Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

It seems to me you have the wrong understanding of the word 'water' in John 3:5. We are not born "of water and of the Spirit" when we are born of the Spirit. Let's take a look at this, properly:

Jesus clarified what He meant by "Unless you are born of water and of the Spirit" by saying immediately afterward, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

"Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:5-6

John said,

"And I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water, that One said to me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon Him, He is the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit." John 1:33

We are born of water when we are born of the womb. This is why Jesus clarified what He meant by immediately following His statement in John 3:5 with "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Physiologically the average human adult male is approximately 60-63% water, and the average adult female is approximately 52-55% water. The body water constitutes as much as 75% of the body weight of a newborn infant. Body water is the water content of the flesh that is contained in the tissues, the blood, the bones and elsewhere.

Click to expand...

I disagree with the term "being born of water" as referring to the 1st natural birth because:

1.) There is no ancient hebrew term that refers to being "born of water" as the first natural birth from the mother's womb, nor is there any scriptural support that being "born of water" refers to natural birth.

2.) Verse 5 is a reiteration of verse 3. Therefore Born from above = born of water and spirit. Jesus never states "unless one is born of the flesh and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom".

John 3:5 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

3.) I would argue Jesus' reference of being born of water and spirit is a reference to Ezekiel, in which God's people were to be cleansed with water from unrighteousness, and His Spirit was to placed in them. :

Ezekiel 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules

4.) I would argue this born of water, refers to the water that Jesus was to provide, in that we would never be thirsty again. I believe this is a reference to the word of God and the Spirit, which washes us in regeneration.

John 4:13-14 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again.b The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

John 7:37-39 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, asf the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Ephesians 5:26-27 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish

Titus 3:5-6 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

We are not "born of water" through the water that we are baptized in when we are dunked or sprinkled - that's just the outward sign of what has already taken place within. Neither are we "born of water" when we are Baptized by the Spirit into Christ, and into His death and resurrection.

Baptism in water is only the outward sign of what has taken place already when we were born of the Spirit of Christ. The moment we were born of the Spirit of Christ, we were baptized into His death and raised with Him. Else what happens to those who were born of the Spirit, repented and turned to Christ and were due to be baptized in church, but died in a car accident before arriving at the church? Are they not baptized into Christ? Of course they are - they were baptized into Christ the moment they were born of His Spirit.

Click to expand...

I agree that the "sacrament" of baptism is an outward symbolic expression of our being buried with Christ' death, our raising with Him, and our washing and regeneration by the Spirit.

I did not mean that the outward sacrament of baptism with literal water is what makes us born again. Sorry if that was confusing.

I simply meant that being born of water and spirit = what the outward expression of the sacrament of baptism symbolizes = being buried in Christ's death and raised with his resurrection to walk in newness of life by His spirit, which washes us and regenerates us.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

The key word is "born". It is being born of His Spirit that placed us in Him - and therefore the moment we are born of God/the Spirit of Christ we are baptized by the Spirit of Christ into Christ's death and resurrection.

Click to expand...

I agree. That's literally what I stated in post 1535

"For starters, I've never called it a spiritual resurrection. I believe when we come to Christ in repentance and Faith, we are baptized into his death and raised (synegeiro) with His resurrection (anastasis) to walk in newness of life. It is Christ's resurrection (anastasis) that raised us (synegeiro) and made us alive (synezoopoiesen) with Him."

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

We were born of water when we were born of the flesh, and John baptized with water - but Christ baptizes with the Spirit. That is how we received everlasting life - through the baptism of the Spirit when we were born of the Spirit. The water baptism we receive afterwards is not the same as John's, because John baptized with water unto repentance, but our water baptism is the outward sign of the life we have already received when we were baptized by Christ with the Spirit of God

Click to expand...

I completely disagree that the being born of water is being "born of flesh". There is no historical nor scriptural evidence for this.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

We know that when we are born of the Spirit it's not "our" 'spiritual resurrection', because we were never alive spiritually prior to our being born from above of the Spirit of God/Christ, who baptized us into Christ's death and raised us with Christ the moment we were born of His Spirit.

Click to expand...

So does this partaking in Christ's resurrection by being born from above by His Spirit, which cleanses us, raises us from being dead in our sins, and gives us spiritual life:

1.) Now guarantee our future resurrection(won't be hurt by the 2nd death)?

