All who are not taken up to meet the Lord in the air when He comes will be left behind and killed.

quietthinker · 2025-05-02T02:34:01-0500

All who are not taken up to meet the Lord in the air when He comes will be left behind and killed.

Revelation 6:15-17
Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”

Sounds like mass suicide to me. The masses would rather die than countenance The Lamb who they think is wrathful

Scott Downey · 2025-05-02T06:17:02-0500

Reggie Belafonte said:
I think it's more like the people who are not for God reap what they Sow ?

One can attack God all you want but such is not going to win out in the end in fact ! It's just so pathetic !

One in Christ Jesus can see that if you work against Christ Jesus that is not good at all in fact. it's dumb and pathetic in fact. such are Fools behind the wheel ? they will crash, because the blind are leading the blind !

I see such in a old mate of mine. he is a abomination to himself and others ! an atheist dingbat fool and now turned around to become a religious fruit loop, that is so full of nothing but BS ! only because he has picked a side to be on ? nothing to do with Christ Jesus at all in fact and has No Grace period ! just a religious rat bag ! the very thing he was against. but is just as Lost as ever ! because he is possessed ! he can not come to Jesus, because he does not believe he has no faith in Jesus at all ! but says I will believe in him when I see him.

I said No ! that is totaly wrong ! People seen Jesus in the flesh 2000 years ago in fact ! but that was totaly of no worth in fact ! who had any regard then ? look at all who had a go at him ! 99% ?

So why would it be any different !

Lost People will run everyone into the ground in fact ! they will bring about the Hellfire themselves on themselves !
When they have served their Satanic workings all will be burnt up ! Nothing left ! then Their is only one way up ?

He will believe in Him when he sees Him. By then it will be too late. Tell the guy everyone will believe in Him when they see Him. And blessed by God are you when you believe and have not seen.

John 20:29
Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

1 Peter 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance [b]incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been [c]grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ,

8 whom having not [d]seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.

claninja · 2025-05-02T08:47:04-0500

Davidpt said:
Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

According to verse 12 there are only 2 places verse 27 can fit. Either while He is away, or once He has returned. I wonder if the parable ever gives us the answer to that? Of course it does.

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.

No doubt about it, verse 27 is not meaning while He is still away. It is meaning once He has returned. There is no way possible to link verse 27 to 70 AD somehow, the fact Jesus never returned in 70 AD. The only ones that insist He did are full Preterists. Except you are not a full Preterist.

A return is not the same as what happened in 70 AD. That didn't involve the return of anyone. No one returned in order for 70 AD to be fulfilled. No one was rewarded with authority over something in 70 AD. Why do Preterists disregard details that disprove their view? Probably because that way they don't have to admit they are wrong. Details such as, in order to fulfill verse 27 He has to go away first, receive a kingdom for Himself, then return with the kingdom. Details such as, He rewards His faithful servants with authority over things. not while He is still away, but once He has returned. Details that show 70 AD couldn't remotely be in view.

When verse 27 is meaning, 70 AD is already at least 2000 years in the past at that point. We can know that for a fact since verse 12 is not only pertaining to His ascension, it is also pertaining to His return. And here it is almost 2000 years later and He hasn't returned yet. And that verse 27 can't even get fulfilled until He returns first. Shouldn't be hard to connect the dots.

The belief that Luke 19:27 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is not exclusive to full preterism. For example, John Gill, a historic premillennialist, saw this verse fulfilled in the Roman judgment on the Jews. So let’s avoid that strawman argument.

the surrounding context of Luke 19 makes this connection. The parable describes citizens rejecting the nobleman as king and then being slaughtered upon his return. What immediately follows in verses 37–44 is the Pharisees rejecting Jesus’ kingship, and then Jesus explicitly prophesying Jerusalem’s destruction—its enemies encircling it, and its people being slaughtered. Is that just a coincidence?

Your argument seems to ignore this context, not because the text requires it, but because your eschatological framework requires it. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis.

So my question is:

Were the citizens who rejected Christ as king slaughtered in 70ad, as Christ prophesied in verses 41–44?

If yes, then:

Your assumption about what His “return” means is flawed.
Or, your assumption on the “return” could still be partly valid—but the parable is layered, much like how many interpreters read the Olivet Discourse as combining elements of 70 AD and a future 2nd advent, as if they are part of a single prophetic narrative - drawing a line of distinction where they see fit.

grafted branch · 2025-05-02T10:07:05-0500

claninja said:
The belief that Luke 19:27 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is not exclusive to full preterism.

I’ve been following this thread and I agree with how you’re looking at these things, the context of the parable of the Minas isn’t about the reward. What are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities though?

In the parable of the minas there are ten servants, we know the fate of three of them. One gets ten cities, one gets five cities, and the other it isn’t clear but based on the what the other two were given, presumably that servant would’ve received a city if they were faithful and not wicked.

So out of ten servants total, at an absolute minimum of fifteen cities were given out and through reasonable assumption a bare minimum of twenty three cities total for the ten servants. That’s an average minimum of 2.3 cities for every faith servant to have authority over.

No matter how we look at it there are more cities than there are servants so whatever ones eschatological view of when this takes place, it seems there needs to be far more non-servants abiding in the cities that are ruled over than there are servants to rule them. The average size city in the US is somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 people.

I’m not sure how that ratio of servant to non-servant could fit with either Premil or Amil placing this at a future coming of Christ. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities?

Davidpt · 2025-05-02T11:41:52-0500

grafted branch said:
I’ve been following this thread and I agree with how you’re looking at these things, the context of the parable of the Minas isn’t about the reward. What are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities though?

In the parable of the minas there are ten servants, we know the fate of three of them. One gets ten cities, one gets five cities, and the other it isn’t clear but based on the what the other two were given, presumably that servant would’ve received a city if they were faithful and not wicked.

