Surely Premils must invent 2 future glorifications days and 2 future raptures separated by 1000 years+?

[WPM]

My entire point has been that your paraphrase of Isaiah 65:20 changes the meaning of the text/translation. Even Spiritual Israelite knows I’m talking about your paraphrase, as he said you disagree with how the English translation of Isaiah 65:20 reads:

I don't agree. But i am not going to fight you on that. Try the translation (that is word for word). It was from that which I based my argument, not the paraphrase.

 

[claninja]

While 1 Cor 15:50-54 indicates that the glorification (change of the body to be immortal) happens "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, in my view it still happens right after their bodies are resurrected first. It all happens fast, but there's still an order to in my view and I would not exactly equate the resurrection with the glorification similar with how I would not exactly equate the glorification with the rapture even thoug hthey happen at almost the same time because the rapture refers to people being caught up which happens after they are glorified first.

Anyway, regardless of any of that, there is no mention anywhere besides 1 Cor 15:50-54 of anyone being glorified at any other time besides at the last trumpet, which is the point. Premills have to just assume it happens again after the thousand years despite nothing in scripture saying anything about that.

Happens “right after”, as you said. The eschatological resurrection of the dead is intrinsically linked to glorification. If the glorification of the body is intrinsically linked to the eschatological resurrection, and there are 2 resurrections in revelation 20, why would premils need to “invent” a second glorification? Can you have an eschatological bodily resurrection without glorification?

Again, it doesn’t matter if there is no a mention of a 2nd resurrection followed immediately by 2nd glorification in 1 Corinthians 15 if Paul was unaware of the complete picture prior revelation “revealing” the 2nd resurrection after a thousand years.

You just don't get it. Who cares about your perspective? Not me. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the Premill perspective. They believe people's bodies are glorified at Christ's second coming. Where is the mention of anyone's bodies being glorified at any point after that? Nowhere. Most Premills do not see the resurreciton of the rest of the dead as a general resurrection of all the dead, including believers, but rather as a resurrection of dead unbelievers. So, with that being the case, for those Premills, where do they see anything about those who are believers during the thousand years being glorified?

Sure, so if the variation of premil that sees the 2nd resurrection as only the unjust to judgement, then there is no 2nd glorification or 2nd rapture to invent.

That would mean, those who are ruled over during the millennium may submit to the authority but never truly convert, and are thus raised to judgement at the 2nd resurrection.

I already explained this. What do you think, that those who are in "the camp of the saints" should just stay there on the earth while fire is coming down on it? What do Premills think has to happen in order for the fire not to harm those saints? Wouldn't they need to be taken off of the earth? Or, at the very least, they would need to be glorified quickly before the fire comes down. But, imagine them being glorified and then the fire coming down on them, but not harming them. Seems rather ridiculous. I would think they would be removed out of the way first which is exactly whwat I believe will happen at Chirst's return.

Everyone in the church will be glorified and caught up to meet the Lord in the air and then fire will come down on the entire earth. But, where is the scripture that says anything about people being glorified 1,000+ years after people are glorified at the last trumpet? Nowhere. Paul said we all will be changed at the last trumpet. All except those who live after that? That's apparently what Premills believe, but I think that's completely ridiculous and is a case of adding something to scripture which is not there.

The passage simply says fire comes down from heaven and consumed “them”, - them being those marching upon the camp of saints.

Not sure why this couldnt be understood similar to fire destroying sodom or Elijah calling down fire to burn his alter?

Becaues it makes no sense for believers to remain there while fire comes down on the earth. What is your understanding of that? You think individual beams of fire will come down on each unbeliever while leaving believers unscathed?

lol that’s kind of funny

Not all Premils do that. In the case of those who do, it's to show them that they are wrong for thinking that way and that their view contradicts other scripture. If they think that even Jesus Himself didn't have the full revelation and they can't even trust what Jesus Himself said about the resurrection of the dead and other things, then that is just foolish. But, not all Premills claim that Revelation reveals new information not found in the epistles and gospels. That's why they twist what is said in the epistles and gospels to fit their view. They think it's there in the epistles and gospels, but they manipulate the text to make it seem as if it's there.

