Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

iamlamad · Oct 19, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
I have said so many times, right? I haven't changed my mind on that. So, yes, you're right.

Yes, I'm tracking with you so far, but I'm sure you are going to go off the rails at some point here since I know where you're heading with this.

Sure. I can sense you getting to your main point any time now.

You don't have to say please. The answer is obviously no. Only Christ's blood of the new covenant can permanently remove the sins of any person who has ever lived. He died for the sins of all people throughout history.

Yes. So, what is your point? With all that in mind why would animal sacrifices be necessary in the future? Remember...

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

The OT animal sacrifices were ONLY meant to be a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice. So, they served their purpose. For what possible reason would they be reinstituted to atone for people's sins even in the sense that they did in OT times? Please do not say they would be done in remembrance of Christ when the prophecy says no such thing and instead says they would be for the atoning of sins.

Why revert back to the ways of the inferior old covenant? That would imply that the new covenant of Christ's shed blood will somehow not be sufficient at that point. What a terrible thought!

If they were not REAL and did not remove sin the first time, they why could they not be reinstated again as NOT REAL, but pointing BACK in time to what Jesus did - as a reminder?

It is all guessing because it is not written. I promise, I am done with this subject!

iamlamad · Oct 19, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
Jesus very specifically said that one cannot see and enter the kingdom of God without being born again. And he made it clear that the only way to obtain eternal life was by believing in Him (John 3:16). He made no mention of that not being the case at some point in the future. So, the onus is on you to show where scripture teaches that what Jesus taught in John 3 will no longer be true at some point in the future. Can you do that?

Notice the "everlasting gospel" for the days of great tribulation:
Rev. 14:
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Now compare with the gospel that we will be judged by:

1 Cor. 15:
1... I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

This is the gospel Paul preached.

Why then, if angels are teaching a very important message, "the everlasting gospel" there is no mention of the Son at all? Not Him, not His death for our sins, not His resurrection: NOTHING about the Son?

There is simply NO RESEMBLANCE to Paul's gospel.

one cannot see and enter the kingdom of God without being born again.

I have pondered this and asked God, but so far He has not answered. It would seem every mention of "the kingdom of God" is on earth. That would make sense, because the bible also mentions the kingdom of heaven.

If there is a 1000 year reign, and I certainly believe their will be, it would seem by what Jesus said that people would have to be born again to enter.

Therefore, I am at a loss to know why the messages of the angels is as we read.

By the way, I have not said people will NOT be born again. It just seems possible they may not. But according to your verse, they must. Can YOU tell me why Jesus was not mentioned in those angelic messages?

iamlamad · Oct 19, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
It's called a new earth in verse 13, not verse 7 (the verse I quoted in that post that you responded to here). In verse 7 it is referred to as the present earth.

However, there is finally something I agree with you about. I agree that the new earth will not be an entirely new earth but rather will be this earth renewed to perfection at which point "there will be no more death" and will only be a place "where righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:13).

AHHHHH! That cannot possibly be! Oh, I guess if one makes everything symbolic, anything is possible.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Verse 11: If there was no place found - if GOD could not find them, being all knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent, then they ceased to exist. My guess is, God just let go of the atoms and they went PUFF - into nothing.

Verse 1: we have a confirming scripture: in this verse it tells us they had passed away.

iamlamad · Oct 19, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
Is Eph 2:1-6 not scripture? Now I'm convinced that you're just messing with me by asking me questions that I've already answered. You can't fool me anymore with this game you're playing!

By YOUR definition. I don't interpret scripture by your definitions. Resurrection means to go from death to life which is what happens when we go from being dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ.

Again, I showed you Eph 2:1-6. Do you not think that passage is about being born again? It says when we are saved/born again God raises us up with Christ in the heavenly realms (in a spiritual sense). How can God spiritually RAISING US UP not be a resurrection?

To go from DEAD in sins to LIFE in Christ doesn't fit the concept of a resurrection? Wow. This is the one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever been part of. If we can use your kind of logic (the word resurrection is there, so it can't be a resurrection) then we can say that Paul does not teach about a rapture since he never uses that word. Can you see how ridiculous that logic is?