So out of ten servants total, at an absolute minimum of fifteen cities were given out and through reasonable assumption a bare minimum of twenty three cities total for the ten servants. That’s an average minimum of 2.3 cities for every faith servant to have authority over.

No matter how we look at it there are more cities than there are servants so whatever ones eschatological view of when this takes place, it seems there needs to be far more non-servants abiding in the cities that are ruled over than there are servants to rule them. The average size city in the US is somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 people.

I’m not sure how that ratio of servant to non-servant could fit with either Premil or Amil placing this at a future coming of Christ. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities?

I found the following article earlier this morning. It is somewhat lengthy, though. The article makes perfect sense out of the parable. And the way it seems to me, the only position that this parable can possibly fit is Premil. No other position could possibly fit it.

Here are relevant excerpts from that article.
---------------------

The Significance of the Parable

This background fits very well to the message that Jesus wants to state here because the nobleman here clearly represents Jesus himself. We have a story here about a delayed kingship. This nobleman had to go to a distant country in order to be appointed and then come back. That could take about three months, and that's why the servants are given a mina, which is three- or four-months' worth of income; it's about that time that the nobleman would be away. Just as the nobleman went to a distant country, which would be Rome, so the implication here is that Jesus will go to ‘another country’ and then come back again.

Here's a reference to the distinction between the first coming and the second coming. What will actually happen is that Jesus, after his death and resurrection, will ascend to heaven; he'll return to heaven. Luke makes this extremely clear. He teaches very clearly about the ascension in Luke 24 and in Acts 1. ‘He'll go to a distant country’, and then at some future time he'll come back and he'll rule as king, in full authority and power.

This is a very useful image for the reality of the distinction between the first coming of Jesus and the Second Coming. When he comes the second time he comes with full royal authority, just like the nobleman once he'd been made king, he called his servants together, held them to account for what they had done with the gift that he'd given them when he went away because when he went away, he gave ten of his servants a mina, a unit of three- or four-months' worth of wages, and said, ‘invest this and use this wisely on my behalf until I return’. A mina could create a successful business, could be invested in someone else's business, could be invested in land, all sorts of things that could happen with it.
-------------------
Reflections

As we think about the significance of this, let's just make some observations and reflections. It's a very strong theme of Jesus' that there will be a messianic Kingdom and that the disciples will participate in it. This is taught in a number of particular contexts. For example, in Matthew 19: 28, Jesus says,

‘“Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne,”’ (that's a reference to the second coming) ‘“you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, ruling the twelve tribes of Israel.”’
Matthew 19:28, NIV

It's a similar verse in Luke 22: 29 - 30, making a similar point.

At the renewal of all things when the Son of Man sits on his throne, you will be given responsibility and authority and honour in that kingdom.

That's what he says to the twelve disciples, which is actually strikingly similar to what's going to happen to the faithful servants here. They're going to be given extensive responsibility in this Kingdom that's going to be launched when the King comes back. The disciples were often thinking about this Kingdom and wondering when he was going to return and when it was going to come into being. They really sincerely believed, for the most part, that it was going to happen immediately, when Jesus came to Jerusalem.

That's why Jesus kept warning them and saying that this was not going to be the case. He's making a similar warning here. He's warning people, ‘the Kingdom of God in full power is not going to appear at once,’ to use the words of verse 11. They thought it was going to appear at once, but no, there's going to be a time gap while Jesus goes to ‘a distant country’. He'll be back.

The Parable of the Ten ‘Minas’

<p>In the light of the Jewish expectations that when Jesus go to Jerusalem, he would bring in the full Kingdom of God, Jesus tells this parable using the political culture of his day to explain the difference between his first and second coming and the responsibility of his followers.</p>

wordonline.org

grafted branch · 2025-05-02T12:08:35-0500

Davidpt said:
I found the following article earlier this morning. It is somewhat lengthy, though. The article makes perfect sense out of the parable. And the way it seems to me, the only position that this parable can possibly fit is Premil. No other position could possibly fit it.

Here are relevant excerpts from that article.
---------------------

The Significance of the Parable

This background fits very well to the message that Jesus wants to state here because the nobleman here clearly represents Jesus himself. We have a story here about a delayed kingship. This nobleman had to go to a distant country in order to be appointed and then come back. That could take about three months, and that's why the servants are given a mina, which is three- or four-months' worth of income; it's about that time that the nobleman would be away. Just as the nobleman went to a distant country, which would be Rome, so the implication here is that Jesus will go to ‘another country’ and then come back again.

Here's a reference to the distinction between the first coming and the second coming. What will actually happen is that Jesus, after his death and resurrection, will ascend to heaven; he'll return to heaven. Luke makes this extremely clear. He teaches very clearly about the ascension in Luke 24 and in Acts 1. ‘He'll go to a distant country’, and then at some future time he'll come back and he'll rule as king, in full authority and power.

This is a very useful image for the reality of the distinction between the first coming of Jesus and the Second Coming. When he comes the second time he comes with full royal authority, just like the nobleman once he'd been made king, he called his servants together, held them to account for what they had done with the gift that he'd given them when he went away because when he went away, he gave ten of his servants a mina, a unit of three- or four-months' worth of wages, and said, ‘invest this and use this wisely on my behalf until I return’. A mina could create a successful business, could be invested in someone else's business, could be invested in land, all sorts of things that could happen with it.
-------------------
Reflections

As we think about the significance of this, let's just make some observations and reflections. It's a very strong theme of Jesus' that there will be a messianic Kingdom and that the disciples will participate in it. This is taught in a number of particular contexts. For example, in Matthew 19: 28, Jesus says,

‘“Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne,”’ (that's a reference to the second coming) ‘“you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, ruling the twelve tribes of Israel.”’
Matthew 19:28, NIV

It's a similar verse in Luke 22: 29 - 30, making a similar point.