It can only be seen in the gospels and epistles because revelation “reveals” it. If revelation was never included in canon, we wouldn’t be arguing about a “pre” “post” or “a” millennium because we wouldn’t even know what that means. If it wasn’t for revelation revealing 2 resurrections separated by 1000 years, this wouldn’t even be debated.

 

[claninja]

I don't agree. But i am not going to fight you on that. Try the translation (that is word for word). It was from that which I based my argument, not the paraphrase.

I have no problem with the word for word translation.

My entire point was that I don’t agree with your paraphrase because it removes words from the translation to create different meaning. You are attempting to remove death from the passage, when death is used intentionally by the author to make a point.

• The translation states “no longer will and an infant live but a few days nor an old man not complete his days” BUT you paraphrased it to say, “an infant will not become an old man”
  • Infants will not die in birth, old men will not die prematurely - this is the point made by the author.
• The translation states “a youth will die at a hundred years old” BUT you paraphrased it to say “no longer will a youth die at 100 years old”
  • No longer will a child die at 100? When did a child ever die at 100? Instead, The youth will die at a hundred, is simply a phrase portraying prolonged life - someone who dies at the age of 100, would still be considered a youth.

The author here is seeing a reversal of some of Gods curses under a new heavenly and earthly arrangement, albeit still a veiled vision set in the context of the old covenant people.

 

[claninja]

One thing is for certain, if death is still taking place in Isaiah 65:17-20, the era of time it is involving cannot be post the fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15:28, but must be meaning prior to the fulfilling of that. The reason I bring 1 Corinthians 15:28 up is because it is obvious, thus no one would be disputing that 1 Corinthians 15:28 is meaning after the GWTJ is fulfilled and in the past. IOW, there is no longer any such thing as death once the GWTJ has been fulfilled. And certainly not once 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled. The question is, where does the NHNE and NJ fit in here? Can it only fit after the GWTJ has been fulfilled first? I tend to have my doubts since I tend to think the NHNE is a process that begins with the 2nd coming, thus something not instantaneous , the same way, for example, creation in the beginning was not instantaneous. It was a process involving 6 days.

weren’t a lot of OT prophesies only veiled expressions whose true fulfillments were revealed in the NT?

 

[WPM]

I tend to think the NHNE is a process that begins with the 2nd coming, thus something not instantaneous , the same way, for example, creation in the beginning was not instantaneous. It was a process involving 6 days.

Where in Scripture does it say that "the NHNE is a process that begins with the 2nd coming, thus something not instantaneous"?

 

[Zao is life]

As to your argument in regards to God being the God of the living, this has already been addressed. The context involves a bodily resurrection, not what does or does not happen to a soul upon death. For all we know, the Sadducees in Matthew 22:23 may have believed that souls were created immortal? What then? They certainly wouldn't be promoting soul sleep in that case.​

"Talking in their sleep"

I've realized that even though I always rejected the saying "Too heavenly minded to be any earthly good" used against the saints,

for me to say that Amills like @Spiritual Israelite and @WPM are too spiritually minded to be of any use to the TRUE gospel of salvation from sin AND death, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,

is 100% true,

because they have become blinded by their use of non-biblical terminology produced by their false doctrines, such as when they refer to created human beings who have been GIVEN eternal life IN CHRIST as being "spiritually alive":

Only the One who has life [zoe] IN HIMSELF can be considered and called "spiritually alive" (having zoe IN HIMSELF).

The Bible talks about eternal life [zoe] existing in God/Christ alone, and about us who are born of the Spirit being GIVEN eternal life IN CHRIST - but it never uses the expression "spiritual life" or being "spiritually alive" in reference to created humans,

because as John 1:4 & John 5:26 tells us, "spiritual life" [zoe] is IN GOD ALONE - not IN created human beings who have been GIVEN eternal life - eternal life which is IN His Son.

