The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[WPM]

You don't get to determine what is an "authentic Premil." As far as I'm concerned, the vast number of the early Church Fathers were Chiliasts and Premils. The fact Lacantius came when he did is all the more convincing of this fact since he indicated his view had been dominant.

Immediately after Lacantius relates these things he says this: This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom.

Sounds like he is pretty convinced that Premil covers the preceding era as well as his own?

Why did he base his teaching on the heathen Sibyl prophetesses then?

 

[WPM]

I'm not bitter at all. What makes you think I'm bitter? I disagree with you because I'm not convinced you're correct in slandering the Premil position. It is not, I feel, based upon teachers like Cerinthus, a heretic!

Even though you apparently believe this, I don't take it personally. I just wish to deal with it as it is--a slanderous accusation. There's no nice way to say it, but it's downright mean-spirited.

But you can change that by saying things like, "Is Premil based upon an ancient heresy?" Asking the question removes the charge that opens you up to these kinds of exchanges.

It is eating away at you.

 

[Timtofly]

No, we're talking about how God made us. It does not follow that we can ever sin again if God chose to give us one test in this life, and then reward success with immortality. By definition, immortality means eternal blessedness in the fellowship of God.

God did not make us sinners. Why would you think that?

God did not make Adam and Eve sinners either. They chose to disobey God.

Are you saying those glorified, can one day rebel, and keep doing so over and over again in every single creation that God places us in?

 

[Timtofly]

Why did he base his teaching on the heathen Sibyl prophetesses then?

You realize this is just your opinion and speculation unless you have quotes from either on exactly what they taught. You have not even pointed out how Dr. Ice is wrong. All you have is your own opinions on a lot of points covered here. I suppose all humans are considered heretic, unless they have your own personal opinion on every subject.

 

[Randy Kluth]

God did not make us sinners. Why would you think that?

God made us sinless, yet with the ability to sin.

God did not make Adam and Eve sinners either. They chose to disobey God.

He made them with the ability to sin.

Are you saying those glorified, can one day rebel, and keep doing so over and over again in every single creation that God places us in?

I don't know where you got that idea? I said the exact opposite, that once God makes us immortal we can no longer choose to sin...ever again. It's not that we cease to have free will, once made immortal, but that once made immortal, we can no longer be tempted or fooled.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is eating away at you.

I'm pretty gentle with vegetables. With meats, I rip away.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Why did he base his teaching on the heathen Sibyl prophetesses then?

Why did Tertullian become a Montanist? Why did I become a Pentecostal? Why does anybody, who generally-speaking, has a proper spiritual experience, go left and accept something sort of "off-beat?" It's likely that in the context of our lives, we find certain groups with aberrant ideas that appear to be right, as opposed to what is going on in the opposite direction.

If I see in the US Democrat Party a horrible platform, I may turn to the Independent or some other party, depending on what party has my ear at the time. I may not realize there are better options. In accepting, for example, the Independent Party, I may not realize how bad some of its platform is!

Maybe my mentors or people I respect embrace a certain prophecy from one like, say, David Wilkerson? And what if Wilkerson has lived an honorable life and only made errors in one or several of his "prophecies?" Am I bad because I like Wilkerson and quote him, and sometimes don't recognize his errors?

This is just human. We do this at times. Thank God for His use of brothers who correct us!

I like Origen, and the way he describes the Trinity. But some Christians consider him a heretic because of his subordinationist belief, which I personally think is entirely Christian. But I recognize the difficulty, and think Origen should not be written off even if his language was less than ideal, or even partly "off."

We have a natural tendency, as Christians, to embrace the supernatural, because we believe in God. Therefore, some things we accept are too "fantastic," and should be more carefully scrutinized. We are, as Christians, to respect our teachers, brothers, and elders, and so we tend to embrace our teachers, good and bad alike. This is a normal part of growth and a life of being corrected by the Lord.

On the other hand, some Christians overreact and reject anything supernatural. They're "too careful," and may miss God's acts that do not follow our expectations, but rather, God's own will. The point is, Lacantius was noble and embraced by many Christians as capable, gifted, and reasonably acceptable. To use an error in his life to dismiss his ministry would be a grave mistake. We need to carefully judge what is right and what is in error, if we can, without devoting ourselves, in pride, to a single man or teaching.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

In my experience, the brother has sought to win followers by overwhelming his listeners with information. Much like filibustering, when you overcome others with info overload, they can get the notion his info his highly credible--who has the time to check things out? You think he must have amassed thousands of books and articles, and I can't hope to challenge this, since he will simply cite hundreds of more articles.

