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

[claninja]

When Christ returns, that is a world changing event.
Christ already said anyone who does not believe is condemned already as they have not believed
So, when He slays them in the parable, who is being killed? Yes, unbelieving Jews but also unbelieving gentiles too.

Is there mention of unbelieving gentile slaughter in the surrounding context of Luke 19:11-44?

 

[Scott Downey]

Is there mention of unbelieving gentile slaughter in the surrounding context of Luke 19:11-44?

Is there any mention of Jews being slaughtered in that parable?

 

[claninja]

So, what do you believe the rewards are related to exactly that are given out at that time?

According to Luke the rewards are related to :“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”. Unfortunately, since that’s not the main point of the parable, in Luke, according to the context, the surrounding context doesn’t go into any depth.

Why should you ignore that it involves rewards being given out? Jesus had their ultimate demise in mind on the day of judgment there rather than their physical destruction. Do you not believe in a future judgment where all people have to give an account of themselves?

Red herring fallacy, SI - I’m talking about Luke and the surrounding context which is about Christ’s triumphant arrival into Jerusalem, where the kingdom did not manifest immediately, but instead his kingship was denied by the Pharisees, followed by Christ prophesying of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter - the very elements that Luke added to the parable.

Why in the world, would the surrounding context of the Pharisees rejecting Christs kingship, followed by Christs prophesy of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter be completely unrelated to the parable’s elements of the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king, followed by their slaughter and destruction???

 

[claninja]

Is there any mention of Jews being slaughtered in that parable?

I asked first, answer mine, then I’ll answer yours.

Doesn’t answer my question- does the surrounding context mention the slaughter of gentiles?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

According to Luke the rewards are related to :“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”. Unfortunately, since that’s not the main point of the parable, in Luke, according to the context, the surrounding context doesn’t go into any depth.

Come on. If you can't even offer a guess as to what that is about, why should I take your view on this seriously?

Red herring fallacy, SI - I’m talking about Luke and the surrounding context which is about Christ’s triumphant arrival into Jerusalem, where the kingdom did not manifest immediately, but instead his kingship was denied by the Pharisees, followed by Christ prophesying of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter - the very elements that Luke added to the parable.

Why in the world, would the surrounding context of the Pharisees rejecting Christs kingship, followed by Christs prophesy of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter be completely unrelated to the parable’s elements of the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king, followed by their slaughter and destruction???

Do you deny a future judgment when any of those Pharisees who did not repent will be cast into the lake of fire? Why couldn't Jesus have been referring to that, especially since it talks about rewards for believers at the same time? It talks about them being brought before Him. That suggests people being brought before the throne for judgment.

Also, the parable is about when the kingdom of God would appear. Spiritually, the kingdom of God appeared well before 70 AD. We will inherit the kingdom of God in its fullness when Jesus returns in the future. The context is not about 70 AD.

 

[claninja]

Come on. If you can't even offer a guess as to what that is about, why should I take your view on this seriously?


Do you deny a future judgment when any of those Pharisees who did not repent will be cast into the lake of fire? Why couldn't Jesus have been referring to that, especially since it talks about rewards for believers at the same time? It talks about them being brought before Him. That suggests people being brought before the throne for judgment.

Why should I take you seriously if you are always claiming context is important, but now keep shifting and deflecting when pressed about context?

Why would the surrounding context of the Jesus’ arrival to Jerusalem and the kingdom not immediately manifesting, but instead the Pharisees reject Christs kingship, followed Jesus’ prophesy of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter……have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus telling a parable, whose main point is about the kingdom not manifesting immediately, and includes elements where the citizens reject the nobleman’s kingship and are subsequently slaughtered.

Reply to that and we can absolutely change the subject to rewards and future final judgment. I’ll happily discuss what I think the rewards refer to in the context of Matthew’s use of the parable.

Until then, I’m not interested in entertaining your red herring.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why should I take you seriously if you are always claiming context is important, but now keep shifting and deflecting when pressed about context?

So, let's not take each other seriously then. Whatever. I will now proceed to do something better with my time.

 

[claninja]

So, let's not take each other seriously then. Whatever. I will now proceed to do something better with my time.

It’s unfortunate it took you multiple posts of not addressing the context to realize you were wasting your time.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It’s unfortunate it took you multiple posts of not addressing the context to realize you were wasting your time.

Yes, I agree. At least I'm not ignoring that it talks about rewards being given at the same time which helps establish the context of what He was talking about in the parable, which was their eventual eternal punishment.

 

[claninja]

Yes, I agree. At least I'm not ignoring that it talks about rewards being given at the same time which helps establish the context of what He was talking about in the parable, which was their eventual eternal punishment.