2.) Now, result in our being a part of the royal priest hood of God?

Davy said:

Your statement about the resurrection being from a natural body to a spiritual body can be misleading, because with many that assumes the natural body of flesh becomes... a spiritual body. It doesn't. Then they will argue about Christ's resurrection in rebuttle, yet they don't realize that Christ's flesh body was transfigured to the heavenly quickened spirit state, but kept the marks of His crucifixion. Nor do they understand how angels who are not in a flesh body can walk and live upon this earth, and eat man's food.

Click to expand...

I believe only Jesus' flesh was promised not to see corruption. I believe Jesus' body upon resurrection, during the 40 days he was still on earth and prior to the ascension, was still a flesh and blood resurrected body:

Acts 2:27 because You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will You let Your Holy One see decay.

John 20:27 Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.”

I believe that it was upon his ascension to the Father that his body was then glorified to a spiritual, heavenly body. It is this spiritual, heavenly body, in which we will be like upon our resurrection from the dead, when we go from natural body to spiritual body.

1 corinthians 15:44 t is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Philippians 3:20-21 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

1 john 3:2 Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

Now, I'm not too dogmatic in regards to the "transformation of the flesh" as you. But I can agree with you that it's not necessarily a transformation of the flesh. My great great grandfather, who was a believer, obviously is just a box full of bones sitting in a hole somewhere. There is no flesh in that hole to be transformed into a spiritual body.

Davy said:

Our spirit is always attached with our soul, they cannot be separated. But our spirit/soul can... be separated from our flesh. This is what Eccl.12:5-7 reveals with the flesh going back to the ground where it came from, but our spirit going back to God Who gave it.

Click to expand...

Here is where I would disagree with you in part. I don't believe our "spirit" is always attached to the "soul".

While the spirit always returns to God upon physical death (ecclesiastes 12:5-7, luke 24:36, acts 7:59), The soul does not.

Jesus' "soul" went to hades upon death, but was not left there because of the resurrection.

Acts 2:27 because You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will You let Your Holy One see decay.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Then we agree on all these points. I don't know why, but I had you mentally listed among the people who have already argued in a different thread that our being born of God = (our) spiritual resurrection. So I apologize for making this assumption earlier on in this thread.

Click to expand...

no worries

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

I also agree that Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection. Do you agree with me when I say that until now, mankind has only experienced one death - Adam's death, which came to all who are born of the flesh into Adam; and one resurrection - the last Adam's resurrection, which comes to all who are born of the Spirit?

Click to expand...

Partially.

I believe Adam's transgression of disobedience resulted in being dead in his sin and the removal of the tree of life, this death being transferred to all mankind from that point on. All who remain dead in their sins, and not found in Christ, will face the 2nd death.

I believe Christ's resurrection (anastasis) from the dead, which is the first resurrection, resulted in those in Christ being raised (synegeiro) from being dead in our sins to walk in newness of life with God. This being raised (synegeiro) and made alive with Him, guarantees our future bodily resurrection (anastasis) and guarantees that we will never face the 2nd death.

I believe in 2 resurrections: Christ, the first, and the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

If so, then you will agree that those who are raised with Christ when they/we receive our own bodily resurrection, are having part in the first resurrection (Christ's resurrection)? And if so, then you will agree that though there will be a 2nd death, there will never be a 2nd resurrection, because the only resurrection from the death which came by the first Adam, is through the resurrection of the last Adam, and the 2nd death is when death and hades are thrown into the LOF along with the souls of all those whose names are not in the Lamb's book of Life?

Click to expand...

I disagree that there is only 1 resurrection. A "first" resurrection implies there is another resurrection. Scripture teaches more than 1 resurrection.

Scripture teaches Jesus’ resurrection.

Philippians 3:10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all

Scripture teaches another resurrection after Jesus:

Acts 24:15 and I have the same hope in God that they themselves cherish, that there is about to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

1 corinthians 15:42-44 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Philippians 3:11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Would you agree that the first death (of mankind) is Adam's death, and the first and only resurrection (of mankind) is the resurrection that came through Christ's resurrection (who is the last Adam), and there is no further resurrection, despite the fact that there will be a 2nd death?

Click to expand...

You did not address my questions:

So does this partaking in Christ's resurrection by being born from above by His Spirit, which cleanses us, raises us from being dead in our sins, and gives us spiritual life:

1.) Now guarantee our future resurrection(won't be hurt by the 2nd death)?

