is not a high bar to cross.

You keep insisting that a doctrine must have a ‘parallel passage’ to be valid, yet you haven’t provided any biblical support for that rule—only your own assertion. The Bible never says that every teaching must appear twice to be believed. If that were the case, we’d have to reject many things found in Scripture that don’t have direct parallel passages.

Revelation 20 isn’t a ‘one-off verse’; it’s a detailed passage that aligns with multiple Old Testament prophecies about a future reign of the Messiah (Daniel 7, Zechariah 14, Isaiah 2). You still haven’t shown where Scripture contradicts a literal 1,000-year reign.

If your standard is ‘two or more witnesses,’ then where are the two witnesses that explicitly say Revelation 20 is not literal? If there are none, why not just take it as written?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Here is an apologetic that I have copied and kept that may go towards your discussion:

What about those who never heard about Christ? Are they all going to hell?
We also know that there are going to be many people in heaven who never heard about Jesus. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Rahab the gentile prostitute. They were hundreds of years before him, but in humility, they put their faith in God. Now, Moses was a murderer and Abraham lied about his wife saying that she was his sister. They were not good. But they put their faith in God and God accounted it to them as righteousness. They're going to be in heaven because God loves them and applies the death of his son to their life. So, if people have never heard of Jesus but they put their faith in God the Creator and honour Him, God will be fair.

I agree with what you have written. The main part of salvation is God's persistent love. As for the sins of the patriarchs, I would say they were more human weakness, not persistent crimes against heaven. The point I make with my post is that persistent unrighteousness should not characterize a citizen of heaven. Judas was a persistent unrepentant thief, who saw Jesus close up and was sent to hell. We all have sinned, some of us gravely, but God' grace has seen us through. Even when Jesus was beaten, and mocked He still said "Father forgive them". Those who see God's grace and despise it so they can go on sinning, and totally and completely refuse God's drawing, will be in hell.

1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

hen where are the two witnesses that explicitly say Revelation 20 is not literal?

When any person uses the term "explicitly" they are demanding precision in Bible speak, where such precision does not exist. They are demanding a level personal belief and personal interpretation which is impossible to overcome from an exegetical standpoint. Impossible.

For example, where does the Bible EXPLICITLY state an eight year old boy can not be a pastor? It doesn't. Does this mean an eight year old boy can be a pastor? Of course not. An eight year old boy is disqualified through Paul's qualification criteria of a pastor in Timothy and Titus.

Or where does the Bible explicitly condemn abortion? It doesn't. But it is condemned under the Fifth Commandment....You shall not murder.

Anytime a person uses the term "explicitly" for the interpretation of Scripture, it demonstrates an elemental ability in handling the text of Scripture.

I flat out reject the usage of the term "explicitly" as a hermenuetical principle for interpreting Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

One moment you are saying that your interpretation of the text is the correct way to interpret, then next moment you are saying that there are many ways to interpret. WOW. This is double mindedness.

Actually, I am saying
1) there is more than one way to interpret prophecy (Nu 12:6-8), and
all interpretation of prophecy must be in agreement with authoritative apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16) if it is to be correct.

2) Then I am showing that your interpretation of prophecy is not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16), and am presenting the apostolic teaching to correct it.

Where do the apostles explicitly teach that the 1,000-year reign of Christ happens on the last day?
You insist that prophetic interpretations must align with apostolic teaching, then you must demonstrate that your view—that the millennium is on the last day—is actually taught by the apostles?

It's not about the millennium being on the last day, it's about there being no millennium presented in apostolic teaching.
The "millennium" is a construct of man's personal interpretation of prophetic riddles (not spoken clearly, which riddles are subject to more than one interpretation) and which personal interpretation is in disagreement with authoritative NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17) of Christ (Lk 10:16).

Problems with a "Millennium on the Last Day" View
-Revelation 20 Clearly Distinguishes the 1,000 Years from the Last Day

• Revelation 20:4-6 states that the martyrs come to life and reign with Christ for 1,000 years before the final judgment (Rev. 20:11-15).
• If the 1,000 years happens on the "last day," why is Satan released for a final deception after the 1,000 years (Rev. 20:7-10)?
• The sequence in Revelation 20 contradicts the idea that the millennium and the last day are the same event.

-John 6 and the "Last Day" Resurrection

• John 6:39-40, 44, and 54 mention that believers will be raised on the "last day."
• However, Revelation 20:4-6 describes a first resurrection of the martyrs, which happens before the general resurrection.
• If the first resurrection is just spiritual (as amillennials claim), then why does it explicitly say that these people "came to life" (Greek: ἔζησαν, "they lived")? The same Greek verb is used in verse 5 to describe the rest of the dead coming to life at the Great White Throne Judgment.