I didn't know Webster's could dictate to us how we should understand scripture. Can you show me the scripture that says we should rely on Webster's for understanding?

Again (and hopefully for the last time), using this kind of logic couldn't we say that using the word "rapture" changes the biblical meaning since the word isn't used in scripture? I'm not buying your line of reasoning here at all. Going from being dead in sins to alive in Christ is a resurrection because all resurrection means is to go from death to life (and it doesn't have to only mean bodily).

Let's be honest. We don't know each other personally at all. Apart from discussion on serious topics like this, I like to joke around and laugh a lot. But, I don't think it would be appropriate to joke around a lot when we're discussing God's Holy Word. The last thing I want to do is make light of holy scripture. But, it's nice to throw a joke in once in awhile to remind you that I'm human and not some bot that auto-responds to your posts.

Resurrection means to go from death to life which is what happens when we go from being dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ.

To go from DEAD in sins to LIFE in Christ doesn't fit the concept of a resurrection? Wow. This is the one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever been part of.

All I am asking for is just ONE (1) verse of scripture where "Resurrection" is used in this way. I've never found even one. In dictionaries the primary use is of physical raising. However, perhaps you can skate by using a secondary dictionary definition! ;-) However, I thought you always had scripture back up for your beliefs! So just find ONE verse where resurrection is used spiritually.

Now I'm convinced that you're just messing with me by asking me questions that I've already answered. You don't know how good or how bad my memory is! ^_^

By the way, I was born in 1946. Wow! That seems so long ago!

Paul does not teach about a rapture since he never uses that word. Can you see how ridiculous that logic is?

Again, all I ask is you show ONE scripture where the bible uses "resurrection" in the realm of the spirit. Anyway, Paul DID if you read Latin!

I didn't know Webster's could dictate to us how we should understand scripture.
I did not think you would use a scriptural word in a different way that scripture itself uses it. If you stop and think; some posts on this thread would be much clearer if people used the dictionary more often.

I'm not buying your line of reasoning here at all. I don't buy yours either on almost every subject we have covered - so we are at a stalemate. Just one verse does not seem like too much to ask.

I agree that being funny is much better than being angry!

Dkh587 · Oct 19, 2020

iamlamad said:
Sorry, but Paul did not use that word.

What does resurrection mean?

BABerean2 · Oct 19, 2020

iamlamad said:
Notice the "everlasting gospel" for the days of great tribulation:
Rev. 14:
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Now compare with the gospel that we will be judged by:

1 Cor. 15:
1... I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

This is the gospel Paul preached.

Why then, if angels are teaching a very important message, "the everlasting gospel" there is no mention of the Son at all? Not Him, not His death for our sins, not His resurrection: NOTHING about the Son?

There is simply NO RESEMBLANCE to Paul's gospel.

one cannot see and enter the kingdom of God without being born again.

I have pondered this and asked God, but so far He has not answered. It would seem every mention of "the kingdom of God" is on earth. That would make sense, because the bible also mentions the kingdom of heaven.

If there is a 1000 year reign, and I certainly believe their will be, it would seem by what Jesus said that people would have to be born again to enter.

Therefore, I am at a loss to know why the messages of the angels is as we read.

By the way, I have not said people will NOT be born again. It just seems possible they may not. But according to your verse, they must. Can YOU tell me why Jesus was not mentioned in those angelic messages?

Why did you leave out the first five verses of Revelation 14?

Rev 14:1 Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.
Rev 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps.
Rev 14:3 They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth.
Rev 14:4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.
Rev 14:5 And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Are you trying to show another Gospel that only exists if you ignore the verses above?
Is that what is takes to make the Two Peoples of God doctrine work?

.

Timtofly · Oct 19, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
It's called a new earth in verse 13, not verse 7 (the verse I quoted in that post that you responded to here). In verse 7 it is referred to as the present earth.

However, there is finally something I agree with you about. I agree that the new earth will not be an entirely new earth but rather will be this earth renewed to perfection at which point "there will be no more death" and will only be a place "where righteousness dwells" (2 Peter 3:13).