2.) Now, result in our being a part of the royal priest hood of God?

In my own search for meaning in prophecy, as far back as around 1980 I had the idea that many aspects of the end time prophecies resemble events in the Second World War. You'll have to admit, the level of organization of evil kingdoms at that time was beyond anything we see in the world around us now, and many think we are now in the end times.

Then it also occurred to me after reading a lot of commentary that there are as many theories as believers (almost) in terms of timetables, co-ordination of events, with respect to the thousand year reign and the eternal kingdom. I was finding all sorts of different schedules to watch and pray about, the most common one seems to be this -- Rapture, millennial kingdom, end times, eternal kingdom (with various subplots within each segment).

What all that opens up is the possibility that yes, the millennial kingdom is somewhat if not entirely symbolic, and refers to the present age. Whatever visions the prophets had must have been unclear to them as to chronology, because almost every serious student of Revelations comes to the conclusion that it is a connected series of prophetic visions rather than one long, uninterrupted flow. Once you come to that conclusion, the door is wide open for almost any combination of events before, during and after the millennial kingdom.

Even on this learned forum (and I've lurked reading threads for a few days now), there is no shortage of ambiguity about which of the two end times is being discussed, in any context. Let's say we agree that there are dozens of signs and timetables to monitor for the end times, are any of those pre-millennial, are they all for the end time after the millennial kingdom? If so, why do we care so much, we are supposedly a thousand years away from any of that if first we have the Rapture and the millennial kingdom. Or are the faithful raptured out of the millennial kingdom?

In any case, my belief is that the prophets could have interpreted visions of the past 70-75 years since the end of the cataclysmic global war as a sort of Kingdom fulfilment. To somebody from a past time of troubles, the modern age could be presented (selectively, I admit) as fairly utopian. The presence of a global evangelical Christian movement, the creation of the state of Israel, and modern communications, would all seem to support that possibility and perhaps it was assumed by the prophets that they were seeing a literal Christ-ruled Kingdom rather than what we have experienced as a sort of preview of the Kingdom we expect when Christ does return.

Therefore my contention is that you could view this age (since the conclusion of W.W. II) as a symbolic fulfilment of the thousand year prophecy. I don't think that as such it needs to last a literal thousand years, there are indeed a lot of objects in orbit in our solar system that could be used to count down a thousand "years" -- our Moon for example has orbital periods of 27.32 and 29.53 days, and a thousand of those have either just expired or will soon expire.

This approach brings into view some startling conclusions. It eliminates any further ambiguity about which signs belong to which end time, it explains why the Rev 20 prophecy refers to a "little season" where beast, dragon and false prophet return to the world from captivity. I would admit this happened in stages over much of the second portion of this symbolic period, but then as I said the prophets were shown a general overview and not something narrated with dates, times and places.

If we accept this possibility, then we may now be in the little season which is perhaps why so many draw the conclusion that we are in the end times, but here's the startling conclusion I mentioned, not in the 1260, 1290, 1335 day countdown, those happened during W.W. II, but in the little season, with Christ's final victory straight ahead of us.

So where's the Rapture in that chronology? Spoiler alert, I view the "Rapture" as a manufactured event based on an overly literal interpretation of the second coming (which I think II Thes is really describing) where the believers rise up to greet the returning Christ. All that would now be left unfulfilled is the death of the two witnesses and the second coming. Many other signs have already been seen in the symbolic millennial kingdom age (at the millennium, perhaps a clue in itself), and or in the second world war. I believe the current situation resembles very closely the escape of the beast, dragon and false prophet from their captivity, war against the armies of Christ (led by Michael), and therefore it is quite plausible that final events lie directly ahead.

As do others here (from my reading of threads) I expect to find multiple fulfilment scenarios for some prophecies, even going back to historical times, so there is not necessarily one and only one event that fulfills any given image. But to be clear, in world war two, it was almost to the hour 1,260 days from Pearl Harbor to the surrender of Germany, then another 75 days to the end of the war (with Japan at that final stage). The only fit I could find for the abomination within that was a conference between the Allied partners in Potsdam, but that did set up the cold war, the division of Europe, and the symbolic caging of the red dragon. China has more recently fully taken on that role as Russia became less overtly antagonistic to the Kingdom (that in itself a topic worthy of discussion). Images of seven kings of Babylon fit both the former Soviet Union and the modern U.S.A. -- and introduce us to the last king, he who was, is not, and is to come (after the end of the seventh king). If Trump were the seventh, then it is fairly clear who was, is not, and is to come (and is of the seven, in fact, very close to several of them).

