I will raise them on the last day.

[Aunty Jane]

That didn't answer the question

Apparently you are not getting the answer you are looking for despite the many explanations you have been offered.

What does it really matter if the thousand year reign of Christ is literal or figurative...it will all turn out the same way anyhow....it is God’s time “for restoration of all things”.
It makes sense to believe it is literal, like the many times that it is in Scripture....but it won’t matter if it’s not"

Some believe that the “elect” are a literal 144,000...others not...but again what does it matter if God is directing the whole thing? It will all take place in his own time and in his own way....

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Come on, Martin. Even 100 can be figurative at times. For example---if I told you once, I told you 100 times. Does that then mean '100' can never be literal sometimes? And besides, we are talking about years here, a cardinal number followed by years. Provide at least one example in all of the Bible, where a cardinal number followed by years isn't literally meaning the amount specified.

Some random examples.

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:


Should we take this 130 years to mean any number we want to make it mean? Or should we take it to mean exactly what it says, 130 years?

2 Samuel 13:38 So Absalom fled, and went to Geshur, and was there three years.

Should we take this 3 years to mean any number we want to make it mean? Or should we take it to mean exactly what it says, 3 years?

Luke 2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

Should we take this 12years to mean any number we want to make it mean? Or should we take it to mean exactly what it says, 12 years?

There are hundreds, probably even thousands, of more examples like this. Simply find an example or two that supports how you are reasoning a thousand years, that it is not meaning a literal thousand years. Otherwise, the entire Bible, from the OT through the NT, reveals that when a cardinal number is followed by years, it always means the amount of years specified, literally.

Therefore, that is the pattern throughout the Bible unless you can prove otherwise by providing an example or two, like I did above, where it is plainly obvious that the amount of years specified don't literally mean the amount of years specified. If you can find an example like that, that means you could be correct about the thousand years after all, since the passage/s you found and submitted support how you are reasoning a thousand years. But unless you can do that first, you have proved and have solved zero.

I'm willing to be reasonable here, but are you as well? After all, I'm willing to admit that if you can find an example or two that support how you are reasoning a thousand years, this would mean you could be correct after all, in regards to how you are reasoning the thousand years. Are you able to be reasonable in return? That if you can't find an example that supports how you are reasoning a thousand years, that you are then willing to admit that the way you are reasoning the thousand years may not be correct, since no other passage supports cardinal numbers followed by years are sometimes used figuratively, thus not meant in the literal sense.

He didn't say that the word thousand is never used literally in scripture, so you once again have wasted your time with an unnecessary post.

 

[Marty fox]

Apparently you are not getting the answer you are looking for despite the many explanations you have been offered.

What does it really matter if the thousand year reign of Christ is literal or figurative...it will all turn out the same way anyhow....it is God’s time “for restoration of all things”.
It makes sense to believe it is literal, like the many times that it is in Scripture....but it won’t matter if it’s not"

Some believe that the “elect” are a literal 144,000...others not...but again what does it matter if God is directing the whole thing? It will all take place in his own time and in his own way....

Its not the point of if the thousand years are literal or not, what matters is what the thousand years actually are because truth matters.

The same with the 144 000 who they are matters

 

[Aunty Jane]

Its not the point of if the thousand years are literal or not what matters is what the thousand years actually are because truth matters.

I agree, but apparently my truth is not your truth.....I have no issue with either of those questions because I know what the Bible says about both of them...I believe that the thousand years are literal as reference to "the last day" when the resurrection takes place....its what Martha believed about her brother. The thousand years reign of Christ is clearly stated. (Rev 20:6) Its purpose is for Christ and his elect to undo all the damage caused by satan's rebellion. He was the instigator of it all, and the lengths that God has gone to, to show him up for what he is...a bold faced liar....this allows for the vindication of Jehovah's sovereignty and the preservation of free will as he intended for it to be used for the benefit of others rather than ourselves. Every sin committed is an abuse of free will.