"but we, following along with his promise, wait for new heavens and a new earth,"

This may imply what you want, but even those in the next Millennium will still wait.

No, the NHNE will be totally different.

Now if you accept this reality is a fixed 3 dimensional cube, and there is not a universe, we may have a compromise.

All the cubes in God's "house" may just be 3 dimensional cubes. However I am holding out for 5 dimensional or 10 dimensional rooms.

Freedm · Oct 19, 2020

imsaneru said:
I could be wrong but I have always taken it to be literal. Kinda like the 7 day week , 6 days work 7th day rest.
Somewhere Jesus had said , "They shall not enter my rest" , Which I have always assumed is the one thousand years.

I used to think that too. Seems logical, until you run into the rest of scripture.

Timtofly · Oct 19, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
Why revert back to the ways of the inferior old covenant? That would imply that the new covenant of Christ's shed blood will somehow not be sufficient at that point. What a terrible thought!

Why put the Lord's Day back to the inferior sin nature flesh that we currently have to deal with? You are correct in being free from the OT econony. God states that there is one more Lord's Day set aside for Christ to reign on this physical world free from Satan and Adam's sinful flesh passed on from generation to generation. We can not even comprehend it like the OT believers could not comprehend the church. Many Jews still cannot comprehend it after 1990 years.

God is not even asking you to accept the Lord's Day, cause the church has nothing to do with the Lord's Day one iota, like the OT believers did not have to accept the way God worked by grace through the church.

Timtofly · Oct 19, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
David, I have explained my understanding of Rev 20 to you MANY times including several times recently. And you still don't know how I interpret it? Why? Anyway, I'll do it one more time.

I believe that the first resurrection is Christ's resurrection specifically.

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

I believe we spiritually have part in His resurrection when we're born again and go from being dead in our sins to spiritually alive in Christ (see Eph 2:1-6). Our souls and spirits go to be with Him in heaven when we physically die and we then "live and reign" with Christ there.

I believe that when John actually sees the souls of dead believers, they are in heaven and he sees them living and reigning with Christ there. He does not say that he sees them live again or come back to life. That's what premils miss.

The Greek word zao means to live or be alive and does not mean to come back to life. It can refer to someone being alive after previously being dead or to someone being alive who hasn't died. Or to those who have physically died but their souls are still alive (absent from the body, present with the Lord). But, it's not a word used to describe the actual act of coming back to life or being resurrected.

Rev 20:1 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived (Greek: zao) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Strong's 2198: zao:

Definition

to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)

to enjoy real life

to have true life and worthy of the name

active, blessed, endless in the kingdom of God

to live i.e. pass life, in the manner of the living and acting

of mortals or character

living water, having vital power in itself and exerting the same upon the soul

metaph. to be in full vigour

to be fresh, strong, efficient,

as adj. active, powerful, efficacious

Notice that none of those definitions of the Greek word say to live again or come back to life.

If he intended to say that he saw them come back to life bodily then I believe he would have used the same Greek word translated as "lived again" within the phrase "lived not again" in Rev 20:5 (the "not" in between is a separate Greek word), which is anazao.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again (lived...again - Greek: anazao) until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection

Strong's 326: anazao

Definition

live again, recover life

to be restored to a correct life

of one who returns to a better moral state

to revive, regain strength and vigour

So neither lived again at any point?

Did those beheaded live without heads? If they were not resurrected, but only lived again, why would their head be restored since it was not a bodily resurrection?

Making claims they cannot be bodily resurrected, makes less sense than the literal reading of the passage. They are not given their old bodies, so it does not matter if the head is attached or not. They are given incorruptible bodies, than can never ever die period. And every part of the body. That is what this resurrection is all about. No sin and no death.

Timtofly · Oct 20, 2020

iamlamad said:
Can you PLEASE show this in scripture. I have never heard of such a thing.

I don't see how Moses has anything to do with human spirits - except he had one. EVERYONE Has a human spirit because if not they would be DEAD.

Your theory on human spirits might come from somewhere, but not the written word of God. Please do some research on this.