Paul also confirms this when he tells us that the mystery that has been hidden from ages and generations is CHRIST IN YOU, which he calls "the hope of our glory" (Colossians 1:27). Jesus said: "I am in my Father, and ye (will be) in me, and I in you." -- John 14:19b-20b.

Paul said, "When Christ, who is our life [zōḗ], shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." (Colossians 3:4).

The Father / the Holy Spirit / the Word / the Son of God is the one who is spiritually alive - not us. HE is the one who has life [zoe] IN HIMSELF.

But these false teachers use the words "spiritually alive" in reference to created human beings as though that life they are referring to is in them - in created human beings rather than being GIVEN to us IN CHRIST.

They also teach a totally false and non-biblical concept, saying that the human spirit is "dead" until it receives eternal life from God,

but SCRIPTURE says of the human spirit that exists even without having received eternal life which is IN CHRIST:

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 12:7-8).

When Jesus raised a young girl from the dead, we are told that "Her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat." (Luke 8:55).

Her spirit was not "dead" before she died - but before she died, she had not received from God the GIFT of eternal life [zoe] which exists in Christ, in God alone.

Nowhere does the Bible talk about "dead human spirits". The hypothesis of so-called "spiritual death" is simply the absence of eternal life [zoe], and eternal life [zoe] is that which in Colossians 1:26-27 Paul calls:

"The mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints", which is "Christ in you, the hope of glory."

These false teachers and gospel corrupters (yes, I have come to realize Amillennialism is a gospel corrupter and so Amills are gospel corrupters) also compound the above false doctrines with misapplying (falsely applying) the word "quickening" (making alive what was dead) to the human spirit, saying the human spirit is "quickened from the dead" (instead of the human BODY being quickened from the dead which is what those verses are ALWAYS talking about),

and when you quote each and every verse using that word zooopeio (quickening) and PROVE to them that it's always talking about the quickening of the dead BODY,

they just ignore it, and double-down with their false doctrines, their gospel-corruptions.

It is because the God who is alive | living God [zao], who has life [zoe] IN HIMSELF, created human beings to be alive [zao], each one in his own created body on the created earth, that death (the death of the body) is the enemy of God.

The gospel-courrpters cannot believe that to be "away from home out of the body" (as Paul calls it in 2 Corinthians 5:6-9) = souls without limbs - because as THE SCRIPTURES call it, they are dead, not living.

The gospel-corrupters cannot understand WHY when the body dies, the created human is DEAD, and considered dead and called dead in biblical scripture, regardless of the fact that scripture tells us that the soul detached from the body continues to exist and continues to be aware of itself and its surroundings and (in THAT sense) "awake".

IN THE PROCESS these gospel corrupters DISHONOR Christ, because through their false doctrines they diminish THE PURPOSE for which SCRIPTURE tells us Christ came into the world and went through all He did:

"For this reason Christ died [apothnesko] and rose again from the dead [anistemi], and lived again [anazao: lived again in a body that is not dead], so that he may be the Lord of both the dead [nekros] and living [zao: those who are alive in a body that is not dead]." (Romans 14:9).

They also corrupt the scriptures and the gospel by IN EFFECT teaching people that "eternal life" is IN created human beings (instead of in God / Christ alone) because they say that created human beings are "spiritually alive" (when in fact only the One who has life in Himself can be considered and called spiritually alive), and they teach that the human spirit is "quickened from the dead" when in fact eternal life (Christ) comes to dwell in the human being who has been born of the Spirit of Life,

and then they deny that the word quickening is ALWAYS referring to the dead human body,

and they claim that the human spirit that existed in the human being who was born into the world with the body of the person, was "dead".

