I have read Isaiah plenty of times. It's insulting for you to imply otherwise.
It's time to agree to disagree on the meaning of "the day of the Lord". You just admitted that it's "exhausting" and I have to agree.
I wasn't insinuating that you hadn't read it, it's just when I put in a single verse and then you said it wasn't referring to the day of the Lord, well the posts are long enough that I don't want to post the whole chapters to show context to show that both of those ARE talking about the day of the Lord. SO was just saying to read that context to show that yeah, it's not referring to something else, both of those chapters are the wrath of God.
I've seen this argument before, but I don't find it to be a strong one. If Rev 19 and 20 are not chronological, as I believe, then that simply means that the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire shortly before Satan is. Similar to how death and Hades (or hell) are cast in just before those whose names are not written in the book of life. This is not a problem for amil at all.
It's not a strong argument if you're set on your view perhaps, but it is pretty plainly referring back to Revelation 19 when they were thrown in. You have to have an objection to seeing it that way for dogma's sake to not see that.
I respect that you at least do see some recapitulation. I think that's very unusual for any premil to see any recapitulation in the book whether they're pre-trib, pre-wrath or post-trib.
Pre wrath pretty much depends on noting 2 parallel timelines in Revelation because if you see them as 2 parallel timelines you can see a pattern that Jesus comes after tribulation but before wrath. If you dice it up more, then you can claim, as you do, that it's post wrath, since He comes at the end of the chapters of 6, 14, 16, and 19 (well second half of 19). Even though you really have to quentin tarrantino things to claim the trumpets don't follow the seals, the 7th seal was just nothingburger, somehow claim that the fall of babylon does NOT follow the 7th vial, even though God remembers Babylon after the 7th vial in chapter 16, etc. Having 2 parallels without trying to divide it further allows 2 consistent narratives without much break in chronology. Only chapters 10 and 17, which chapter 17 is explanation of what Babylon and the beast are, since they are symbols. Chapter 10.. is, I just realized the purpose of chapter 10 to be honest, it was kind of cryptic to me as to what was the point of it, but I think the purpose of Chapter 10 is to set up that the book is not chronological, with the beast and false prophets following right after the trumpets and then Jesus in the clouds again, and a second 144k and then the vials..
Now that I think about it, I don't understand how anyone could read it as being all in chronological order. I know that I was confused when first trying to read it as a teen not knowing what was going on, until I noticed that there's a repeat of the 144,000, which to me said "this is the same thing happening another way"
Chapter 10 is basically there to tell you, that when the 7th trumpet sounds, that's the end, that's the conclusion of the end days. When is a declaration that the kingdoms of the earth are now Christ's kingdom.
Which of course I see as being His millennial kingdom and you think He instantly lights up like a tiki torch
Revelation became a pretty easy read for me one I saw 2 parallel narratives.
But I can't see 4, much less 7 as sovereign grace claims., because of how much tarrantino you have to do to force that.
I'm not used to getting criticized by a premil for being too literal. It's a strange feeling.
Well, we're all literal about something, usually the things we're most stubborn on.
Because it doesn't line up with many passages of scripture as I've told you before. I've shown you several of those already.
A number of passages show all believers and unbelievers being resurrected and judged when Christ returns at the end of the age which doesn't allow for a 1000 year gap in between. Also, several passages show all living unbelievers being destroyed when Christ comes which would not allow for any mortals to survive into an earthly millennial kingdom (all believers would have mortal bodies at that point).
How does that line up with the fact that the unbelieving dead are judged immediately after being resurrected and are then cast into the lake of fire as indicated in Rev 20:11-15 while Matt 25:31-46 indicates the timing of that is when Christ comes in His glory?
I just see different events all connected with the second coming as happening at different times.
Even after a Millennial Kingdom when He destroys the earth in fire, that is destroying in His second coming. Just like Jesus defeated death in His first coming, but He didn't accomplish that at His birth, He accomplished that when He was resurrected 30+ years later.