At the renewal of all things when the Son of Man sits on his throne, you will be given responsibility and authority and honour in that kingdom.

That's what he says to the twelve disciples, which is actually strikingly similar to what's going to happen to the faithful servants here. They're going to be given extensive responsibility in this Kingdom that's going to be launched when the King comes back. The disciples were often thinking about this Kingdom and wondering when he was going to return and when it was going to come into being. They really sincerely believed, for the most part, that it was going to happen immediately, when Jesus came to Jerusalem.

That's why Jesus kept warning them and saying that this was not going to be the case. He's making a similar warning here. He's warning people, ‘the Kingdom of God in full power is not going to appear at once,’ to use the words of verse 11. They thought it was going to appear at once, but no, there's going to be a time gap while Jesus goes to ‘a distant country’. He'll be back.

The Parable of the Ten ‘Minas’

<p>In the light of the Jewish expectations that when Jesus go to Jerusalem, he would bring in the full Kingdom of God, Jesus tells this parable using the political culture of his day to explain the difference between his first and second coming and the responsibility of his followers.</p>

wordonline.org

So the servants are the apostles? I think that could fit but in the parable there are only ten servants and at least one of those servants was a wicked servant and had any authority over a city that he might have gotten removed.

The twelve thrones in Matthew 19:28 doesn’t quite seen to fit with the parable of the Minas. How would the wicked servant fit into all this? Would he be Judas?

Spiritual Israelite · 2025-05-02T13:13:39-0500

Zao is life said:
That's right. No mention of any mortals left after Christ returns:

Revelation 19
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshiped his image. These both were cast alive [záō] into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the rest [loipoí] were slain [apokteínō] with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

apokteínō means to put to death, to kill, to slay, to destroy.

Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they were alive [zao] and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest [loipoí] of the dead lived not again [anazao] until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection of the body [anastasis].
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The resurrection of the just and the unjust

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hades delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection [anastasis] of life [zoe]; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection [anastasis] of damnation." (Revelation 20:11-15; John 5:28-29).

This, and a number of other passages leaves a problem for Amils. Because Revelation 20 leaves the rest of the dead who were slain when Christ returned - DEAD FOR A THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE THEIR RESURRECTION.

Not sure how that is a problem for Amils. Can you clarify? You have a unique communication style that I find to be hard to follow. Not blaming you for not being clear or anything. I'm just not able to follow your reasoning. Amils believe that "the rest of the dead" are all of the wicked (unsaved) dead from all time and are contrasted with the righteous dead who have spiritually had part in the first resurrection, which is Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). So, any dead who are dead for a thousand years or any length of time before their resurrection will be resurrected after the thousand years and Satan's little season are over.

Zao is life said:
What amazes me about you is that you can see the problem for Premils, but you cannot see the problem for Amils.

Oh well. I don't find your arguments to be convincing. Don't take offense at that. It is what it is.

Zao is life said:
Nor can you see the problem for Amils regarding what Revelation 20 says about Satan being unable to deceive the nations for a thousand years. Instead you dance around it and change the meaning of other New Testament scriptures by inserting meanings into them that aren't there - just so that you can insert a meaning into Revelation 20:1-6 that isn't there - in futile attempts to "prove" that Revelation 20:1-6 means something it does not mean.

You can make false accusations against Amils all you want, but I'm done with that. It serves no purpose except to insult others. I really want to get away from that. Maybe you don't believe me about that. I can't help that. It's such a waste of time.

Zao is life said:
Just like Premils do with Luke 17:26-37.

ALL Amils have serious problems with their interpretation about the millennium, and MOST Premils have serious problems with SOME OF their interpretations. And the reason why no one can get to what Revelation 20 is ACTUALLY telling us is because ALMOST ALL THE SAINTS have serious problems with their ideas about who has (eternal) life in Himself - and alone will (always) have (eternal) life in Himself - and therefore who alone possesses His immortality (in Himself), and therefore alone will (always) possess His immortality (in Himself),

Do you realize how you come across here? You're basically saying that Amills and all other Premils besides you have it wrong and only you have it figured out. There are a number of people on here who think they alone understand the whole truth as if God decided to reveal the truth just to them. That isn't what God does, though.

Zao is life said:
TheGog-Magog nations at the close of the thousand years are immortals who will believe the same lie and for the same joke that Adam and Eve fell for BEFORE they sinned and died (which the full details of, are veiled in Genesis). Most of the church already does believe the same lie, even now.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die
(Gensis 3:4)

The resurrection of the body of created human beings and the immortality of created human beings is not ever going to stop the fact that the Creator is able to destroy both soul and body in the second death.

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in gehenna." (Matthew 10:28).

What is the point of the thousand years in your view? Do you think that any of those resurrected immortals who are deceived end up repenting and being saved or do they all end up in the lake of fire?

Spiritual Israelite · 2025-05-02T13:16:38-0500

grafted branch said:
I’ve been following this thread and I agree with how you’re looking at these things, the context of the parable of the Minas isn’t about the reward. What are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities though?

The parable of the minas obviously refers to rewards being given out when the King returns, so why act as if the parable isn't about that at all?

grafted branch said:
In the parable of the minas there are ten servants, we know the fate of three of them. One gets ten cities, one gets five cities, and the other it isn’t clear but based on the what the other two were given, presumably that servant would’ve received a city if they were faithful and not wicked.

So out of ten servants total, at an absolute minimum of fifteen cities were given out and through reasonable assumption a bare minimum of twenty three cities total for the ten servants. That’s an average minimum of 2.3 cities for every faith servant to have authority over.

No matter how we look at it there are more cities than there are servants so whatever ones eschatological view of when this takes place, it seems there needs to be far more non-servants abiding in the cities that are ruled over than there are servants to rule them. The average size city in the US is somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 people.

I’m not sure how that ratio of servant to non-servant could fit with either Premil or Amil placing this at a future coming of Christ. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities?