The same with the 144 000 who they are matters

I know who they are for the same reason. The "first resurrection" takes place before "the resurrection on the last day". (John 5:28-29)
Those resurrected "first" are the 144,000 which I believe is a literal number because this group is contrasted with the other group, whom "no man could number". (Rev 7:4: 9, 10, 13, 14)
A finite group contrasted with an infinite one make no sense unless the finite number is literal.

But splitting hairs about what will take place is a futile exercise as we will all know in the end and it won't make a scrap of difference to the outcome.

 

[Marty fox]

I agree, but apparently my truth is not your truth.....I have no issue with either of those questions because I know what the Bible says about both of them...I believe that the thousand years are literal as reference to "the last day" when the resurrection takes place....its what Martha believed about her brother. The thousand years reign of Christ is clearly stated. (Rev 20:6) Its purpose is for Christ and his elect to undo all the damage caused by satan's rebellion. He was the instigator of it all, and the lengths that God has gone to, to show him up for what he is...a bold faced liar....this allows for the vindication of Jehovah's sovereignty and the preservation of free will as he intended for it to be used for the benefit of others rather than ourselves. Every sin committed is an abuse of free will.

I know who they are for the same reason. The "first resurrection" takes place before "the resurrection on the last day". (John 5:28-29)
Those resurrected "first" are the 144,000 which I believe is a literal number because this group is contrasted with the other group, whom "no man could number". (Rev 7:4: 9, 10, 13, 14)
A finite group contrasted with an infinite one make no sense unless the finite number is literal.

But splitting hairs about what will take place is a futile exercise as we will all know in the end and it won't make a scrap of difference to the outcome.

Revelation 20:4
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

This is one of the most controversial verses in the entire bible and a lot of Christians believe that it has to be a future event because they believe that it's on the resurrection day. But according to Paul he stated three times that it was a current reality back in his day.

Here below are the three texts.

Ephesians 2:4-6
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

In the verses above Paul states that we were already made alive, raised up and seated with Christ in the heavenly realms.

Colossians 3:1
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Once again Paul states that we have already been raised up with Christ.

Romans 5:17
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Finally in the verse above Paul states that we reign in life through Jesus.

All of these verses were a current reality while alive in the physical body almost two thousand years ago. If it was a reality back, then it is still a reality today.

Paul ties three events directly to Revelation 20:4 "that we have been made alive", "seated with Christ in the heavenly realms" and that "we reign (in life) through Jesus".

Why do so many Christians not accept this even though Paul declares it? Because they are focused on it being physical not spiritual. They focus on the physical because it mentions saints that were beheaded by the beast and the thousand years.

But let's let scripture interpret scripture. Paul teaches that its spiritual and what John is saying in Revelation 20:4 is that even though the saints are beheaded they still live and reign spiritually the soul doesn't die with the body. It's a promise even though you may die for Jesus you will still live and reign spiritually. The beast can kill the body but not the soul.

Thus, according to Paul we reign in life now and have been for almost two thousand years we are not limited to a literal thousand years God has a better longer plan.

 

[Davidpt]

Do we and Jesus only reign because satan is bound or do we and Jesus reign because Jesus is Lord of Lord and Kings of kings?

It can't be a coincidence that when the 1K year reign takes place is when satan's binding takes place. The context involves a period of time that has a beginning and an end. And during that era of time is when the text indicates saints are reigning with Christ. Obviously, once the 1K years expire, they are not still reigning with Christ 1K years since that is a contradiction. This 1K years would be in the past at this point.

It would be like, for example, let's say, keeping it simple here in order to illustrate the point, the 1K reign is meaning from 1000 AD to 2000 AD. Once 1000 AD through 2000 AD comes and goes, and that now it is beyond 2000 AD, it is silly to think, that during beyond 2000 AD they are still reigning during 1000 AD through 2000 AD. No they are not. 1000 AD through 2000 AD is in the past at this point.

Do you think every example that you provided were all exactly years to the exact day?

Maybe not exact years to the day, but 3 years, for example, certainly wouldn't be meaning 1 year, nor 2 years, nor 4 years, etc. It means 3 years. After all, 3 comes after 2, 4 comes after 3, so on and so on, neither of those numbers mean 3. Nor does 7 mean 5 nor 6. Meaning Amil has the Millennium, day 7, occurring during day 5 and 6, since they insist day 7 has been paralleling the past 2k years. The past 2k years would be representing day 5 and 6 after Adam fell. Basing that on 1K year days.

