Why I believe in the rapture.

[Naomi25]

We do not do any of the work. That is my point. The body does not change when we accept the Atonement. Our soul does not change, it is still us, who we are. The spirit does not change. We are a new creation only in the power of the Holy Spirit. Submitting our will to the will of the Holy Spirit is the only thing that changes. And it is a battle to stay submitted.

I’m afraid this is a nonsensical argument.
You are insisting that resurrection MUST produce a physical change to be called a resurrection. No scripture supports that idea, only presumed bias.
You’re also suggesting that any resurrection of the soul/spirit, would and must mean that our soul/spirit becomes something, or someone different. I’m afraid that’s both nonsense and again, not found anywhere in scripture.
It has nothing to do with whether we do any of the work. Clearly scripture teaches that both new life in body AND spirit is from and of the Lord. I fail to see your attempted point.
I’m afraid your positing that it is not our work, but the Spirits…and that therefore the ONLY thing that changes within us is our submission…is still neither here nor there when it comes to the topic at hand.
Scripture itself tells us, repeatedly, that the changes of ‘new life’ in Christ, which yes, is affected by the Spirit’s work…does, indeed, give us NEW LIFE. We move from death TO life. We gain ETERNAL life. We have a dead, stone heart replaced with one of flesh.
In other words, spiritual resurrection is absolutely biblical, and has absolutely nothing to do with ‘becoming a different person’. Yes, it means we are then capable of submitting our will and life to Christ through the Spirit, but again, the bible paints that as moving from death to life.
I’m really rather baffled at how fixed you remain on dodging the clear meaning and implications of multiple scriptures.

 

[Naomi25]

They do not violate the firstfruits. They are the firstfruits in Christ. The OT redeemed fulfill along with Christ, what being a firstfruits truly is.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


The first order of man is "Christ the firstfruits". Not Christ only. All in Christ before the Cross.

Do you even know what “first fruits” of a harvest means?
The harvest would be bought in, in stages. The first fruits were the parts of the crop that would come off first, usually the choicest parts of the crop. The farmer would be overjoyed at the First fruits, because a good first fruits meant that the rest of the harvest would be “bumper”.
To “keep within” the analogy used by ‘first fruits’, it by necessity must be both ‘first’ and also ‘the best’.
So, when we read “23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.”
We are OUTRIGHT being told that this has a natural order. Christ ‘first’, and AFTERWARD those who are Christs…AT his coming.
I mean…it really can’t get any clearer.

 

[Naomi25]

So there is only one battle because of the mystery surrounding any future event?

Is it any more ‘logical’ to have salvational history repeat itself?
And when I say ‘salvational history’ I’m not talking foreshadowing events. I’m talking about trying to force God’s plan to keep repeating.
For example. The bible tells us a story, essentially. Mankind was made, all was good, until we fell. Then God begins his plan to redeem a people for his own. Israel, and the OT, is mostly spent illustrating how alone, people are beyond helping themselves. They truly need a Saviour, one who will lift his people up, rather than the idea that this people may, by good behaviour, lift themselves up.
That Saviour comes, extends a chance of salvation to the world, to his people. And promises to return to judge all, both good and bad, and usher in a new, eternal life.
Except, for some reason Dispensationalists want to make it all happen again…and then again. First they say that Jesus will return to ‘rescue’ his people, leaving the rest to suffer for 7 years and be given a second chance, at which point there will be a huge battle, and he comes again (second parter). Only…then it must happen AGAIN! In the Millennium everyone has another chance of salvation, and there’s ANOTHER world ending battle between good and evil and THEN its the end. The ‘real’ end.
So honestly? Do you think it is more logical to have ‘the end’ climax in a single battle against good and evil, when Christ returns to redeem his people and punish those who rejected him, Satan as well….OR…do you think its more logical to have it repeat…repeat…repeat? How many chances does the bible really put forth for people? How many times does Satan need to be defeated? How many times can Jesus come in judgment and redemption until it finally sticks?
For my part…I very clearly see the bible telling us the former and zero proof of it teaching the latter.

