Let's examine Revelation 20:4 yet again.

[Davy]

I agree with you that the OT talks about the millennium without using the term “thousand”. If we agree Jesus was given that work to do, why did He say “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” in John 17:4? Jesus said that way before the Premil millennium.

That kind of thinking is absolutism. If I'm working in the backyard and I come into the house and say, "I'm finished, I got it all done," do I mean everything I will ever do is done and finished? No, of course not.

The main purpose Lord Jesus came in the flesh as The Christ was to be crucified on the cross in order to defeat death and the devil for us (Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8).

It's important to stay with the Scripture as written, and not add or take away from it...

John 17:1-4
17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour is come; glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee:

2 As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do.
KJV


Ask yourself about those above phrases in red just what Ministry it was that "the hour is come" for Jesus to finish. Do we literally... have eternal Life yet today while still dwelling in these imperfect flesh bodies? No. Per Apostle Paul in Romans 8, he says that even the creation awaits the future manifesting of the sons of God, meaning our future glorious state. Our spirit inside is "born again", but the final manifesting of that as the sons of God has yet to take place today, and won't until Lord Jesus returns (See 1 John 3:2). That means that above, "... that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him," has not literally happened yet today; we still await the change to our glorious bodies that happens at His return.

Then with verse 4, Jesus points to His Ministry "on the earth" when speaking of what "work" He finished given Him by The Father. And that was to offer Himself as the Perfect Sacrifice for sin for one and all time upon His cross. That's what His 1st coming was about, that by His death and resurrection the offer of eternal Life would be promised to those who believe.

Now when Jesus returns this next time, He is not coming meek as a Lamb to be slain. He is coming with a sword for His enemies to take reign over the nations, literal reign with His being here back on earth.

 

[quietthinker]

Now when Jesus returns this next time, He is not coming meek as a Lamb to be slain. He is coming with a sword for His enemies to take reign over the nations, literal reign with His being here back on earth.

A sword in his mouth no doubt! An inappropriate place for a sword don't you think?....or is this metaphor?......and what's he going to do with that sword if you think it's literal? Is God really stuck with outdated technology?

 

[Davy]

A sword in his mouth no doubt! An inappropriate place for a sword don't you think?....or is this metaphor?......and what's he going to do with that sword if you think it's literal? Is God really stuck with outdated technology?

Did I say Lord Jesus is to return like a SWORD WIELDING SWASHBUCKLER? No, your mind obviously has you exaggerating. I refer to the Revelation 19 Scripture on that sword He will have that cuts both ways. Read it, for it reveals just what 'kind'... of sword it is.

So next time you want to converse with me, don't try to be such a wise-guy.

 

[quietthinker]

Did I say Lord Jesus is to return like a SWORD WIELDING SWASHBUCKLER? No, your mind obviously has you exaggerating. I refer to the Revelation 19 Scripture on that sword He will have that cuts both ways. Read it, for it reveals just what 'kind'... of sword it is.

So next time you want to converse with me, don't try to be such a wise-guy.

Is it hard for you to kick against the pricks Davy? or can you give me detail on the statement YOU made?

 

[Davy]

Is it hard for you to kick against the pricks Davy? or can you give me detail on the statement YOU made?

What, make what I said into monkey business men's philosophy like you do? You'll be waiting a long time to hear that kind of talk from me. See Revelation 19 like I suggested, or don't; it's up to you.

 

[claninja]

Therefore, in order for Amil to be a valid position, the 42 month reign of the beast must occur during satan's little season. But how can it when Revelation 20:4 already reveals that the 42 month reign of thebeast precede satan's little season?

Yes—this is accurate. From a purely thematic and narrative standpoint, before introducing any theological framework, it is fair to say that if one assumes Revelation unfolds in a single, straightforward chronological sequence, then the 42-month reign of the beast naturally precedes the millennium. Revelation 20:10 also appears, on the narrative level, to indicate that the dragon is thrown into the lake of fire “where the beast and the false prophet already are.” And the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20:4 would simply refer to the martyrs killed during the beast’s persecution.


