Isaiah 65:17 vs. Revelation 21:1. How many NHNEs does that equal?

[PinSeeker]

I've personally experienced over many years unsaved Christians be filled with the Spirit. They are "unsaved" because their character has not changed. They imitate Christ for purposes of reputation, and occasionally do good things in sincerity. But they have not moved outside the orbit of their own independent judgments. They have yet to defer completely to God's judgment. They do not appear to be actually "regenerated."

Well, so you're questioning the authenticity of their Christianity, the genuineness of their conversion to Christ. And that's fine; if they are truly converted, it will at some point manifest itself in deed... the fruit of the spirit and good works.

Regeneration means that a person has truly chosen to defer to Christ in their lives...

Hmm, well, in a sense, I don't disagree, but really, Randy, the person's choosing to follow Christ follows their regeneration, their being born again of the Spirit. Their choosing to follow Christ is evidence that they have been regenerated... are regenerate... born again of the Spirit. As Paul says. whether one is a member of God's elect or not "depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." He does not deny that man makes a free-will choice, or even intimate that he can't or doesn't, but says that his being elect depends on God and His mercy rather than man's choice. And John says the "children of God" ~ Christians ~ "are born not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). And remember what Jesus says to His disciples (and by extension to us), that they "did not choose (Him), but (He) chose (them) and appointed (them) that (they) should go and bear fruit and that (their) fruit should abide..." (John 15:16), which is exactly what Paul says to the Ephesians (and by extension us) in Ephesians 2:4-10.

, to his judgments and to his character of love. To see a truly-reborn Christian is to see Christ in their lives, along with the character of his love. It is to see that love rule over their own carnal tendencies...at least part of the time. ;)

The critical thing is to be able to see Jesus in their character. That smacks of "regeneration!" :) It is less an "imitation of Christ" than a revelation of Christ himself, along with his love.

Just the mere acceptance of Christ as their example, however, appears to be enough for God to make covenant with nominal Christians. He is so gracious that the mere confession of Christ as their Lord allows them to participate in his Spirit, in order to testify to Christ in front of others.

Well, He gives everyone a great measure of grace, for sure. But only those born again of the Spirit have the Spirit.

This benefits others through their testimony as opposed to accruing to the benefit of nominal Christians who are not fully on board with the message itself. They've actually chosen to "testify," which is good, but fall short of full compliance to the covenant.

This is very much like the Pharisees in Jesus' time, who taught many good things, but did not actually do them themselves. Judas had accepted the Spirit of God simply because he accepted his call to witness to Jesus as Messiah. He had the Spirit and went out healing as the entire group of 12 did. Yet inwardly he was still a thief, and merely covered up his inward motives with "good works." Jesus, however, saw him for who he truly was, a child of Satan.

There would be no sense in asking someone to commit to Christ as Lord if it was impossible until after their "regeneration!" The Spirit moves upon a person when the Gospel is presented in the Spirit. Then the person responds to the word and the Spirit, enabling them to be regenerated, if their commitment is a compete commitment.

Hmmm. Faith comes by hearing, for sure; we can agree on that. This is the vehicle through which God, by His Spirit, works. Now, our preaching, or prophesying, or sharing the Gospel with someone does not always result in regeneration or faith in the hearer... which means, God may or may not use this to convert the hearer; He has mercy and compassion on whom He chooses to have mercy and compassion, as Moses and Paul say. This faith, this assurance and conviction, as the writer of Hebrews (11:1) defines it, is the gift of God, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:8. Man cannot manufacture this faith in himself; it is not his part in his salvation given to God to somehow merit his regeneration or salvation, else, as he says in Romans 11:6, if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

...yes, the preemptive activities of the Holy Spirit precede our decision for Christ. I just don't believe "regeneration" itself precedes our choice to be regenerated!

This... is a very contradictory statement, Randy.

Yes, but your message in this post is "over-spiritualized," in my opinion.

Ugh. Here we go... :) I mean, you can think of it how you want, but it is what it is. :)

"Spiritual understanding" is not the equivalent of "symbolic interpretation," though many Pentecostals see it this way.

I didn't say it was; I don't even know why you felt compelled to say that, except possibly to characterize what I'm saying as ridiculous or absurd.

I know because I am a Pentecostal. I'll explain as we go along.

You seem to imply you have a greater "spiritual" understanding of Outer Darkness without explaining how.

We cannot really know what this outer darkness looks like, Randy. We are not told.

Continued below...

 

[PinSeeker]

This is what I mean by "over-spiritualization."

To me it is cut and dried, and remains "spiritual." The truth itself is "spiritual," and not some deeper underlying meaning that you claim to have. It is not just some symbolic presentation of some esoteric truth beneath it.

"Outer Darkness" is spiritual darkness in the eternal sense. It is the destination of those perpetually committed to spiritual darkness.

Spiritual darkness happens in the world today, but God determines who has it permanently and who has it only temporarily. Nothing about this is difficult or overly "mystical."

Here again is where I think you're getting "overly mystical or spiritual." The truth is simpler than this, and does not require specialized "spiritual" glasses to interpret it. The Biblical language of "glorification" is clear to me, and not some vague concept available only to the "spiritual."

You are either "glorified now by being Born Again," or you will be "glorified in the future when you are resurrected and receive a glorified body." Pick A or B, but don't confuse them by claiming some vague "spiritual" understanding! A is not symbolic of B.

LOL! There's some things here that we would at least be close to agreeing on, and some not so much. But just to this very last thing, here Randy, as I was clear in saying before. both your A and B here are correct; the only clarification I would make is the A is in part, the B is... will be... in full. "A symbolic of B"...? that's nonsensical. And spiritual understanding? Well we are, after all, talking about things spiritually discerned, but by that I mean exactly what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2, that the natural person ~ the person not born again of the Spirit and therefore regenerate, and therefore not having the Spirit ~ again, as Paul says (and I quote), "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). In saying this, am I intimating in any way that I am "more spiritual" than any other Christian? Certainly not! But knowledge and wisdom are gifts of the Spirit (Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12), and all spiritual gifts are empowered by one and the same Spirit, Who apportions to each one individually as God wills (1 Corinthians 12:11). Does this mean I have more knowledge and/or wisdom than another Christian, even possibly you? Well... possibly... and possibly not. None of us should care; all of us are gifted by the Spirit in different ways, and we are to use these, whatever they are in each one of us, for ~ as Paul says in verse 7 ~ the common good, which means, Randy, that we each are to help each other in the various ways we are gifted to do so.

I asked that you provide evidence of our glorification now, by being Born Again. And you give me 1 Cor 13, which says that we are only "partly there?"
That does not say a single thing about "glorification!" I was asking for proof about the language using "glorification" in regard to our present spiritual lives. You didn't do that. You perhaps *cannot* do that?