 

[Naomi25]

Hi @Naomi25 The problem with excessive reliance on logic is that the logical system may seem internally compelling to its advocates or to people willing to be swayed by it, yet as you imply it does not necessarily accord with the statements of Scripture, which is where to go first, right?

Indeed. We live in a world where ‘logic’ can be found and plotted through the most inane and outrageously false territories.
If we are going to be people of the Word, we need to base our ideas AND our logic firmly in what can be found in scripture. Scripture ought to lead us to our understandings, not have our understanding shape our reading of scripture.

 

[Timtofly]

I’m afraid this is a nonsensical argument.
You are insisting that resurrection MUST produce a physical change to be called a resurrection. No scripture supports that idea, only presumed bias.
You’re also suggesting that any resurrection of the soul/spirit, would and must mean that our soul/spirit becomes something, or someone different. I’m afraid that’s both nonsense and again, not found anywhere in scripture.
It has nothing to do with whether we do any of the work. Clearly scripture teaches that both new life in body AND spirit is from and of the Lord. I fail to see your attempted point.
I’m afraid your positing that it is not our work, but the Spirits…and that therefore the ONLY thing that changes within us is our submission…is still neither here nor there when it comes to the topic at hand.
Scripture itself tells us, repeatedly, that the changes of ‘new life’ in Christ, which yes, is affected by the Spirit’s work…does, indeed, give us NEW LIFE. We move from death TO life. We gain ETERNAL life. We have a dead, stone heart replaced with one of flesh.
In other words, spiritual resurrection is absolutely biblical, and has absolutely nothing to do with ‘becoming a different person’. Yes, it means we are then capable of submitting our will and life to Christ through the Spirit, but again, the bible paints that as moving from death to life.
I’m really rather baffled at how fixed you remain on dodging the clear meaning and implications of multiple scriptures.

None of this is what I posted.

When you change the meanings of my post it does not make sense to me either.

Sorry that it seems my simple post are that hard to understand.

Show me one verse that says spiritual resurrection.

The soul does not die. No explanation of a dead soul given. The body dies. The spirit turns into a demon. Is that spiritual death? The soul does not turn into a body. The soul does not turn into a spirit. The soul remains distinct from a body and spirit. The soul puts on a physical body. The soul puts on a spiritual spirit.

The putting on of the spirit will not happen until the Second Coming. But Paradise is a physical place for a physical body. The soul in Paradise puts on a permanent incorruptible physical body. 2 Corinthians 5.

It really does not matter what carnal humans on earth believe. Nor does earthly belief change what is currently going on in Paradise. You do not have to accept what I say, as your acceptance or non acceptance does not change what is actually happening in Paradise. I am not even claiming I am right and every one else is wrong. That is a judgment placed on me by other humans. I am just pointing out a way to look at it, that really does not contradict anything in God's Word. It just contradicts human traditional interpretation. Human interpretation is not what is inspired. God's Word is what is inspired.

 

[Timtofly]

Do you even know what “first fruits” of a harvest means?
The harvest would be bought in, in stages. The first fruits were the parts of the crop that would come off first, usually the choicest parts of the crop. The farmer would be overjoyed at the First fruits, because a good first fruits meant that the rest of the harvest would be “bumper”.
To “keep within” the analogy used by ‘first fruits’, it by necessity must be both ‘first’ and also ‘the best’.
So, when we read “23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.”
We are OUTRIGHT being told that this has a natural order. Christ ‘first’, and AFTERWARD those who are Christs…AT his coming.
I mean…it really can’t get any clearer.

Yes it can get clearer. Lazarus was harvested by the Resurrection and the Life. The OT saints were removed from Abraham's bosom, the firstfruits from Adam until the Cross. These people certainly did not live after the Cross to be harvested. Nor do they have to wait until the GWT to be harvested.

If you claim these are not firstfruits, then the word "firsfruits" is meaningless altogether. Like most, your interpretation of firstfruits is being hyperliteral. Jesus is the chief example, but Christ did not even need to be harvested. God was the one doing the harvesting, and He made Himself part of the harvest to accomplish the Atonement. God became flesh in the physical body of Jesus to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth.