Well it is only from putting passages together. The life of Adam, the life of Moses. The life of Jesus. The New Jerusalem. Something about shining like stars. God is light. God created the angels as stars in heaven. God created sons of God to shine like stars on earth. I mean even the dream of Joseph was symbolism of how God sees us. It is way off topic for even this section of the forum though.

eclipsenow · Oct 20, 2020

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

Exactly!

Here's the framework, everything else fits around this.

If we begin with clear passages of Scripture, we can construct a very simple, basic model to help us with the “weirder,” tougher passages. One such approach is known as the “two-age” model. Both Jesus and Paul, for example, speak of “this age” and the “age to come” as distinct eschatological periods of time (Mt 12:32; Lk 18:30; 20:34-35; Eph 1:21). For both our Lord and the apostle, there are two contrasting ages in view. The first age (spoken of as “this age” in the New Testament) is the present period of time before the Second Coming of Christ. The second age, a distinctly future period of time, is referred to as “the age to come.” When these two ages (“this age” and “the age to come”) are placed in contrast with each other, we are able us to look at the qualities ascribed by the Biblical writers to each in such a way that we can answer questions about the timing of the return of Christ and the nature and timing of the millennium.

When we look at the qualities ascribed to “this age” by the biblical writers, we find that the following are mentioned: “homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and fields — and with them persecutions” (Mk 10:30); “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage” (Lk 20:34); the scholar, philosopher and such wisdom are of this age (1 Cor 1:20); secular and religious rulers dominate (1 Cor 2:6-8); “the god of this age [Satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Cor 4:4); this age is explicitly called “the present evil age” (Gal 1:4); ungodliness and worldly passions are typical of it (Titus 2:12). All of these qualities are temporal, and are certainly destined to pass away with the return of our Lord. “This age” is the age in which we live, and is the age in which we struggle as we long for the coming of Christ and the better things of the age to come.

By marked contrast however, “the age to come” has an entirely different set of qualities ascribed to it: There will be no forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:32); it is preceded by signs (Mt 24:3); it is characterized by eternal life (Mk 10:30; Lk 18:30); is also denoted as a time when there is no marriage or giving in marriage (Lk 20:35); and it is which is characterized by “life that is truly life” (I Tim 6:19). These qualities are all eternal, and are indicative of the state of affairs and quality of life after the return of Christ. In other words, these two ages, the present (“this age”) and the future (the “age to come”) stand in diametrical opposition to one another. One age is temporal; the other is eternal. One age is characterized by unbelief and ends in judgement; the other is the age of the faithful and is home to the redeemed. It is this conception of biblical history that dominates the New Testament.

It is also imperative to see that the same contrasts which Jesus and Paul make between these two ages are in turn related to the one event that forever divides them, the return of Christ. This line of demarcation is expressly stated in Scripture. “The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. . . This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous” (Mt. 13:39-49). These statements are the type of clear and unambiguous texts mentioned earlier. Notice that according to this text judgement occurs immediately at Christ’s return, not after a one-thousand year millennium (as in the premillennial scheme). This is not the only line of Biblical evidence, however, for in addition to this we can find other such statements about the coming of Christ that fit very clearly into the two-age model.
A Present or Future Millennium? by Kim Riddlebarger

Timtofly · Oct 20, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Why did you leave out the first five verses of Revelation 14?

Rev 14:1 Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.
Rev 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps.
Rev 14:3 They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth.
Rev 14:4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.
Rev 14:5 And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Are you trying to show another Gospel that only exists if you ignore the verses above?
Is that what is takes to make the Two Peoples of God doctrine work?

.

This is the second set of firstfruits found in the NT. All the OT church was the firstfruits of the NT church.

Now we see God choose another set of disciples. Notice that this set was bigger than the first advent set. Instead of 12, (one from each tribe???), there are 144K, 12k from each tribe. The original twelve were part of the OT believers, because, guess what, they were chosen (sealed???) Before the Cross, yet they went on to lead the NT church.

Now we see, after the Second Coming in the 6th seal, the church is complete, yet before the 7th seal the next set of firstfruits are sealed, 144K humans chosen by God. They are redeemed, but not by choice. The choice would be to say no! Any of the original 12 could have said, no. Well one did, Judas. Peter denied, Jesus, yet Peter stuck it out.