So, if we limit ourselves strictly to the surface narrative as it flows on the page, it reads like this:

1. The beast and the second beast wage war on the saints, killing all who refuse to take the mark or worship the beast.
2. Christ defeats them, throwing the beast and the false prophet into the lake of fire.
3. Satan is bound in the abyss for a thousand years.
4. The previously martyred saints are raised and reign with Christ during the millennium.
5. Satan is released after the thousand years.
6. Satan is finally destroyed, being thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already are.

Amillennialism may agree that this is the surface sequence, but it does not interpret the visions in that same chronological way theologically. Amill holds that the visions are symbolic, cyclical, and overlapping rather than sequential—even though, taken at face value, the text itself looks like a continuous timeline.

So arguing from a strict literal chronology view point to disprove Amil is kind of pointless. You need to instead argue why revelation should be THEOLOGICALLY interpreted in a strict literal chronological view point and why the millennium should be understood as literal.

 

[Davidpt]

You need to instead argue why revelation should be THEOLOGICALLY interpreted in a strict literal chronological view point and why the millennium should be understood as literal.

There are numerous arguments why the Premil reading has to be correct, theologically speaking. Such as.

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


There has to be a period of time after Christ returns, that has a beginning and end that explains--ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Amil has no period of time such as that. Is it reasonable that this---ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.--is only meaning for 24 hours or less? Is it reasonable that this--ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.---is meaning forever without end? Those are the only 2 options if there is not a period of time after Christ returns that has a beginning and an end.

Then there is the following parable, regardless what it looks like when it is fulfilled. I have no idea what it might look like. That is beside the point.


Luke 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.


This is clearly meaning after Christ has returned. It even plainly says so in verse 15. And that once He has returned, He is then rewarding some with authority over certain things. Cities, in this case. They have this authority for only 24 hours or less, though? Or, they have this authority for forever, though? That's the only two options if there is no period of time after Christ returns that has a beginning and an end. Therefore, this period of time with a beginning and an end preventing 1 Corinthians 15:28 being contradicted. IOW, no one still needs to have authority over cities, whatever that might look like, once 1 Corinthians 15:28 has been fulfilled. Or at least you wouldn't think so.


And these are just a cpl of examples. And I haven't even used examples from the OT yet.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It seems to me that the vision of revelation 20 happens sequentially after 19 because of revelation 20:10

• revelation 19:20And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presencee had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.
• and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Are you making that claim about ALL of Revelation 20? Revelation 20:10 occurs 1,000+ years after the binding of Satan and reign of Christ began, so it doesn't make sense if you're making that claim about all of Revelation 20. Obviously, Revelation 20:10 occurs after Revelation 19:11-21 occurs, but that doesn't mean it occurs long after what is described in Revelation 19:11-21, as Premils believe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There are numerous arguments why the Premil reading has to be correct, theologically speaking. Such as.

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

What do you think, that it will take a thousand years to judge the twelve tribes of Israel? Is that your understanding of Matthew 25:31-46, that the judging described there takes a thousand years to complete? This argument you're making here is very weak, at best.

There has to be a period of time after Christ returns, that has a beginning and end that explains--ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

It's talking about judging there. That's something that will happen at the judgment that Jesus describes in Matthew 25:31-46.

Amil has no period of time such as that. Is it reasonable that this---ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.--is only meaning for 24 hours or less?

The judgment will occur in eternity after the current heavens and earth, as we know them, pass away (Revelation 20:11). Putting a time frame on it is silly. But, what does the thousand years have to do with judging people? Nothing. So, why are you trying to place the timing of what is described in Matthew 19:28 in the thousand years?

Is it reasonable that this--ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.---is meaning forever without end? Those are the only 2 options if there is not a period of time after Christ returns that has a beginning and an end.