Do we have to wait to be in Christ until the Second Coming? Are we already in Christ? I am just being literal, that some humans were actually already dead, not waiting to be dead until the Cross, the Second Coming, or the GWT. Just because one is dead, does not forgo their resurrection. A resurrection is the point after physical death, not prior to death. Lazarus was the example of what all those OT souls in Christ, who would come out of Abraham's bosom would experience. If it was just to die again, then Paul said, we have no hope, and those dead are lost. What other dead people were being referred to by Paul? Certainly not just singular, Jesus.

Being hyperliteral and saying that only Jesus died, or only Jesus could be raised from death, literally makes no sense whatsoever from a harvest standpoint. From the standpoint of being the Atonement, most definitely.

It may be true that we are not literally told all of Abraham's bosom was emptied and taken to Paradise. We are not told other than the thief, any one literally entered Paradise. We are not told where those bodies went that came out of their graves. We are not told when Jesus even came out of the tomb that was sealed. We are not told what happened to that body. We are not told what happens to any one's body, except it returns to dust, unless bones are still present. We are not told a lot of things. But to claim certain things cannot happen, literally makes no sense. Many things can happen, that most claim cannot happen. That is being hyperliteral. With God, all things are possible, even if they are not practical, or beyond our understanding, and limited knowledge.

 

[Timtofly]

Is it any more ‘logical’ to have salvational history repeat itself?
And when I say ‘salvational history’ I’m not talking foreshadowing events. I’m talking about trying to force God’s plan to keep repeating.
For example. The bible tells us a story, essentially. Mankind was made, all was good, until we fell. Then God begins his plan to redeem a people for his own. Israel, and the OT, is mostly spent illustrating how alone, people are beyond helping themselves. They truly need a Saviour, one who will lift his people up, rather than the idea that this people may, by good behaviour, lift themselves up.
That Saviour comes, extends a chance of salvation to the world, to his people. And promises to return to judge all, both good and bad, and usher in a new, eternal life.
Except, for some reason Dispensationalists want to make it all happen again…and then again. First they say that Jesus will return to ‘rescue’ his people, leaving the rest to suffer for 7 years and be given a second chance, at which point there will be a huge battle, and he comes again (second parter). Only…then it must happen AGAIN! In the Millennium everyone has another chance of salvation, and there’s ANOTHER world ending battle between good and evil and THEN its the end. The ‘real’ end.
So honestly? Do you think it is more logical to have ‘the end’ climax in a single battle against good and evil, when Christ returns to redeem his people and punish those who rejected him, Satan as well….OR…do you think its more logical to have it repeat…repeat…repeat? How many chances does the bible really put forth for people? How many times does Satan need to be defeated? How many times can Jesus come in judgment and redemption until it finally sticks?
For my part…I very clearly see the bible telling us the former and zero proof of it teaching the latter.

Dispensational ages are not repeats of the same aspects of good verses evil. They are not even the same people.

It is the same Satan, because Satan cannot have literal offspring. So yes, Satan has to keep showing up. Angels likewise are the exact same angels created on day 4.

God has not changed, except when God became flesh. But then God claims even that happened before Creation, itself, so can we prove otherwise?

So the only reason for dispensations is that humans are born, then die, so different humans throughout the defined created definite, not infinite 8000 years of Creation. Time being the 4th physical dimension of reality. Reality has length, depth, height, and time (breadth). Reality can not go outside of these four physical boundaries. And all of heaven is within this physical framework.

Why does history repeat itself? Because humans have not figured out how to stop the decay into depravity.

The Flood destroyed the old original created experience. 2000 years from the disobedience of Adam, Abraham by faith changed the course of human history, when he obeyed God.

Moses and the Exodus was not really a battle between good and evil, but the battle in high places was already ongoing, and humans only suffered indirect consequences. That is what banners, idols, ensigns were alledgedly used for by humans. They thought the unseen would fight on their behalf, during physical earthly battles. Humans were not just chess pieces of divine beings and such ensigns or idols were practically useless. We are not told how exactly these battles happened. It is interesting though that eastern religions developed from these exact spiritual battles, holding humans in deception and spiritual blindness.