He made claims and accusations and now are just scrambling for excuses for not posting the evidence to support his claims- this is at best disingenuous.

While I tend to be very sarcastic in my humor, too man y here debate like the world and not like fellow Christians. I don't mind at all getting invovled in a heated tussle--iron sharpens iron which means atr times sparks will fly. but making accusatiopns and then refusing to back them up just makes on look like a liar.

 

[Randy Kluth]

He made claims and accusations and now are just scrambling for excuses for not posting the evidence to support his claims- this is at best disingenuous.

While I tend to be very sarcastic in my humor, too man y here debate like the world and not like fellow Christians. I don't mind at all getting invovled in a heated tussle--iron sharpens iron which means atr times sparks will fly. but making accusatiopns and then refusing to back them up just makes on look like a liar.

Oh yea! I know! I haven't said half of what I've wanted to say, and I haven't told you how many times I have to go back and edit out my "mean" statements. I'm convinced I will accomplish zero if I get too caught up in the emotion, and say things others will never respond to. So, we're all a work in progress, I guess.

The "poster" is someone who has had *years* of dealing with the opposition without correcting his attitude. I'm not judging him--I'm the same, except that I claim I'm dealing with having to adjust my attitude all the time. He is someone I have to pray for, because he is, like us, made in the image of God, and has gifts to offer the world. I want to support that, if I can. I just can't unless there is an attitude adjustment.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Oh yea! I know! I haven't said half of what I've wanted to say, and I haven't told you how many times I have to go back and edit out my "mean" statements. I'm convinced I will accomplish zero if I get too caught up in the emotion, and say things others will never respond to. So, we're all a work in progress, I guess.

The "poster" is someone who has had *years* of dealing with the opposition without correcting his attitude. I'm not judging him--I'm the same, except that I claim I'm dealing with having to adjust my attitude all the time. He is someone I have to pray for, because he is, like us, made in the image of God, and has gifts to offer the world. I want to support that, if I can. I just can't unless there is an attitude adjustment.

Well I often appear as coming across as mean. But I hate no one here in the least. but I will call a spade a spade, in the hopes it will shake some people awake from the demonic stupor they have been entrapped in.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well I often appear as coming across as mean. But I hate no one here in the least. but I will call a spade a spade, in the hopes it will shake some people awake from the demonic stupor they have been entrapped in.

Yes, when in doubt or exasperated, just let the worms out of the can. My sentiments entirely! ;)

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes, when in doubt or exasperated, just let the worms out of the can. My sentiments entirely! ;)

Paul, Moses and Jesus were very meek and humble men and they certainly did a lot of yelling at times to get peoples attention!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My goodness, do you think I feel threatened by you putting me on a censured list?

I couldn't care less if you do or not.

I don't want to talk to anybody who is closed-minded on any particular subject. Truth must always be willing to be scrutinized--not edited.

I'm not closed-minded on this. I have told you, what, 4 or 5 times now, why I view it the way I do. So I put more stock into what Justin Martyr said then what you do. So be it. But, that doesn't mean I'm closed-minded.

Brother, I have zero problem with you being bored by this particular subject. It's very interesting to me. Some people love to talk about cars. That conversation bores me, but I often indulge them because *they* find it interesting, and I try to learn something in the process.

Well, I'm glad that you don't have a problem with that. Not that I would care if you did.

But generally, if you aren't interested in a particular subject, God is probably wanting you to focus on other areas of ministry. And I won't get in your way. We're on the same team.

I agree.

The problem began when you entered in some comments, which of course invite an answer. But you can check out now.

I wanted to check out before this, but I felt like I should address what you said here. But, now I'm done with this thread for good.

 

[Timtofly]

God made us sinless, yet with the ability to sin.



He made them with the ability to sin.



I don't know where you got that idea? I said the exact opposite, that once God makes us immortal we can no longer choose to sin...ever again. It's not that we cease to have free will, once made immortal, but that once made immortal, we can no longer be tempted or fooled.

Yet you claim God let Adam sin. So you will be able to sin as well, in your theology.

God gave Adam one law. Adam could easily break that law. That was not God giving Adam the ability to sin.