It's a parable. Parables are made up stories that reflect things in reality. It's not talking about anyone literally inheriting authority over literal cities.

Spiritual Israelite · 2025-05-02T13:22:17-0500

claninja said:
Importing your presupposed eschatological view onto the parable, while ignoring the surrounding context, is literally the definition of eisegesis.

Wrong. Making sure that I interpret the parable in such a way that lines up with the rest of scripture is exegesis, not eisegesis. You drawing conclusions from the parable while ignoring that rewards are given at the same time as the punishments is eisegesis.

claninja said:
How does that not make me think that?

Because the events of the parable in regards to the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king and their subsequent slaughtered, literally play out in the surrounding context - Pharisees reject Christ as king, Christ subsequently prophesies of Jerusalem’s utter slaughter and destruction (vs 39-44).

Christ doesn’t get rejected as king by the Pharisees and then subsequently prophesy of a final judgement on mankind.

I was talking about them being brought before His throne to be judged, like what is written about in Matthew 25:31-46. When do you believe that Matthew 25:31-46 is fulfilled?

claninja said:
Well there is,

In your mind, but I don't care about that.

claninja said:
but you have seemingly chosen to ignore that due to your current eschatological presupposition.

I am ignoring nothing. You are ignoring that rewards are given out at the same time as the punishments.

claninja said:
Jesus’ parable that includes the citizens rejecting the nobleman kingship then later slaughtered has nothing to do with events literally playing out in the surrounding context - Jesus rejected as king by Pharisees, then Jerusalem’s slaughter and destruction prophesied?

Do you not understand that Jesus had both their near term physical punishment and long term eternal punishment in His mind? He spoke about both in the Olivet Discourse, so why not in Luke 19 as well?

grafted branch · 2025-05-02T13:36:06-0500

Spiritual Israelite said:
The parable of the minas obviously refers to rewards being given out when the King returns, so why act as if the parable isn't about that at all?

Well, let’s take a look at that.

In Daniel 7:13-14 the Son of man is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom. It seems pretty straightforward that Christ was given the kingdom just after the cross. In Matthew 28:18 Jesus said all power is given me in heaven and earth. This statement was made prior to His Acts 1:9 ascension. Therefore it follows that the Luke 19:11-27 parable is talking about Christ as the nobleman when He was raised from the dead, received the kingdom, and returned as seen in John 20. In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father, in John 20:27 Thomas can touch Jesus; so the ascension, acquiring of the kingdom, and the return had all happened in a short time period.

Back to the parable of the Minas …

Luke 19:13And he called his ten servants,

John 20:24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Obviously Judas was already dead and Mathias was not yet an apostle, making ten servants.

Luke 19:15 then he commanded these servants to be called unto him.

Matthew 28:7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

Luke 19:17 have thou authority over ten cities.

John 20:21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

John was given seven cities as seen in Revelation

Zao is life · 2025-05-02T16:34:09-0500

Spiritual Israelite said:
Not sure how that is a problem for Amils. Can you clarify?

You answered the question yourself. This is how:

Spiritual Israelite said:
Amils believe that "the rest of the dead" are all of the wicked (unsaved) dead from all time

I don't see how that can be what Revelation 20:5 implies. Because of the way John wrote it down, Revelation 20:5 implies that "the rest of the dead" are those who were killed with the sword that proceeded from the mouth of Christ when He returned.

And the rest [loipoí] were slain [apokteínō] with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. -- Revelation 19:21.

I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, nor had received his mark on their foreheads, nor in their hands. They were alive [zao] and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

But the rest [loipoí] of the dead did not live again [anazáō] until the thousand years were finished. -– Revelation 20:4b-5a.

So I believe it's a problem for Amils - that's why Amils have to insist that the context of Revelation 20 began almost 2,000 years before the context of Revelation 19, and that the context of Revelation 20 has nothing to do with the context of Revelation 19.

So you answered your own question as to why I say it's problematic for Amillennialism. If Amils had to admit that your view is based on nothing but conjecture, there would be no Amillennialism.

The rest of the dead not living again until the thousand years are finished is indeed problematic to Amillennialism.

Spiritual Israelite said:
Oh well. I don't find your arguments to be convincing. Don't take offense at that. It is what it is.

Ditto. Because your arguments are not convincing at all either.

Spiritual Israelite said:
You can make false accusations against Amils all you want, but I'm done with that. It serves no purpose except to insult others. I really want to get away from that. Maybe you don't believe me about that. I can't help that. It's such a waste of time.

You're right, because it works both ways - but I'm glad we can both be done with it now, and in future after this.

Spiritual Israelite said:
Do you realize how you come across here? You're basically saying that Amills and all other Premils besides you have it wrong and only you have it figured out.

I can't "figure anything out". I can either believe scripture or not, and I've seen, for a number of reasons - reasons that you yourself have no doubt mentioned already elsewhere - that both the rest of New Testament scripture (and including the Revelation), does not point to a New Heavens and earth that follows the return of Christ only a thousand years after His return, but immediately after His return.

But I can also either believe scripture or not when I've also seen that both the rest of New Testament scripture (and including the Revelation), does not point to the thousand years commencing thousands of years before the return of Christ.

So you can call it what you want but I'm not going against what I've seen scripture say, or what I have seen New Testament scripture saying about the eternal life of created human beings not being in ourselves but in Christ - who alone possesses eternal life in Himself,

and also how created human beings who have risen from the dead cannot possess the immortality in ourselves that we will experience, because for created human beings to possess our own immortality requires us to have eternal life in ourselves

- and this I believe is exactly why one verse in the N.T tells us that the risen Christ alone possesses His own immortality.