God gave us the correct record in God's Word. And even that is questioned by skeptics that the redeemed are no different than any other man made religion. The first coming did have moments of victory for those on God’s side, as Jesus reported the spiritual battles to His disciples, when Satan was defeated like lightning. So, I am not sure why one would think history is a series of circles, just repeating the same cycle. The conflict started when Adam disobeyed. It will end at the Second Coming. Nothing on the spiritual side has changed. Humans only have lived and died, come and gone, to make it look like a repeating cycle. The only repetition has been the birth and death of many generations.

New humans and new ideas. The only change in the future is that Satan will be bound for 1000 years. Humanity will be back to pre-sin conditions. It seems the only reason Satan is loosed, is to give all those humans living at the end of the Millennium a choice to reject God, since God does not force any one to accept God. History seems to only be a problem to those who think God has at times permanently defeated Satan and God still let's Satan back into the fight. Satan has been free to think for the last 6000 years. Satan has been limited on what he actually wants done. The Day of the Lord will have Satan totally out of the way. It will just be a relationship with God and man, like in the Garden with God and Adam. There will be no salvation by faith. If humans rebel, it will be directly with God, and instant Death. No justification for living in rebellion, like humans enjoy today. But the Millennium is not a repeat of a spiritual battle between good and evil. There will be no battle at all. That was only a condition between Adam's disobedience and the Second Coming.

 

[Naomi25]

None of this is what I posted.

When you change the meanings of my post it does not make sense to me either.

Sorry that it seems my simple post are that hard to understand.

Well, forgive me if I misunderstood you, that is never my intention.
However, when looking back at what you posted, I’m still stretched to understand what else you meant by it.
You said:”We do not do any of the work. That is my point. The body does not change when we accept the Atonement. Our soul does not change, it is still us, who we are. The spirit does not change. We are a new creation only in the power of the Holy Spirit. Submitting our will to the will of the Holy Spirit is the only thing that changes. And it is a battle to stay submitted.”

When speaking about ‘resurrection’ in a biblical sense…resurrection as understood by ‘new life’, or ‘coming to life’, or even ‘being raised from the dead’ or ‘going from death to life’, then we must, should we not, regard what that means and how the bible describes it?
When looking at the easiest, most agreed, resurrection…our physical resurrection…then we understand that at that point, yes…our bodies WILL change. They will go from corruptible, fallen bodies, to incorruptible ones that do not age, or get sick, or show the wearing of sin upon them.
Granted, this does not happen until Christ’s return, and no, we do not physically change when we become redeemed. But neither I, nor scripture said that we get a PHYSICAL change when our spirits are bought from death to life. So, perhaps there is a bit of misunderstanding in both camps.
Then we must look at how the bible speaks about our spiritual resurrection. But as you’ve asked me to, I’ll address that below.

.
Show me one verse that says spiritual resurrection.

The soul does not die. No explanation of a dead soul given. The body dies. The spirit turns into a demon. Is that spiritual death? The soul does not turn into a body. The soul does not turn into a spirit. The soul remains distinct from a body and spirit. The soul puts on a physical body. The soul puts on a spiritual spirit.

If you are going to rely on the “it never says spiritual resurrection” then we might as well automatically dismiss other notions based upon that criteria. Things like the Trinity, or the Rapture. So…not a legitimate argument.
However, if we understand ‘resurrection’ to mean a raising from the dead, surely this will suffice:
John 3:5-6
[5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

1 Peter 1:23
[23] since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

Ephesians 2:1-6
[1] And you were dead in the trespasses and sins [2] in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—[3] among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. [4] But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, [5] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—[6] and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Colossians 2:12-13
[12] having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. [13] And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,


In these verses we see several things; being ‘born again’ is ‘of the spirit’. It’s got nothing to do with physical resurrection, although we can see in other passages that too is a promise for us, being ‘kept in heaven’ for us.
We also see that being ‘born again’ is of ‘imperishable seed’…that sounds very much like the promise of our new bodies, doesn’t it not? Of being resurrected in ‘imperishable’ bodies? If new life in the spirit and new life of our bodies, were not to be considered the same, why would the authors of scripture describe it in the same way?
We also, quite clearly, that ‘new life’ in Christ is, absolutely, moving from death to life…being dead, then becoming living. We know that this MUST be speaking spiritually, as clearly we have physical life before we accept Christ. I extend the invitation to try and show otherwise, but it seems most clear to me.
Lastly, we see that Baptism is a symbolic representation of this new life. Before Christ, we are the walking dead…spiritually speaking, and when we accept Christ, we acknowledge that our old selves were both buried with Christ (put to final rest) and then new life is giving to us. The image Paul is using here to paint our spiritual condition is concretely connected to a resurrection. This time, it is for our spirits. Again, other passages promise us a physical resurrection later.

