Search results

First of all there has to be enough weapons to burn non stop for 7 years. Then there has to be a valid reason all these weapons were burned to begin with and what it means once there are no more weapons to burn. Is the reason they are burned is so that there will no longer be weapons like that...

Can you explain in what way they would be living again spiritually after the thousand years are finished? I'm failing to grasp how you are deciding that? We have to keep in mind, to do anything again requires that someone was doing it initially, quit doing it, then started doing it again...

Apparently, you take this hour literally, right? As in a literal 60 minutes, that within this same literal 60 minutes He will have first raised, judged, rewarded all the saved one at a time, possibly billions of people, and when that part is finished, He will then raise the lost, billions and...

Then you argue that Revelation 20:4---and they lived--is not meaning the same thing you argue it is meaning here. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. If these don't live again until the thousand years are finished, this obviously means someone else...

But I think he is meaning that a millennium follows Revelation 19 and that they are not judged until after the millennium that follows the 2nd coming. Can't see Amils agreeing with that. I don't think he fully grasps that Premil is not the only view, that there are other views, such as Amil.

Maybe the judgment seat of Christ per that context is not meaning the GWTJ in Revelation 20? Per Premil, my view would be that Revelation 11:18 is involving the judgment seat of Christ pertaining to the saved and rewards for the saved but is not meaning Revelation 20:11-15, though. Here's an...

I wanted to be fair and point out that even Amils can't get that to logically fit 1 Cor 15:50-56, even if their view is correct, let alone @Keraz get it to logically fit. I didn't mean anything bad by it by mentioning Amils.

I wouldn't bet on that. Amils, for example, might disagree with this---The wicked alive at His return are killed physically (not yet judged)---meaning with what I have underlined. You must not be reading some of these posts in this thread if you think that.

Here's your dilemma, though. In 70 AD old Jerusalem was literally destroyed. In the 20th century old Jerusalem was literally rebuilt. And you can't get past that fact unless want to insist that the Jerusalem that exists in that region resembles a new Jerusalem, one that can't be destroyed...

Even if I looked at it the way you are, except I wouldn't be applying it to 70 AD, but even so, it would be impossible that the old Jerusalem can be meant, based on that every wall falls to the ground when Christ returns. Keeping in mind, I'm meaning Ezekiel 38:20 in this case. And if every wall...

You can't nor can anyone, including Amils, get 1 Cor 15:50-56 to logically fit the GWTJ. And here are some reasons why. 1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be...

TBH, that's not something I have noted being taught in the gospels or the epistles but can possibly be proved via OT prophecies, though. But then it requires logically deducing these things since it doesn't come right out and say that the rebellion per Revelation 20:7-9 is meant. An example...

Here, for one. 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. Luke 22:30 That ye may eat...

Now you need to prove it's meaning literal seas? But that aside, anyone that already agrees that Ezekiel 38 is involving the end of this age can't get around the fact that every wall falls to the ground. As if it makes sense that God does that then someone rebuilds everything soon after, meaning...

I happen to think, though I'm a Premil, and regardless most Premils disagree, the new Jerusalem is on the earth at the beginning of the millennium. It doesn't make sense it could be meaning the old Jerusalem if the following per Ezekiel 38 happens in the end of this age involving the 2nd coming...

The problem with that idea, even if one were Amil and takes satan's little season to be involving the end of this age, there is no resurrection event that occurs at the beginning of satan's little season. Therefore, there is no way for the rest of the dead to live again at the beginning of...

Let me guess. You need it to mean that so that you can make it be about 70 AD and Jerusalem being destroyed at the time, right?

Give us a ballpark amount as to how many weapons it involved at the time, then tell us what the point was in burning them for 7 years, if after 7 years weapons of that kind still existed and continued to exist indefinitely? In other posts you said it was pretty much a fairy tale to apply this to...

What are you meaning by this? Once again, you lost me.

That means you think weapons back then were burning for an entire 7 years then. That's not even reasonable in ancient times that there could be that many weapons to burn that it takes 7 years to burn them all. Which should then mean there are no more weapons of war, because if there still are...