You are conflating thematic elements (like rewards) with narrative context, which is a misuse of the term context. Context doesn’t mean “one part of the parable that supports my interpretation.” It refers to the surrounding narrative material, historical setting, audience, and literary flow in which the parable appears. You’re treating the mention of rewards inside the parable as if that’s the parable’s context. But context refers to what surrounds the parable—Luke’s framing, the narrative flow, the historical situation, and what Jesus is responding to.

In this case, Luke tells us that Jesus gives this parable BECAUSE people thought the kingdom was going to appear immediately when he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 19:11), then it shows Jesus being rejected as king by the Pharisees (Luke 19:38–39), and then prophesying Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter (Luke 19:41–44). That’s the actual context.

You’re reading the parable in isolation and calling that “context,” but that’s not how context works. Ignoring Luke’s framing while focusing only on internal themes is not interpreting in context—it’s interpreting in a vacuum -> this would be the very definition of eisegesis.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are conflating thematic elements (like rewards) with narrative context, which is a misuse of the term context. Context doesn’t mean “one part of the parable that supports my interpretation.”

Okay, fine. You are ignoring the content of the parable. Is that better?

 

[claninja]

Okay, fine. You are ignoring the content of the parable. Is that better?

Wow, ok let’s add strawman to list of fallacies you’ve already used.

Discussing one part of the parable (the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king and their subsequent slaughter) and how it should be understood in light of of the surrounding context (Jesus’ triumphal entry where the kingdom did not manifest immediately, but instead resulted in the Pharisees rejecting his kingship and the subsequent prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter) is not the same as ignoring the content of the parable. I’m simply ignoring your red herring of attempting to shift to another part of the parable, until you address the surrounding context.

Can you explain how your interpretation of the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king when the nobleman goes on a long journey and their subsequent destruction and slaughter - accounts for the surrounding context of Luke 19:11 and 28-44?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wow, ok let’s add strawman to list of fallacies you’ve already used.

You think I'm not addressing part of the parable even though I already said I believe the punishment relates to judgment day and them being cast into the lake of fire rather than to physical destruction in 70 AD. If you disagree, so be it, but I am addressing that part of the parable. You, meanwhile, don't want to take into consideration that believers are rewarded at the same time. So, you interpret the parable without taking the whole parable into account. If you think that's wise, then so be it.

Discussing one part of the parable (the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king and their subsequent slaughter) and how it should be understood in light of of the surrounding context (Jesus’ triumphal entry where the kingdom did not manifest immediately, but instead resulted in the Pharisees rejecting his kingship and the subsequent prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter) is not the same as ignoring the content of the parable.

When do you plan on addressing the what it says in the entire parable instead of just part of it?

I’m simply ignoring your red herring of attempting to shift to another part of the parable, until you address the surrounding context.

LOL. I can take whatever approach I want to interpreting the parable. What will be the reason that those Pharisees will eventually be cast into the lake of fire? Because they rejected Jesus, right? So, that's what I believe the parable is talking about. It talks about the nobleman having gone away to receive His kingdom and then returning to reward His people and punish those who reject Him, which includes the Pharisees. It talks about them being brought before him. How does that not make you think of unbelievers being brought before His throne for judgment?

Can you explain how your interpretation of the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king when the nobleman goes on a long journey and their subsequent destruction and slaughter accounts for surrounding context of Luke 19:11 and 28-44?

The parable was told in response to the false belief that the kingdom of God would be fully manifested on the earth immediately. Jesus showed that is not the case because the nobleman being crowned King and receiving His kingdom would go away for some time first. When He gets back He will reward His people and punish those who rejected Him, including the Pharisees of His day. That is what will happen at His return in the future. They were physically destroyed in 70 AD, but Jesus also talked about their eventual eternal destiny after being brought before Him. Those Pharisees and all unbelievers will be brought before Him when He returns and they will give an account of themselves and then be cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels", otherwise known as "the lake of fire" (Matthew 25:41, Rev 20:15).

 

[claninja]

You think I'm not addressing part of the parable even though I already said I believe the punishment relates to judgment day and them being cast into the lake of fire rather than to physical destruction in 70 AD. If you disagree, so be it, but I am addressing that part of the parable. You, meanwhile, don't want to take into consideration that believers are rewarded at the same time. So, you interpret the parable without taking the whole parable into account. If you think that's wise, then so be it.

When do you plan on addressing the what it says in the entire parable instead of just part of it?