If there are no laws, how can one disobey God?

If God had told Adam to eat, then eating of that tree would have been perfectly normal, not a sin. Sin is only the condition placed on Adam's offspring that states we cannot obey God, even with free will. There will be at least one law, that we cannot keep. So as Paul put it, the Law was only our master showing us our sinful condition.

During the Millennium there will be the iron rod rule, and no sin nature. So only obedience will be normal. Disobedience will be considered abnormal or accursed as a birth defect. If you want to declare that God will make some humans born with the disposition to just break the law so He can kill them, that is your opinion to live with.

The point of bringing sin to an end, and everlasting righteousness, is to give the earth a Sabbath day without sin and death by sin, or decay. If you think God deliberately allowed sin to reign for 6,000 years, that is also your opinion. We were never told like in Job, if Satan pointed out the need to plant a Garden and put one son of God in it to see what would happen. God already knew what would happen, as God already knew how Job would turn out as well. Satan did not know.

I doubt Satan was shocked when Adam finally ate and disobeyed God.

 

[Timtofly]

Why did Tertullian become a Montanist? Why did I become a Pentecostal? Why does anybody, who generally-speaking, has a proper spiritual experience, go left and accept something sort of "off-beat?" It's likely that in the context of our lives, we find certain groups with aberrant ideas that appear to be right, as opposed to what is going on in the opposite direction.

If I see in the US Democrat Party a horrible platform, I may turn to the Independent or some other party, depending on what party has my ear at the time. I may not realize there are better options. In accepting, for example, the Independent Party, I may not realize how bad some of its platform is!

Maybe my mentors or people I respect embrace a certain prophecy from one like, say, David Wilkerson? And what if Wilkerson has lived an honorable life and only made errors in one or several of his "prophecies?" Am I bad because I like Wilkerson and quote him, and sometimes don't recognize his errors?

This is just human. We do this at times. Thank God for His use of brothers who correct us!

I like Origen, and the way he describes the Trinity. But some Christians consider him a heretic because of his subordinationist belief, which I personally think is entirely Christian. But I recognize the difficulty, and think Origen should not be written off even if his language was less than ideal, or even partly "off."

We have a natural tendency, as Christians, to embrace the supernatural, because we believe in God. Therefore, some things we accept are too "fantastic," and should be more carefully scrutinized. We are, as Christians, to respect our teachers, brothers, and elders, and so we tend to embrace our teachers, good and bad alike. This is a normal part of growth and a life of being corrected by the Lord.

On the other hand, some Christians overreact and reject anything supernatural. They're "too careful," and may miss God's acts that do not follow our expectations, but rather, God's own will. The point is, Lacantius was noble and embraced by many Christians as capable, gifted, and reasonably acceptable. To use an error in his life to dismiss his ministry would be a grave mistake. We need to carefully judge what is right and what is in error, if we can, without devoting ourselves, in pride, to a single man or teaching.

Some here should toss out all of King David's writings as he committed adultery, and killed a man over it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yet you claim God let Adam sin. So you will be able to sin as well, in your theology.

No, I didn't say that and I don't believe that. God made Adam able to sin. And God makes Adam a new creation, unable to sin. The inability to sin after glorification has to do not with the removal of free will but rather, from a character tested and proved to choose against satanic rebellion. With Satan and undue influences removed, Adam will never again sin.

During the Millennium there will be the iron rod rule, and no sin nature. So only obedience will be normal. Disobedience will be considered abnormal or accursed as a birth defect. If you want to declare that God will make some humans born with the disposition to just break the law so He can kill them, that is your opinion to live with.

I do believe that in the Millennium there will be in play two groups of people, mortal humanity on earth and glorified Christianity in heaven. We return with Jesus only to establish his Kingdom on the earth. Then we'll rule from heaven until the New Jerusalem descends from heaven a thousand years later.

The point of bringing sin to an end, and everlasting righteousness, is to give the earth a Sabbath day without sin and death by sin, or decay. If you think God deliberately allowed sin to reign for 6,000 years, that is also your opinion. We were never told like in Job, if Satan pointed out the need to plant a Garden and put one son of God in it to see what would happen. God already knew what would happen, as God already knew how Job would turn out as well. Satan did not know.

That's called determinism or fatalism. I don't believe that. I believe that God knew Adam had a choice, and knew what each choice would bring. He did not predetermine that Adam would fall.