-Where do the apostles explicitly teach that the millennium is on the last day?
-How do they reconcile Revelation 20's sequence with their view?

Your argument about "prophetic riddles" sounds like an excuse to ignore Revelation 20’s plain meaning. If you hold to apostolic teaching, you need to explain how your view actually fits what the apostles wrote—not just assert it.

You are trying to dismiss Revelation 20 as a "prophetic riddle" while elevating your own interpretation as "stated NT apostolic teaching." This is a rhetorical move to avoid engaging with the actual text of Revelation 20.

One more time. . .

Revelation is prophecy.
God told Miriam that he gives prophecy in riddles (dark sayings), not clearly (Nu 12:6-8), to all but Moses.
It is God who states that prophecy is riddle (not clear).
If riddles are interpreted literally, then they are not riddles, contrary to God's statement regarding prophecy.

1. Revelation 20 is Apostolic Teaching

Not according to what God told Miriam.
Revelation is prophecy, which God said is given in riddles (Nu 12:6-8), which riddles are not teaching.

The book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John, and the early church recognized it as apostolic Scripture.
If you claim to follow "NT apostolic teaching," then you must account for why you ignore or reinterpret an explicitly apostolic passage.
Is Revelation 20 apostolic teaching?

No, Revelation is prophecy and prophecy is not teaching, it is riddles (Nu 12:6-8).

If so, why are you dismissing it as a ‘prophetic riddle’ rather than engaging with what it actually says?”

2. You Must Prove Your Own View from Unambiguous Apostolic Teaching

• You are shifting the burden of proof onto me,

Yes, because your view is your personal interpretation of prophetic riddles.
My view is
the word of God regarding prophecy as riddle (Nu 12:6-8),
the authoritative NT apostolic teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16), which nowhere presents a "millennium," and
authoritative (Lk 10:16) NT apostolic teaching governs all interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly.

but your position—that the 1,000-year reign happens on the last day—is nowhere explicitly taught by the apostles.

• If you claim that the apostles teach this clearly, show me a passage where the apostles explicitly say the millennium occurs on the last day." -You will likely cite passages about the general resurrection (e.g., John 6:39-40, 1 Cor. 15:23-24), but these do not mention the millennium.

If the millennium is the last day, how can Satan be released after it? That makes no sense.

The real question: Does any apostolic writing say that the 1,000 years and the last day are the same event? If not, your claim is just an assumption. You need to tie the 1000 years with the words of "last day" and keep it in context.

If you cannot provide passages to prove the 1000 years is the last day, then you are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of—relying on interpretation rather than clear apostolic teaching.

I have never seen people floating in the sky. Who is in the sky that you know of?
Matthew 24:17 does not mention anything about raising people from the earth. Please show me where it says that.
Are you simply going to put your own interpretation on it again? So, it says one thing but because it does not suit your theology, you will give it another meaning? Sadly, this shows how consistent you are in your theology. I keep scripture in context without twisting the context.

1. If "the dead in Christ" in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 includes all believers, how do you reconcile that with Revelation 20:4-6, which limits the first resurrection to martyrs?
2. If all believers are raised at Christ’s return, who are "the rest of the dead" in Revelation 20:5, who do not come to life until after the millennium?
3. If Revelation 20 explicitly states that the first resurrection is only for the martyrs, where is your biblical evidence that all believers participate in it?

You are making two key arguments:
1. Paul and the early Christians expected Christ’s return in their lifetime.
2. The "dead in Christ" in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 must refer to all believers who had died, not just martyrs.

I’ll address both points.

1. Did the Early Christians Expect Christ’s Return in Their Lifetime?
It is true that many early Christians anticipated Jesus’ return soon, but Paul never taught that it was guaranteed to happen in their lifetime.Instead, he consistently warned that it could take time:
-2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 – Paul warns that the Day of the Lord will not come until the rebellion happens and the man of sin is revealed.
-Matthew 24:14 – Jesus says the gospel must be preached to all nations before the end comes, implying a long process.
-Matthew 25:5 – In the Parable of the Ten Virgins, the bridegroom is delayed, showing that Jesus prepared His disciples for the possibility of waiting.

The real issue is whether 1 Thessalonians 4:16 refers to all believers who died, or if Revelation 20:4-6 limits this first resurrection to martyrs.

However, the real issue is treating prophecy (Rev 20:4-6) as if it were didactics/teaching.