Most difficulty surrounds Matthew 27:53. What does this relate to? Is this speaking about the earthly city or the heavenly city? After the cross what was “the holy city”?
Matthew 27:53 tells us: “And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
The theologians have debated this passage for years and have arrived at varying positions. A lot can be influenced by one’s theological position. I would conclude that this is talking about the heavenly abode. This was a heavenly testimony of the victory of Christ.
Without any reference to theologians or the things they say I've arrived at the same conclusion - that the above verse is more likely calling New Jerusalem the holy city - because it would be contrary to the rest of the New Testament and to the Revelation's own identification of the holy city, were it speaking about the Jerusalem that is in bondage with her children, since they were resurrected saints, therefore there would be no reason why they would not have entered into the same New Jerusalem / holy city that
all saints enter through Christ, and through our faith in Christ.
There is also no historical record of disciples or anyone else seeing those resurrected ones walking about in the earthly Jerusalem, and it's extremely odd (to say the least) for there to be not one peep in recorded history of what, to every person who saw them, would have been the greatest event since the fall of Adam, aside from the resurrection of Christ.
Premils concentrate their eyes upon the wrong Jerusalem and elevate the wrong Israel.
The above is a slur. And possibly a deliberate one. I'm a Premillennialist. We do not all think the same. To begin with, Historic Premillennialism is not the same as Dispensational Premillennialism. I think you're aware of this.
So for you to put all Premillennialists into the above category is false, and can easily be seen as a failed attempt to slur Premillnennialism and Premillennialists in general.
What you say about New Jerusalem is true, in my opinion.
Many today have their eyes on the wrong Jerusalem and places hopes upon it that are in clear conflict with Scripture. They seem to forget, the old temporal earthly type has been replaced by the new heavenly eternal reality.
I agree - but Christians also need to be partially spiritually blinded by their own theology though (which is what Amillennialism always does to Christians) if they have failed to notice that the devil is at war against the Jews who are not even saved, and against their right to occupy the lands of the Davidic kingdom of Israel, part of which they currently occupy, which happens to be the same lands that God gave to their forefathers.
Of course, if anyone believes Satan is now currently bound and cannot deceive the nations, then such a person is already partially spiritually blinded by his own (false) theology, and will not notice that what is going on in the Middle East today is
a spiritual war of evil against good, despite most Jews not being citizens of New Jerusalem through their unbelief of Christ.
Amillennialists ignore the inspired Word of God in Romans 11:28 which says very clearly and unambiguously that though they are enemies of the gospel they who are the seed of Abraham by birth are nevertheless
beloved of God for the sake of the fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).
In Romans 11:28 God is telling ALL those who believe in Christ (but only those who have ears to hear will hear) that though most Jews do not believe in Christ, and
are therefore broken off from His elect (through their unbelief), yet
He still loves them for the sake of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Amillennialists downplay or at the very least de-emphasize the word "love" [agapētós, from the word agapē] in Romans 11:28, as though God does not mean what He says.
Amillennialists also take all the promises of God made by God through the prophets of the Old Testament regarding
the new earth in the new heavens and new earth, and
spiritualize them into a religion that is foreign to the Christianity once delivered and established by the apostles of Christ.
This is why they remain partially blinded to the full counsel of God.
The next greatest debate is over Revelation 11:1-2. Again, is this talking about the earthly or heavenly city?
My other posts in this thread already gave my standpoint on the above. What is written in Revelation 11:1-2 is about something to take place before the 7th trumpet sounds, and cannot be talking about the same city Paul stated is in bondage with her children, and which Revelation 11:8 calls the city "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified".
Therefore Revelation 11:1-2 can only refer to the New Testament Temple of God (which is the only Temple of God) and
the same 42 months that Revelation 13:5-7 is referring to.
The greatest way to understand these challenging passages is to employ other relevant Scripture in the New Testament in order to aid our understanding.
When you always add unnecessary comments like the above which state the obvious when you are talking to adult Christians (and not to children), it rightly always appears as a veiled attempt at making a pretense of knowing better than all other adult Christians regarding the conclusions you are about to express, though some of them may be in error.
IMO you should remove all such unnecessary additions from your store-house of copy and paste posts because adults do not like to be spoken to like they are children, and you may end up annoying a lot of people, hence they will not even consider anything you say
after such statements.
Though we're on the same page regarding New Jerusalem, IMO you wrongly interpret
the location in time of the camp of the saints | beloved city of Revelation 20:9 - and you do this because your belief in Amil has blinded you to the extent that you
completely disregard the
obvious location in time of what Revelation 20:4-6 is saying, and falsely turn the binding of Satan and shutting up of Satan in the abyss, into a house-arrest where he is still free to walk to and fro on the earth as long as he reports to his probation officer - and you do so without any biblical support aside from the passages in the Bible that you have
imagined support such a thing.