So much else one could say here -- the way in which this perspective compresses a number of possibly very drawn out and future-displaced events into our immediate view, the relevance of America in prophecy (something that many seem to believe, but find to be sometimes at odds with Israel-based prophetic outcomes), and the possibility of a near-term fulfilment. If we see an event resembling the death of the two witnesses, my belief is that the second coming and all finality to this complex historical process will appear.

I've seen a few other signs that I could mention, will leave it at this (already a very long post) and see what discussion might follow. Please note, I am not the sort of prophet to set a specific day, time and place. When I say soon I mean within months, but open to the possibility of seeing evidence of the start of a 1260, 1290, 1335 day countdown (which I think we have already well underway, as a final fulfilment parallel to the 1941-45 examples). I don't think we have reached day 1,260 in that, which suggests that I can't be predicting a second coming event any sooner than 75 days from now. As to what the symbolic abomination might be, the death of two witnesses (itself probably symbolic) would occur a month before that.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

We don't agree on this, but I was reading your post here and noticed that the same word used for "groan" in 2 Cor 5:2 is also used in Rom 8:22, and the following passages show that what you say is something which we already have (the spiritual body), scripture says is something we are still hoping for - and it's the resurrection of the body:

Rom 8:22-25
"And we know that the whole creation groans (συστενάζω systenázō) and travails in pain together until now. And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruit of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan (στενάζω stenázō) within ourselves, awaiting adoption, the redemption of our body.
For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope; for what anyone sees, why does he also hope for it?
25 But if we hope for that which we do not see, then we wait for it with patience."

The word stenázō means to groan, and the word systenázō refers to groaning together - as in the creation groaning together.

Click to expand...

You are maybe on the verge of a major discovery, if you'll listen to the Scriptures, but I don't think you are aware of it.

Rom 8:22-25
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
KJV

Paul says not only does the whole creation groan and travail in pain, i.e., seeking a release from the bondage God placed it in for this world, but we also, groan "within ourselves". What is it inside our flesh that groans? It's our spirit with soul. The body of redemption Paul is pointing to there is the "spiritual body" of 1 Cor.15., not a new flesh body.

Matt 22:29-32
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
KJV

The word arrhabṓn (G00728) means "a pledge, i.e. part of the purchase-money or property given in advance as security for the rest:--earnest." It is also found in 2 Cor 1:22

2 Cor 1:22:
"Now he who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God; Who has also sealed us, and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. (ἀῤῥαβών arrhabṓn)"

So 2 Cor 5:1-2 clearly refers, like the rest of the New Testament, to our future bodily resurrection, and does not support your assertion regarding us "already having" this spiritual body.

It seems to me that you have developed a personal theology regarding the spiritual body, and are interpreting the entire New Testament "in the light of" it.

Click to expand...

If you believe in a Salvation of your flesh, then you are doomed, because Christ's Salvation is to our spirit, not to the flesh. And I just showed you the Scripture where Jesus Himself emphatically said the resurrection is to a body "as the angels of God in heaven".

But you refuse to believe the Scriptures in favor of your Jew's traditions! And you falsely accuse me of creating a personal theology apart from God's Word?? You are simply Biblically illiterate and bear false witness, and are not to be trusted with God's Word.

claninja said:

Here is where I would disagree with you in part. I don't believe our "spirit" is always attached to the "soul".

While the spirit always returns to God upon physical death (ecclesiastes 12:5-7, luke 24:36, acts 7:59), The soul does not.

Jesus' "soul" went to hades upon death, but was not left there because of the resurrection.

Acts 2:27 because You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will You let Your Holy One see decay.

Click to expand...

You do know that was David speaking about himself in that red part, praying that God would not leave his soul in hell?

Ps 16:9-10
9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.

10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
KJV

Christ's flesh didn't "rest in hope"; that's about David's flesh in that part of the Scripture. Only that latter blue bold part is about our Lord Jesus' Christ's resurrection and that His flesh would not see corruption (i.e., not decay in the tomb, resting in hope of the resurrection).

claninja said:

no worries

Partially.