It is absurd that 'a day' can only mean 24 hours, never an era of time involving more than 24 hours. As if the following, for example, 1000 AD to 2000 AD, does not pertain to an era of time involving 1K years. And if one wanted to mention numerous things that happened throughout 1000 AD through 2000 AD, it would not be incorrect to say, in that day, this occurred, and that occurred, so on and so on, meaning 'in that day' represents this era of time from 1000 AD through 2000 AD.

And that we know from 2 Peter 3:8, prophetically speaking, that one day is as thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Why did Peter need to say that twice like that? Likely because he doesn't want anyone to be ignorant about it. Yet some remain ignorant about it, regardless. Not Peter's fault though. As if that verse is teaching God is outside of time. As if no one would already know that from the OT alone. Therefore, what was Peter not wanting one to be ignorant of? Something that everyone already knows, that God is outside of time?

Even though God is outside of time, a literal thousand years still can't mean a literal million years, any more than 3 years, or 7 years, or 100 years, can mean a million years. Imagine from 1000 AD through 2000 AD, that this could be involving a million years rather than 1K years? Even God Himself, who is outside of time, can't make 1K years mean 1 million years. Keeping in mind, I'm meaning literally here. After all, for example, 1000 AD through 2000 AD involve a literal 1K years not a literal 1 million years.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Why do so many Christians not accept this even though Paul declares it? Because they are focused on it being physical not spiritual. They focus on the physical because it mentions saints that were beheaded by the beast and the thousand years.

I believe that you are missing the point of Paul’s words....You say that that they are “focussed on the physical not the spiritual”, but I believe that you are doing the same thing.

What Paul declared is that “...God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.”
How were Paul and his fellow saints “made alive “ when they were “dead in their transgressions”? Wasn’t it spiritually, whilst they were still in the flesh that they were “made alive”?

His reference to being ‘raised up with Christ in the heavenly realms’ was the future hope of all who were chosen for a role in the Kingdom. Paul indicated when they expected that to take place....

1 Thess 4:13-16...ESV
“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.”

Paul knew that the “first” resurrection was to take place at Christ’s return....no one knew when that would be, but the disciples felt it would be immanent......yet Christendom is still waiting for that return, yet it was then that the saints are raised to be with Christ in heaven. If Christ has not yet returned, then that resurrection has not yet taken place....Scripture interprets Scripture......

But let's let scripture interpret scripture. Paul teaches that its spiritual and what John is saying in Revelation 20:4 is that even though the saints are beheaded they still live and reign spiritually the soul doesn't die with the body.

Again referring to the Revelation as something that is entirely literal is a mistake, as Jesus said it was delivered in “signs” or symbolic language as a reading of that book will tell us. What is the symbolism?
When John saw the “souls” of those beheaded, where were they?

“Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. . . . .Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.” (Rev 20:4, 6 ESV)

Since this is about those who lost their lives in martyrdom, who had not worshipped the beast or its image (something that was to take place before Christ’s judgment) They came to life as those who share in the “first resurrection”...they are raised immortal, not subject to the second death. But read on....”they WILL BE priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for the thousand years”....future tense.
Until that time, they would “sleep”.

The Bible does not teach that we have an immortal soul that lives on immediately after death....the “soul” is a living breathing creature....both humans and animals are called “souls” in the Bible. Adam “became” a soul when God started him breathing.

The only way to regain life is by resurrection....which is a return to life, not a continuation of it......an event that adoption of this false doctrine, has made redundant.

It's a promise even though you may die for Jesus you will still live and reign spiritually. The beast can kill the body but not the soul.

I believe you are jumping the gun here....Being “made alive in Christ” is coming to life spiritually, but as for the part where they are to reign with Jesus.....that is the beginning of the thousand years.

Jesus said....”And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Ge·henʹna.”