Well, somebody can't do something; we'll agree on that... :)

Once again, you are over-spiritualizing with the sense of our participation in Rev 20 and the 1st Resurrection.

In your opinion, which I respect, but no. So it goes.

We both agree that the "1st Resurrection" refers to an actual physical resurrection of our bodies.

We... do not. :)

But I do *not* agree that there is an obvious underlying inference to a present "spiritual resurrection" that we experience now.

I don't even know what this means, Randy. We have been born again of the Spirit, after having been dead in our sin, and raised up with Christ, and now we walk in the Spirit. These are pretty much Paul's exact words. Spiritually speaking, we have been resurrected.

That has to be "read into" the passage. And it is illegitimate to claim some superior esoteric understanding of the passage when we are specifically told *not* to add to the message of the book.

But then you claim it is both a physical and a spiritual resurrection...

Okay, no, I'm not reading anything into the Word of God, and no, I did not claim what you say I claimed.

Indeed we have a spiritual life now based on the resurrection of Christ.

Great! And you were previously dead, but now are alive. How could this be without a resurrection, Randy? It's not physical, because you were not physically dead. But a resurrection none the less.

And I do think you're confusing these things by trying to say that the Millennium is now...

Okay, well, I think not. :) There are certainly people who don't want to hear that, but that's true of a great many things...

...and we are already resurrected and ascended into heaven!...

In the Spirit, yes. But not physically, our faith is not yet sight.

The nations are still obviously deceived.

Not in the sense of Revelation 20; we can certainly agree to disagree on this. It seems to me not to be a matter to get so... worked up about, but certainly worth discussion and consideration. The disagreement really is what it means, in the context of John's vision, for the nations to be deceived. That's more the root of the problem, because then, if that is rightly understood, the question of whether they are deceived or not resolves itself.

Why do you think Paul says so in 2 Thes 2.9-12? Why do you think people do not accept the Gospel?

Ah, he's speaking of individuals, Randy. This is a personal letter to the members of the Church in Thessalonica. O you see anything in there were he refers to nations, or even people-groups? No, but rather 'you' over and over and over again, and addresses them as brothers beloved by the Lord. Why do I think many do not accept the Gospel, even after having heard it? Well, because they have not received God's mercy or compassion, which He gives to those whom He gives it, and does not give to those to whom He does not give it (as Moses and Paul both say).

This is the problem I have with Amillennialism. You can't understand what Jesus meant by "the Kingdom suffers violence." You think Christian suffering is the result of Christian disobedience.

Absolutely not. But God does discipline those whom He loves. But somehow, God works all things ~ all things, Randy ~ together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

You think we're already in the Millennium...

Yes, I know we are... :)

...and should be experiencing heaven now...

Well, not in person, certainly, but we can live as if we are, because we surely shall be. As Peter says, in this (being born again to an imperishable inheritance) we rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, we are grieved by various trials (and suffering), so that the tested genuineness of our faith may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Though we have not seen Him, we love Him. Though we do not now see Him, we believe in Him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of our faith, the salvation of our souls (1 Peter 1:6-9). Right? Or James: "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (James 1:2-4).

and only experience bad things because we refuse to accept that we're already in heaven! ;)

LOL! No, simply put, Randy, because this world is filled with sin. One day that will no longer be true.

Well, your tone has certainly changed. I think that means this is a good time to stop.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, so you're questioning the authenticity of their Christianity, the genuineness of their conversion to Christ. And that's fine; if they are truly converted, it will at some point manifest itself in deed... the fruit of the spirit and good works.

I'm doing more than that. I'm discerning who and what they are. I can tell when someone exhibits Christ in their character--not just *do* Christian works. I can tell even if a genuine Christian is not living up to true Christian character. We are called to make these judgment calls in order to preserve good Christian practice.

I admit that it's easier to see failure in others than to see it in myself. ;(

Hmm, well, in a sense, I don't disagree, but really, Randy, the person's choosing to follow Christ follows their regeneration, their being born again of the Spirit. Their choosing to follow Christ is evidence that they have been regenerated... are regenerate... born again of the Spirit.

I agree with all of the quotes you provided on this, and yet it doesn't answer the central question: Can Regeneration precede their choice to obtain it?

I think you're mixing up God's "enablement" of our ability to do well and to make good choices with regeneration having to be preliminary to making good choices. God's enablement comes not by regeneration but by God's word. Regeneration follows God's word to us and our response in the form of accepting regeneration.

And accepting regeneration is the choice to embrace Christ's ways in place of our own ways. In other words, it is making Christ truly our Lord, and not just choosing to do a few Christian works and thereby claiming to embrace the Christian religion as our own.

Hmmm. Faith comes by hearing, for sure; we can agree on that. This is the vehicle through which God, by His Spirit, works. Now, our preaching, or prophesying, or sharing the Gospel with someone does not always result in regeneration or faith in the hearer... which means, God may or may not use this to convert the hearer; He has mercy and compassion on whom He chooses to have mercy and compassion, as Moses and Paul say.

You are here mixing Predestination with the enabling power that comes when God's word proposes obedience to us. He can propose limited obedience, if we are not willing to take on the whole thing. Or, He can propose full-scale obedience for those who wish to embrace Christ as Lord and be fully regenerated.

This faith, this assurance and conviction, as the writer of Hebrews (11:1) defines it, is the gift of God, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:8. Man cannot manufacture this faith in himself; it is not his part in his salvation given to God to somehow merit his regeneration or salvation, else, as he says in Romans 11:6, if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

I've already addressed this here. It is *God's enablement* that enables anybody to be virtuous, to do good, or to become fully regenerated.

This... is a very contradictory statement, Randy.

Not at all. I said, "...yes, the preemptive activities of the Holy Spirit precede our decision for Christ. I just don't believe "regeneration" itself precedes our choice to be regenerated!" What is contradictory about this??

This is just what I was arguing above, that there is a difference between the "enablement of God's command" and the "regeneration that results from our obedience to God's command." Please tell me where the contradiction is in this statement?

If Regeneration precedes our choice for it, we are not really choosing for it--we already have it!

Ugh. Here we go... :) I mean, you can think of it how you want, but it is what it is. :)

Maybe you think I'm trying to insult you, but I'm not. I've studied these things for years and believe that "over-spiritualization" is a real problem among Pentecostal and other interpreters of Scriptures.

I didn't say it was; I don't even know why you felt compelled to say that, except possibly to characterize what I'm saying as ridiculous or absurd.

I have no interest in insulting you. I just believe that "over-spiritualizing things" can create problems with interpretation.

We cannot really know what this outer darkness looks like, Randy. We are not told.