The Millennium brings rest in the sense that Christian nations will not backslide during that time. And non-Christian nations will not persecute Christian nations or challenge them in war--not until the end of the Millennium when Satan is released.

Israel had "rest" not during times of sinlessness, but rather, in times of relative obedience. It will be no different in the Millennial age.

These things are fairly speculative, but I try to keep as close to the Scriptural record as possible, without adding too many of my own thoughts. But it's inevitable that we include thoughts about things that lack lots of details.

 

[Timtofly]

No, I didn't say that and I don't believe that. God made Adam able to sin. And God makes Adam a new creation, unable to sin. The inability to sin after glorification has to do not with the removal of free will but rather, from a character tested and proved to choose against satanic rebellion. With Satan and undue influences removed, Adam will never again sin.



I do believe that in the Millennium there will be in play two groups of people, mortal humanity on earth and glorified Christianity in heaven. We return with Jesus only to establish his Kingdom on the earth. Then we'll rule from heaven until the New Jerusalem descends from heaven a thousand years later.



That's called determinism or fatalism. I don't believe that. I believe that God knew Adam had a choice, and knew what each choice would bring. He did not predetermine that Adam would fall.

The Millennium brings rest in the sense that Christian nations will not backslide during that time. And non-Christian nations will not persecute Christian nations or challenge them in war--not until the end of the Millennium when Satan is released.

Israel had "rest" not during times of sinlessness, but rather, in times of relative obedience. It will be no different in the Millennial age.

These things are fairly speculative, but I try to keep as close to the Scriptural record as possible, without adding too many of my own thoughts. But it's inevitable that we include thoughts about things that lack lots of details.

Why do you think Christian is the term used in the Millennium?

Were they Cristian in 50BC? Were they Christian in the 4,000 years prior to the Cross? There are no Christians nor the church in the Millennium. There is literally no human born in Adam's dead corruptible flesh after the 7th Trumpet.

All in the Millennium are in God's image body and soul.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Why do you think Christian is the term used in the Millennium?

Were they Cristian in 50BC? Were they Christian in the 4,000 years prior to the Cross? There are no Christians nor the church in the Millennium. There is literally no human born in Adam's dead corruptible flesh after the 7th Trumpet.

All in the Millennium are in God's image body and soul.

I think people will continue to be called "Christians" in the Millennium because there will be non-Christians at that time, as well. The name "Christian" distinguishes them from non-Christians.

Nobody would be called "Christian" before Christ actually came. Who cares, anyway, what name is used?

I don't agree with you that people will all be sinless immortals in the Millennium. Only the saints who are glorified will be as such, in my view. How can people by the millions rise up in rebellion against the "city of God" at the end of the Millennium if there are no sinful people in the Millennium? You're saying that sinless people will en masse decide to return to sin?

 

[Timtofly]

I think people will continue to be called "Christians" in the Millennium because there will be non-Christians at that time, as well. The name "Christian" distinguishes them from non-Christians.

Nobody would be called "Christian" before Christ actually came. Who cares, anyway, what name is used?

I don't agree with you that people will all be sinless immortals in the Millennium. Only the saints who are glorified will be as such, in my view. How can people by the millions rise up in rebellion against the "city of God" at the end of the Millennium if there are no sinful people in the Millennium? You're saying that sinless people will en masse decide to return to sin?

First of all, no such thing as immortals. No such thing as Christians and non-Christians in the Millennium. Those terms deal with Adam's dead corruptible flesh along with saved and lost.

The church is not on earth.

Did not Adam and Eve sin enmasse 100% the residents of the Garden? People will listen to Satan, just like Eve did.

Being a sinner or sinless has nothing to do with listening to Satan. Listening to Satan leads to a wrong decision of disobedience. Disobedience leads to sin entering the world. No where does it say they were sinners or even broke a law. Their issue was listening to Satan and marching to battle. They never made it. The intent and giving their heart and mind to Satan was enough, to send fire from heaven. They and Satan end up in the LOF.

The church is glorified and remains in Paradise, at the 6th Seal, the Second Coming. Tell me one good reason why people on earth after they die are allowed back to live with those being born on the earth. Certainly no sons of God lived on earth after the Flood. No redeemed came back to earth when Abraham's bosom was taken to Paradise. Why would the church since the Cross come live on earth after the Second Coming? That does not line up with Paul's 3 gatherings in 1 Corinthians 15.