LOL. I can take whatever approach I want to interpreting the parable. What will be the reason that those Pharisees will eventually be cast into the lake of fire? Because they rejected Jesus, right? So, that's what I believe the parable is talking about. It talks about the nobleman having gone away to receive His kingdom and then returning to reward His people and punish those who reject Him, which includes the Pharisees. It talks about them being brought before him. How does that not make you think of unbelievers being brought before His throne for judgment?

My post #120 was a response to Scott downey’s post #115, in which Scott Downey used the parable of the Mina’s, specifically vs 27, to demonstrate that the nobleman slays ALL his enemies in general. THAT’S why I’m focusing on that specific aspect of the parable and not the rewards……I disagreed it was all the nobleman’s enemies in general, but instead the citizens that rejected him as king.

Then you jumped in with “ what about the the rewards?”, which is not the main point of the parable according to the surrounding context, and not what I was addressing to Scott.

As far as what the rewards mean, that can be found in vs 26.

The parable was told in response to the false belief that the kingdom of God would be fully manifested on the earth immediately. Jesus showed that is not the case because the nobleman being crowned King and receiving His kingdom would go away for some time first. When He gets back He will reward His people and punish those who rejected Him, including the Pharisees of His day. That is what will happen at His return in the future. They were physically destroyed in 70 AD, but Jesus also talked about their eventual eternal destiny after being brought before Him. Those Pharisees and all unbelievers will be brought before Him when He returns and they will give an account of themselves and then be cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels", otherwise known as "the lake of fire" (Matthew 25:41, Rev 20:15).

The surrounding context of Luke 19 makes no mention of the final judgement/cast into the lake of fire in regards to the Pharisees. That is eisegesis on your part. You’re reading that into the text based on your eschatological view and not the context of the passage. The surrounding context, specifically vs 41-44, clearly mention the slaughter and destruction of Jerusalem. Why in the world would the Pharisees rejecting Christ as king followed by the prophesy that Jerusalem will be destroyed and slaughtered, have absolutely nothing to do very elements of the parable?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My post #120 was a response to Scott downey’s post #115, in which Scott Downey used the parable of the Mina’s, specifically vs 27, to demonstrate that the nobleman slays ALL his enemies in general. THAT’S why I’m focusing on that specific aspect of the parable and not the rewards……I disagreed it was all the nobleman’s enemies in general, but instead the citizens that rejected him as king.

Then you jumped in with “ what about the the rewards?”, which is not the main point of the parable according to the surrounding context, and not what I was addressing to Scott.

As far as what the rewards mean, that can be found in vs 26.



The surrounding context of Luke 19 makes no mention of the final judgement/cast into the lake of fire in regards to the Pharisees. That is eisegesis on your part. You’re reading that into the text based on your eschatological view and not the context of the passage. The surrounding context, specifically vs 41-44, clearly mention the slaughter and destruction of Jerusalem. Why in the world would the Pharisees rejecting Christ as king followed by the prophesy that Jerusalem will be destroyed and slaughtered, have absolutely nothing to do very elements of the parable?

You can't understand what the parable is about without understanding when the rewards are given which is when Jesus returns. He gave no rewards to anyone in 70 AD, so the parable has to be about His future return when He will give rewards to His people. To me, that establishes the context of the parable in terms of the timing of it. And unbelievers will be punished at that point as well.

The parable talks about the king saying "those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them" being brought before Him and then being punished. How does that not make you think of the judgment when everyone is gathered before Jesus on His throne with unbelievers being cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" for "everlasting punishment" (Matthew 25:31-46)? There is nothing which demands that what Jesus talked about after that had to relate directly to that parable. In His Olivet Discourse He had both the near punishment of the Jews and His more distant return in mind and He talked about both events, so that's just something He did.

 

[claninja]

You can't understand what the parable is about without understanding when the rewards are given which is when Jesus returns. He gave no rewards to anyone in 70 AD, so the parable has to be about His future return when He will give rewards to His people. To me, that establishes the context of the parable in terms of the timing of it. And unbelievers will be punished at that point as well.

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

The parable talks about the king saying "those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them" being brought before Him and then being punished. How does that not make you think of the judgment when everyone is gathered before Jesus on His throne with unbelievers being cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" for "everlasting punishment" (Matthew 25:31-46)?

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.

There is nothing which demands that what Jesus talked about after that had to relate directly to that parable. In His Olivet Discourse He had both the near punishment of the Jews and His more distant return in mind and He talked about both events, so that's just something He did.

Well there is, but you have seemingly chosen to ignore that due to your current eschatological presupposition.

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?

 

[Davidpt]

The problem with your argument, is that you are ignoring the main point of the parable, which is found in vs 11 and the surrounding context of 28-41.