Right, I'm not sure God wants His kids to focus too much on thinking "the grass is greener in the neighbors' yard?" In this case, we *know* the grass is not greener in Outer Darkness, and shouldn't be the least curious about what it's like if we go there! ;)

 

[Randy Kluth]

But just to this very last thing, here Randy, as I was clear in saying before. both your A and B here are correct; the only clarification I would make is the A is in part, the B is... will be... in full.

I was clear when you explained your view the 1st time. You think we have the Spirit now along with New Life in Christ. This you think is "Partial Glorification." In the future you think this will be "Full Glorification."

I was trying to make clear that in this you're not addressing my question about the biblical language used for "glorification." Is it used exclusively for what you call "Full Glorification?" And is there no real such thing as "Partial Glorification?"

I mean, I know we are Born Again now, and have New Life in Christ today. This is a "down payment" on our future Glorification. But does the Bible actual use the language of a "Partial Glorification" with respect to this "down payment?" Are we actually being "partly glorified" now, or is that language you've come up with?

"A symbolic of B"...? that's nonsensical.

Not at all. You think our Partial Glorification now (language that is not biblical) is symbolized by the 1st Resurrection, which is Full Glorification. So you think rather that "B is symbolic of A."

In your view, the Full physical resurrection of Christ and the Church suggests, symbolically, that we already have the Millennial Kingdom now, and are at least partly "resurrected." Unless you think you're literally resurrected bodily, then you're using a symbol of physical resurrection to suggest you're partly that in the Spirit now?

Well, your tone has certainly changed. I think that means this is a good time to stop.

I've had to be frank, and so you may think I've become more hostile? Actually I'm not.

I'm just a little concerned about what appears to me to be your "over-spiritualization" of biblical truth. As well, I'm a little concerned about your thought that this has to do with "the natural man not receiving the spiritual things of God?" ;)

I would appreciate it if you can give me the liberty to disagree and form my own ideas about what you may be doing? You seem to have Amill views, and then seem to say you don't believe certain Amill views. It gets very confusing. I can't answer when you just say, "No, I don't." I have to form thoughts about what you're saying even before you add more explanation.

So yea, we can let this go. There are many other good subjects to at least "partly agree" on! :)
Take care...

 

[Timtofly]

He is talking about the period that follows the general resurrection. Look at it. Read it in context. I say this respectfully, it might help if you remove your Premil glasses and you will see what it means. Scripture places our existence into two distinct and diverse ages: “this age” and” the age to come.” These two could not be more different. By the way, there is no third age.

​

Already​	Not yet​
“This age” (or “this time”)​	“The age to come” (or “that age”)​
“Time”​	“Eternity”​
“Now”​	“Then”​
“Here”​	“Hereafter”​
“Evil​	“Perfect”​
“Temporal”​	“Forever”​
“Corruptible”​	“Incorruptible”​

I see your opinion.

The general resurrection was in the first century at the Cross.

Even you as an Amil say the first resurrection happened, at the start the Millennium.

You already started this age to come in your own teaching. No one who has already died and are enjoying the first resurrection, are currently procreating, but are like the angels.

Why would being like the angels happen when it would not even matter anymore?

You probably don't even understand how stars are the angels in the firmament. God created the axact amount to fill the firmament. No new angels or stars would even come into being. Obviously Satan has humanity hoodwinked about the universe that does not even exist.

On earth, on the other hand, God made a limited number of humans/sons of God and told them to procreate and fill the earth. God does not expect humans to go all about heaven, and procreating there as well.

The Resurrection and Life happened because of the Cross, and allowed humans to physically leave Abraham's bosom and experience the first resurrection, physical in Paradise. So now humans born on earth, over hundreds of generations are filling up Paradise. They don't have to keep filling Paradise, because it will fill up through the normal birthing process on earth, yet people will still always be alive in Paradise since the Cross, as if there had always been one on earth to live in. Not an earthly country, but the one that used to be on earth, and is now, since the Cross, being filled up as if Paradise never left earth.

If people would leave behind all human theology corrupted by Satan, and see God's Word as written, they would not have to deny Scripture at all. Paradise is the Resurrection to come, the age to come, the Life after this life. This life is Adam's life which is just death in God's perspective. Jesus was not talking about the end of one creation and the start of the next. Jesus was not talking about existence and eternity outside of existence. Nothing in creation can leave the bounds of creation and exist in eternity beside God.

Luke

"And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace. Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him:"

The whole point was a question from those who did not even believe in a resurrection. So they asked how marriage related to this resurrection they denied, trying to trick Jesus with logic.

"And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Right here Jesus was explaining life on earth, and life in Paradise that would start with the thief of the cross. Not all of Adam's offspring will obtain this. Only the redeemed via the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. Notice Jesus said could not die any more. Sound familiar:

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power,"

So nothing in these verses about two different ages, but earth and Paradise. This world and the world to come. This is in regards to the resurrection, not the ending of one creation and the beginning of another. Paradise is the world to come. Nothing about ages here at all. You can attempt to declare age as the meaning. But the age in Paradise started at the Cross. Actually Paradise started on earth as the Garden of Eden, but was moved to the firmament. Human theology thinks Paradise sunk and became sheol. The whole point about age if you are so inclined, I prefer Hebrews 11 myself, is that ages overlap. The Cross started the age of "first resurrection". I think "world" today presents people with a "ball" spinning in space that they think God will replace with a different "ball" spinning in space. The resurrection is not about changing different creations any more than about changing ages. Abraham saw it this way:

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city."

This is what the resurrection made possible. The Cross opened wide the doors of Paradise that were slammed shut as Adam exited. Abraham and company are not still waiting in death. That world/age started at the Cross. You ask where does Hebrews state it happened:

"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

You say, see here it says they received not the promise. Next chapter:

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:"

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses."

Mark

"Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,"

Again:

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."

The resurrection happened at the Cross. The thief entered Paradise that day.

Matthew

"The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,"

Once again about the resurrection.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Your circular reasoning based on your placement of the resurrection has led you to the wrong conclusion about this point of procreating. This point is only made in regards to the resurrection, and does not even state a resurrection is at a specific point in time. You add that to the text and context. If I did that you would call me out has having no proof or point to declare, and just making stuff up.

You point out the first resurrection in Christ, but then deny it applies to humans at all. I do not have to deny any Scripture at any point. Matthew states there was a physical resurrection at the Cross. Paul claims Jesus descended into sheol and led captivity captive.

"Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things."

Do you think Jesus left all those souls in sheol? Do you plan on staying dead until creation is over? Did Jesus start filling Paradise at the time of His Resurrection and the Cross? Is Paradise part of the firmament. Will Jesus bring those from Paradise with Him to be glorified in the air with those from the earth?

Not even John mentions a resurrection after the millennium. You again assert the dead standing at the GWT includes you. Once again, do you intend to remain in Adam's dead state until the end of creation?

 

[Timtofly]

Again, more avoidance. If it is not Rev 20 it doesn't matter.