No it was not "dead" - it simply had NO eternal life in it:

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 12:7-8).
​

They have corrupted the scriptures and the gospel of salvation from sin AND death. In the process they have made themselves too spiritually minded to be of any use to the TRUE gospel - the gospel of salvation from sin AND death, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As a result they have becpme so blinded by their false doctrines that they have completely blocked their ears to the teaching of the Holy Spirit - and then they turn around and tell you that you are not being taught by the Holy Spirit.

It would be a total joke were it not so sad and such a disgrace that Christians who have received such grace from God as the gift of eternal life in Christ and the promise of being bodily resurrected from DEATH, can corrupt the gospel and the scriptures with such pride and such boasting, the way these Amillennialsts have done and continue to do.

 

[Zao is life]

I don't agree with you. I see what he is saying as making perfect sense. The reason why you don't is because of doctrinal bias on your part. Here's what I decided to do. I submitted post #172 to chatgpt to summarize in order to see if it could make any sense out of since you insist @Zao is life is making no sense here. But why is he making no sense here according to you? Is it because he actually is making no sense here? Or is the problem on your end, you are not paying attention to what he is actually saying and meaning?

"God hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now [nyn-of this present time] made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" -- 2 Timothy 1:9-10.

1. Christ IS the resurrection from death and the (eternal) life [zoe],

2. The destruction of death IS the second death. The lake of fire IS the second death.

3. Those who are not IN Christ - their names are not in the Lamb's book of life - and they go with death into the lake of fire.

I'm thinking that there is something more we could understand about this? (Something that can only be gleaned from the above facts)?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Apples and oranges. It’s seems by your response you still don’t know what a textual variance is. This is unbelievable. I can’t tell if you’re trolling or maybe gaslighting me?

It's unbelievable to me that you are making no attempt to see my point. It's not apples and oranges in the sense that you you to use the text from English translations to support your understanding of Isaiah 65:20, but when I do that for Daniel 7:13-14, you just dismiss it as if it's not a valid point.

Apples and oranges. I don’t disagree with how the English translators translated the masoretic text into English for Daniel 7. I don’t disagree with how the English translators translated the theodotion into English for Daniel 7. I don’t disagree with how the English translators translated the original Greek text into English for Daniel 7.

That's not my point. Are you being purposely dense? I'm only talking about the English translations here. You are making it apples and oranges because you're trying to bring oranges into a point being made about apples. I'm simply saying that you disagree with what the text says for Daniel 7:13-14 in English translations and he disagrees with what the text says in Isaiah 65:20 in English translations, but somehow it's okay for you to do that, but not him.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As to your argument in regards to God being the God of the living, this has already been addressed. The context involves a bodily resurrection, not what does or does not happen to a soul upon death. For all we know, the Sadducees in Matthew 22:23 may have believed that souls were created immortal? What then? They certainly wouldn't be promoting soul sleep in that case.

You are very naive. For all we know? Have you heard of the Internet? In 5 seconds you can do a search on what the Sadducees believed and you will discover that they believed people completely ceased to exist when they physically died. So, Jesus was addressing them based on how they understood death. By showing that the souls of the dead like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive at that time since God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and is not the God of the dead, but of the living, it refuted two things that they believed at once. If the souls of the dead were alive at that time and did not cease to exist, then the Sadducees had no reason to believe that they could not bodily resurrected.

Why are you unable to or maybe unwilling to, differentiate between being alive in a bodily state vs. being alive in a disembodied state?

LOL! This is hilarious . I do that often! Hello? Wake up. You seem to be just as dead as you think the souls of those who are bodily dead are.

Let's call the former, A), and the latter, B).

Let's use 2 examples here.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

What state is Adam in once he became a living soul? A) or B)?

A

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

What state are the souls of them in that John sees here, meaning when he sees them here? A) or B)?

B

Any other tough questions you want to ask? LOL! This is a joke.

If we factor in this---And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?---does it look like any of them are soul sleeping? Of course not.

So, that means their souls are alive, right? In your other post it said they are technically dead. Hello? You are contradicting yourself, so it's hard to know what you believe.

Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to conclude these are soul sleeping. Or if they are soul sleeping, maybe they talk in their sleep? Is that what some of us should believe?

Why did you say in your other post that they are technically dead and not alive (zao)? Since you believe they are alive, why can't the word "zao", which means "to be alive" apply to them?

BTW, that's a good one I came up with there if I do say so myself, soul sleepers talking in their sleep, lol.

I have made that same joke myself several times when talking to people who believe in soul sleep.

I hope you're getting to a point here because you're making me sleepy with this post.

When some of us are saying that your interpretation of---and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years--does not fit the Biblical definition of a living soul, we are meaning as in Genesis 2:7, for instance. We are not saying any souls are dead or are sleeping, as in soul sleeping.

I'm only referring to the part of them that is called the soul, which is one of the the three parts of a person along with the spirit and body. You say yourself that the souls of those who are physically dead are not sleeping, so that means their souls are alive, right? With that being the case, why can't the word "zao", which means "to be alive", apply to them?

How do you explain what has already been brought up, this below?

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:


Why is Paul still calling these the dead in Christ since he is obviously meaning their soul will rise and be reunited with a physical body?

Because their bodies are dead. what part of them will be resurrected from the dead? Their bodies. Hello? What is the point of a question like this? You are already acknowledging that their souls are not sleeping and are not dead, so does that not mean their souls are alive?

Per the way you are interpreting the souls of them that John sees in Revelation 20:4, why doesn't Paul then say this instead---For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the alive in Christ shall rise first? Why is Paul still seeing these as dead until they rise, but that you are seeing these as already alive before they even rise? Maybe Paul doesn't believe in soul sleep, either? Yet he viewed these as still dead until they rise, not already alive before they rise.

Again, what is Paul talking about there that will be resurrected? Their souls and spirits? That can't be since you acknowledge that their souls are not sleeping/dead. So, it's only their bodies that will be resurrected at which point they will be changed to be immortal while uniting with their souls and spirits.

Since you acknowledge that the souls of the dead in Christ are not sleeping (not dead), then why do you think that Revelation 20:4 can't be referring to the souls of the dead in Christ living (zao) and reigning with Christ? Do you try to claim that they are not sleeping (not dead), but also not alive, which makes no sense at all?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My entire point has been that your paraphrase of Isaiah 65:20 changes the meaning of the text/translation

LOL. No, that has not been your point. Your point has been that he rearranged the words as they are in the original Hebrew text, which he did not do. You thinking he changed the meaning of the text/translation is just your opinion that he is misinterpreting the text and nothing more.

. Even Spiritual Israelite knows I’m talking about your paraphrase, as he said you disagree with how the English translation of Isaiah 65:20 reads:

His paraphrase is just that. A paraphrase. An interpretation. You have been claiming that he rearranges the words in the original text. No, he's not. He is showing his understanding of what the original text means.

 

[Davidpt]

Where in Scripture does it say that "the NHNE is a process that begins with the 2nd coming, thus something not instantaneous"?

It's a logical deduction if one is Premil like me who agrees with Amil that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming, yet disagrees Amil is correct that the millennium precedes the 2nd coming.

For example.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


in the regeneration---I interpret this to involve an era of time rather than a single day. I also interpret this to be meaning before 1 Corithians 15:28 is fulfilled.

Matthew 25:31 already tells us when and where Matthew 19:28 takes place.

Then there is this to consider.

Luke 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.


I have no clue what this might look like when being fulfilled. All I know is, it is meaning once Christ has returned in the end of this age. And that it involves giving His faithful servants authority over things. Which then makes zero sense that the same day He gives them this authority, 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled that same day. Or, as if it makes since that they maintain this authority over these things forever since there would be no period of time preventing it from continuing forever once 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled. Insert a thousand years here, problem solved. Now they are not using this authority for just one day, nor are they using this authority forever.