God does have two sets of firstfruits. But not the OT/NT issue. That is one single group. The issue now is accepting or at least acknowledging, this second set belongs in the next physical kingdom on earth. It is not a church issue, and the OT and NT believers both had to accept Jesus as the Messiah either future or historically by faith. The disciples were literally the only in people, day in and day out, part of Jesus' first earthly ministry. This second set cannot say no.

Now we have a second group much larger than the first group of disciples. The church really has no say in who they are or even what they will do. And they are with Jesus Christ day in and day out, up until Satan's 42 months. You ask how can 144K be with Christ day in and day out? The largest Stadium in the world can hold 114K. I am pretty sure God can work out the details.

Spiritual Jew · Oct 20, 2020

iamlamad said:
Of course "thousand" CAN be symbolic. The only way to determine is the CONTEXT. I find the context very convincing that it is a real 1000 years. Can you point to a word or words in those verses of context that would show the reader it SHOULD be symbolic?

I don't base my doctrine on just one passage of scripture. My understanding of scripture as a whole makes it impossible for Rev 20 to be in the future. And I have explained why I believe what I do many times already.

I don't form the foundation of my doctrine on highly debatable passages contained within a book that has a great deal of symbolic language. Instead, I form the foundation of my doctrine on more clear, straightforward passages. And then I interpret books like Daniel and Revelation accordingly.

Again I must ask, do you take the streets of Gold as symbolic?

Yes, I do.

iamlamad said:
Notice the "everlasting gospel" for the days of great tribulation:
Rev. 14:
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Now compare with the gospel that we will be judged by:

1 Cor. 15:
1... I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

This is the gospel Paul preached.

Why then, if angels are teaching a very important message, "the everlasting gospel" there is no mention of the Son at all?

I think you're making something way more complicated than it needs to be here. I don't think there's any reason to assume that what is recorded there in Rev 14:6-7 is the only thing that angel said. There is only one gospel. There is no other way to ever be saved but through faith in Christ (John 3:16, John 14:6, Acts 4:12), so there's no basis whatsoever for thinking there will ever be any other gospel. That would suggest the gospel of Christ will somehow by insufficient at that point. That makes no sense at all.

By interpreting Rev 14 as speaking of some other gospel than the gospel of Christ ("Paul's gospel") you would be doing something similar to what Paul rebuked the Galatians for doing.

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

This passage makes it clear that anyone preaching a different gospel than the one Paul preached is preaching "no gospel at all". Doing so would be to "pervert the gospel of Christ". If anyone, including an angel from heaven, "should preach a gospel other than the one" Paul preached then "let them be under God's curse!".

Not Him, not His death for our sins, not His resurrection: NOTHING about the Son?

I wouldn't say it doesn't mention anything about the Son there. Compare these passages:

Rev 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

I'm going to assume you already know that John 1:1-3 is about Jesus. He created all things, including heaven, earth, the sea and the fountains of waters and Rev 14:7 says to "worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters".

one cannot see and enter the kingdom of God without being born again.

Click to expand...

I have pondered this and asked God, but so far He has not answered.

It would seem every mention of "the kingdom of God" is on earth. That would make sense, because the bible also mentions the kingdom of heaven.

It is the same kingdom just labeled different ways. Compare the following passages that use the phrases "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" in the same context:

Matthew 19:23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

In this passage Jesus used the phrases "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" interchangeably which shows they are referring to the same kingdom. He first said that it's hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven and then he gave an explanation for how hard it is but then referred to it as "the kingdom of God". So, there's no difference between the "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God". Again, it's just two different ways to refer to the same kingdom.

I'll give one more example just in case you need more evidence (there are more as well). Compare these 2 passages:

Matt 13:31 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”

Mark 4:30 Again he said, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? 31 It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. 32 Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade.”

If there is a 1000 year reign, and I certainly believe their will be, it would seem by what Jesus said that people would have to be born again to enter.

I'm glad you see it that way. There is no other name under heaven by which anyone can be saved (Acts 4:12) because He is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6).