Again, you avoiding me telling you that you avoid Scripture. Why should Revelation 20 matter to you? You assert all your beliefs into that chapter, instead of receiving from God what is written by John.

 

[Retrobyter]

Okay, I mean, points well taken. But... and this is just me... if you say you don't think you've studied this particular issue enough. and not understanding the Millennium itself, and can't argue very well for one position or another, then how can you say you're firmly Premillennial? Just because you've decided you want to be? I mean, with that, I'm really just making a point, rather than really asking you that question, but comments welcome, of course.


Hmmm... Well, I think that both premillennial believers ~ historic and dispensational premillennial believers (there is quite a difference; I'm not sure where you'd put yourself) ~ and amillennial (also called nunc(now)-millennial believers) would agree that the New Jerusalem comes down to us from heaven after the millennium itself.


Right...


Interesting. I would say the opposite is true for me.


By 'they,' are you referring here to premillennialists? I'm not arguing that premillennialists have a strong argument, actually. But it requires understanding several things in Scripture differently than they should be, or (possibly) being ignorant of them. Not to be insulting of anyone's intelligence or ability to reason through things, but just not being cognizant of those things.

I would welcome further conversation on these things.

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

Shalom, Randy.

It's important to understand that there are MANY prophecies in the Scriptures that speak about a Millennium ( Latin for a "Thousand Years"). Of course, it is so named in Revelation 20:1-7, "chilia etee" in Greek, but there are other significant places, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, that speak to this time period. Yeeshuwa` ("Jesus") clearly taught about this time period in His parables about the KINGDOM in Matthew 13. I say "clearly," because it is clear to one who recognizes the role that the children of Israel will play in this Kingdom Age, predicted in prophecies written before the Messiah's First Coming.

Peter ("Kefa'") also taught this concept of a millennial time between the lines of his argument against the scoffers in 2 Peter 3:3-13. Here, he MENTIONS the three heavens to which Paul alluded in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4, and Paul himself taught it in the Resurrection Chapter, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28.

It's the "MOP-UP period" of time, when the Messiah grows the Kingdom to include the whole world, for His Father.

Ah... so folks, this guy is finally admitting that he was purposefully pushing confusion into Scripture by claiming to be Premil while actually teaching Amil doctrines!

And his request for Premils to stop using Isaiah 65 to support Christ's future "thousand years" reign as involving the new heavens and new earth timing, is just a BOGUS claim, revealing his confusion.

The idea that Isaiah 65 represents Christ's "thousand years" reign period is actually a FALSE DOCTRINE OF AMILLENNIALISM, not PREMILLENNIALISM. The PREMIL position understands that the new heavens and a new earth event happens AFTER THE WICKED ARE DESTROYED IN THE FUTURE LAKE OF FIRE AFTER CHRIST'S 1,000 YEARS REIGN!

See how confused this guy is???

There's really nothing confusing about it: The Millennium is NOT so much about the reign of the Messiah (the Christ), as it is about the CONFINEMENT of haSatan (Hebrew for "the Enemy"). The reign of the Messiah is said to be MUCH longer than a simple 1000 years! Indeed, GaVriy'eel ("Gabriel") foretold to Miryam ("Mary") these words:

[Luk 1:30-33 KJV] 30 And the angel said unto her,

"Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

So, the reign of the Messiah over Israel - literally, the HOUSE OF YA`AQOV ("JACOB") FOREVER! And, there shall NEVER be an end to this reign! Furthermore, that INCLUDES all believers, since Yeeshuwa` is the King of the Jews, and shall be the King of all Israel, including those who are "circumcised in heart" and have been graffed into the Olive Tree of the Messiah!

 

[Timtofly]

But i thought the redeemed (dead and alive) are all glorified and caught up collectively to meet Jesus when He comes? What believers are excluded from that and why?

1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:3 confirms this saying: “we which are alive and remain unto the [Gr. parousia] of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 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: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

God is not willing that any should perish. You are the one pointing out that 2 Peter 3 is all about God's longsuffering. That is mentioned both before and after the destruction happens.

There are a lot of post tribulation Christians on this forum. They think even themselves are going to be around long after the destruction, and baptism of fire.

Do you claim the wicked should be raptured, and then judged? The church is raptured, but that does not mean that every one else, automatically gets tossed into the LOF. Do you think there are literally 2.5 billion souls going to be raptured? That is the count of those who call themselves Christians on the earth, today. I think that is about 31% of the population. If we look at it technically, even the redeemed will be destroyed out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. You cannot take sin and death with you to heaven.

You take several passages like Matthew 13 and Matthew 25 and spiritualize them into your own human theology. Those judgments and separations all occur post the Second Coming, when Paul pointed out the church itself leaves at the Second Coming. There is no sitting and waiting on earth to see if one is a part of the church. To escape destruction even Peter points out that needs to be decided prior to the Second Coming, not after the Second Coming.

But sure there are the final harvest firstfruits, who live and reign on earth whether you accept the Day of the Lord or not. Who do you think are the nations living on the rest of the earth outside of the New Jerusalem?

The New Jerusalem is not a space ship that populates the New Earth. According to you no one can even procreate on the New Earth.

According to you there are no nations outside of the New Jerusalem, as that would be those third party people not inside the New Jerusalem, nor in the LOF.

"And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life."

Being in the church is not the sum total of those written in the Lamb's book of life. It seems only Amil limit God's ability. During the Millennium there will be billions born who will not rebel at the end, but will be the nations and kings of the earth along side of the church in the New Jerusalem. Perhaps all will be glorified at some point. But we are not told all the specifics now, are we?

Don't you claim even some of the dead standing at the GWT are part of the redeemed? You claim you are there, no? Why do you place yourself at that event with bits and pieces of the old creation, death, sheol, and the sea? Should you not already be "raptured" and in the New Jerusalem at that point? John does not place the living at the GWT Judgment event. He places the dead. The second birth should already place you as alive in Christ. That judgment took place on the Cross. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And even at the GWT Judgment, it would seem that even Daniel saw some given eternal life, back from the dust so to speak, but that would be your third group once again, spared by God's longsuffering. Either way God's longsuffering can be either at the last moment, or an entire Day of the Lord, but certainly neither Amil nor Premil get to dictate what God does.

BTW when you say redeemed (dead and alive), who is who? Are the dead still those in Adam's dead corruptible flesh, or the alive in Paradise in God's permanent incorruptible physical body? Why do you think no longer on the earth means you are dead, but living in sinful flesh, means you are alive?

Why would those in God's presence in Paradise who have been serving God in that heavenly temple day and night, since the Cross, need to be changed and made alive? Only those on earth still in Adam's state of death, need to be changed out of death into life. The change happens so one can enjoy Paradise, and yes they all have been changed and there is nothing those on earth can do to stop that process. Not even winning some debate can change what happens to those in Christ who enter Paradise, since Jesus declared it is finished on the Cross.