The time of Adam's flesh was only for 6 days. 6000 years. That is what the Sabbath Commandment was pointing out. Adam was cursed to labor and till the ground. The Day of rest cannot carry on Adam's dead corruptible flesh subjected to that condition.

Those beheaded are resurrected into permanent incorruptible physical bodies. The sheep of the remnant of Israel, are given permanent incorruptible physical bodies. The wheat representative of all nations are given permanent incorruptible physical bodies. These people are all the firstfruits of the Millennium Kingdom.

They rule over their offspring which make up the families and generations of all nations for 1,000 years. They are without Adam's sin nature. They still have to obey the laws of physics. They have to obey the iron rod rule. They have free will and multiple choices of a complex society. They live as Isaiah 65 points out. They spread out over the whole earth as they multiply. The youngest and last generations are at the edges of the earth. It is this demographic that Satan targets, because that is where Revelation 20 says they come from.

That group would also be the largest group, because all generations would keep having children. Adam had sons and daughters even in sinful flesh until he died. Living without sin and death will be a population explosion after 500 years. Also with 144k, and many sheep and wheat during the trib, there will be thousands more perhaps even millions more than those 8 who stepped out of the ark.

There is really no logical reason why any of Adam's flesh live in the Millennium. The remnant is the sheep and the wheat. And they are redeemed without sin, covered by the Atonement. They are given permanent incorruptible physical bodies and will not stand as the dead at the GWT. That is the point of being Blessed. They will not face the second death. The sheep and wheat are not the church. Being born from above is a free will choice to submit to the Holy Spirit, and be adopted, waiting for the Second Coming to be glorified. The church is an act of faith.

The sheep are chosen by Jesus, and based on works not faith. The wheat are those sown directly by Jesus, not a church harvest. They are chosen directly by Jesus, and His harvest, gathered by the angels. These are not Second chance people who rejected the Gospel. All those people, who rejected Christ, or apostasized will be deceived by Satan. These are people who got lost in the shuffle of every day life leading up to the Second Coming.

That is why post trib is impossible. Jesus and the angels are on the earth for the final harvest. The final harvest is the time of Jacob's trouble. If not at least half of Israel, many will be considered goats, by their Messiah. But human sinful flesh Coming to an end is this time of trouble, and the Trumpets deal with Israel.

The church was removed in the Seals. The Nations and wheat harvest is the 7 Thunders. Israel and the church was never even given their information, because the church and Israel will not be on earth during the Thunders. Only Jesus, the angels, and the 144k. Matthew 13 covers the Thunders. All this happens before the 7th Trumpet which declares an end to Daniel's 70th week, and the 6,000 year punishment of Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

Living in the Millennium is not based on faith. It will be based on obedience to Jesus Christ.

 

[Randy Kluth]

First of all, no such thing as immortals.

There is an inconsistency here. Later, you admit that the Church is "resurrected into incorruptible physical bodies." That is "immortality." If you're just saying you don't believe there will be any immortal Christians *on earth,* then you should come out and say so from the start. Otherwise, what you say here is completely confusing.

No such thing as Christians and non-Christians in the Millennium. Those terms deal with Adam's dead corruptible flesh along with saved and lost.

Again, you're very confusing because you're not starting with explaining your theological system. So your claims just appear to be a lot of assertions without proof. If what you mean is that the present age is characterized by the victory of carnal mankind over spiritual Christianity, then I can see your point. But the change that happens at Christ's Coming does *not* indicate that God's "city" is anywhere other than on the earth. And His city would include the Church, or Christianity, your claim notwithstanding.

The church is not on earth.

My own view is that the glorified saints of the present age establish the Kingdom, together with Christ, and then reign from heaven. So we may be in agreement on that. But the idea that no Christianity develops on earth seems completely absurd. To not have Christianity at all on earth is to have more dominant carnality on earth. And the Scriptures portray the coming Kingdom of God as one of peace and tranquility. You're not going to get that without Christianity.

Did not Adam and Eve sin enmasse 100% the residents of the Garden? People will listen to Satan, just like Eve did.

Being a sinner or sinless has nothing to do with listening to Satan. Listening to Satan leads to a wrong decision of disobedience. Disobedience leads to sin entering the world. No where does it say they were sinners or even broke a law. Their issue was listening to Satan and marching to battle. They never made it. The intent and giving their heart and mind to Satan was enough, to send fire from heaven. They and Satan end up in the LOF.