And whether yourself and everyone else will believe it or not makes no difference to me, because, IMO because there was no death in the Garden of Eden before Adam sinned and began to die, this is all the evidence we will ever need that created human beings will not ever possess in themselves the immortality that we will experience

- because created human beings do not possess our own eternal life in ourselves - but it is in Christ, who alone has eternal life in Himself,

and who told us that the branch which does not abide in the Vine will be cast forth and will wither and die and be burned.

I do not believe (as I once did), that the above counts only for this life but "not once we have eternal life and have risen from the dead".

I don't consider myself to have "figured everything out" (or anything out) - but I do believe scripture when I can see what it's actually saying - even if what it's actually saying is not what probably every Christian church on the planet teaches about eternal life and immortality.

God will not allow those who have already overcome by the time of the Great White Throne judgment to suffer the second death.

But many of the other resurrected, immortal saints who do not possess their own immortality in themselves the way only Christ does, might follow Satan's deception when he is released to deceive mankind again.

You're an Amillennialist so such a thing is naturally laughable to you.

Spiritual Israelite said:
There are a number of people on here who think they alone understand the whole truth as if God decided to reveal the truth just to them. That isn't what God does, though.

I'm fully aware of that - and I'm also aware of the fact that I'm not the only person in the world who believes that scripture points to both the thousand years and the new heavens and new earth commence after the return of Christ - I was very surprised to see that there is another one on this very board who believes the same thing (about when the millennium and the NHNE commence)

- though he does not share my beleiefs regarding the rest of what I have spoken about in this post.

Spiritual Israelite said:
What is the point of the thousand years in your view?

It's the sin of the created human beings against God that has not yet completely played itself out. It needs a thousand years of Satan first being bound and then released again once the redemption from death of created human beings - which was bought by Christ - has become reality.

Spiritual Israelite said:
Do you think that any of those resurrected immortals who are deceived end up repenting and being saved or do they all end up in the lake of fire?

I believe that fire will come down from God and devour them, as Revelation 20 states, and they will end up in the lake of fire. There is only one sacrifice for sins, One Savior and one resurrection from the dead IN HIM. There will be no second sacrifice for sins or second resurrection from the second death.

I do not believe that created human beings will ever possess our own immortality in ourselves because we will never possess our own eternal life in ourselves. Our eternal life is in God and in His Christ. He alone possesses eternal life in Himself.

I once did believe what the rest of the church believes about this. But no more - because I had to pray and pray and pray to God to help me to understand and give me understanding when I realized that Amillennialists are not interpreting scripture properly regards Revelation 20 - but Premillennialists are also not seeing all the places where scripture points to the NHNE also commencing immediately after the return of Christ.

It's the regeneration of all things that Christ created - and He Himself is the one who will make all (created) things new.

Not even Premils believe in mortals in a NHNE - because such a thing is completely contrary to everything scripture teaches.

Davidpt · 2025-05-02T17:10:27-0500

Zao is life said:
Not even Premils believe in mortals in a NHNE - because such a thing is completely contrary to everything scripture teaches.

Apparently, I do though, the fact I think the thousand years are the first thousand years of the NHNE, and that I take the ones meant in Zechariah 16, for example, to be mortals. Is history going to go down like this? To this day not one single mortal has ever lived an entire thousand years. A few got close, but no cigar. Therefore, unless the thousand years are also invoving mortals, and unless some or all of these live an entire thousand years, it will then go down in history that not one single mortal ever managed to live an entire thousand years, not one. It's not like it's impossible. Some in the beginning almost lived that long.

Spiritual Israelite · 2025-05-02T17:21:57-0500

grafted branch said:
Well, let’s take a look at that.

In Daniel 7:13-14 the Son of man is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom. It seems pretty straightforward that Christ was given the kingdom just after the cross.

Right. That passage is clearly in reference to His ascension to the right hand of the Father in heaven. If you compare it to Ephesians 1:19-23 that becomes very obvious.

grafted branch said:
In Matthew 28:18 Jesus said all power is given me in heaven and earth. This statement was made prior to His Acts 1:9 ascension. Therefore it follows that the Luke 19:11-27 parable is talking about Christ as the nobleman when He was raised from the dead, received the kingdom, and returned as seen in John 20.

What? You are trying to say that His return referenced in that parable already happened before His ascension? No. That is completely farfetched.

Luke 19:11 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

The far country is heaven and He received for Himself a kingdom when He ascended there, according to Daniel 7:13-14 and Ephesians 1:19-23. He has not yet returned from heaven.

While Jesus did say He was already given all power in heaven and earth before His ascension it was not made official, so to speak, until He ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

See, it is not until He ascended to the Father in heaven that "there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him". I know that could seem to contradict Him saying He was already given all power in heaven and earth before His ascension, but we can't just ignore what it says there in Daniel 7:13-14 (which is also stated in Ephesians 1:19-23).

While He had all power and authority after His resurrection, He didn't start exercising it fully until after His ascension. Shortly after His ascension is when He sent the Holy Spirit in power to dwell in all of His people starting on the day of Pentecost. At that point His kingdom was fully in motion as His people then had the power of the Holy Spirit to guide them and to give them boldness in preaching the gospel to the world, starting in Jerusalem.

grafted branch said:
In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father, in John 20:27 Thomas can touch Jesus; so the ascension, acquiring of the kingdom, and the return had all happened in a short time period.

No. How could He return from heaven before He even ascended there? That makes no sense.

grafted branch said:
Back to the parable of the Minas …

Luke 19:13And he called his ten servants,

John 20:24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Obviously Judas was already dead and Mathias was not yet an apostle, making ten servants.

No, no, no. John 20:24 has nothing to do with that parable. You are trying to manipulate the parable to mean what you want it to mean. You don't seem to understand how parables work. Do you think that the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) is about ten actual people? It's not. It's a parable. Parables are made up stories about fictional people and places and it figuratively represents something in reality like the kingdom of heaven or whatever the case may be.