What is your understanding of the judging described in Matthew 25:31-46? How long do you suppose that will take if it happened in real time? Do you think it happens during the thousand years?

Then there is the following parable, regardless what it looks like when it is fulfilled. I have no idea what it might look like. That is beside the point.

Luke 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.


This is clearly meaning after Christ has returned. It even plainly says so in verse 15. And that once He has returned, He is then rewarding some with authority over certain things. Cities, in this case. They have this authority for only 24 hours or less, though?

No, for eternity! This is another very weak argument.

Or, they have this authority for forever, though?

Yes, of course. Why not?

That's the only two options if there is no period of time after Christ returns that has a beginning and an end. Therefore, this period of time with a beginning and an end preventing 1 Corinthians 15:28 being contradicted. IOW, no one still needs to have authority over cities, whatever that might look like, once 1 Corinthians 15:28 has been fulfilled. Or at least you wouldn't think so.

The rewards given when Christ returns will be eternal. How can you think otherwise?

 

[claninja]

There are numerous arguments why the Premil reading has to be correct, theologically speaking. Such as.

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


There has to be a period of time after Christ returns, that has a beginning and end that explains--ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Amil has no period of time such as that. Is it reasonable that this---ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.--is only meaning for 24 hours or less? Is it reasonable that this--ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.---is meaning forever without end? Those are the only 2 options if there is not a period of time after Christ returns that has a beginning and an end.

Then there is the following parable, regardless what it looks like when it is fulfilled. I have no idea what it might look like. That is beside the point.


Luke 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.


This is clearly meaning after Christ has returned. It even plainly says so in verse 15. And that once He has returned, He is then rewarding some with authority over certain things. Cities, in this case. They have this authority for only 24 hours or less, though? Or, they have this authority for forever, though? That's the only two options if there is no period of time after Christ returns that has a beginning and an end. Therefore, this period of time with a beginning and an end preventing 1 Corinthians 15:28 being contradicted. IOW, no one still needs to have authority over cities, whatever that might look like, once 1 Corinthians 15:28 has been fulfilled. Or at least you wouldn't think so.


And these are just a cpl of examples. And I haven't even used examples from the OT yet.

Your argument began by appealing to the chronological sequence in Revelation to disprove amillennialism, so I don’t see why you are now appealing to Matthew 19 and Luke, which amillennialists interpret very differently?

The passages in Matthew and Luke do not really tell us anything about the chronology of revelation 20 nor the 42 month reign of the beast preceding the millennium. So those probably are the best proof texts for premil, imho.

If anything, the chronology of the defeat of “death” is what I think is premils biggest downfall. In revelation, death is destroyed AFTER the millennium. However, considering Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 and Peter in acts 2, Christ is in heaven at the right hand reigning, Until all enemies are defeated, the last enemy being death

 

[rwb]

Ask yourself about those above phrases in red just what Ministry it was that "the hour is come" for Jesus to finish. Do we literally... have eternal Life yet today while still dwelling in these imperfect flesh bodies? No.

Yes, we do have eternal life now! Not of our flesh that is destined to die, but through our spirit/soul that inherited eternal life the moment we believed and were born again through the Spirit of Christ in us. We are not our flesh; our flesh is the outward housing that contains a spirit that when born again can never die. If this is not true, Christ would not have said, we shall NEVER die if we live and believe in Him.

 

[Davidpt]

Your argument began by appealing to the chronological sequence in Revelation to disprove amillennialism, so I don’t see why you are now appealing to Matthew 19 and Luke, which amillennialists interpret very differently?

The passages in Matthew and Luke do not really tell us anything about the chronology of revelation 20 nor the 42 month reign of the beast preceding the millennium. So those probably are the best proof texts for premil, imho.

