Search results

No, I don’t believe it’s a literal city. That’s why I don’t think it’s possible for the unbelievers to surround it by going up on the breadth of the earth.

Well maybe the literal city of Jerusalem was beloved in heaven but not beloved on earth, just like new Jerusalem can be in both heaven and earth at the same time.

Ok, so how do you explain new Jerusalem being in heaven while the unsaved surround it? Are you going to go down the same road SI took and claim it is in both heaven and earth at the same time?

Are you kidding me? So is the lake of fire also both on earth and in outer darkness?

The physical city of Jerusalem was beloved and yes currently you can say new Jerusalem is beloved but that in itself doesn’t prove when Revelation 20:9 occurs.

I get all that, are you saying that Revelation 21:2 has been fulfilled and new Jerusalem has come down out of heaven? If not then why wouldn’t you symbolize that as being fulfilled? Since it would be possible for the unsaved to compass new Jerusalem.

Yea, I agree with this, currently new covenant believers are the bride of Christ and we dwell in new Jerusalem, at least spiritually speaking. But this doesn’t really prove one way or the other what “ camp of the saints” is being referred to in Revelation 20:9. I guess this is just another one...

So symbolically the unsaved can go to heaven and surround new Jerusalem? Can you give more details on how this is symbolically possible?

The physical city of Jerusalem was the camp of the old covenant saints. How would it be possible to go up on the breadth of the earth and compass new Jerusalem when it doesn’t come down till Revelation 21:2?

I see it as Satan being bound from gathering the nations to destroy Jerusalem and I see the Galatians 2:9 agreement that James, Peter, and John were to go to the circumcision, as something that was never rescinded. So I come to the conclusion that Revelation was written to the circumcision...

Well, I think the thousand years was the time from the cross to 70AD where Satan was bound from exercising his right to destroy Jerusalem. There are others who place the millennium from the time of Solomon to the cross, and I’ve also seen where some have equated Christ’ resurrection with the...

I think the millennium is already over, I guess you can put me down for Aftermil or something like that.

Well, obviously not everyone likes drawings or charts but for a carpenter to build using only the words in Exodus 26, it would take some time. If I was given that task, I would first read the directions and draw out what each board would look like. And if a set of drawings were available that...

I don’t agree with very many of your positions but I can appreciate the charts you make, they are helpful to some of us. I can pinpoint where our disagreements are much quicker when looking at your chart. Which is easier to understand words or charts/drawings? Exodus 26: 15And thou shalt make...

Ok, you’ve given a lot to think about. I don’t want to side track this thread so I’ll digest what you said so far, thanks.

Thanks for taking the time to give that explanation. I am interested in how you’re comparing the initial 7 days with human history. Here is a brief summary of creation, can you fill in the question marks? I threw in what I think you might say after the question marks, just for fun. Day 1 light...

I’m following along with your discussion here, I know you use the three harvest to show when resurrecting happens and Christ returns, but can you give me some more details on why the year 3033? That seems like a long ways out if we compare it to a 33AD and 70AD harvest.

You are correct when you said in post # 49 “Jesus made it clear that when He spoke about ages, He always had two ages in mind. This age and the age to come.”. The two ages were the old covenant age and the new covenant age. Let’s look at Luke 20. Vs 34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The...

I didn’t directly ask you that, here’s what I said “Can you address this, or explain how a physically dead person can get married?”. That’s an either or thing, if you were unable to address the conclusion I had drawn then it would appear to me that you might have some kind of explanation for why...

I don’t think you or anyone else believes dead people can get married. So let’s clarify a few things, is everyone, both physically dead and physically alive people, currently in this temporal age? If so then doesn’t the statement “marry and given in marriage” apply to all who are in “this age”...