That parable is not about the disciples. It's a parable that illustrates what type of rewards people will get when Jesus returns in the future. For those who take the abilities that Jesus gives them and use them to produce a lot of fruit (good works that advanced the kingdom), He will reward them very well in some way. For those who produce a good amount of fruit, but not as much as those others, He will reward them accordingly. For those who bear no fruit, they will be cut off from Him and will be cast into the lake of fire (see John 15:1-6).

grafted branch said:
Luke 19:15 then he commanded these servants to be called unto him.

Matthew 28:7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

Luke 19:17 have thou authority over ten cities.

John 20:21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Where does John 20:21 say anything about them being rewarded according to what they had done? Nowhere. That doesn't happen until He returns and everyone is brought before His throne to give an account of themselves, as portrayed in Matthew 25:31-46.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

grafted branch said:
John was given seven cities as seen in Revelation

What? Nowhere does it say He was given seven cities. Also, it's a parable! Why do you take parables literally?

Zao is life · 2025-05-02T17:40:35-0500

Davidpt said:
Apparently, I do though, the fact I think the thousand years are the first thousand years of the NHNE, and that I take the ones meant in Zechariah 16, for example, to be mortals. Is history going to go down like this? To this day not one single mortal has ever lived an entire thousand years. A few got close, but no cigar. Therefore, unless the thousand years are also invoving mortals, and unless some or all of these live an entire thousand years, it will then go down in history that not one single mortal ever managed to live an entire thousand years, not one. It's not like it's impossible. Some in the beginning almost lived that long.

Okay sorry, correction. Most Premils don't believe in mortals in the NHNE.

I don't see the point of mortals, because for me, we are Adam (created human beings). In Adam we sinned against God when He allowed Satan to test us. Death was the result.

Christ, the last Adam, took our sin upon Himself, died for us, and rose again from the dead - destroying the works of Satan.

Created mankind - those who belong to Christ - will be resurrected from the dead and only those who already had been tested and overcame will not ever be subject to the second death.

But God will have Adam (created human beings) given a second chance to see how we will react when tested once more (only one more chance to be tested) when Satan is released again to deceive mankind one more time.

Adam was expelled from Eden and died. Christ died for created mankind and rose again from the dead. But the second death = the destruction of death and hades in the lake of fire.

And we know that there will be no second sacrifice for sins and no second resurrection from the second death.

Davidpt · 2025-05-02T18:02:32-0500

Zao is life said:
Okay sorry, correction. Most Premils don't believe in mortals in the NHNE.

I don't see the point of mortals, because for me, we are Adam (created human beings). In Adam we sinned against God when He allowed Satan to test us. Death was the result.

Christ, the last Adam, took our sin upon Himself, died for us, and rose again from the dead - destroying the works of Satan.

Created mankind - those who belong to Christ - will be resurrected from the dead and only those who already had been tested and overcame will not ever be subject to the second death.

But God will have Adam (created human beings) given a second chance to see how we will react when tested once more (only one more chance to be tested) when Satan is released again to deceive mankind one more time.

Adam was expelled from Eden and died. Christ died for created mankind and rose again from the dead. But the second death = the destruction of death and hades in the lake of fire.

And we know that there will be no second sacrifice for sins and no second resurrection from the second death.

The problem in my case might not be your view, but might be that I'm not fully grasping what you are meaning. It's going over my head for some reason. I'm not entirely certain what you are trying to say over all. In the meantime, I'm still thinking along these lines below.

Personally, I think Zechariah 14:12 is meaning Revelation 19:21. And if I am correct, maybe I am, maybe I'm not, that means these in verse 16 were spared the fate those in verse 12 encounters---every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem. Obviously, these at this point have never died. What should we assume their state is? A mortal state, or an immortal state? If the latter how did they obtain this state? My guess would be, they can't be any of the ones meant in 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 if they can be threatened with being punished for failing to comply with what is commanded of them.

claninja · 2025-05-02T18:34:11-0500

grafted branch said:
I’ve been following this thread and I agree with how you’re looking at these things, the context of the parable of the Minas isn’t about the reward. What are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities though?

In the parable of the minas there are ten servants, we know the fate of three of them. One gets ten cities, one gets five cities, and the other it isn’t clear but based on the what the other two were given, presumably that servant would’ve received a city if they were faithful and not wicked.

So out of ten servants total, at an absolute minimum of fifteen cities were given out and through reasonable assumption a bare minimum of twenty three cities total for the ten servants. That’s an average minimum of 2.3 cities for every faith servant to have authority over.

No matter how we look at it there are more cities than there are servants so whatever ones eschatological view of when this takes place, it seems there needs to be far more non-servants abiding in the cities that are ruled over than there are servants to rule them. The average size city in the US is somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 people.

I’m not sure how that ratio of servant to non-servant could fit with either Premil or Amil placing this at a future coming of Christ. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities?

I think the “explanation” of Minas is found in Luke 19:26

He replied, ‘I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him

This same explanation is provided earlier in Luke, specifically, chapter 8, in regards to the parable of the sower and of the lamp.

18Pay attention, therefore, to how you listen. Whoever has will be given more, but whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken away from him.”

In this second context it’s discussing what appears to be knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, which have been given to certain believers - the disciples in this case. The good seeds produce crop, the other soils result in this knowledge being taken away so to speak. So IMHO, the Mina’s given to the servants are the secrets of the kingdom. The good servants multiply the Minas like the good seeds in good soil - multiplying crops a hundred fold, while the bad servant doesnt, like the bad soils thus what they have is taken away. What the rewards are symbolic for (cities in Luke, more talents in Matthew), are never actually stated, so again, I don’t think the rewards are the main point of the parable in Luke 8 nor in Luke 19.

But if I were to make a stab at what the rewards are, I think revelation 2-3, and “the one who overcomes” is probably the best place to start. interestingly enough, shepherding over the nations with an iron rod is listed as one of the rewards.