If anything, the chronology of the defeat of “death” is what I think is premils biggest downfall. In revelation, death is destroyed AFTER the millennium. However, considering Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 and Peter in acts 2, Christ is in heaven at the right hand reigning, Until all enemies are defeated, the last enemy being death

Amils tend to interpret a lot of things differently. Therefore, assuming someone is interpreting some of these things correctly, not everyone can be if not everyone is interpreting some of these things in the same manner. Amils argue it is Premils misinterpreting some of these things. Premils argue it is Amils misinterpreting some of these things. Don't want to admit that your view has been debunked, simply insist what allegedly debunks it is to be interpreted in another manner even if it makes zero sense of the texts involved. Anyone can play that game then. Including Amils.

As to death being destroyed, well it can't be fully destroyed until after the great white throne judgment has concluded first. I would think we all should at least agree about that.

1 Corinthians 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.



No matter how you look at it, this verse couldn't possibly be involving the great white throne judgment at this point. And besides, the context does not support that the lost are also meant here since it would be absurd to apply the following to the lost as well.

1 Corinthians 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Yet verse 54 says death is swallowed up in victory at this point in time. Swallowed up in victory for who? Both the saved and lost? Or only the saved? Anyone who agrees context matters, would be using verse 57 to determine that. Not to mention, 'death is swallowed up in victory' is being quoted from Isaiah 25:8.

Isaiah 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

1 Corinthians 15:54 is hardly the end of things. Look what all follows after Isaiah 25:8 in the book of Isaiah. We are supposed to just ignore all those details and take the easy way out? Interpret everything according to the NT alone? Who cares what the OT might have to say. Right? 1 Corinthians 15:54 says what it says. It says death is swallowed up in victory. Therefore, there is nothing more to see here. What follows Isaiah 25:8 in the book of Isaiah is irrelevant. The OT prophets shouldn't haven't wasted their time writing any of those things. All that is needed is the NT in order to arrive at the ENTIRE truth of all these things. I of course am being sarcastic here. But only in regards to those that the shoe might fit here.

 

[Davidpt]

What do you think, that it will take a thousand years to judge the twelve tribes of Israel? Is that your understanding of Matthew 25:31-46, that the judging described there takes a thousand years to complete? This argument you're making here is very weak, at best.

As if judging can only be meaning in the sense you appear to be taking it to mean. No wonder we come to entirely different conclusions about some of these things at times, because I realize judging can be understood in other senses rather than only a sense involving being judged and sentenced, and that you apparently don't. Or if you do you are simply disregarding that option in this case.

It's talking about judging there. That's something that will happen at the judgment that Jesus describes in Matthew 25:31-46.

Point out then in those verses where you see anyone depicted doing anything like that together with Christ. For example, how can the sheep meant not be meaning anyone that Christ rewards with sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel? Yet in Matthew 25 the sheep are on His right hand and are being judged worthy of having literally inherited the kingdom of God at that time. While the goats are judged unworthy.

Which begs the question, since the context of the the sheep and goats judgment is involving literal entrance into the kingdom of God at the time, why would atheists, for example, also be hoping to be found worthy of entering the kingom of God at the time? Since when do atheists care about the kingdom of God one way or the other? They don't. Therefore, this judgment couldn't possibly be involving all the lost in general.

Of course though, some interpreters are disregarding context here, thus making this judgment being about anything they want it to be involving rather than what it is actually involving. Who cares that at the end of Matthew 24 and the beginning of Matthew 25 up until this judgment, the context has been pertaining to professed servants of Christ, profitable servants and unprofitable servants. Can't have anything to do with determining the identity of the sheep and goats, though. Right?

The judgment will occur in eternity after the current heavens and earth, as we know them, pass away (Revelation 20:11). Putting a time frame on it is silly. But, what does the thousand years have to do with judging people? Nothing. So, why are you trying to place the timing of what is described in Matthew 19:28 in the thousand years?