Both passages speak of someone sitting on the throne to judge them with Matt 25 indicating that it is the Son of Man, which obviously is Jesus.
Both passages speak of all of them being judged for what they have done.
Both passages speak of unbelievers being cast into the same everlasting fire as the devil.
And, obviously, believers are rewarded at that time as well. These passages are clearly speaking of the same judgment. Only doctrinal bias would keep someone from seeing that. So, with that in mind, this places the judgment depicted in Rev 20:11-15 as occurring when Christ comes with His angels, not 1000+ years after that. That means all of Rev 20 has to occur before and up to the day that Christ comes which contradicts your understanding of the events of Rev 20 following the events of Rev 19 chronologically.
It really feels like you don't understand my position on this at all. I've said before, that the second resurrection is going to contain believers and non believers, but not those who were already raptured, but those who believed after the rapture, or were born after the rapture and believed. So those still go to the white throne of judgement.
Believers who are raptured receive their rewards at the bema seat earlier, I'd assume in heaven.
2 things can lead to the way you interpret it.
#1. You consider eternal life to be the entire reward, when Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 3 that eternal life is like the lowest reward you can get, and that there's other things that you can be given on top of that. If you go into eternity with nothing but eternal life? You've suffered loss and have wasted your life, even as a saved believer.
#2. You believe that we'll have all of our sins aired out for a public trial like the unbelievers. I don't believe that at all. I don't think our sins will be brought up against us, because they've been forgiven.
Psalm 103 "12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us."
The unbelievers will have all their dirty laundry aired out for everyone so that NOBODY can claim that God sent a "good person" to hell. You'll find out, that that philanthropist who donated all those millions of dollars to charity and did all these good deeds was secretly molesting his daughter, stuff like that.
Now think about what people will think of God if He DID air out all believer's dirty laundry, their sins before they found Christ, this guy murdered someone, this woman had an abortion, this guy was a homosexual, this guy was a wife beating alcoholic.. etc etc.
If at final judgement our sins are fair game? It's not gonna glorify God people will see God as unjust. So our sins, removed from us, praise Jesus. Their sins, shown to us, so that we know when they go to Hell, they really belong there, and not just "oh they are just sent to Hell because they didn't believe in Jesus" no they're sent to hell because they're wicked sinners (as all of us are) who deserve it.
Do you believe the wedding with His bride has already occurred before Rev 19? If so, that can't be since it says in Rev 19:7 that the time of the wedding has come and the bride has made herself ready. That means it hasn't happened yet up until that point since the bride had not been ready for the wedding yet until then. Right after that in Rev 19:11-21 it describes Jesus coming and delivering His wrath on the day He returns.
Don't you see Rev 19:11-21 as being the second future time He descends from heaven rather than the first? That can't be because He will have not been married to His bride yet until then, as Rev 19:7 indicates, because she will not have been ready for the wedding until then.
I don't get what you're getting at here. I thought I was clear that I believed that Jesus came back, the church goes up to Heaven, the bride has to make herself ready afterall, and there's rewards to be given, then He began His wrath, then after the 7th vial and the destruction of Babylon, Jesus went back up to Heaven, they had the wedding supper of the lamb, and then He returned to earth with His bride, to finish off the Beast and False Prophet.
I'm not precluding Jesus from going back and forth between heaven and earth at will. You've given Him a one way flight.
I've shared those with you several times already. How did you miss it? Have I not indicated multiple times that I believe He descends from heaven, we're caught up to Him in the air and He proceeds to destroy the wicked? No back and forth needed. And I've shown the passages to back up my view several times. But, you're still asking me this?
Nothing that suggests Jesus is forbidden from going round trip.
Wow. You are not impressed with the effect that Christ's death and resurrection had on Satan and the Gentile nations? Unbelievable. I'm not impressed with your hyper-literal understanding of what "deceive the nations no more" means.