This is very difficult for me to comprehend. 1st you say " being a sinner has nothing to do with listening to Satan." And then you say the opposite, that "listening to Satan leads to disobedience."

I agree that people on earth will decide to en masse listen to Satan and rebel against God's "city." But you have to define God's "city?" If that isn't Christianity, what is it?

The church is glorified and remains in Paradise, at the 6th Seal, the Second Coming.

This is not a "given" for me. Nowhere are we told that the Church is in paradise at the 6th Seal. And bringing your specific interpretation of Revelation's many symbolic events into your general eschatology is fraught with problems. You cannot design a good eschatology based on lots of theoretical interpretations of difficult passages! I won't even argue your eschatology on that basis, if you don't have much clearer and easier statements from Scripture elsewhere.

Tell me one good reason why people on earth after they die are allowed back to live with those being born on the earth.

I never said they were. I agree with you--I don't think the glorified Church will come back from heaven to live with mortals during the Millennium. I believe we will reign from heaven until the Millennium is over.

But it's a completely different thing to say mortal humanity no longer produces Christians! The whole purpose of the age of the Kingdom is to spread the knowledge of God across the earth as the "waters cover the sea." And that knowledge is carried by Christians--not by non-Christians!

Certainly no sons of God lived on earth after the Flood.

You have a rather bizarre belief system! Where did you get this idea? The Gnostics tended to make up all kinds of imaginary scenarios, thinking they were getting revelation from God. I hope that's not what you're doing here?

The "sons of God" refers to those who embrace the ways of God. They simply backslid in the time of the Flood. Certainly there have been people who follow the ways of God from that time forward. And they also may backslide. None of it means there are no "sons of God" on earth!

It really seems like you're trying to set up some kind of dichotomy, which is what Gnostics always did. They were dualists. It made a neat and tidy package of the "good" and the "bad." You have the "Age of the Flesh." And you place "the Church" in heaven. What you have then is no place for God's word to work with men, to enable them to work with Him at times to accomplish His goals. All is evil. And the good simply has to exit. At least that's how it's coming across to me.

No redeemed came back to earth when Abraham's bosom was taken to Paradise. Why would the church since the Cross come live on earth after the Second Coming? That does not line up with Paul's 3 gatherings in 1 Corinthians 15.

The glorified Church comes back to earth when the New Earth comes into existence after the Millennium. Meanwhile, during the Millennium, God is able to complete His promises on earth through the mortal world, many of whom submit to Christianity and carry these plans out.

The time of Adam's flesh was only for 6 days. 6000 years. That is what the Sabbath Commandment was pointing out. Adam was cursed to labor and till the ground. The Day of rest cannot carry on Adam's dead corruptible flesh subjected to that condition.

This is typical Gnostic symbolism. The 7th Day, the Millennium, cannot carry righteousness for you unless people become neither Christian nor non-Christian. They are no longer dominated by evil, but neither are they Christians who carry out God's will. Ultimately, they choose to follow Satan again.

Those beheaded are resurrected into permanent incorruptible physical bodies. The sheep of the remnant of Israel, are given permanent incorruptible physical bodies. The wheat representative of all nations are given permanent incorruptible physical bodies. These people are all the firstfruits of the Millennium Kingdom.

Above, you said there is no "immortality," which is exactly what you're describing here! ????

They rule over their offspring which make up the families and generations of all nations for 1,000 years. They are without Adam's sin nature. They still have to obey the laws of physics. They have to obey the iron rod rule. They have free will and multiple choices of a complex society. They live as Isaiah 65 points out. They spread out over the whole earth as they multiply. The youngest and last generations are at the edges of the earth. It is this demographic that Satan targets, because that is where Revelation 20 says they come from.

You seem to be describing immortals who act as mortals???? And yet, you deny they are "Christians?" Wierd.

There is really no logical reason why any of Adam's flesh live in the Millennium.

Again, you apply your own subjective definitions. Who are "Adam's flesh" if not human beings? But you seem to assign to them a different meaning?

It's way too confusing for me. None of it appears to be biblical, but rather, based on some kind of symbolic interpretation that you have concocted out of your own ideas. Yes, some of it is biblical. But as a whole, it doesn't make sense to me. Sorry.