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

If one takes this to be involving the great white throne judgment, there couldn't possibly be a last day in eternity, though. The text makes it crystal clear that this judgment takes place in the last day, not in eternity instead. No one I can think of could possibly mistake a last day for eternity. And I would think that should also include you.

I may try to address later other portions of your post I failed to address per this one. I'm not sure yet. This is all I feel like typing out for now.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As if judging can only be meaning in the sense you appear to be taking it to mean.

LOL. Is that what I said? No, I did not. Should I accuse you of claiming that with every opinion you share, you act as if it's the only possibility?But, I'm going by what judging means in other passages related to the second coming of Christ. Are you doing that?

No wonder we come to entirely different conclusions about some of these things at times, because I realize judging can be understood in other senses rather than only a sense involving being judged and sentenced, and that you apparently don't.

You apparently...no, let me correct that...you definitely have no idea of what you're talking about. As usual.

Or if you do you are simply disregarding that option in this case.

Judge much? How about you actually ask me what I think about that first before trying to speak for me? When will you ever grow up?

Point out then in those verses where you see anyone depicted doing anything like that together with Christ.

Point out where it talks about them judging the tribes of Israel for a long period of time. You can't, of course. Why do you play games like this? The fact of the matter is that the text isn't entirely clear as far as indicating what it means. Why don't you base your doctrine on more clear passages? Your doctrine seems to be based on some of the most difficult verses and passages in all of scripture. I don't get it.

For example, how can the sheep meant not be meaning anyone that Christ rewards with sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel? Yet in Matthew 25 the sheep are on His right hand and are being judged worthy of having literally inherited the kingdom of God at that time. While the goats are judged unworthy.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Can you clarify?

Which begs the question, since the context of the the sheep and goats judgment is involving literal entrance into the kingdom of God at the time, why would atheists, for example, also be hoping to be found worthy of entering the kingom of God at the time?

Where are you coming up with this? Where does it say that all of the goats are hoping to be found worthy of entering the kingdom of God at the time?

Since when do atheists care about the kingdom of God one way or the other? They don't. Therefore, this judgment couldn't possibly be involving all the lost in general.

Why are you making things up that are not found in the passage? Nowhere does it say anything about the goats hoping to enter the kingdom of God. You are trying to add things to the text that aren't there in order to support your doctrine. That's wrong.

Of course though, some interpreters are disregarding context here, thus making this judgment being about anything they want it to be involving rather than what it is actually involving.

LOL. That is exactly what you are doing. What you fail to acknowledge is that believers and unbelievers will be gathered before Christ at the same time and then judged. You instead have unbelievers being judged 1,000+ years after believers are judged. That is not at all what is depicted in Matthew 25:31-46? Only extreme doctrinal bias can result in inserting 1,000+ year gap between the judgment of the sheep and the goats when the text is very clear that they are all gathered for judgment at the same time.

Who cares that at the end of Matthew 24 and the beginning of Matthew 25 up until this judgment, the context has been pertaining to professed servants of Christ, profitable servants and unprofitable servants. Can't have anything to do with determining the identity of the sheep and goats, though. Right?

This is yet another of your weak arguments. There is absolutely nothing that demands that what Jesus said previously has to match the context of what He said in Matthew 25:31-46 exactly. That is ridiculous. Just because Jesus focused on true believers compared to fake believers in one passage does not demand that the context of Matthew 25:31-46 has to be the same as that. If you weren't so incredibly biased, you would acknowledge that the reference to the goats being cast into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels in Matthew 25:41 is the same thing as those whose names are not written in the book of life being cast into the lake of fire in Revelation 20:15. It's not as if unbelievers will be cast into the lake of fire on two different occasions. That's ridiculous and not taught in scripture. Why would that even happen? What would be the point of that?

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

If one takes this to be involving the great white throne judgment, there couldn't possibly be a last day in eternity, though.