Zao is life · 2025-05-02T18:45:35-0500

Davidpt said:
The problem in my case might not be your view, but might be that I'm not fully grasping what you are meaning. It's going over my head for some reason. I'm not entirely certain what you are trying to say over all. In the meantime, I'm still thinking along these lines below.

Personally, I think Zechariah 14:12 is meaning Revelation 19:21. And if I am correct, maybe I am, maybe I'm not, that means these in verse 16 were spared the fate those in verse 12 encounters---every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem. Obviously, these at this point have never died. What should we assume their state is? A mortal state, or an immortal state? If the latter how did they obtain this state? My guess would be, they can't be any of the ones meant in 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 if they can be threatened with being punished for failing to comply with what is commanded of them.

I'll put it like this: Ever wondered why Satan will be released once more after the return of Christ and after he had been bound a thousand years?

What's the point?

So my answer goes like this:

1. I believe God sees all human beings in terms of two human beings: the created Adam, and His only begotten Son, the last Adam.

As the descendants of Adam we are in Adam (created) but also IN the last Adam if we belong to Christ - the latter having died for the former, and risen again, and He IS the resurrection and the (eternal) life, which is IN Adam (us)

and we are IN Him through our faith in Him (not that we are not all individuals, but that we are in Adam, i.e created mankind).

I believe that the reason why the things that happened in Eden will all happen once more (God permitting Satan to go about deceiving Adam, i.e mankind again once more)

- is because of Adam's sin against God: God will know (His will is that He will know) whose word each resurrected, immortal descendant of Adam will believe - Satan's, or God's -

- else there would be no reason after the return of Christ for Satan to be released again once more to go about deceiving the nations after having been bound for a thousand years.

I understand your point about Isaiah 65:20 but when I think of the NHNE and the way Paul linked the regeneration of all things and the whole of creation being delivered from the bondage of decay, to OUR own resurrection from the dead,

then the whole of creation being delivered from the bondage of decay cannot include mortal human beings, IMO:

Romans 8
21 The creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God's children.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now.
23 Not only this, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we eagerly await our adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

It also seems weird that in Revelation 21 & 22 some are drinking from the river of life but others will not be able to (because they are "mortals"?). It just doesn't seem to fit scripture at all to have a regenerated creation (immortals) and non-regenerated creation (mortals) altogether in a NHNE.

But if the thousand years is literal and follows the return of Christ, then though there may be mortals and immortals altogether in the NHNE, what point would there be in Satan being permitted to test mortals?

What point could there possibly be to release Satan again in the first place? (It is after all, a test, i.e surely it must involve being tested once more?).

Spiritual Israelite · 2025-05-02T19:00:34-0500

Zao is life said:
I don't see how that can be what Revelation 20:5 implies. Because of the way John wrote it down, Revelation 20:5 implies that "the rest of the dead" are those who were killed with the sword that proceeded from the mouth of Christ when He returned.

And the rest [loipoí] were slain [apokteínō] with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. -- Revelation 19:21.

I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, nor had received his mark on their foreheads, nor in their hands. They were alive [zao] and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

But the rest [loipoí] of the dead did not live again [anazáō] until the thousand years were finished. -– Revelation 20:4b-5a.

So I believe it's a problem for Amils - that's why Amils have to insist that the context of Revelation 20 began almost 2,000 years before the context of Revelation 19, and that the context of Revelation 20 has nothing to do with the context of Revelation 19.

I disagree with directly relating "the rest of the dead" with the rest who "were slain". The context is different between the two. The rest of the dead are contrasted with the dead who have part in the first resurrection. So, the dead who belong to Christ have part in the first resurrection and "the rest of the dead" do not. But the rest who were slain are not contrasted with those who have part in the first resurrection, but rather with the beast and false prophet. In Revelation 19:20-21 It talks about the rest being slain after it first talks about the demise of the beast and false prophet. So, "the rest" in that case is in the context of the rest of Satan's army. In contrast to that, the rest of the dead are the rest of the dead besides the dead who have part in the first resurrection. So, the context is just not the same.

Zao is life said:
So you answered your own question as to why I say it's problematic for Amillennialism. If Amils had to admit that your view is based on nothing but conjecture, there would be no Amillennialism.

LOL. Sure, but I'm not nearly ready to admit such a thing right now and I don't believe I ever will be because I strongly believe that the scriptural evidence supports Amillennialism.

Zao is life said:
The rest of the dead not living again until the thousand years are finished is indeed problematic to Amillennialism.

It indeed is not.

Zao is life said:
Ditto. Because your arguments are not convincing at all either.

Great. So, you know what people should do at that point? Just agree to disagree. What else is there to discuss if you find my arguments completely unconvincing? Nothing, right? It's not as if I have a bunch of new arguments to share that you haven't seen.

Zao is life said:
You're right, because it works both ways - but I'm glad we can both be done with it now, and in future after this.

Amen. That's better than being frustrated with each other because we can't understand how the other person isn't seeing the same things that we are each seeing.

Zao is life said:
I can't "figure anything out". I can either believe scripture or not

Well, don't you have to figure out (replace the words "figure out" with whatever words you prefer) what scripture means before you can believe it? I know you can decide that you will believe it no matter what it says even before you understand it, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Zao is life said:
, and I've seen, for a number of reasons - reasons that you yourself have no doubt mentioned already elsewhere - that both the rest of New Testament scripture (and including the Revelation), does not point to a New Heavens and earth that follows the return of Christ only a thousand years after His return, but immediately after His return.

Well, I'm glad we at least agree on that. But, then what about Revelation 21:1-4? I can't come up with any way that the there can possibly be death on the new earth. Though you say they are all immortals, right? So, I guess that comment doesn't apply to your particular belief. But, what about Rev 20:7-9? You don't believe Rev 20:9 has to do with people being killed? I can't recall if you gave your understanding of Rev 20:7-9 to me before or not.

