I don't believe the NHNE commences at the beginning of the thousand years. But I don't know why there can't be mortals experiencing the *age of the Millennium* at the same time glorified saints experience the *glories of heaven* during the same time period?
The rewards given to those who came out from great tribulation are the same as the rewards given in the NHNE.
I believe the Revelation is pointing to one and the same condition / state in creation that will come into being at the same "time" in both Revelation 7:15-17 and Revelation Chapter 21, regardless of what Premils say about it.
I think Amils would probably agree - so I'm not alone, except that Amils don't believe that the millennium commences at the same time, but is currently underway, so I don't agree with Amils either.
I don't honestly see any problem with the description or the words? Call it artistic license.
That's OK. Personally I won't and don't add anything - whether "artistic license" or anything else - to the meaning of Revelation 20:12-15, but granted, all premils do, and probably most amils too (who will see it as the resurrection of the unjust at the close of this "present" millennium).
Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Is it unimaginable too that Adam, who was alive spiritually and living in paradise, and knew exactly what God had said, and knew also that the words "you shall NOT surely die" was an insult to God because it was indirectly calling God a liar (aside from assigning an ulterior motive to God for having said so when He gave the command), chose to partake of the forbidden fruit because of the sales pitch about what it (supposedly) offered (but did not offer)?
So, quite simply, you'd rather question the biblical account rather than accept it as a reasonable explanation for the world as it is?
That's not what I said. The question
"Is it unimaginable too?" implies a negative answer - because of course I do believe scripture - and the scripture
does teach us that Adam,
who was alive spiritually and living forever in the Garden of Eden, and knew exactly what God had said, and knew also that the words "you shall NOT surely die" was an insult to God because it was indirectly calling God a liar (aside from assigning an ulterior motive to God for having said so when He gave the command),
chose to partake of the forbidden fruit because of the sales pitch about what it (supposedly) offered (but did not offer).
So as in the Garden of Eden
before the fall which resulted in Adam's death, so in the NHNE
before the Great White Throne Judgment and the 2nd death.
If the first was possible, then the second is possible too.
Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Why the difference after the resurrection, and why is it that only those who had remained faithful when tested and been beheaded are told that the 2nd death has no power over them (OSAS is applicable to them), but the text is silent about all the other saints who died in Christ who will also be resurrected when Christ returns? No doubt the apostles and all who have ever been martyred for their testimony have the same promise. But the same is not said for the rest of us - unless and until (like those in Revelation 12:4-6), we are given the choice Adam was given.
Makes perfect sense to me. This account is designed to encourage confidence in case martyrdom is necessary. It is not an historical account, but an encouragement with respect to the future. It is not an accountant's spreadsheet of people and statistics, and what happened to them. It is a narrative with a particular focus on those who prevail against the Beast.
Fair enough, that's what you believe, but even so, only those who prevail against the beast - any government - whether past, present or future - are being mentioned in those verses, and promised that the 2nd death will have no power over them.
So you believe in Replacement Theology--not in the literal nation of Israel?
Our views are too far apart.
The term "Replacement Theology" is a logical fallacy, IMO. The literal nation of Israel has always been the citizens, the people - in the New Testament bought by the blood of Christ - those who
together form a new tabernacle.
Just because the old tabernacle represents the old law, which was the shadow of the new law (the new law being the fruit of the Spirit / Vine fulfilling the law through faith in Christ), does not mean Israel has become divided into "literal Israel" on the one hand, and the body of Christ / the church on the other.
Hebrews 7
12 For when the priesthood changes, a change in the law must come as well.
The (total and utter) fallacy in the words "Replacement Theology" exists in the fact that the change in the law and the temple system
did not separate "literal Israel" (as you call it)
into two parts. Those outside of Christ are broken off -
and the remnant was still literal Israel. Literal Israel did not go away. Those who are not in Christ may believe they are Israel because they have Abraham for their father - but Christ, and John the Baptist before Him, and Paul
all corrected them.
Those who falsely spout a "literal Israel" existing outside of Christ should also heed the correction of John the Baptist, of Christ, and of the apostle Paul.
God chose to extend His
New covenant with
the house of Israel ("Ephraim") and
the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31) to the Gentiles - the seed of "Ephraim" became
the fullness of the Gentiles.
No Jew or Gentile who is not in Christ is a citizen of Israel. "Literal Israel" = the called out ones, and in the New Covenant, that = the temple, and the temple = the church.