By the way, I have not said people will NOT be born again. It just seems possible they may not. But according to your verse, they must. Can YOU tell me why Jesus was not mentioned in those angelic messages?

Again, I don't think we need to assume that everything the angel said is recorded there. The everlasting gospel cannot be any other gospel besides the gospel of Christ that Paul preached because otherwise, as Paul said in Galatians 1, any other gospel "is really no gospel at all" and anyone preaching any other gospel will "be under God's curse".

Timtofly · Oct 20, 2020

eclipsenow said:
Exactly!

Here's the framework, everything else fits around this.

If we begin with clear passages of Scripture, we can construct a very simple, basic model to help us with the “weirder,” tougher passages. One such approach is known as the “two-age” model. Both Jesus and Paul, for example, speak of “this age” and the “age to come” as distinct eschatological periods of time (Mt 12:32; Lk 18:30; 20:34-35; Eph 1:21). For both our Lord and the apostle, there are two contrasting ages in view. The first age (spoken of as “this age” in the New Testament) is the present period of time before the Second Coming of Christ. The second age, a distinctly future period of time, is referred to as “the age to come.” When these two ages (“this age” and “the age to come”) are placed in contrast with each other, we are able us to look at the qualities ascribed by the Biblical writers to each in such a way that we can answer questions about the timing of the return of Christ and the nature and timing of the millennium.

When we look at the qualities ascribed to “this age” by the biblical writers, we find that the following are mentioned: “homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and fields — and with them persecutions” (Mk 10:30); “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage” (Lk 20:34); the scholar, philosopher and such wisdom are of this age (1 Cor 1:20); secular and religious rulers dominate (1 Cor 2:6-8); “the god of this age [Satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Cor 4:4); this age is explicitly called “the present evil age” (Gal 1:4); ungodliness and worldly passions are typical of it (Titus 2:12). All of these qualities are temporal, and are certainly destined to pass away with the return of our Lord. “This age” is the age in which we live, and is the age in which we struggle as we long for the coming of Christ and the better things of the age to come.

By marked contrast however, “the age to come” has an entirely different set of qualities ascribed to it: There will be no forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:32); it is preceded by signs (Mt 24:3); it is characterized by eternal life (Mk 10:30; Lk 18:30); is also denoted as a time when there is no marriage or giving in marriage (Lk 20:35); and it is which is characterized by “life that is truly life” (I Tim 6:19). These qualities are all eternal, and are indicative of the state of affairs and quality of life after the return of Christ. In other words, these two ages, the present (“this age”) and the future (the “age to come”) stand in diametrical opposition to one another. One age is temporal; the other is eternal. One age is characterized by unbelief and ends in judgement; the other is the age of the faithful and is home to the redeemed. It is this conception of biblical history that dominates the New Testament.

It is also imperative to see that the same contrasts which Jesus and Paul make between these two ages are in turn related to the one event that forever divides them, the return of Christ. This line of demarcation is expressly stated in Scripture. “The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. . . This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous” (Mt. 13:39-49). These statements are the type of clear and unambiguous texts mentioned earlier. Notice that according to this text judgement occurs immediately at Christ’s return, not after a one-thousand year millennium (as in the premillennial scheme). This is not the only line of Biblical evidence, however, for in addition to this we can find other such statements about the coming of Christ that fit very clearly into the two-age model.
A Present or Future Millennium? by Kim Riddlebarger

The dead in Christ are in heaven now in this age and they definitely are not procreating in heaven. And this age started at the Cross. Jesus was referring to this age as the next age, because His words were given prior to the Cross. Paul was talking about his age, our current age. Jesus was talking about the age to come, which is Paul's age, the one we are still currently in. So none of your descriptions are future in the next age.

The Millennium of Christ's reign on earth starts at the Second Coming. That is the next age for Paul and us. Now if you want to make a list of things that happen in that age starting with OT prophecies, from the last age, or prophesies from this current age, you will still have to specify them from a whole different reality after the next age is completed.

Spiritual Jew · Oct 20, 2020

iamlamad said:
AHHHHH! That cannot possibly be! Oh, I guess if one makes everything symbolic, anything is possible.