My point being…it is absolutely scriptural to point to a spiritual resurrection, even if that particular word is not used.

.
The putting on of the spirit will not happen until the Second Coming. But Paradise is a physical place for a physical body. The soul in Paradise puts on a permanent incorruptible physical body. 2 Corinthians 5.

I simply cannot understand your view. To me, you have it all backwards. As I plotted out above, we are clearly taught that being ‘born again’ IS a spiritual rebirth, renewal, new life, moving from death to life.


1 Corinthians 15:20-26; 50-54
[20] But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. [21] For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. [24] Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. [25] For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
[50] I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. [51] Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. [53] For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. [54] When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”


This passage is the clearest we have in terms of WHEN we receive our new, resurrection bodies…and by that, I mean physical bodies. There is ‘an order’ to it. Christ was first, then AT his return, those who belong to him. There is no wiggle room here for resurrection happening BEFORE his coming. It is AT his coming. To make that even more sure, Paul goes on to inform us that when we receive our resurrection bodies, it will mean that death has been defeated…no more death will be seen. And, once again, that happens at his coming and ‘the end’.
If we were seeing physical resurrection happen between Christ’s resurrection..or even before it, then how could Paul possibly say that death is defeated by it?

I don’t see that ‘paradise’ is necessary described as a physical place in scripture. And, while I cannot say with any certainty (because scripture does not, and that ought to drive our thinking) what sort of body or existence we shall have between our death and his return, we must not ignore the clear teachings of verses such as those above.

. It really does not matter what carnal humans on earth believe. Nor does earthly belief change what is currently going on in Paradise. You do not have to accept what I say, as your acceptance or non acceptance does not change what is actually happening in Paradise. I am not even claiming I am right and every one else is wrong. That is a judgment placed on me by other humans. I am just pointing out a way to look at it, that really does not contradict anything in God's Word. It just contradicts human traditional interpretation. Human interpretation is not what is inspired. God's Word is what is inspired.

Well I agree not everyone must agree. But I cannot agree that your view does not contradict scripture…I have just pointed out several that do.
Ultimately, you are correct in saying that only God’s truth will matter or count. And, like you, I am attempting to be faithful to that.

 

[Naomi25]

Yes it can get clearer. Lazarus was harvested by the Resurrection and the Life. The OT saints were removed from Abraham's bosom, the firstfruits from Adam until the Cross. These people certainly did not live after the Cross to be harvested. Nor do they have to wait until the GWT to be harvested.

Please show me WHERE it tells us that Lazarus was raised in an imperishable body? In point of fact, please also display where it shows us he both lived here on a fallen earth in that resurrection body, and then was taken to heaven at…some point…after being alive down here.
The fact is, you can’t. All of the above is nothing but assumption on your part.
Your ideas directly contradict 1 Cor 15. That categorically states that:
1) there IS an order…Christ is first.
2) the rest of us get our new bodies AT his return.

IF people were raised in imperishable bodies before Christ, he could not have been the first fruits.
IF others are being raised imperishable before he returns, then our new bodies are NOT received AT his coming.

.
If you claim these are not firstfruits, then the word "firsfruits" is meaningless altogether. Like most, your interpretation of firstfruits is being hyperliteral. Jesus is the chief example, but Christ did not even need to be harvested. God was the one doing the harvesting, and He made Himself part of the harvest to accomplish the Atonement. God became flesh in the physical body of Jesus to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth.

This makes little sense.
We are TOLD Christ is the first fruits.
Ipso facto, the people raised before him CANNOT have been raised to incorruptible bodies.