I believe Adam's transgression of disobedience resulted in being dead in his sin and the removal of the tree of life, this death being transferred to all mankind from that point on. All who remain dead in their sins, and not found in Christ, will face the 2nd death.

I believe Christ's resurrection (anastasis) from the dead, which is the first resurrection, resulted in those in Christ being raised (synegeiro) from being dead in our sins to walk in newness of life with God. This being raised (synegeiro) and made alive with Him, guarantees our future bodily resurrection (anastasis) and guarantees that we will never face the 2nd death.

I believe in 2 resurrections: Christ, the first, and the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous.



I disagree that there is only 1 resurrection. A "first" resurrection implies there is another resurrection. Scripture teaches more than 1 resurrection.

Scripture teaches Jesus’ resurrection.

Philippians 3:10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all

Scripture teaches another resurrection after Jesus:

Acts 24:15 and I have the same hope in God that they themselves cherish, that there is about to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

1 corinthians 15:42-44 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Philippians 3:11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Click to expand...

Here's something to consider that Paul said which is easy to miss...

1 Cor 15:42-44
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
KJV

So what is that "It"? And it must... be something that is separate from those two states of corruption and incorruption.

That "It" is about our soul. It is sown in corruption into a flesh body. It is raised in incorruption into a spiritual body. The idea of a 'body' is simply an outward image likeness. Our soul is about our real self, our person, our individual. This is why our soul must always be attached to an outward image.

According to Apostle Paul it's the "image of the earthy" for those in the flesh in this earthly dimension. For those in the heavenly dimension, it's the "image of the heavenly", an angelic type body.

Davy said:

If you believe in a Salvation of your flesh, then you are doomed, because Christ's Salvation is to our spirit, not to the flesh. And I just showed you the Scripture where Jesus Himself emphatically said the resurrection is to a body "as the angels of God in heaven".

But you refuse to believe the Scriptures in favor of your Jew's traditions! And you falsely accuse me of creating a personal theology apart from God's Word?? You are simply Biblically illiterate and bear false witness, and are not to be trusted with God's Word.

Click to expand...

You interpreted his words about as well as you interpret scripture at times. Very poorly. He never once said that the dead in Christ will be raised with flesh and blood bodies. So, why are you accusing him of that? He is saying that the dead in Christ will be raised and have spiritual bodies just like Paul said. And that will happen at the last trumpet when Christ returns (1 Cor 15:50-54).

The difference in your view and his view (and mine - I agree with him on this) is not that he thinks the dead in Christ will be raised with flesh and blood bodies while you believe they will have spiritual bodies. The difference is that you think the dead in Christ already have their spiritual bodies while he believes that they will have them in the future.

He is clearly correct about this because Paul said we (the dead in Christ and those who are still alive) will ALL be changed at the last trumpet. It is at the last trumpet, when Christ returns, that all of the dead in Christ will be raised with spiritual bodies. Not before then. Your interpretation of 2 Cor 5 contradicts 1 Cor 15:50-54, but you apparently don't even care about that.

No one here believes that the dead in Christ will be raised with flesh and blood bodies. Paul was very clear in 1 Cor 15:50 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So, why would anyone think that someone could inherit the kingdom of God with a flesh and blood body unless that verse wasn't in their Bible? Again, no one here believes that the dead in Christ will be resurrected with flesh and blood bodies like we have now, so there's no reason to accuse anyone of that.

Spiritual Jew said:

He is clearly correct about this because Paul said we (the dead in Christ and those who are still alive) will ALL be changed at the last trumpet. It is at the last trumpet, when Christ returns, that all of the dead in Christ will be raised with spiritual bodies. Not before then. Your interpretation of 2 Cor 5 contradicts 1 Cor 15:50-54, but you apparently don't even care about that.

Click to expand...

Paul's own words in 2 Corinthians 5 clears up the confusion, it does not contradict 1 Corinthians 15. No one in Paradise is waiting for a body until the Second Coming. Paul is trying get past why some have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians 15. For a poster who requested people to admit their mistakes, why do you not see Paul was admitting he could have written the first letter better?