BTW, why is it that you and others like you think Christ is only capable of reigning over unsaved nations while He is in a hidden state, but not capable of doing that while He is in a seen state, as in bodily present on the planet? Why do you all want to deny Him that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Happens “right after”, as you said. The eschatological resurrection of the dead is intrinsically linked to glorification. If the glorification of the body is intrinsically linked to the eschatological resurrection, and there are 2 resurrections in revelation 20, why would premils need to “invent” a second glorification? Can you have an eschatological bodily resurrection without glorification?

Are you being purposely obtuse and purposely missing my point? Most premils do not see the resurrection of the rest of the dead as including believers. So, where would they say that the resurrection and glorification of those who die during the thousand years is referenced?

Sure, so if the variation of premil that sees the 2nd resurrection as only the unjust to judgement, then there is no 2nd glorification or 2nd rapture to invent.

Why not? How would those who believe during that time be able to avoid the fire that comes down from heaven and how would they have the kind of bodies that are necessary to live in the eternal new heavens and new earth without a 2nd glorification and 2nd rapture?

That would mean, those who are ruled over during the millennium may submit to the authority but never truly convert, and are thus raised to judgement at the 2nd resurrection.

That's not what a vast majority of them believe. They don't believe that no one is saved during the thousand years.

The passage simply says fire comes down from heaven and consumed “them”, - them being those marching upon the camp of saints.

Not sure why this couldnt be understood similar to fire destroying sodom or Elijah calling down fire to burn his alter?

LOL. That's my point. I'm saying it should be understood similar to that. Did Lot just hang around in Sodom while the fire came down on it or did he need to leave their first before it came down? The latter obviously. My point is that the saints need to be taken out of the way somehow before the fire comes down, so that's why I'm taling about a second rapture needing to occur at htat itme from the premil perspective.

lol that’s kind of funny

It was intended to be. But, you didn't answer my question. What is your understanding of how the saints would avoid being affected by the fire?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I've realized that even though I always rejected the saying "Too heavenly minded to be any earthly good" used against the saints,

for me to say that Amills like @Spiritual Israelite and @WPM are too spiritually minded to be of any use to the TRUE gospel of salvation from sin AND death, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,

is 100% true, ​

Now you you're accusing us of preaching a false gospel. What a pathetic joke you have become. You will have to answer for this.

 

[WPM]

It's a logical deduction if one is Premil like me who agrees with Amil that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming, yet disagrees Amil is correct that the millennium precedes the 2nd coming.

For example.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


in the regeneration---I interpret this to involve an era of time rather than a single day. I also interpret this to be meaning before 1 Corithians 15:28 is fulfilled.

Matthew 25:31 already tells us when and where Matthew 19:28 takes place.

Then there is this to consider.

Luke 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.


I have no clue what this might look like when being fulfilled. All I know is, it is meaning once Christ has returned in the end of this age. And that it involves giving His faithful servants authority over things. Which then makes zero sense that the same day He gives them this authority, 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled that same day. Or, as if it makes since that they maintain this authority over these things forever since there would be no period of time preventing it from continuing forever once 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled. Insert a thousand years here, problem solved. Now they are not using this authority for just one day, nor are they using this authority forever.

BTW, why is it that you and others like you think Christ is only capable of reigning over unsaved nations while He is in a hidden state, but not capable of doing that while He is in a seen state, as in bodily present on the planet? Why do you all want to deny Him that?

Ok, so you have nothing of biblical substance to support your beliefs apart from what is going on inside your head. That is scary! All you have here is your own thoughts. As for your logical deduction, that is the flesh. That is your own mind. The mind is at enmity to God.

Amils have Christ reigning when and where He says, not when and where they would like Him to, to support their school of thought. That is a major difference between our doctrines.

 

[WPM]

LOL. No, that has not been your point. Your point has been that he rearranged the words as they are in the original Hebrew text, which he did not do. You thinking he changed the meaning of the text/translation is just your opinion that he is misinterpreting the text and nothing more.