What is “Gehenna” (erroneously translated as “hell” in many Bible translations) It is a place where “body and soul are DESTROYED”. There is no life in that place...the second death is permanent.

There are no “souls” in heaven because souls are earth bound creatures.
The word “soul” is synonymous with life....

Thus, according to Paul we reign in life now and have been for almost two thousand years we are not limited to a literal thousand years God has a better longer plan.

Paul knew he was speaking about the future....but how far in the future he did not know, nor did anyone but the Father as Jesus said...

“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. . . . .Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. . . . Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Matt 24:36-39, 42, 44 ESV)

Everything was future....their choosing was in the present in their day, but the fulfilment of Jesus’ words and indeed all of the apostles, was at a future time......that time is now. We are at the very end of the last days.

Are we ready for the judgment that is about to take place? It’s coming “at an hour we do not expect”....

 

[Marty fox]

It can't be a coincidence that when the 1K year reign takes place is when satan's binding takes place. The context involves a period of time that has a beginning and an end. And during that era of time is when the text indicates saints are reigning with Christ. Obviously, once the 1K years expire, they are not still reigning with Christ 1K years since that is a contradiction. This 1K years would be in the past at this point.

It would be like, for example, let's say, keeping it simple here in order to illustrate the point, the 1K reign is meaning from 1000 AD to 2000 AD. Once 1000 AD through 2000 AD comes and goes, and that now it is beyond 2000 AD, it is silly to think, that during beyond 2000 AD they are still reigning during 1000 AD through 2000 AD. No they are not. 1000 AD through 2000 AD is in the past at this point.



Maybe not exact years to the day, but 3 years, for example, certainly wouldn't be meaning 1 year, nor 2 years, nor 4 years, etc. It means 3 years. After all, 3 comes after 2, 4 comes after 3, so on and so on, neither of those numbers mean 3. Nor does 7 mean 5 nor 6. Meaning Amil has the Millennium, day 7, occurring during day 5 and 6, since they insist day 7 has been paralleling the past 2k years. The past 2k years would be representing day 5 and 6 after Adam fell. Basing that on 1K year days.

It is absurd that 'a day' can only mean 24 hours, never an era of time involving more than 24 hours. As if the following, for example, 1000 AD to 2000 AD, does not pertain to an era of time involving 1K years. And if one wanted to mention numerous things that happened throughout 1000 AD through 2000 AD, it would not be incorrect to say, in that day, this occurred, and that occurred, so on and so on, meaning 'in that day' represents this era of time from 1000 AD through 2000 AD.

And that we know from 2 Peter 3:8, prophetically speaking, that one day is as thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Why did Peter need to say that twice like that? Likely because he doesn't want anyone to be ignorant about it. Yet some remain ignorant about it, regardless. Not Peter's fault though. As if that verse is teaching God is outside of time. As if no one would already know that from the OT alone. Therefore, what was Peter not wanting one to be ignorant of? Something that everyone already knows, that God is outside of time?

Even though God is outside of time, a literal thousand years still can't mean a literal million years, any more than 3 years, or 7 years, or 100 years, can mean a million years. Imagine from 1000 AD through 2000 AD, that this could be involving a million years rather than 1K years? Even God Himself, who is outside of time, can't make 1K years mean 1 million years. Keeping in mind, I'm meaning literally here. After all, for example, 1000 AD through 2000 AD involve a literal 1K years not a literal 1 million years.

Let’s start fresh and not just think that this isn’t a coincidence and figure it out one step at a time.

Do we reign with Jesus because satan is bound or because Jesus is God?

 

[Marty fox]

I believe that you are missing the point of Paul’s words....You say that that they are “focussed on the physical not the spiritual”, but I believe that you are doing the same thing.

What Paul declared is that “...God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.”
How were Paul and his fellow saints “made alive “ when they were “dead in their transgressions”? Wasn’t it spiritually, whilst they were still in the flesh that they were “made alive”?

His reference to being ‘raised up with Christ in the heavenly realms’ was the future hope of all who were chosen for a role in the Kingdom. Paul indicated when they expected that to take place....