 

[Timtofly]

Ugh; well, this is an interesting response, if nothing else... :)

I'm not even going to try to follow your... um, well,.. your trains of "thought" anymore, Timtofly. :) As long as you continue to think the events described in Revelation 20:1-6 are chronologically subsequent to the events of Revelation 19:11-21, you're going to continue to come to these erroneous inferences and conclusions regarding amillennialism... and Scripture itself. As I have said, you're not alone in doing so, and, as I have also said, that's okay. :)

So, at least for now, I'm just going to... let you, um, fly off... see what I did there? :)

Grace and peace to you.

Well since we are talking about Isaiah 65, I never went to the point where Revelation 20 follows 19. So you followed your own train of thought there.

You do realize that Isaiah already pointed out chronological order hundreds of years before John was in prison on Patmos? Perhaps if your thinking stopped conjuring up excuses why you should not accept God's Word, my train of thought would not be as hard to follow? You are the one who keeps throwing mountains onto the already settled railroad of God's Word.

Besides, the Day of the Lord is mentioned in 2 Peter 3. Do you think we have been in the Day of the Lord for the last 2 millenia? How does 2 Peter 3 fit into the first century?

 

[Timtofly]

Who is this 3rd group that you are too wicked to be caught up and too righteous to be destroyed? Who are these billions of wicked who survive the coming of Christ and overrun your supposed future millennium as the sand of the sea? Are they aliens?

Still don't know why you create strawman arguments to then knock down, "Don Quixote". You will have to answer your own hallucinating twist on God's Word.

When you use the word "survive" is it like the TV show where some are left out in the middle of nowhere? How do you picture billions of humans out in the middle of nowhere hiding from God?

Perhaps reading about Adam, a "survivor" as you put it, whom God did remove from society, the rest of the sons of God, who was placed in this huge Garden, that could hold billions of offspring, and then wonder why God stated Adam was alone? Would Adam have been better off without the third party, Eve, and the deceiving serpent? Can you explain where all the deception came from?

If you totally dismiss the Day of Lord, why are you so impractically interested in the details about this Day of the Lord?

 

[WPM]

I see your opinion.

The general resurrection was in the first century at the Cross.

Even you as an Amil say the first resurrection happened, at the start the Millennium.

You already started this age to come in your own teaching. No one who has already died and are enjoying the first resurrection, are currently procreating, but are like the angels.

Why would being like the angels happen when it would not even matter anymore?

You probably don't even understand how stars are the angels in the firmament. God created the axact amount to fill the firmament. No new angels or stars would even come into being. Obviously Satan has humanity hoodwinked about the universe that does not even exist.

On earth, on the other hand, God made a limited number of humans/sons of God and told them to procreate and fill the earth. God does not expect humans to go all about heaven, and procreating there as well.

The Resurrection and Life happened because of the Cross, and allowed humans to physically leave Abraham's bosom and experience the first resurrection, physical in Paradise. So now humans born on earth, over hundreds of generations are filling up Paradise. They don't have to keep filling Paradise, because it will fill up through the normal birthing process on earth, yet people will still always be alive in Paradise since the Cross, as if there had always been one on earth to live in. Not an earthly country, but the one that used to be on earth, and is now, since the Cross, being filled up as if Paradise never left earth.

If people would leave behind all human theology corrupted by Satan, and see God's Word as written, they would not have to deny Scripture at all. Paradise is the Resurrection to come, the age to come, the Life after this life. This life is Adam's life which is just death in God's perspective. Jesus was not talking about the end of one creation and the start of the next. Jesus was not talking about existence and eternity outside of existence. Nothing in creation can leave the bounds of creation and exist in eternity beside God.

Luke

"And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace. Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him:"

The whole point was a question from those who did not even believe in a resurrection. So they asked how marriage related to this resurrection they denied, trying to trick Jesus with logic.

"And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Right here Jesus was explaining life on earth, and life in Paradise that would start with the thief of the cross. Not all of Adam's offspring will obtain this. Only the redeemed via the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. Notice Jesus said could not die any more. Sound familiar:

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power,"

So nothing in these verses about two different ages, but earth and Paradise. This world and the world to come. This is in regards to the resurrection, not the ending of one creation and the beginning of another. Paradise is the world to come. Nothing about ages here at all. You can attempt to declare age as the meaning. But the age in Paradise started at the Cross. Actually Paradise started on earth as the Garden of Eden, but was moved to the firmament. Human theology thinks Paradise sunk and became sheol. The whole point about age if you are so inclined, I prefer Hebrews 11 myself, is that ages overlap. The Cross started the age of "first resurrection". I think "world" today presents people with a "ball" spinning in space that they think God will replace with a different "ball" spinning in space. The resurrection is not about changing different creations any more than about changing ages. Abraham saw it this way:

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city."

This is what the resurrection made possible. The Cross opened wide the doors of Paradise that were slammed shut as Adam exited. Abraham and company are not still waiting in death. That world/age started at the Cross. You ask where does Hebrews state it happened:

"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

You say, see here it says they received not the promise. Next chapter:

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:"

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses."

Mark

"Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,"

Again:

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."

The resurrection happened at the Cross. The thief entered Paradise that day.

Matthew

"The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,"

Once again about the resurrection.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Your circular reasoning based on your placement of the resurrection has led you to the wrong conclusion about this point of procreating. This point is only made in regards to the resurrection, and does not even state a resurrection is at a specific point in time. You add that to the text and context. If I did that you would call me out has having no proof or point to declare, and just making stuff up.

You point out the first resurrection in Christ, but then deny it applies to humans at all. I do not have to deny any Scripture at any point. Matthew states there was a physical resurrection at the Cross. Paul claims Jesus descended into sheol and led captivity captive.

"Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things."

Do you think Jesus left all those souls in sheol? Do you plan on staying dead until creation is over? Did Jesus start filling Paradise at the time of His Resurrection and the Cross? Is Paradise part of the firmament. Will Jesus bring those from Paradise with Him to be glorified in the air with those from the earth?

Not even John mentions a resurrection after the millennium. You again assert the dead standing at the GWT includes you. Once again, do you intend to remain in Adam's dead state until the end of creation?

When have I, or any Amil, suggested "the general resurrection was in the first century at the Cross"? You know that is not true. This type of deliberate misrepresentation is normally a sign you have no rebuttal for the argument at hand. Ad hominem is all Premils seem to have lately. I take that as a commendation of the strength of the Amil argument. It shows its biblical veracity.

Now can you address the biblical arguments you avoided?

 

[WPM]

Still don't know why you create strawman arguments to then knock down, "Don Quixote". You will have to answer your own hallucinating twist on God's Word.

