I don't have time to respond to everything you write in your posts. My response post would be 4x longer than your original! Instead of letting your mind wander, try to concentrate on one topic at a time.
And thus we see the real problem. Letting my "mind wander" means I don't see verses in isolation of each other. In such a fashion we are able to see the connection between Eph 1:20 telling us that Christ already has all authorities under his feet, and 1 Cor 15 telling us what will happen after that.
When you abort such thinking, you find yourself limited to only 1 Cor 15 where, apparently, you think Christ still has this task left to him. Paul would ardently disagree.
That passage in italics is totally irrelevant to the actual Scripture. The fact that Christ's Revelation contains symbols and analogy does not mean it has no literal things too. You're argument is no argument, proves nothing.
I've never said it holds "no" literal meaning. But, to your point, conversely...just because it does hold some literal meaning, does not mean it is not, in many ways, symbolic and analogous...which means my argument is not moot
on those basis. If you want to dismiss my argument, you must find a different way.
Since you try to use Revelation's symbology as your basis of argument against the 1,000 years reign in Rev.20 being literal, you then would have to go through all of Revelation and show how the literal things in it are not literal, but only symbology and as you say, imagery. It is impossible to do that and admit that Christ's Revelation reveals Truth. In one fell swoop, your whole basis suggests that our Lord's Revelation has only symbolic value, and has no literal Truth.
Actually, you've missed my point entirely. My point was that because Revelation is often seen as hard to understand we must look OUTSIDE of Revelation to base our arguments against the 1000 years being literal. You will note that ALL the verses I gave were outside of Revelation.
So...essentially...your argument that my argument is moot...is moot.
Thus the rest of your post falls by the wayside with the basis of your idea.
Yeah...that might have been accurate had not your assumption OF my argument been totally wrong. Sorry.
But I'll tell you this. A LOT of Revelation's symbology doesn't originate within the Book of Revelation. It originates from the Old Testament Books of God's prophets. Also, Revelation contains parallels to what Jesus taught in His Olivet discourse in The Gospel Books. And it contains portions that Paul and Peter also taught from the Old Testament prophets. So you have a REAL problem with your theory, because the REST of God's Holy Writ confirms... the literal Truths written in our Lord's Book of Revelation.
Really? Goodness...I'd never heard such a thing! Except...its the very same thing I've been saying for post and posts and posts. In point of fact, the images and symbols of Revelation coming from the OT actually helps support MY argument better than the "literalists" argument. Why? Because the Amillennialist says "that is an image; let's look back to see how the bible has used that image before". Whereas the literalist says that "everything in Revelation is literal". Thus I find myself often defending literal descriptions of demons against 'literalists' who insist these demons must be helicopters. Go figure.
And here you thought the doctrine of men you use against it holds some secret mystery insight into it.
Yeah....here I thought. Too bad others can't.