1 Thess 4:13-16...ESV
“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.”

Paul knew that the “first” resurrection was to take place at Christ’s return....no one knew when that would be, but the disciples felt it would be immanent......yet Christendom is still waiting for that return, yet it was then that the saints are raised to be with Christ in heaven. If Christ has not yet returned, then that resurrection has not yet taken place....Scripture interprets Scripture......

Again referring to the Revelation as something that is entirely literal is a mistake, as Jesus said it was delivered in “signs” or symbolic language as a reading of that book will tell us. What is the symbolism?
When John saw the “souls” of those beheaded, where were they?

“Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. . . . .Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.” (Rev 20:4, 6 ESV)

Since this is about those who lost their lives in martyrdom, who had not worshipped the beast or its image (something that was to take place before Christ’s judgment) They came to life as those who share in the “first resurrection”...they are raised immortal, not subject to the second death. But read on....”they WILL BE priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for the thousand years”....future tense.
Until that time, they would “sleep”.

The Bible does not teach that we have an immortal soul that lives on immediately after death....the “soul” is a living breathing creature....both humans and animals are called “souls” in the Bible. Adam “became” a soul when God started him breathing.

The only way to regain life is by resurrection....which is a return to life, not a continuation of it......an event that adoption of this false doctrine, has made redundant.


I believe you are jumping the gun here....Being “made alive in Christ” is coming to life spiritually, but as for the part where they are to reign with Jesus.....that is the beginning of the thousand years.

Jesus said....”And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Ge·henʹna.”

What is “Gehenna” (erroneously translated as “hell” in many Bible translations) It is a place where “body and soul are DESTROYED”. There is no life in that place...the second death is permanent.

There are no “souls” in heaven because souls are earth bound creatures.
The word “soul” is synonymous with life....



Paul knew he was speaking about the future....but how far in the future he did not know, nor did anyone but the Father as Jesus said...

“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. . . . .Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. . . . Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Matt 24:36-39, 42, 44 ESV)

Everything was future....their choosing was in the present in their day, but the fulfilment of Jesus’ words and indeed all of the apostles, was at a future time......that time is now. We are at the very end of the last days.

Are we ready for the judgment that is about to take place? It’s coming “at an hour we do not expect”....

I’m not doing the same thing at all I’m saying that the reigning is spiritual while we’re either up in heaven or on the earth

 

[Aunty Jane]

I’m not doing the same thing at all I’m saying that the reigning is spiritual while we’re either up in heaven or on the earth

In what way do you imagine that Christ has been reigning on earth for the last 2000 years?
The “first resurrection” doesn’t even take place until Christ’s return.....has he come as judge while none of us noticed?
Please explain...

 

[Marty fox]

In what way do you imagine that Christ has been reigning on earth for the last 2000 years?
The “first resurrection” doesn’t even take place until Christ’s return.....has he come as judge while none of us noticed?
Please explain...

The first resurrection happened at the cross

Matthew 27
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

 

[ewq1938]

People get the timing of the rapture wrong and it is a serious error.
People also get the timing of the thousand years wrong (and making it longer than it is) and that is just as serious of an error, actually moreso

 

[ewq1938]

Let’s start fresh and not just think that this isn’t a coincidence and figure it out one step at a time.

Do we reign with Jesus because satan is bound or because Jesus is God?

This is a strawman fallacy because no one thinks the reign is solely because satan is bound AND IMPRISONED. Amill always ignores the imprisoned part because he is not imprisoned in Amill.

 

[ewq1938]

The first resurrection happened at the cross

No, it did not. All resurrections of believers prior to Rev 20 are just regular resurrections, none to immortality except Christ. Those who were resurrected at the cross were of a smaller number while the actual first resurrection involves all the saved dead not just part and the FR is to immortality. That happens only at the second coming, not before.

 

[Marty fox]

This is a strawman fallacy because no one thinks the reign is solely because satan is bound AND IMPRISONED. Amill always ignores the imprisoned part because he is not imprisoned in Amill.

Then why do so many people think that the reigning ends in Revelation 20:7?