When you use the word "survive" is it like the TV show where some are left out in the middle of nowhere? How do you picture billions of humans out in the middle of nowhere hiding from God?

Perhaps reading about Adam, a "survivor" as you put it, whom God did remove from society, the rest of the sons of God, who was placed in this huge Garden, that could hold billions of offspring, and then wonder why God stated Adam was alone? Would Adam have been better off without the third party, Eve, and the deceiving serpent? Can you explain where all the deception came from?

If you totally dismiss the Day of Lord, why are you so impractically interested in the details about this Day of the Lord?

You once again, as is your pattern, avoided the biblical argument in my post. I will repeat.

But i thought the redeemed (dead and alive) are all glorified and caught up collectively to meet Jesus when He comes? What believers are excluded from that and why?

1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:3 confirms this saying: “we which are alive and remain unto the [Gr. parousia] of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 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: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

 

[Davidpt]

Hmmm... Well, I think that both premillennial believers ~ historic and dispensational premillennial believers (there is quite a difference; I'm not sure where you'd put yourself) ~ and amillennial (also called nunc(now)-millennial believers) would agree that the New Jerusalem comes down to us from heaven after the millennium itself.

Still some of you don't seem to get the point here, apparently. Pretty much all Premils, including me, both past and present, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be involving the thousand years after Christ has returned in the end of this age. And what era of time are those verses undeniably involving? The new heavens and a new earth, obviously. It even plainly says so in verse 17.

How then does that equal what you just said about pretty much all Premils, that they agree with Amils that the NHNE comes down after the millennium? Let's see if that is true by me asking some of the following questions. I will give my answers to those questions which may or may not be your answers as well.

1) Does Isaiah 65:17-25 involve the NHNE? Yes

2) Do Amils, such as you and @WPM, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be involving the same era of time Revelation 21-22 is involving? Yes

3) Do Amils, such as you and @WPM, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be after the millennium? Yes

4) Do most Premils take Isaiah 65:17-25 to not be involving the same era of time Revelation 21-22 is involving? Yes

5) Do most, if not all Premils, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be during the millennium, thus not after the millennium instead? Yes

Based on 5) alone, how can any Premil then logically agree with Amils, thus not be contradictory, that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium when they already have it coming down at the beginning of the millennium, the fact they are applying Isaiah 65:17-25 to the millennium itself, not after it?

Look at all the confusion(thus contradictions) being spread here by both Premils and Amils, such as you.

Premils insisting the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium when they already have it coming down at the beginning of the millennium(Isaiah 65:17-25). Is one going to argue, that pertaining to 1) above, the answer is no rather than yes, thus contradicting what it plainly says in verse 17?

Amils, such as you, insisting all Premils agree with Amils that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium despite the fact pretty much all Premils have it coming down at the beginning of the millennium since that is the era of time Premils are applying Isaiah 65:17-25 to.

And I'm the one that is allegedly confused here, as @Davy insisted was the case? LOL. I'm not confused at all since I know there can't be two different NHNEs, where one comes down at the beginning of the millennium, and another one comes down after the millennium.

And besides, something I already argued is the following, which undeniably proves Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21-22 are involving the same era of time, the same new Jerusalem and the same NHNE. Where Amils, such as you already agree here, but most Premils don't.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth : and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem , and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.


Compare with.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes ; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


As if it makes sense that if Isaiah 65:19 already happens during the millennium---the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying---which obviously means there will be no more tears ever again forever, meaning in this Jerusalem, the fact He is creating it new, thus new Jerusalem, but then after the millennium God has to wipe all tears from eyes yet again(Revelation 21:4). What tears, though? How could there still be tears to wipe from eyes if what is recorded in Isaiah 65:19 already preceded Revelation 21:4 according to most Premils?

As to me then, I have no choice but to conclude that the NHNE comes down at the beginning of the millennium if I'm insisting Isaiah 65:17-25 is involving the millennium, for reasons I argued above and elsewhere in this thread. But, if in reality, the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium, I am then wrong to insist Isaiah 65:17-25 is involving the millennium after the 2nd coming, in that case.

Yet, if Isaiah 65:17-25 is indeed involving the millennium though, Amil can't be correct that the millennium is meaning the here and now because of the fact that Isaiah 65:17-25 simply can't fit the here and now, period. The last verse alone undeniably proves it, the fact there is zero in the present age, in any sense, that can explain this---The wolf and the lamb shall feed together.

 

[Timtofly]

When have I, or any Amil, suggested "the general resurrection was in the first century at the Cross"? You know that is not true. This type of deliberate misrepresentation is normally a sign you have no rebuttal for the argument at hand. Ad hominem is all Premils seem to have lately. I take that as a commendation of the strength of the Amil argument. It shows its biblical veracity.

Now can you address the biblical arguments you avoided?

It is you who uses the first resurrection as a crutch and avoid the Word of God.

When was the first resurrection then?

Is the first resurrection general and available to all the redeemed, or just a certain percentage of redeemed?

Why are you now avoiding the first resurrection?

 

[PinSeeker]

Still some of you don't seem to get the point here, apparently. Pretty much all Premils, including me, both past and present, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be involving the thousand years after Christ has returned in the end of this age.

Oh, yeah... I mean, I can't speak for anybody else, really, but I think we all get that loud and clear. :) I surely do... :)

And what era of time are those verses undeniably involving? The new heavens and a new earth, obviously. It even plainly says so in verse 17.

I agree with what you say here, but the understanding that that is concurrent with the millennium is the issue.

How then does that equal what you just said about pretty much all Premils, that they agree with Amils that the NHNE comes down after the millennium?

See directly above.

1) Does Isaiah 65:17-25 involve the NHNE? Yes

Yes.

2) Do Amils, such as you and @WPM, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be involving the same era of time Revelation 21-22 is involving? Yes

Yes. Question here, David. Given that we agree on this, do you limit that to 1,000 years? Do you not understand the New Heaven and New Earth to be throughout eternity to come, having no end?

3) Do Amils, such as you and @WPM, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be after the millennium? Yes

Yes.

4) Do most Premils take Isaiah 65:17-25 to not be involving the same era of time Revelation 21-22 is involving? Yes

Right, and that's the issue. You correctly say above that premillennialists understand that "Isaiah 65:17-25 involve(s) the NHNE." And, as I said, amillennialists agree. In Revelation 21-22 ~ specifically Revelation 21:1-8; the rest of Revelation 21 and all of Revelation 22 are the closing of John's prophecy ~ we read the following (emphasis mine):

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” And He Who was seated on the throne said, 'Behold, I am making all things new.' Also He said, 'Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.' And He said to me, 'It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

Frankly speaking, I cannot see how it is even possible not to understand Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21:1-8 to be involving two different time periods, even partially. Such an assertion (misunderstanding) is just astounding.