Do you ever actually ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7) or do you rely completely on your own human wisdom? In pretty much every post you make, you seem to rely completely on your own wisdom and what you call "common sense". Is that really the kind of approach we should take to interpreting scripture? Have you never read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 where Paul talks about the need for spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit to understand the deep things of God? Jesus is not talking about people being judged during the last day there. He is saying that when the last day arrives, which is the same day when the resurrection of the dead will occur (John 6:40), then the judgment will occur. Once the last day comes then eternity will be ushered in. What in the world do you think, that Jesus is going to judge people in real time rather than in eternity? Can you even fathom how long that would take? Do you have Him judging people throughout the thousand years? He wouldn't have time to do anything else. Do you even think of things like this?

The text makes it crystal clear that this judgment takes place in the last day, not in eternity instead.

Wrong. It's only crystal clear in your own mind. What you think is crystal clear contradicts other scriptures. So, what you think is crystal clear means nothing.

No one I can think of could possibly mistake a last day for eternity. And I would think that should also include you.

How about you actually ask me how I interpret the verse instead of putting words in my mouth? Is that too much to ask?

I may try to address later other portions of your post I failed to address per this one. I'm not sure yet. This is all I feel like typing out for now.

If your responses are just going to be more nonsense like the responses you've made so far, then don't bother.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

I assume the beheaded souls are people of all time not just in the last days. I could be wrong though.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Amils tend to interpret a lot of things differently. Therefore, assuming someone is interpreting some of these things correctly, not everyone can be if not everyone is interpreting some of these things in the same manner. Amils argue it is Premils misinterpreting some of these things. Premils argue it is Amils misinterpreting some of these things. Don't want to admit that your view has been debunked, simply insist what allegedly debunks it is to be interpreted in another manner even if it makes zero sense of the texts involved. Anyone can play that game then. Including Amils.

As to death being destroyed, well it can't be fully destroyed until after the great white throne judgment has concluded first. I would think we all should at least agree about that.

1 Corinthians 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.



No matter how you look at it, this verse couldn't possibly be involving the great white throne judgment at this point. And besides, the context does not support that the lost are also meant here since it would be absurd to apply the following to the lost as well.

1 Corinthians 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Yet verse 54 says death is swallowed up in victory at this point in time. Swallowed up in victory for who? Both the saved and lost? Or only the saved? Anyone who agrees context matters, would be using verse 57 to determine that. Not to mention, 'death is swallowed up in victory' is being quoted from Isaiah 25:8.

Isaiah 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

1 Corinthians 15:54 is hardly the end of things. Look what all follows after Isaiah 25:8 in the book of Isaiah. We are supposed to just ignore all those details and take the easy way out? Interpret everything according to the NT alone? Who cares what the OT might have to say. Right? 1 Corinthians 15:54 says what it says. It says death is swallowed up in victory. Therefore, there is nothing more to see here. What follows Isaiah 25:8 in the book of Isaiah is irrelevant. The OT prophets shouldn't haven't wasted their time writing any of those things. All that is needed is the NT in order to arrive at the ENTIRE truth of all these things. I of course am being sarcastic here. But only in regards to those that the shoe might fit here.

Why did you not also quote the other verses which references Isaiah 25:8?

Revelation 21:4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

John indicates that when Isaiah 25:8 is fulfilled, which, according to 1 Corinthians 15:50-54, will be when the last trumpet sounds, there will be no more death. That includes the lost. No more death at all. No one will die anymore at that point. So, nothing you said can be taken seriously at all because you failed to take into account what it says in Revelation 21:4, which also relates directly to Isaiah 25:8. This is always your problem. Your beliefs are based on cherry picked scriptures instead of ALL of scripture.

 

[Davy]

Yes, we do have eternal life now! Not of our flesh that is destined to die, but through our spirit/soul that inherited eternal life the moment we believed and were born again through the Spirit of Christ in us. We are not our flesh; our flesh is the outward housing that contains a spirit that when born again can never die. If this is not true, Christ would not have said, we shall NEVER die if we live and believe in Him.