 

[Marty fox]

No, it did not. All resurrections of believers prior to Rev 20 are just regular resurrections, none to immortality except Christ. Those who were resurrected at the cross were of a smaller number while the actual first resurrection involves all the saved dead not just part and the FR is to immortality. That happens only at the second coming, not before.

If they rose first then they are the fIrst resection

 

[Aunty Jane]

The first resurrection happened at the cross

Since this happened at the moment Jesus died, when the earthquake struck as he passed away, that means that these were resurrected before Jesus was. He was not resurrected for three days.

Matthew 27
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

The phrasing in this is uncertain and for something as monumental as this suggests, if you are correct in your assumption, why didn’t the other gospels record it? Why only Matthew?

And Matthew does not say that “the holy ones” were “raised up.”.....he says that their “bodies” were. Evidently, the earthquake was so powerful that the tombs were broken open and corpses were thrown out of them.
It could well be that those who witnessed these bodies being unearthed in the earthquake, (“they”) went into Jerusalem to report it after Jesus was resurrected.

We can’t take these things at face value, because they have been subliminally altered by those who believe a lie. Paul clearly tells us that the “first resurrection” doesn’t take place until Christ’s return....so it couldn’t have happened back then.

 

[Marty fox]

Since this happened at the moment Jesus died, when the earthquake struck as he passed away, that means that these were resurrected before Jesus was. He was not resurrected for three days.

The phrasing in this is uncertain and for something as monumental as this suggests, if you are correct in your assumption, why didn’t the other gospels record it? Why only Matthew?

And Matthew does not say that “the holy ones” were “raised up.”.....he says that their “bodies” were. Evidently, the earthquake was so powerful that the tombs were broken open and corpses were thrown out of them.
It could well be that those who witnessed these bodies being unearthed in the earthquake, (“they”) went into Jerusalem to report it after Jesus was resurrected.

We can’t take these things at face value, because they have been subliminally altered by those who believe a lie. Paul clearly tells us that the “first resurrection” doesn’t take place until Christ’s return....so it couldn’t have happened back then.

If you are denying that what Matthew recorded here took place then our conversation is over because it will never be sorTed out there is no biblical authority and you are denying the scriptures

 

[Davidpt]

Then why do so many people think that the reigning ends in Revelation 20:7?

I can’t speak for every Premil out there, but here’s how I see it.

No one is reigning with Christ a thousand years until the thousand years actually begin. And once those thousand years are over, that specific reign is over too. There’s a big difference between being reigned over by Christ and reigning with Christ a thousand years. The second one clearly describes a time period----it has a starting point and an ending point, just like Revelation 20 lays out.

So it doesn’t really make sense to say someone is reigning with Christ a thousand years before the thousand years even start, or after they’ve finished. That reign belongs to that specific era---the millennium---which begins after Satan is bound and Christ’s kingdom is established on earth.

Something else that might be relevant here. Since, in my mind there is a difference between being reigned over and reigning with. The following parable proves that Christ reigns over someone while He is away, not someone reigns with Christ while He is away.

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


There has to be an opposite. The opposite is this. Those of His who are not His enemies allowed Him to reign over them while He is away. Once again, reigning over someone and reigning with someone couldn't possibly mean the same thing. At least I don't think so.


----------------------------------

Pertaining to my point in the end of my post above regarding being reigned over vs reigning with, I then asked Chatgpt the following. BTW, above the dotted line above, none of that had anything to do with me conversing with Chatgpt.
------------------

Me:
Is it a valid argument in general, that there is a difference between being reigned over and reigning with? A thousand years aside. Let's just take that out of the equation for a moment.
-------------------

Chatgpt:
Yes, it’s a valid argument to point out that there’s a significant difference between *being reigned over* and *reigning with*, and this distinction can apply both biblically and logically — whether or not we’re talking about the thousand-year period in Revelation.

### **1. Conceptual Difference**

* **Being reigned over** means being under the authority or sovereignty of someone. This is a *passive* position where you submit to the ruler’s authority, but you’re not necessarily an active participant in the ruling. This is the idea of *subjecthood*.