Many stick to a point they think 1 Corinthians 15 says, and totally ignore Paul correcting himself in the second letter. Then they claim readers intentionally contradict Paul. Well Paul contradicts Paul, because he did not want readers to think they had to wait until the Second Coming. All we hear is the first message over and over again. We seldom hear in connection to that, Paul's own correction.

If Paul had never written the 2nd letter to clear up some misunderstandings, we would never have known the truth. Why some refuse to see this when pointed out to them, means they deliberately reject Paul's correction in favor of what they have been taught over and over again without any clarification on Paul's point.

We know those in heaven return in their bodies with Christ. No where does it say the souls return with Christ for a dead flesh body that needs to be changed. That is the unsettling thought that keeps being preached in theory. The majority of the church has been changed and that does not contradict Paul saying all will be changed. Most all have been changed since the time Paul wrote that.

51 Look, I will tell you a secret — not all of us will die! But we will all be changed!
52 It will take but a moment, the blink of an eye, at the final shofar. For the shofar will sound, and the dead will be raised to live forever, and we too will be changed.

Guess what? Paul did die. Was he lying when he said he would not die? "the dead will be raised to live forever" Does this mean they are not living forever now? Why would they still be dead in Paradise? It makes no sense that there are dead people in Paradise waiting for the Second Coming. Now you say, but soul is alive? So they are alive walking around in a dead body? That is why Paul has to write 2 Corinthians 5. Clearly he says they are alive in Christ in a Permanent body. The tent is in the ground, and the Permanent body is in heaven. So your logic means they are a soul, looking at their Permanent body, but cannot use it, because Paul claims they have to wait until the Second Coming. Only Christ has a permanent body, but the Permanent body that the soul should be in Paradise, and it does exist and has since the Cross for those in Christ, but that Permanent body is in storage for 1990 years, and no one can use it?

The dead have risen first, because they come back with Christ. Evidently without a body until they reach a certain altitude above earth?

1 We know that when the tent which houses us here on earth is torn down, we have a permanent building from God, a building not made by human hands, to house us in heaven.
2 For in this tent, our earthly body, we groan with desire to have around us the home from heaven that will be ours.
3 With this around us we will not be found naked.

So the soul has to be naked for 1990 years?

Where does Paul say we still have to wait 1990 years in nakedness to confirm his misunderstood point in 1 Corinthians 15? Would it not be more plausible Paul was saying, "no, we do not have to wait"?

When is the Permanent building ready? When the tent on earth is torn down. Not at the return of Christ. Those in Paradise have this Permanent body, so the soul is not walking around naked.

4 Yes, while we are in this body, we groan with the sense of being oppressed: it is not so much that we want to take something off, but rather to put something on over it; so that what must die may be swallowed up by the Life.
5 Moreover, it is God who has prepared us for this very thing, and as a pledge he has given us his Spirit.
6 So we are always confident — we know that so long as we are at home in the body, we are away from our home with the Lord;
7 for we live by trust, not by what we see.
8 We are confident, then, and would much prefer to leave our home in the body and come to our home with the Lord.

PS.

The term spiritual can be misleading. Paradise is as physical as earth. It was once on earth. This mystery of unknown body type can be cleared up. Paul states there is an incorruptible body. Paul states it is a permanent building compared to a cloth tent. As huge a difference as can be stated. That surely cannot mean we will not look like ourselves. Jesus looked just the same in one body as the other. "Not made by hands" this means not of biological birth. Adam was made by God, not a biological offspring. Adam had a normal body that ate normal food and was normally physical. It was different because it was incorruptible. It was a permanent building that would last forever. So trying to claim some spiritual body that is beyond understanding from the physical is just bad interpretation with no basis in reality. Current flesh and blood full of corruption cannot enter Paradise. That was true in Genesis 3:24

24 So he drove the man out, and he placed at the east of the garden of ‘Eden the k’ruvim and a flaming sword which turned in every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Adam and sinful flesh, including all sinful offspring are banned forever from Paradise. Adam had a spiritual body, but God killed it and gave Adam a corruptible body. God removed the robe of white, glorified spirit, and took it back to His presence on the throne. Adam died physically and spiritually that day. Adam's new corruptible body died 900 years later. This is not made up private interpretation. Adam was created by God. Paul states the permanent body is created by God they both exist in Paradise the Garden of Eden. Paul states that as well. 2 Corinthians 12:4
4 was snatched into Gan-‘Eden and heard things that cannot be put into words, things unlawful for a human being to utter.