How on earth is taking 1 Cor 15 at face value, being “too hyperliteral”?
Sounds to me like your taking it that way because it directly invalidates your ideas.
I mean…I’m open to dialogue on how you see 1 Cor 15. But if your only rebuttal is that reading it as it is, is “hyperliteral” and therefore we are to ignore it (because that is essentially what you are arguing), then I’m afraid I see no reason to find any validity in your case.

.
Do we have to wait to be in Christ until the Second Coming? Are we already in Christ? I am just being literal, that some humans were actually already dead, not waiting to be dead until the Cross, the Second Coming, or the GWT. Just because one is dead, does not forgo their resurrection. A resurrection is the point after physical death, not prior to death. Lazarus was the example of what all those OT souls in Christ, who would come out of Abraham's bosom would experience. If it was just to die again, then Paul said, we have no hope, and those dead are lost. What other dead people were being referred to by Paul? Certainly not just singular, Jesus.

Ah. What do you see as “in Christ”? Man. This whole paragraph just screams that we’ve been talking past each other.
Being “in Christ” IS being born again. Remember this:

1 Peter 1:3-5
[3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, [4] to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, [5] who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

We are ‘born again’ to a living hope. What does this mean? It means what 1 Cor 15 says. We know that ‘at the end’, we receive our ‘inheritance’…that is, ‘imperishable, undefiled and unfading’. That is the physical promise TO COME. But why do we have a ‘living hope’, and what does ‘being born again’ mean?
Well, I trust I plotted it out sufficiently in my previous post, but briefly:
“even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—[6] and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” - Ephesians 2:5-6

Our ‘hope’ is that ‘IN CHRIST’, we passed from death in our trespasses, and became ‘alive’ together with Christ.
That is how we know that death is not all for us. We may die physically, but we don’t fear it, because our spirits are alive in Christ…that is why being born again is described thus:

John 5:24
[24] Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Our hope in a physical resurrection holds true, no matter WHEN we receive it. The assumption that we can have no hope if we do not immediately receive this new body at death, is neither supported by scripture, or logic.
What does Paul stress is our hope when we die? Does he tell us its our resurrection bodies?

Philippians 1:21-23
[21] For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. [22] If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. [23] I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.

Paul does not even mention the hope of getting his resurrection body upon his death. His hope is “to be with Christ”.
All these things are clearly, and repeatedly, plotted out in scripture. You keep making statements about Lazarus and those raised before Christ, and what they MUST mean, but rather problematically, I’ve seen no bible verses to support your assumptions about these people. And I’ve certainly not seen what you would claim (hopefully), as any sort of proof that people are raised before Christ. In other words, your problem of 1 Cor 15 has not been explained or dealt with appropriately to be making the claims you have.

.
Being hyperliteral and saying that only Jesus died, or only Jesus could be raised from death, literally makes no sense whatsoever from a harvest standpoint. From the standpoint of being the Atonement, most definitely.

Then ‘sense’ to me, must be very different to what you consider ‘sense’.
Am I discarding the fact that other people have died? Of course not. That has never been my claim, and you ought to know this unless what I’ve said has sailed over your head.
We are talking about what can be proven biblically.
Even discarding the whole ‘spiritual resurrection’ factor that is muddying the waters, it is not hyperliteral, or out of bounds to suggest that scripturally, the bible teaches that Christ is first in the sort of resurrection we are talking about.
The harvest metaphor is not my own, it is Paul’s. And it stands. In a harvest, there is, rather obviously, crops, or parts of crops, that come off first. As a farmers wife, I can tell you easily that this is the case. And then the rest of the harvest follows. Paul uses this metaphor for imagery, but still clearly tells us: Christ IS the first fruits of this sort of resurrection, and then those who are is, AT his coming.
Where are your scriptural passages telling us that OT were raised in resurrected bodies before him? Where are your passages that tells us WHAT sort of body Lazarus was raised in? Where are your passages that denies the scriptures I’ve shown that tells us that what we hope for is being kept in heaven for us, to be revealed in the last time? Where are your passages that disregards all talk of our spiritual renewing/birth NOW being the hope and knowledge of a physical resurrection to be given WHEN Christ comes?

All that to say…you make some fairly outrageous claims for someone who cannot seem to support any of them by scripture.