5) Do most, if not all Premils, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be during the millennium, thus not after the millennium instead? Yes

Sure, and that's incorrect. See answer to #4 above.

Based on 5) alone, how can any Premil then logically agree with Amils, thus not be contradictory, that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium when they already have it coming down at the beginning of the millennium, the fact they are applying Isaiah 65:17-25 to the millennium itself, not after it?

Right, that's the issue. See again my answer to #4 above.

Look at all the confusion(thus contradictions) being spread here by both Premils and Amils, such as you.

LOL! Hoo boy. There is confusion, I'll agree with you on that... LOL!

Premils insisting the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium when they already have it coming down at the beginning of the millennium(Isaiah 65:17-25).

LOL! I say the problem is really placing the events of Revelation 20:1-6 after the events of Revelation 19:11-20, which should not be done, and this gets us into properly piecing together all of John's Revelation... or more correctly stated, John's series of visions compiled in John's Revelation. To say it in a "40,000 foot view" sort of way, it is a series of concurrent visions ~ with a couple of what we might call interludes at some point within each ~ of the one time period between Jesus's first coming and His second coming, and each vision progressively focused more on Jesus's return than the previous one(s).

Amils, such as you, insisting all Premils agree with Amils that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium despite the fact pretty much all Premils have it coming down at the beginning of the millennium since that is the era of time Premils are applying Isaiah 65:17-25 to.

LOL! See above...

And I'm the one that is allegedly confused here, as @Davy insisted was the case? LOL. I'm not confused at all since I know there can't be two different NHNEs, where one comes down at the beginning of the millennium, and another one comes down after the millennium.

There is only one, and it is after. Revelation 20:1-6 comes before Revelation 21:1-8. LOL! Yeah, Davy... he's... well, much of what he says is very, um, iiiiiinnnnnnnteresting... :)

And besides, something I already argued is the following, which undeniably proves Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21-22 are involving the same era of time...

Good; we agree on that... Well, as I said, specifically Revelation 21:1-8; the rest of Revelation 21 and Revelation 22 comprise the closing of John's prophecy... like exhortations for how we should live and warnings of what we should not do between now and the end, and a final praise of the God and His Christ.

As if it makes sense that if Isaiah 65:19 already happens during the millennium...

Right; agreed; amillennialists do not assert such a thing; not during, but after, and after the return of Christ and the final Judgment...

...the fact He is creating it new, thus new Jerusalem, but then after the millennium God has to wipe all tears from eyes yet again(Revelation 21:4). What tears, though? How could there still be tears to wipe from eyes if what is recorded in Isaiah 65:19 already preceded Revelation 21:4 according to most Premils?

Right, agreed; you seem to be waffling back and forth, David. What is recorded in Isaiah 65:19 does not precede Revelation 21:4. See above.

As to me then, I have no choice but to conclude that the NHNE comes down at the beginning of the millennium if I'm insisting Isaiah 65:17-25 is involving the millennium...

I understand, but that is erroneous. And you can call that my opinion if you like; that bothers me not one bit. See above.

, for reasons I argued above and elsewhere in this thread. But, if in reality, the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium, I am then wrong to insist Isaiah 65:17-25 is involving the millennium after the 2nd coming, in that case.

Exactly. And again, the millennium is not after the second coming of Christ Jesus, but before; the close of the millennium and Satan's little season, as we have been calling it, prompt Jesus's second coming. And so we say, continuously, as John did, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!" (Revelation 22:20)

Yet, if Isaiah 65:17-25 is indeed involving the millennium though, Amil can't be correct that the millennium is meaning the here and now because of the fact that Isaiah 65:17-25 simply can't fit the here and now, period. The last verse alone undeniably proves it, the fact there is zero in the present age, in any sense, that can explain this---The wolf and the lamb shall feed together.

Agreed. Amillennialists do not hold in any way that Isaiah 65:17-25 fits the here and now.

And... I'll change my closing exhortation just a bit... "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen." (Revelation 22:21)

 

[WPM]

It is you who use the first resurrection as a crutch and avoid the Word of God.

When was the first resurrection then?

Is the first resurrection general and available to all the redeemed, or just a certain percentage of redeemed?

Why are you now avoiding the first resurrection?

Hello! It was Christ's resurrection. The Bible makes it clear that Christ is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

Our spiritual resurrection occurs at regeneration, where we have our part in His resurrection. But our physical resurrection occurs at the future second coming.

 

[WPM]

Still some of you don't seem to get the point here, apparently. Pretty much all Premils, including me, both past and present, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be involving the thousand years after Christ has returned in the end of this age. And what era of time are those verses undeniably involving? The new heavens and a new earth, obviously. It even plainly says so in verse 17.

How then does that equal what you just said about pretty much all Premils, that they agree with Amils that the NHNE comes down after the millennium? Let's see if that is true by me asking some of the following questions. I will give my answers to those questions which may or may not be your answers as well.

1) Does Isaiah 65:17-25 involve the NHNE? Yes

2) Do Amils, such as you and @WPM, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be involving the same era of time Revelation 21-22 is involving? Yes

3) Do Amils, such as you and @WPM, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be after the millennium? Yes

4) Do most Premils take Isaiah 65:17-25 to not be involving the same era of time Revelation 21-22 is involving? Yes

5) Do most, if not all Premils, take Isaiah 65:17-25 to be during the millennium, thus not after the millennium instead? Yes

Based on 5) alone, how can any Premil then logically agree with Amils, thus not be contradictory, that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium when they already have it coming down at the beginning of the millennium, the fact they are applying Isaiah 65:17-25 to the millennium itself, not after it?

Look at all the confusion(thus contradictions) being spread here by both Premils and Amils, such as you.

Premils insisting the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium when they already have it coming down at the beginning of the millennium(Isaiah 65:17-25). Is one going to argue, that pertaining to 1) above, the answer is no rather than yes, thus contradicting what it plainly says in verse 17?

Amils, such as you, insisting all Premils agree with Amils that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium despite the fact pretty much all Premils have it coming down at the beginning of the millennium since that is the era of time Premils are applying Isaiah 65:17-25 to.

And I'm the one that is allegedly confused here, as @Davy insisted was the case? LOL. I'm not confused at all since I know there can't be two different NHNEs, where one comes down at the beginning of the millennium, and another one comes down after the millennium.

And besides, something I already argued is the following, which undeniably proves Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21-22 are involving the same era of time, the same new Jerusalem and the same NHNE. Where Amils, such as you already agree here, but most Premils don't.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth : and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem , and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.


Compare with.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes ; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


As if it makes sense that if Isaiah 65:19 already happens during the millennium---the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying---which obviously means there will be no more tears ever again forever, meaning in this Jerusalem, the fact He is creating it new, thus new Jerusalem, but then after the millennium God has to wipe all tears from eyes yet again(Revelation 21:4). What tears, though? How could there still be tears to wipe from eyes if what is recorded in Isaiah 65:19 already preceded Revelation 21:4 according to most Premils?