Paul confirms that heaven where the living go is Paradise. The complete image of God is soul, body, and spirit. Instead of our spirit with us, God substituted the Holy Spirit. The soul never dies nor changes, but it is not by itself a permanent building created by God. It is also not so spiritual it is beyond what we can know. We know how Adam lived on earth in the Garden prior to sin. Living there now is no different save for the fact, no one has put on the robe of white, the spirit of God's image. The Holy Spirit is still at work as a substitute. That work as a substitute will end at the 5th and 6th seal. The church will be complete prior to the opening of the 7th Seal. Rapture or no rapture, all will have been changed.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

You bear false witness to what I said, and to what the Word of God says regarding the resurrection. No one here is talking about the body being raised as flesh and blood. The body that is raised is the body that was sown in death. If the flesh-and-blood body is sown in death in the earth, then it is dead. The Bible in 1 Corinthians 15 and elsewhere says it (the body that was sown in death) will be raised - but not as a flesh and blood, mortal, corruptible body - it will be raised a spiritual body. This is what has been said in scripture and by all those who believe scripture.

Your insults are you looking in the mirror at yourself and at your own extra-Biblical theology, which you have arrived at through your Biblical illiteracy (and you obviously will hold onto it, though it is not Biblical), but as a result it is you who is not to be trusted with the Word of God. You may take your words, which I have shown you are in the mirror you are looking at when looking at yourself, up with the Lord one day.

I certainly won't be taking your words up with the Lord. When I face Christ I know that I won't be accusing anyone else. Nevertheless you are on ignore from now on. I don't have time for speaking to people with extra-Biblical ideas who are as rude as you. You have clearly adopted this extra-Biblical theology of yours and are interpreting scripture "in the light of" it. At least Amil and Pre-mil both have a lot of scriptural support - but your theology regarding the resurrection from the dead is extra-Biblical.

Click to expand...

Your views are more aligned with JUDAISM than they are with Christian doctrine from The New Testament.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

Your insults do not validate anything you say.

At least when I said I think your views start with a theology, which you then interpret the N.T statements regarding the resurrection of the body in accordance with, I had the courtesy to add "IMO" to what I said, and I did not add any insult like saying that you "cannot be trusted with the Word of God" just because I disagree with your assertions.

What you say above is your opinion. What you say regarding the resurrection of the body being a "spirit body" which we already have now, is your opinion. What you said about that I cannot be trusted with the Word of God, is your opinion.

Your insults are your own, you own them and you produce them, unless there is a spirit in you that produces them, otherwise they are your own production.

Not worth continuing with this "discussion".

Click to expand...

I wouldn't recommend any believer on Christ having a responsible conversation with someone like you, because you have shown you have no intention of keeping to God's Word as written. Only deceivers do that, and YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED. So brethren, take warning.

Davy said:

I wouldn't recommend any believer on Christ having a responsible conversation with someone like you, because you have shown you have no intention of keeping to God's Word as written. Only deceivers do that, and YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED. So brethren, take warning.

Click to expand...

Says the person who believes in the heresy that many people will be raised from the dead and get a second chance at salvation in the future. You are not one to criticize anyone else about their beliefs when you yourself believe in such an unscriptural, heretical doctrine like that.

Humble yourself and stop believing in heresy. This life is the chance that everyone gets at salvation. There are no second chances.

Timtofly said:

Paul's own words in 2 Corinthians 5 clears up the confusion, it does not contradict 1 Corinthians 15. No one in Paradise is waiting for a body until the Second Coming. Paul is trying get past why some have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians 15. For a poster who requested people to admit their mistakes, why do you not see Paul was admitting he could have written the first letter better?

Many stick to a point they think 1 Corinthians 15 says, and totally ignore Paul correcting himself in the second letter.

Click to expand...

Everyone, please take note of what poster Timtofly said here. He is saying that he believes Paul made a mistake in 1 Corinthians 15 and what he said in 2 Corinthians 5 was a case of him correcting what he said in 1 Corinthians 15. Can you believe this heresy?

Tim, do you not understand that every word of the Bible is inspired by God? If you think Paul was mistaken in 1 Corinthians 15 then you are saying God was mistaken in what He inspired Paul to write in 1 Corinthians 15. That is heresy to suggest that God could ever be mistaken.