LOL. I get my understanding from what Jesus Himself taught about this age and the age to come, so, once again, you have no idea of what you're talking about.
Literally, you don't. You take what Jesus said and misapply it to your interpretation of other Scriptures, which you also do not fully interpret, but cherry pick ideal words. That is what an idealist does who claims much of Scripture is just symbolism, and they have figured out an idealistic theology, and those with a literal view are scoffed at.
Jesus provided the last day resurrection, because the Cross was a new age that came. There was a resurrection at the Cross, indicating the OT economy was done away with for good. God would no longer meet once a year in the Holy of Holies through a single priest. Those OT redeemed were resurrected out of the valley of the shadow of death, and physically entered Paradise. That was a separation of ages, whether you accept it or not. All you claim is Satan was bound up, which he wasn't, but that is an idealistic spin on the difference between the OT age and the NT age, without a definite age change. You can ignore a literal reality for a fake idealistic opinion.
You fail to see God's Word indicating more than your single age, just like those scoffers in 2 Peter 3, who claimed only one age, and no changes since the beginning. That is why Peter pointed out the world before the Flood, and the world after the Flood. Or the age before the Flood, and the age after the Flood. It was the same world, yet an age indicates a drastic change in the relationship between God and humans. There were many humans who were sons of God living on earth. All those who sinned, God destroyed.
Now in the age after the Flood people needed to repent, because all were born sinners, and they had to work at being righteous like Job and Abraham. But even all that work of righteous, in the OT was just viewed as filthy rags, because after the Cross, we are clothed in God's righteousness.
People may make up their own theological ages, but to ignore those pointed out in Scripture, is either willfully being ignorant, or just a wrong theological position one has taken at odds with another wrong theological position. Like the Pharisees arguing with the Sadducees over the point of the resurrection.
God still used Paul, even though at times he seemed proud to be a Pharisee. Notice who even asked Jesus the question, those who did not accept a resurrection at all.
"Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife."
"And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him."
You interpret Jesus' answer as a brand new doctrine introduced by Jesus that there is only 2 ages. That was not even the question. It was about a resurrection, not two different ages. But you want to take the underlying implication, that this world here below is an age, and the heavenly realm is a different age. You fail to see that both are happening concurrently at the same time. Heaven is not waiting to be created in the future. Paradise was already a reality, it just could not be entered into until after the Cross.
Jesus placed the emphasis on a resurrection to get to the heavenly world, and leave the earthly one behind. The answer was directed at the Sadducees, who obviously thought like some here, it would be a spiritual age where the flesh no longer existed at all. So if you interpret it like you do, you are preaching the theology of the Sadducees, who view the future the same way you do.
While the Pharisees taught a bodily physical resurrection back to earth, they were not as wrong as the Sadducees. Since Paul never condemned the Pharisees on their position of the resurrection, but used it to his advantage, then Paul did not think they were that unsound in doctrine. I keep pointing out that Paul differed from them, that the resurrection had already occurred, but they were not to worry, because all in Christ would be changed. But you all seem to miss the subtlety of Paul's writings and stick with the view of the Sadducees. I know you are Sadducees, because you keep telling posters they are Pharisees, and it is the same argument of the resurrection they had in the first century.
How can you miss Luke's footnote?
"Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him."
God was always the God of the living. After the Cross, those living were doing so in physical bodies in Paradise. They would never die again ever. They do not procreate, nor have personal relationships, as the marrying and being given in marriage implies. It is not Jesus, that makes the point about the dead being raised. This could have been before Lazarus, though we are not told. Luke is pointing out after the Cross, the dead had been raised. But I am sure this interpretation, puts your interpretation at odds with Scripture, even though you will stick with your own opinions and theology. Even if you claim Jesus said that the dead were raised, you have to prove who and what dead. You have to prove how and why. I would just go with Scripture and Matthew tells us the OT were resurrected at the Cross. Paul tells us those in Abraham's bosom were able to ascend out of Abraham's bosom and into Paradise, that heavenly city.
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. ) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:"
This age change from OT to NT allowed a physical resurrection into Paradise, and at the same time opened the ability of all the redeemed on earth to be gifted with power from the Holy Spirit. Amil seem to miss that point in:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits."
The firstfruits were all the OT redeemed, they were the first in the order of being made alive. You deny this resurrection, and call it a different resurrection, that may be ideal, but not reality. The second birth is being born into God's spiritual family, and does take us out of death into life, and is ongoing, just like the physical resurrection is ongoing evey time the soul leaves Adam's flesh for God's permanent incorruptible physical body. 2 Corinthians 5:1.
The second birth is not the first resurrection. A birth indicates no previous existence. You were never in God's family, kicked out, and brought back. Adam was the one kicked out, not you. Now you are made alive, a brand new existence by Christ, and after physical death given a first, physical resurrection. But the spiritual birth happens while you are physically alive. The first resurrection happens when you physically die. It does not matter how plausible idealistic theology can sound. You can even write songs about it for entertainment. Idealism cannot change reality. Idealism can just put a spin on reality that sounds nice.