As to me then, I have no choice but to conclude that the NHNE comes down at the beginning of the millennium if I'm insisting Isaiah 65:17-25 is involving the millennium, for reasons I argued above and elsewhere in this thread. But, if in reality, the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium, I am then wrong to insist Isaiah 65:17-25 is involving the millennium after the 2nd coming, in that case.

Yet, if Isaiah 65:17-25 is indeed involving the millennium though, Amil can't be correct that the millennium is meaning the here and now because of the fact that Isaiah 65:17-25 simply can't fit the here and now, period. The last verse alone undeniably proves it, the fact there is zero in the present age, in any sense, that can explain this---The wolf and the lamb shall feed together.

When does Revelation show the NHNE arrives - at or after the millennium?

 

[Timtofly]

You once again, as is your pattern, avoided the biblical argument in my post. I will repeat.

But i thought the redeemed (dead and alive) are all glorified and caught up collectively to meet Jesus when He comes? What believers are excluded from that and why?

1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:3 confirms this saying: “we which are alive and remain unto the [Gr. parousia] of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 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: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

The church is not the entire set of humanity as defined in this verse. If believer is what you call the church. The church has always been considered those who make up Paradise. Yet you are not in Paradise, so you are a third set. That is why you are not following Scripture, but human reasoning. You take a set of verses about you being caught up, a third party, and changed, and then ask who is the third party left on earth.

No believers are left behind. That is the glorified church. The glorified church is not on the earth at the Second Coming. Nor does that glorified church come to earth after the Second Coming. You ask who is left behind so are there humans on the earth or not?

Your verses don't state that all left on the earth immediately dissappear from the earth. Your verses say those on earth go through the destruction and cannot escape, so they are alive on the earth, not dead. If they are dead or dissappear, they would escape just like the church. We know they are all alive on the earth, because they cannot escape this destruction.

The "third party" are those who go through the destruction and still redeemed, but that redemption is not realized yet. Were you redeemed on the Cross, prior to physical birth? Did you at some point realize that redemption during your life and not 1994 years ago? Until a person is physically dead they are still redeemed by the Cross, no?

Are you saying that no human can accept redemption moments before they physically die? Even those in sheol, are still in the Lamb's book of life. No one has been removed, because it is still sealed. Those in sheol are removed at the GWT Judgment. Read Revelation 4, 5, 6, 7 again. You will see that people are still on earth redeemed and sealed, but you conflate this, coined by you "third party", with the church, then state none of the church can be left on the earth.

You are assuming everyone is physically dead who are on the earth. That contradicts the very point they do not escape, because physical death per this context means they did escape, and the verse states they cannot escape this destruction. You even bolded and underlined that part, but obviously you think they are dead, when all it says is they shall not escape. It is not saying what you want it to say.


You want the verse to say the redeemed are gone and everyone else is physically dead.

I already replied once to the contents of this post, and have not read any response back from you.

 

[Timtofly]

As to me then, I have no choice but to conclude that the NHNE comes down at the beginning of the millennium if I'm insisting Isaiah 65:17-25 is involving the millennium, for reasons I argued above and elsewhere in this thread. But, if in reality, the NHNE doesn't come down until after the millennium, I am then wrong to insist Isaiah 65:17-25 is involving the millennium after the 2nd coming, in that case.

First of all the New Jerusalem comes down, not the NHNE.

No, Isaiah 65, is not a different creation. The NHNE is a totally seperate creation.

Isaiah 65 is the creation after the destruction of the baptism of fire. Isaiah 65 is not an entirely new and different creation.

Without Isaiah 65, this earth would be totally barren and lifeless for 1,000 years. Some Adventist do teach that nothing but Satan and the wicked are on the earth for a thousand years.

Some Premil think the Day of Lord is the NHNE, but a different thousand years until the New Jerusalem descends.

Isaiah 65 is the last thousand years of current creation, and the creation of a new heaven and earth is necessary after 2 Peter 3 happens. Some also think that 2 Peter 3 is the end of the Day of the Lord, instead of the beginning. 2 Peter 3 is what is mentioned in Revelation 6, and the opening of the 6th Seal. Then there is time on earth of Judgment called the final harvest. Then the Day of the Lord starts the thousand year countdown.

 

[WPM]

The church is not the entire set of humanity as defined in this verse. If believer is what you call the church. The church has always been considered those who make up Paradise. Yet you are not in Paradise, so you are a third set. That is why you are not following Scripture, but human reasoning. You take a set of verses about you being caught up, a third party, and changed, and then ask who is the third party left on earth.

No believers are left behind. That is the glorified church. The glorified church is not on the earth at the Second Coming. Nor does that glorified church come to earth after the Second Coming. You ask who is left behind so are there humans on the earth or not?

Your verses don't state that all left on the earth immediately dissappear from the earth. Your verses say those on earth go through the destruction and cannot escape, so they are alive on the earth, not dead. If they are dead or dissappear, they would escape just like the church. We know they are all alive on the earth, because they cannot escape this destruction.

The "third party" are those who go through the destruction and still redeemed, but that redemption is not realized yet. Were you redeemed on the Cross, prior to physical birth? Did you at some point realize that redemption during your life and not 1994 years ago? Until a person is physically dead they are still redeemed by the Cross, no?

Are you saying that no human can accept redemption moments before they physically die? Even those in sheol, are still in the Lamb's book of life. No one has been removed, because it is still sealed. Those in sheol are removed at the GWT Judgment. Read Revelation 4, 5, 6, 7 again. You will see that people are still on earth redeemed and sealed, but you conflate this, coined by you "third party", with the church, then state none of the church can be left on the earth.

You are assuming everyone is physically dead who are on the earth. That contradicts the very point they do not escape, because physical death per this context means they did escape, and the verse states they cannot escape this destruction. You even bolded and underlined that part, but obviously you think they are dead, when all it says is they shall not escape. It is not saying what you want it to say.


You want the verse to say the redeemed are gone and everyone else is physically dead.

I already replied once to the contents of this post, and have not read any response back from you.

This is all extra-biblical reasoning and double-speak. Not surprisingly, you have zero Scripture to support your claims. You are just doing exactly what RandyK does. Your posts are devoid of explicit scriptural evidence. All you have is personal speculation, elaborate theories and carnal reasoning. You have no Scripture to bring to the table.

Where in Scripture does it say there is a "third party" at the second coming that you are too wicked to be caught up and too righteous to be destroyed? Where in Scripture does it say there is a "third party" at the second coming "who go through the destruction and still redeemed, but that redemption is not realized yet"?

You seem to make it up as you go because of your misunderstanding of Revelation.