. It may be true that we are not literally told all of Abraham's bosom was emptied and taken to Paradise. We are not told other than the thief, any one literally entered Paradise. We are not told where those bodies went that came out of their graves. We are not told when Jesus even came out of the tomb that was sealed. We are not told what happened to that body. We are not told what happens to any one's body, except it returns to dust, unless bones are still present. We are not told a lot of things. But to claim certain things cannot happen, literally makes no sense. Many things can happen, that most claim cannot happen. That is being hyperliteral. With God, all things are possible, even if they are not practical, or beyond our understanding, and limited knowledge.

So. You’re basically saying your making all these claims based on an argument of silence. And you’re REVERSING the onus of proof. In other words, you’re saying “sure, none of the things I’m claiming have been actually said in scripture, but to claim it’s impossible for them to have happened means YOU have to prove they didn’t!”

The problem with any of that is: if it HASNT been said in scripture, you have zero case. I could claim Satan wore a fluffy tutu, on the basis of your argument, and you’d have no basis to contradict me…all because we’re not told Satan DOESN’T wear a fluffy tutu.

 

[Naomi25]

Dispensational ages are not repeats of the same aspects of good verses evil. They are not even the same people.

I wasn’t speaking of the “Dispensations”. I wasn't speaking of ‘the same people’…unless you count Christ and Satan.
I was suggesting the idea that salvational history having to repeat at least 2 more times before the ‘end, end’ is not particularly logical, and I don’t see it in scripture.
And to me, that’s what people seem to encourage. “Christ will return for his believers, but then we go around again…everyone has another chance, with Christ’s ultimate return and judgment/reconciliation to come, prefaced by a battle. But then when that has happened, around we go again…people in the Millennium get a third chance, with the ultimate consummation, plus a battle, to come.”
Like I said, seems too convoluted for what we seen in scripture.

.
It is the same Satan, because Satan cannot have literal offspring. So yes, Satan has to keep showing up. Angels likewise are the exact same angels created on day 4.

I wasn’t suggesting it would be “another Satan”.
Where in scripture does it say angels are created on day 4?
And as far as ‘Satan keeps on showing up’, I’m not sure I buy that he does after Christ’s return. Seems to me that when Jesus cracks open the sky, everyone will be judged.
But of course, to support my view I’d have to go into a fairly lengthy exposition on Revelation and the order it’s written, and I’m simply not prepared to do that…don’t have enough spare time.
So, I’ll leave that one alone.

.
God has not changed, except when God became flesh. But then God claims even that happened before Creation, itself, so can we prove otherwise?

Are you referring to ‘the angel of the Lord’? As in, Christ appearing as a pre-incarnate figure in the OT?
Because while I agree that he did, I’d still say scripture teaches the incarnation was a separate and significant event, and there’s nothing to support Jesus the man was this pre-incarnate figure. The WORD, the Son…sure. But Jesus was also a man. We can’t know if the ‘man’ he appeared as before Jesus was born, was…well, Jesus.
That was complicated. Sorry. Hope you follow that.

.
So the only reason for dispensations is that humans are born, then die, so different humans throughout the defined created definite, not infinite 8000 years of Creation. Time being the 4th physical dimension of reality. Reality has length, depth, height, and time (breadth). Reality can not go outside of these four physical boundaries. And all of heaven is within this physical framework.

Again, I’m not specifically speaking about the different ‘dispensations’ of time. Or the need of people to chop history up into defined portions of time.
I’m just making a comment on what I see as antithetical teaching to the whole “man has one chance to believe” idea that we see in scripture. What’s the point of warning the people of every generation that they need to choose Jesus either before they die, or he returns….if after he returns, you get two do-overs?

.
Why does history repeat itself? Because humans have not figured out how to stop the decay into depravity.

The Flood destroyed the old original created experience. 2000 years from the disobedience of Adam, Abraham by faith changed the course of human history, when he obeyed God.

Moses and the Exodus was not really a battle between good and evil, but the battle in high places was already ongoing, and humans only suffered indirect consequences. That is what banners, idols, ensigns were alledgedly used for by humans. They thought the unseen would fight on their behalf, during physical earthly battles. Humans were not just chess pieces of divine beings and such ensigns or idols were practically useless. We are not told how exactly these battles happened. It is interesting though that eastern religions developed from these exact spiritual battles, holding humans in deception and spiritual blindness.