Zao is life said:
But I can also either believe scripture or not when I've also seen that both the rest of New Testament scripture (and including the Revelation), does not point to the thousand years commencing thousands of years before the return of Christ.

That's too bad, but it is what it is.

Zao is life said:
So you can call it what you want but I'm not going against what I've seen scripture say,

I wouldn't want you to do that. We all believe that scripture is inerrant regardless of our disagreements about what some of it means.

Zao is life said:
or what I have seen New Testament scripture saying about the eternal life of created human beings not being in ourselves but in Christ - who alone possesses eternal life in Himself,

and also how created human beings who have risen from the dead cannot possess the immortality in ourselves that we will experience, because for created human beings to possess our own immortality requires us to have eternal life in ourselves

- and this I believe is exactly why one verse in the N.T tells us that the risen Christ alone possesses His own immortality.

I can't really understand your arguments about all that. Oh well. You've tried to explain it in detail, so, obviously, that's all you can do.

Zao is life said:
And whether yourself and everyone else will believe it or not makes no difference to me, because, IMO because there was no death in the Garden of Eden before Adam sinned and began to die, this is all the evidence we will ever need that created human beings will not ever possess in themselves the immortality that we will experience

- because created human beings do not possess our own eternal life in ourselves - but it is in Christ, who alone has eternal life in Himself,

and who told us that the branch which does not abide in the Vine will be cast forth and will wither and die and be burned.

I do not believe (as I once did), that the above counts only for this life but "not once we have eternal life and have risen from the dead".

I don't consider myself to have "figured everything out" (or anything out) - but I do believe scripture when I can see what it's actually saying - even if what it's actually saying is not what probably every Christian church on the planet teaches about eternal life and immortality.

Hmmm. Do you know of anyone else anywhere in the world who sees this as you do?

Zao is life said:
God will not allow those who have already overcome by the time of the Great White Throne judgment to suffer the second death.

Of course.

Spiritual Israelite · 2025-05-02T19:01:39-0500

Zao is life said:
But many of the other resurrected, immortal saints who do not possess their own immortality in themselves the way only Christ does, might follow Satan's deception when he is released to deceive mankind again.

And then you lost me again. But, that's fine. It is what it is.

Zao is life said:
You're an Amillennialist so such a thing is naturally laughable to you.

Well, I'm trying to change in that respect. It's not laughable, it's just not what I believe. I respect that you have studied the scriptures and these are the conclusions you've come to and that means I can't say you just believe all that because you dreamed it up in your imagination. No, it's what you see taught in scripture. I can respect that even though I disagree.

Zao is life said:
I'm fully aware of that

So, you're fine with that then? You think it's possible that God would only reveal some things to you alone?

Zao is life said:
- and I'm also aware of the fact that I'm not the only person in the world who believes that scripture points to both the thousand years and the new heavens and new earth commence after the return of Christ - I was very surprised to see that there is another one on this very board who believes the same thing (about when the millennium and the NHNE commence)

Yes, I knew that. But, there can't be many of you. Probably more than just you two, though.

Zao is life said:
- though he does not share my beleiefs regarding the rest of what I have spoken about in this post.

Right. And my question is whether anyone does? I don't know. Not that I know of.

Zao is life said:
It's the sin of the created human beings against God that has not yet completely played itself out. It needs a thousand years of Satan first being bound and then released again once the redemption from death of created human beings - which was bought by Christ - has become reality.

Why is that? I can't understand this. I also am not aware of where that is taught in scripture.

Zao is life said:
I believe that fire will come down from God and devour them, as Revelation 20 states, and they will end up in the lake of fire.

You say they will be immortal right? So, in what way do you think they will be devoured exactly?

Zao is life said:
There is only one sacrifice for sins, One Savior and one resurrection from the dead IN HIM. There will be no second sacrifice for sins or second resurrection from the second death.

Of course.

Zao is life said:
I do not believe that created human beings will ever possess our own immortality in ourselves because we will never possess our own eternal life in ourselves. Our eternal life is in God and in His Christ. He alone possesses eternal life in Himself.

I just can't wrap my mind around what you're saying here. The way I see it is that we inherit eternal life when He comes (Matthew 25:31-46), so it's something He gives to us.

Zao is life said:
I once did believe what the rest of the church believes about this. But no more - because I had to pray and pray and pray to God to help me to understand and give me understanding when I realized that Amillennialists are not interpreting scripture properly regards Revelation 20 - but Premillennialists are also not seeing all the places where scripture points to the NHNE also commencing immediately after the return of Christ.

So, do you think you're the only one who had prayed and prayed and prayed to God for help in understanding His Word? I have done so as well. I say often (sometimes to myself) that the key to having the wisdom to understand His word is to ask for it and I base that on James 1:5-7. So, despite both of us praying and asking God for understanding, we still disagree on some things. Maybe we each still have more things to learn and He's not doing answering our prayers? Yes, I think so.

Zao is life said:
It's the regeneration of all things that Christ created - and He Himself is the one who will make all (created) things new.

Not even Premils believe in mortals in a NHNE - because such a thing is completely contrary to everything scripture teaches.

Well, your buddy Davidpt does and I think some others do as well.

Reggie Belafonte · 2025-05-02T19:08:23-0500

Scott Downey said:
He will believe in Him when he sees Him. By then it will be too late. Tell the guy everyone will believe in Him when they see Him. And blessed by God are you when you believe and have not seen.

John 20:29
Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

1 Peter 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance [b]incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been [c]grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ,

8 whom having not [d]seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.

That's it !
They are the verses that I was thinking of as well in fact !

Spot on ! dear Scott Downey, it's Grace that you surely have to understand the issue !
I am so happy that you are Blessed !

All who are not taken up to meet the Lord in the air when He comes will be left behind and killed.

Well-Known Member