It can possibly be as I will show you. And it has nothing to do with making everything symbolic. I don't make everything symbolic, by the way. Please don't misrepresent my view. I see a lot of symbolic things in the book of Revelation, but not everything is.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Verse 11: If there was no place found - if GOD could not find them, being all knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent, then they ceased to exist. My guess is, God just let go of the atoms and they went PUFF - into nothing.

So, will they literally flee away as the first verse you quoted says? As usual, you take a hyper-literal approach to understanding the verse. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's not referring to the literal heaven and earth there. It is. I'm saying that the reference to them fleeing away and not being found is figurative language (heaven and earth can't run/flee away) and we need to discern what that means.

Verse 1: we have a confirming scripture: in this verse it tells us they had passed away.

But, what does it mean exactly for heaven and earth to pass away? To cease to exist and be replaced by an entirely different heaven and earth as you assume? Or something else?

What do you make of the following passage which indicates that the heavens and earth will be changed (rather than replaced with an entirely different new heavens and new earth)?

Hebrews 1:10-12 He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment 12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

So, this talks about the heavens and earth perishing and being "changed". That makes me think of 1 Cor 15:50-54 where it talks about the dead in Christ being raised from the dead and being changed from having mortal to immortal bodies. So, based on the passage above it seems to me that we can understand the heavens and earth similarly in that they will be renewed or changed to be eternal.

Another thing to consider is what do you make of a passage like this if the earth was going to be replaced by an entirely different "new earth" instead of this earth being renewed (changed), resulting in a new (renewed) earth?

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

When do you believe the meek will inherit the earth? Do you see that as a reference to believers inheriting an earthly millennial kingdom when Christ returns? If so, that would mean their inheritance will get burned up in the end. That's a depressing thought. What kind of inheritance is that?

But, what if this is instead referring to the earth in a renewed (new) condition after being burned up and purified by God? That would mean the meek will inherit the earth (the renewed earth - new earth) for eternity. That sounds like a lot better thing to look forward to, wouldn't you agree?

BABerean2 · Oct 20, 2020

Timtofly said:
This is the second set of firstfruits found in the NT. All the OT church was the firstfruits of the NT church.

Now we see God choose another set of disciples. Notice that this set was bigger than the first advent set. Instead of 12, (one from each tribe???), there are 144K, 12k from each tribe. The original twelve were part of the OT believers, because, guess what, they were chosen (sealed???) Before the Cross, yet they went on to lead the NT church.

Now we see, after the Second Coming in the 6th seal, the church is complete, yet before the 7th seal the next set of firstfruits are sealed, 144K humans chosen by God. They are redeemed, but not by choice. The choice would be to say no! Any of the original 12 could have said, no. Well one did, Judas. Peter denied, Jesus, yet Peter stuck it out.

God does have two sets of firstfruits. But not the OT/NT issue. That is one single group. The issue now is accepting or at least acknowledging, this second set belongs in the next physical kingdom on earth. It is not a church issue, and the OT and NT believers both had to accept Jesus as the Messiah either future or historically by faith. The disciples were literally the only in people, day in and day out, part of Jesus' first earthly ministry. This second set cannot say no.

Now we have a second group much larger than the first group of disciples. The church really has no say in who they are or even what they will do. And they are with Jesus Christ day in and day out, up until Satan's 42 months. You ask how can 144K be with Christ day in and day out? The largest Stadium in the world can hold 114K. I am pretty sure God can work out the details.

Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
Jas 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
Jas 1:3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

.

iamlamad · Oct 20, 2020

Timtofly said:
Well it is only from putting passages together. The life of Adam, the life of Moses. The life of Jesus. The New Jerusalem. Something about shining like stars. God is light. God created the angels as stars in heaven. God created sons of God to shine like stars on earth. I mean even the dream of Joseph was symbolism of how God sees us. It is way off topic for even this section of the forum though.

1 Corinthians 6:20
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

YOU have a body that people see. YOU have a spirit inside, the "inward man" that only God sees. That spirit is the REAL YOU. It is different from all other spirits because your spirit thinks different thoughts, has different memories, has different soulish characteristics. Remember, the only thing that can separate soul and spirit is the word of God. But the LIFE is the spirit.

iamlamad · Oct 20, 2020

Dkh587 said:
What does resurrection mean?