It's glorifying something that's really rather mundane. People being able to preach the gospel. In fact people had more trouble preaching the gospel after the Roman empire cracked down on it. The idea that satan had to be bound for people to preach the gospel just doesn't jive with the history of the church, because clearly an unbound Satan has hindered the spread of the Gospel in the world through first the Roman empire, and emperors such as Titus and Nero, and later the Muslims. If Satan is bound so he can't prevent the spread of the gospel, why is it that you basically can't evangelize in Islamic countries? They'll kill you.
Why did Jesus say He is coming quickly if He's actually going to take His time when He comes? Sorry, but your explanation makes no sense. God is all knowing, so He will know when the exact right time will be for Christ to come and take His vengeance. Don't worry, He won't send His Son from heaven to dish out His final wrath until everyone has made their choice of whether to follow Him or reject Him. He will ensure that.
For some people, they won't be able to make that decision until this world hits rock bottom. Sometimes a heroin addict has to OD and get revived with narcan, almost dying, before they understand they have a real problem and need to quit.
Sometimes those OD's and realization that they have a problem, not only pushes an addict to seek soberity, but to seek Jesus, and it can turn their life around in an amazing way.
But without almost dying of that OD, if God had not let them hang onto a thread of life to get saved... they'd be opening their eyes in torment, and God would lose them forever.
But anyway, if you want to stress the "coming quickly" part you're gonna have to sort that out with preterists, because they argue about that same point, "how is it that He didn't come back in AD 70? He said He's coming quickly! He said this generation will not pass away!" etc etc etc etc.
What is the point of this? Obviously, the unbelievers were all destroyed by the time the earth was initially flooded after the 40 days and nights. What difference does it make how long it took the water to recede? This is a waste of time.
The point is that time passes even as God deals out His judgements. God always teaches patience and you expect instant events. It's been thousands of years, obviously God's idea of quickly is quite different from ours.
Good grief, man. That has been my point all along. That fire that comes down from heaven in Rev 20:9 bringing instant mass destruction to a number of people "as the sand of the seashore" is the same mass destruction that Peter talks about in 2 Peter 3:3-13 as occurring when Christ returns. That places Rev 20:9 at the return of Christ rather than 1000+ years afterwards as you believe.
Yeah and, we also see a lot of other things He does to the planet and unrepentent people first, the 7 trumpets and 7 vials judgements. Multiple what sounds like asteroid impacts (apophis?), coming down for a battle where it really seems like He kills people with His voice (that is what I take the sword coming from His mouth to mean), and eventually, destroys the whole planet in fire.
I leave room for all of these things to happen. Not only see a destruction by fire and "oh the rest are just poetry"
That means your understanding of Rev 20 speaking of 2 mass bodily resurrections separated by 1000+ years is flawed. That is the point I've been trying to make but you continually miss it because it seems you've never given Rev 20 much thought before. Instead, your sole focus is on the things that you think happen during a 7 year period of time before Christ returns.
This is the difference between us. You interpret the rest of scripture (or at least those prophecies you mentioned, anyway) in light of the highly symbolic and not very straightforward (but still awesome) book of Revelation. I, on the other hand, interpret the book of Revelation in light of other more clear, straightforward scriptures that don't contain a great deal of difficult (but not impossible) to discern symbolic language.
The main difference is you hold to literal interpretation of a single 24 hour day, and limit Jesus to 1 visitation of Earth, and I hold to a literal interpretation that the the trumpets and vials are the wrath of God, and that since we're not appointed to wrath, and are to hide from the indignation, that the rapture takes place before the wrath, which gives 2 bodily resurrections, which means Revelation 20 CAN be taken literally since there's a space between resurrections.
But really, without Revelation, all sense of Chronology, is thrown out the window. Revelation, makes sense of all the scrambled prophecies because it has so many references to old testament prophecy, and puts them in coherent orders of events.
You read the old testament prophets about the darkening of the sun and moon and think "when's this supposed to happen" it's all jumbled up with no sense of timing in the old testament, but Revelation, shows events happening that lead to it.