His paraphrase is just that. A paraphrase. An interpretation. You have been claiming that he rearranges the words in the original text. No, he's not. He is showing his understanding of what the original text means.

He seems to just like arguing for the sake of it. He has nothing to bring to the table.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He seems to just like arguing for the sake of it. He has nothing to bring to the table.

Apparently. He never has had anything to bring to the table.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ok, so you have nothing of biblical substance to support your beliefs apart from what is going on inside your head.

Along with ChatGPT.

That is scary! All as you have is your own thoughts. As for your logical deduction, that is the flesh. That is your own mind. The mind is at enmity to God.

Right.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

He's always talking about logic and common sense as if those are the keys to understanding scripture. So, he thinks human wisdom is the key to understanding scripture. Scripture itself does not support that. It says that the things the Bible authors spoke and wrote were "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth". He interprets scriptural like the natural man so that's why the teachings from scripture that we promote "are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned".

Amils have Christ reigning when and where He says, not when and where they would like Him to, to support their school of thought. That is a major difference between our doctrines.

Exactly.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's a logical deduction if one is Premil like me who agrees with Amil that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming, yet disagrees Amil is correct that the millennium precedes the 2nd coming.

For example.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


in the regeneration---I interpret this to involve an era of time rather than a single day.

Why do you interpret it that way? The following describes the regeneration of the current heavens and earth that results in the new heavens and new earth.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Where in this text is there any indication whatsoever that the regeneration of the heavens and earth is a long process?

I also interpret this to be meaning before 1 Corithians 15:28 is fulfilled.

Matthew 25:31 already tells us when and where Matthew 19:28 takes place.

Then there is this to consider.

You say things like this as if what you're saying backs up your claim at all, which it does not.

Luke 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.


I have no clue what this might look like when being fulfilled. All I know is, it is meaning once Christ has returned in the end of this age. And that it involves giving His faithful servants authority over things.

Yeah, so? Why can't that be for eternity instead of during the thousand years? Why would you think that Christ would give temporary rewards when He comes instead of eternal rewards?

Which then makes zero sense that the same day He gives them this authority, 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled that same day.

Huh?

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

How exactly do you interpret this verse? God the Father being at the top of the hierarchy doesn't mean that those below Him have no authority. Is that what you think? Do you think that this is saying even Jesus Himself will have no authority at that point?

Or, as if it makes since that they maintain this authority over these things forever since there would be no period of time preventing it from continuing forever once 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled. Insert a thousand years here, problem solved. Now they are not using this authority for just one day, nor are they using this authority forever.

This is just unbelievable. How does what is written in 1 Corinthians 15:28 mean that they can't have authority for eternity? That verse says no such thing.

BTW, why is it that you and others like you think Christ is only capable of reigning over unsaved nations while He is in a hidden state, but not capable of doing that while He is in a seen state, as in bodily present on the planet? Why do you all want to deny Him that?

LOL. We deny Him nothing. We just go by what scripture teaches. He is capable of doing anything, but that doesn't mean He will or that He should. He is capable of lifting a semi truck over His head and throwing it all the way across the earth if He wanted to. But, I don't believe He will do that. Are you going to ask me why I want to deny Him that?

 

[WPM]

He's always talking about logic and common sense as if those are the keys to understanding scripture. So, he thinks human wisdom is the key to understanding scripture. Scripture itself does not support that. It says that the things the Bible authors spoke and wrote were "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth". He interprets scriptural like the natural man so that's why the teachings from scripture that we promote "are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned".

Exactly! But it would help if he would actual employed logic and common sense. He will relinquish any doctrine he holds that conflicts with his beloved Premil. He is obsessed with defending Premil at any cost.

He outlines opinions as fact, just because he thinks it, not because the Book teaches it.

 

[Zao is life]

It's a logical deduction if one is Premil like me who agrees with Amil that the NHNE begin with the 2nd coming, yet disagrees Amil is correct that the millennium precedes the 2nd coming.