* **Example:** A king reigns over his people, and the people follow his laws. They don’t participate in the ruling process — they simply submit to it.
* In a biblical sense, this could describe the relationship between Christ and the world today (e.g., God reigns over creation, people are subject to His rule even if they don’t acknowledge it).

* **Reigning with** someone, on the other hand, implies sharing in their authority and ruling alongside them. This is an *active* position where you participate in decision-making or the exercise of power. It's more than being a subject; it’s being a co-ruler.

* **Example:** A monarch might have co-regents or trusted officials who share in ruling the kingdom. The co-regents would have real authority, not just as subjects, but as fellow rulers.
* Biblically, this can refer to the idea that believers will share in Christ’s rule in the future (Revelation 20:4-6), where the saints are actively reigning with Him in His Kingdom.

### **2. Biblical Precedents for Both**

* **Being Reigned Over:**

* **Psalm 103:19** – "The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all." This is a clear example of God's sovereignty over all creation. We’re all under His rule.
* **1 Corinthians 15:24** – "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power." This shows Christ reigning over all until the final victory, where all things are subjected to Him.
* **Reigning With:**

* **2 Timothy 2:12** – "If we endure, we will also reign with him." This suggests that believers, as co-heirs with Christ, will actively participate in His reign. This is more than passive subjection — it’s a shared reign.
* **Revelation 20:4-6** – "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." This is clearly a *shared* reign, not just Christ reigning over others.

### **3. Logical Difference**

Even outside of a biblical context, these terms have logical distinctions:

* To be reigned over implies authority is exercised *over* you.
* To reign with someone implies you have authority *with* them — you participate in governance.

In a political sense, if someone says, “I reign with the king,” they’re implying a position of shared power. If they say, “I am reigned over by the king,” they’re simply acknowledging their subordination.

### **4. Theological Implications**

* **The distinction matters** in theological debates about the nature of Christ’s current reign and the future kingdom. Is Christ’s reign now a reign *over* the world, or is He currently reigning *with* His saints?

* **Amillennialists** often see the present reign of Christ as being over all creation through His sovereignty, where believers are subjects in His kingdom, but not actively ruling alongside Him yet.
* **Premillennialists**, on the other hand, interpret the reign with Christ in Revelation as a future, active role where believers will share in His authority during the millennial kingdom.

### **Conclusion**

So yes, the distinction between being reigned over and reigning with is absolutely valid. It’s not just a linguistic nuance but a meaningful theological distinction that shapes how different Christian traditions understand the nature of Christ’s rule, the believer's role, and the future hope of the kingdom. Even setting aside the thousand-year debate, the *active* vs. *passive* role in reigning with Christ vs. being reigned over has significant implications for how we understand our relationship to Christ both now and in the future.

 

[Davidpt]

In regards to post #240 pertaining to being reigned over vs reigning with, well there is the following to take into account here.

Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.


What does this imply about the overcomer being granted this---to him will I give power over the nations? That the overcomers themselves are being reigned over by Christ? Or that the overcomers themselves are reigning with Christ? I think it's meaning the latter myself. It is then a question of, when is this power over the nations initially granted to overcomers? Obviously, not before they overcome, after they overcome first.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


This too involves overcoming first, then being granted to sit with Christ in Christ's throne, not sit with Christ in the Father's throne. IOW, there are obviously 2 thrones in view here.

What does this imply about the overcomer being granted this---I grant to sit with me in my throne? That the overcomers themselves are being reigned over by Christ? Or that the overcomers themselves are reigning with Christ? I think it's meaning the latter myself. It is then a question of, when are the overcomers initially granted to sit with Christ in Christ's throne? The following undeniably tells us the 'when'.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

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.


Only someone with doctrinal bias' would argue that Revelation 3:21 is not meaning Matthew 25:31 nor Matthew 19:28. Only someone with doctrinal bias' would argue that Revelation 3:21 is not involving reigning with Christ a thousand years. Or only someone with doctrinal bias' would argue that Revelation 3:21 is involving reigning with Christ a thousand years, except it applies to the here and now, not after Christ returns first instead. Therefore, they ignoring, thus contradicting, that both Matthew 25:31 and Matthew 19:28 already provide us the 'when'.