But you well understand what time I was referring to; I even gave you Scripture examples...

1 John 3:2
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.
KJV

So if you want to try and nick pick my words, then you need to understand Bible Scripture first, so I'll break the above verse timeline down for you, just this once...

"now are we the sons of God" = meaning, those by Faith on Jesus Christ are "born again" of The Holy Spirit, which is an event that happens inside our flesh to our spirit with soul, without the need for our glorious body to manifest yet.

"it doth not yet appear what we shall be" = John realized the difference in our state today living in a flesh body vs. the future glorious body which Apostle Paul actually later made plain in his Epistles, showing we have yet to manifest in that future state, literally.

"but we know that when He shall appear" = the day of Christ's future return, the last day of this world when the future resurrection will happen. This has not... happened yet today.

"for we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is" = when Jesus appears, and the change at the twinkling of an eye on the last trump happens with His appearing, that... is when our glorious body will manifest and complete the actual eternal meaning of the "sons of God" phrase. And today, we ain't there yet.

 

[ewq1938]

I assume the beheaded souls are people of all time not just in the last days. I could be wrong though.

Can't be because they are killed in the Gt for refusing things like the mark which only can exist for a certain short period of time just prior to the second coming.

 

[claninja]

Are you making that claim about ALL of Revelation 20? Revelation 20:10 occurs 1,000+ years after the binding of Satan and reign of Christ began, so it doesn't make sense if you're making that claim about all of Revelation 20. Obviously, Revelation 20:10 occurs after Revelation 19:11-21 occurs, but that doesn't mean it occurs long after what is described in Revelation 19:11-21, as Premils believe.

My point was that from solely a literal chronologically, the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire prior to the millennium, based on revelation 20:10.

 

[rwb]

But you well understand what time I was referring to; I even gave you Scripture examples...

1 John 3:2
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.
KJV

So if you want to try and nick pick my words, then you need to understand Bible Scripture first, so I'll break the above verse timeline down for you, just this once...

"now are we the sons of God" = meaning, those by Faith on Jesus Christ are "born again" of The Holy Spirit, which is an event that happens inside our flesh to our spirit with soul, without the need for our glorious body to manifest yet.

"it doth not yet appear what we shall be" = John realized the difference in our state today living in a flesh body vs. the future glorious body which Apostle Paul actually later made plain in his Epistles, showing we have yet to manifest in that future state, literally.

"but we know that when He shall appear" = the day of Christ's future return, the last day of this world when the future resurrection will happen. This has not... happened yet today.

"for we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is" = when Jesus appears, and the change at the twinkling of an eye on the last trump happens with His appearing, that... is when our glorious body will manifest and complete the actual eternal meaning of the "sons of God" phrase. And today, we ain't there yet.

I'm not trying to nit-pick your words Davy. I'm reinforcing an important truth because many Christians believe that we do not NOW, from the moment of re-birth possess eternal life and that death of our physical body cannot take away the eternal life we have through the Spirit sent from Christ in us. That's why so many Christians believe the martyred saints (Rev 20:4) must be bodily resurrected to live and reign with God for one thousand years after Christ comes again. Even though some translations make this appear to be true through the word "AGAIN", John writes only that before they physically died "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." How had they lived and reigned with Christ in life a thousand years before being martyred for their faith? Through their eternal spirit! Since having eternal spiritual life, they received when they were born again before they died, their spirit could never die. That's how John is shown beheaded souls alive (spirit body) in heaven not resurrected physical body made alive again on earth. Faithful saints do not have to wait until the last day when our mortal body raised immortal is resurrected to live and reign with Christ when He comes again. Faithful saints live and reign with Christ through His Spirit in our spirit before we physically die, having eternal spiritual life, and since we are after death a spiritual body of Christ, our spirit alive (living soul) returns to heaven with Christ to wait for the resurrection and change of our outer body that shall be when Christ comes again.