The bible usage is always a dead body (heart stopped) being brought back to life: A dead body horizontal and not moving to a body standing up and moving. Lazarus is a good example in the bible: dead 4 days, but resurrected back to life.

Said in another way, Lazarus's spirit and soul left his dead body, and went to hades - the place of departed spirits - but was called back to his body when Jesus called him back to life.

iamlamad · Oct 20, 2020

Timtofly said:
Why stay in the ball park of a 1600 year old apostate church? Only the Holy Spirit can be in a person. One's own spirit was a covering. John called it a robe of white.

Now when Moses came down from the mount, his face shown so bright, they had to cover it. Was Moses given his spirit in order to communicate directly with God? Are you saying it went back inside of him? Moses is the exception, not the rule. Jesus did the same thing on the mount of transfiguration. Was he letting his spirit out, or did their eyes see what normal eyes cannot? Notice Moses was also there....

The ball park I was speaking of is the common believe shared by the vast majority of the church today.

Google search hades departed spirits:
About 2,360,000 results

Christian views on Hades - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Christian_views_on_Hades Hades, according to various Christian denominations, is "the place or state of departed spirits"., also known as Hell,
Hades n. The lower world; the residence of departed spirits ...
www.pinterest.com › ... › Postmodern Art The lower world; the residence of departed spirits; the place where the dead live.

Hades: The conscious realm of the dead! - Bible.ca
www.bible.ca › su-hades Hades and hell are two different places at two different times. Hades is the temporary realm of both good and evil departed spirits before the second coming.

A Treatise on Hades, Or The Place of Departed Spirits ...
books.google.com › books › about › A_treatise_on_Hade...
A Treatise on Hades, Or The Place of Departed Spirits.

Vision the First; Hades, or the region inhabited by the ...
books.google.com › books › about › Vision_the_First_Ha...
Vision the First; Hades, or the region inhabited by the departed spirits of the Blessed.

Hades: The conscious realm of the dead! - Bible.ca
www.bible.ca › su-hades Hades is a Greek word used in the New Testament to denote the realm of conscious departed spirits and never refers to the grave.

(I could post ad infinitum...)

Google search hades departed souls:
About 2,370,000 results

Salvation for the Dead (Second Chance Theology) - Hades is ...
www2.biglobe.ne.jp › ~remnant › hades Likewise, Sheol (Hades) retains souls of the dead until God's final judgment;

Hades/Sheol--Where Do the Dead Go?
www.middletownbiblechurch.org › doctrine › hades Even though these words are translated "grave" in the KJV, it is better to understand Sheol/Hades as the place where departed spirits go (where the souls of the ...

Since the spirit and soul of the man are tied so tightly together that only the word of God can separate, some people say souls went to hades, others say spirits go to hades - the truth is, both go because they cannot be separtated: where the spirit of man goes, so goes His soul - the mind, will, emotions of the man.

This is such common knowledge in the church today, I wonder where you have been. When Paul was taken to heaven - probably when He was stoned - he did not know if he went with his body or not. A modern preacher we see on TV was taken to heaven. He did not die - he was just taken. He too said he did not know if he went in body or not. But he did say, I had the same suit on I was wearing when I was caught up. (We so often limit God by our small thinking.) God can do anything.

I had a good friend that was in a terrible car accident. In the emergency room, she left her body. She could see her body but she was not in it. She heard the doctor say, "we are losing her..." She was shouting at the doctor: "I'm alright!" But the doctor could not hear: she was in the realm of the spirit, he was in the natural and physical realm. Someone prayed and she had to go back into her body. Out of body she felt no pain, but back in her body, terrible pain. She recovered and lived many more years. Now a question: does the soul have ears? Does a soul have eyes? No! The soul is the MENTAL part of the human. It is the spirit man that has eyes and ears.

Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

Lamad

Lamad

Lamad

Lamad

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Newbie

Lamad

Lamad

Lamad

Similar threads