The reason Jesus tells this parable is because the crowd that was following him to Jerusalem, thought that the kingdom was to manifest immediately upon his arrival to the city(vs 11). Instead, while Jesus does arrive to Jerusalem triumphantly, the kingdom is not manifested immediately, the Pharisees reject his kingship, and Jesus prophesied of Jerusalem’s destruction and slaughter (vs 28-44) - these very elements are included in the Luke account of the parable!

Your presuppositions on “rewards” and “bodily return”, which are not discussed at all in the surrounding context, are completely missing the point of the parable.

Since you can find scholarly amil and premil commentary that agree that slaughter of the citizens is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad, I dont find it convincing to argue Luke 19 supports or doesn’t support certain millennial views

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.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

It is a parable, does not have to be an exact fit.
The main point is Christ destroys all His enemies at His return

That means those who are unrighteous, anyone who does not believe in Him or know God.

Now what do you make of this, in v30, anyone who is not with Christ is Christ's enemy when He returns

29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

*************
There are no neutral persons.
Example of this

Ephesians 2
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the [a]course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,

3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

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 ?

 

[Zao is life]

Greetings Spiritual Israelite,

When does the Battle of Armageddon occur, and who are the people who will beat their swords into plowshares?

Revelation 16:15–16 (KJV): 15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. 16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

Isaiah 2:1–4 (KJV): 1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Is the fact that there will not be any more war be because all the people will be destroyed and there will no nations left on the earth?

Kind regards
Trevor

The last days

-- God, who at many times and in many ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds, -- Hebrews 1:1.

-- And it shall be, in the last days the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it. And many people shall go and say, Come, and let us go to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob.

The LORD's house

-- Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. Then the Jews said, This temple was forty-six years building, and will you rear it up in three days?

But He spoke of the temple of His body. Therefore when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. -- John 2:19-22

The mountain of the LORD's house

-- Jesus said to her, Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you shall neither worship the Father in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know, we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.

But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him. God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

The woman said to Him, I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. When He has come, He will tell us all things. Jesus said to her, I AM, He speaking to you. -- John 4:21-26.

Judging among the nations

-- And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as all of you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, all of you have done it unto me.

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as all of you did it not to one of the least of these, all of you did it not to me. -- Extract from Matthew 25:31-46

He teaches us His ways

-- God, who at many times and in many ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds, -- Hebrews 1:1.

- And it shall be, in the last days the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it. And many people shall go and say, Come, and let us go to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob.

And He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths. For out of Zion shall go out the Law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come and let us walk in the light of the LORD. -- Isaiah 2:2-5

The nations who are (truly) in the Kingdom of Christ do not take up weapons against one another.

The mountain of the LORD's house. Exalted above the hills.

-- But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are written in Heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. -- Hebrews 12:22-25.

And all nations shall flow into it.

-- whom He also called, not only us, of Jews, but also of the nations | Gentiles? -- Romans 9:24

-- (as it has been written, "I have made you a father of many nations") --before God, whom he believed, who makes the dead live, and calls the things which do not exist as though they do exist. -- Romans 4:17

-- And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off, and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

Now therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom every building having been fitly framed together, grows into a holy sanctuary in the Lord; in whom you also are built together for a dwelling place of God through the Spirit. -- Ephesians 2:17-22​

 

[Zao is life]

Please follow what Jesus taught here in relation to what will happen when He comes again.

Luke 17:26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” [36] 37 “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”

This passage is also a problem for premills, in general, because it doesn't leave any mortals to populate the earth when Jesus returns. We know those who are taken up to meet the Lord will be changed and have immortal bodies. As I showed here, those left behind are all killed. So, who exactly would the mortals be that populate the earth for a thousand years after His return in this case? It wouldn't be possible based on what Jesus taught.

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.

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

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.

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),

and who does not.

The difference between Christ the Creator and man the creature gets forgotten when the saints hear the words "eternal life" and "immortality". They forget that eternal life is in Christ and given in Christ to those who belong to Him.

No one seems to remember that the second death is the destruction of death and hades in the lake of fire, and in-between the first death (Adam's death) and the second death came the resurrection of the dead (Christ's resurrection).

And almost no Premillennialists understand that the resurrection of the body at the time of Christ's return and immortality and "no more death" go together like a hand in a glove:

"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." (1 Corinthians 15:54)

"God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will there be any more pain; for the first things passed away." (Revelation 21:4).

In short, in the minds of most saints, believing that God has given us eternal life and that we will be immortal falls short of remembering that eternal life for created human beings is in Christ alone, who alone has life in Himself, and therefore alone possesses His immortality in Himself, and falls short of the saints remembering who the Creator is as opposed to who the creature is, and what first and original lie - and whose faith in that lie - brought death into paradise in the first place.

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).
​