For example.

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


in the regeneration---I interpret this to involve an era of time rather than a single day. I also interpret this to be meaning before 1 Corithians 15:28 is fulfilled.

Matthew 25:31 already tells us when and where Matthew 19:28 takes place.

Then there is this to consider.

Luke 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.


I have no clue what this might look like when being fulfilled. All I know is, it is meaning once Christ has returned in the end of this age. And that it involves giving His faithful servants authority over things. Which then makes zero sense that the same day He gives them this authority, 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled that same day. Or, as if it makes since that they maintain this authority over these things forever since there would be no period of time preventing it from continuing forever once 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled. Insert a thousand years here, problem solved. Now they are not using this authority for just one day, nor are they using this authority forever.

BTW, why is it that you and others like you think Christ is only capable of reigning over unsaved nations while He is in a hidden state, but not capable of doing that while He is in a seen state, as in bodily present on the planet? Why do you all want to deny Him that?

This is off the above topic (which I will come back to at the close of this post) but regarding the close of the millennium, @Keraz reminded me of the fact that whereas 1 Corinthians 15:22 says that just as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive, 1 Corinthians 15:23 says nothing about the "ALL" but only talks about those who are Christ's at His coming.
​

So assuming the rest were all dead, it could explain the meaning of "the rest of the dead lived not again" in Revelation 20:5, which means that the resurrection of those who are Christ's at His coming in Rev 20:4 is the first resurrection, and the rest of the dead are resurrected in the final resurrection at the close of the thousand years.

So the identity of the Gog-Magog nations may not be anyone who was resurrected at the beginning of the thousand years, as I previously told you I believe it must be referring to

- not that I do not believe it's possible for resurrected immortals to be devoured by fire coming down from God out of heaven, or die in the second death, because I do not believe that our immortality will be any different to Adam's (who died), because eternal life is the possession of Christ alone - of God alone, and is IN HIM, and I don't believe that any CREATED human being can CONTINUE to live | be alive [zao] forever (immortality) unless the person also possesses eternal life IN HIMSELF, OR remains in Christ. ("you will not surely die" both was, and remains the first lie told to CREATED human beings, IMO).

So IMO IF any created human being does not abide in Christ either now, or even when he has risen from the dead, that one will perish.

But the Gog-Magog nations may, as Keraz reminded me, be referring to "the rest of the dead who lived not again until the thousand years were finished".

The Revelation does not tell us who the Gog-Magog nations are - so their identity is left for us to glean from scripture, or to speculate about (and some may even guess who they are).

Either way, I do not believe that mortals can inhabit the NHNE, and like you, I cannot see the NHNE following a thousand years after the return of Christ either - IMO there are just too many biblically-produced holes in that notion.

I understand and like your thoughts about the NHNE being a process which begins with the return of Christ, because I see it as being entirely plausible, if not having a ring of truth to it.

Christ making all things new does not imply a new creation - it implies Christ making all (created) things new - and the making could plasuibly be a process.

The Greek words used in 2 Peter 3:10-13 do not imply the dissolving of the chemical elements of the heavens and the earth and them being burned with fire and melted with fervent heat (I don't care who chooses to ignore what the words used in that passage mean in every other New Testament verse using the same words).

According to the same words used in 2 Peter 3:10-13, in every other New testament passage "dissolving" refers to something that had been bound being loosed, and the elements refers to the rudiments or principles of this world, and the works to be burned up refers to the works of men and of Satan.

Peter also used different words for "the earth" and "the world" when he mentioned the fact that the world perished in the flood on Noah's day:

2 Peter 3:5-7
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens (ouranós) were of old, and the earth [gē] standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world (o kósmos) that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."

The heavens [οὐρανός ouranós] and the earth [γῆ gē] did not perished in the flood - it was the world [O kósmos] and all flesh in it that perished.

It's clearly a regeneration of the heavens and the earth Jesus is talking about when He says He will make all (created) things new.