I’m not saying that the bible doesn’t teach foreshadowing events. Or that human nature itself leads to recurring patterns of sin and God’s dealing with them.
What I suggest is that everything in scripture…including the foreshadowing events, point to a final return and consummation, where the cosmos is remade and all evil is done away with. At which point sinful human nature and Satan’s influence is gone. I don’t see how, after Jesus returns, we can therefore, with any certainty, pronounce that both sin and Satan get a pass…twice.
It’s not something, I should clarify, that I’m absolutely dogmatic on. If it turns out we get Raptured, or if it turns out there is a Millennium, I very much doubt I’m going to be bothered by it. I’ll still be with Jesus, so no complaints!

.
God gave us the correct record in God's Word. And even that is questioned by skeptics that the redeemed are no different than any other man made religion. The first coming did have moments of victory for those on God’s side, as Jesus reported the spiritual battles to His disciples, when Satan was defeated like lightning. So, I am not sure why one would think history is a series of circles, just repeating the same cycle. The conflict started when Adam disobeyed. It will end at the Second Coming. Nothing on the spiritual side has changed. Humans only have lived and died, come and gone, to make it look like a repeating cycle. The only repetition has been the birth and death of many generations.

Again…I don’t think you seemed to get what I was talking about.

. New humans and new ideas. The only change in the future is that Satan will be bound for 1000 years. Humanity will be back to pre-sin conditions. It seems the only reason Satan is loosed, is to give all those humans living at the end of the Millennium a choice to reject God, since God does not force any one to accept God. History seems to only be a problem to those who think God has at times permanently defeated Satan and God still let's Satan back into the fight. Satan has been free to think for the last 6000 years. Satan has been limited on what he actually wants done. The Day of the Lord will have Satan totally out of the way. It will just be a relationship with God and man, like in the Garden with God and Adam. There will be no salvation by faith. If humans rebel, it will be directly with God, and instant Death. No justification for living in rebellion, like humans enjoy today. But the Millennium is not a repeat of a spiritual battle between good and evil. There will be no battle at all. That was only a condition between Adam's disobedience and the Second Coming.

Let me ask you this: what is the point of the Millennium?
You say Satan needs to be let out at the end of it, so those who had been born during that time get to ‘choose’. But, why is there a time period that is sort of like a half-half? Not as bad as the fallen world we know have, but not quite eternity in the new heavens/new earth. Why have a period like this where people will be born to make a choice that is the same as we all do know in a fallen world?
Doesn’t it make more sense that at Christ’s second coming, that’s it? All the people who have ever existed have made a choice, yes or no. Satan is therefore judged, along with sinful men. Death is done away with, the cosmos is renewed.
Because, when I read all the verses in the NT (leaving out Revelation for a moment), all of them seem to point to all these issues being dealt with AT Christ’s second coming. I don’t see any of this other fiddly stuff being described or needed.
So…yeah…I’m curious as to what you see that period being for?

 

[Timtofly]

All that to say…you make some fairly outrageous claims for someone who cannot seem to support any of them by scripture.

You do not use any Scripture to prove Lazarus was not raised. John 11 is the passage that Jesus claims He is the Resurrection and the Life. The event was so huge, it led to the Pharisees seeking the death of Jesus.

You also never address 2 Corinthians 5:1-3.

Our spirit is not dead. No scripture claims that. So until death of the spirit, the Second Death, there is no need for a spiritual Resurrection. The point of submitting to the Holy Spirit is the spiritual birth, but this deals with the Holy Spirit, not ours. We can only be raised in heavenly places spiritually by the Holy Spirit. If you do not see that as a permanent condition upon physical death, then in your view it will never be physical until a future time. It will simply remain spiritual. The point being, once you arrive in Paradise it will be a mute point to make any more to those on earth. Getting your inheritance earlier than expected, should not make you too upset.

 

[Timtofly]

Let me ask you this: what is the point of the Millennium?
You say Satan needs to be let out at the end of it, so those who had been born during that time get to ‘choose’. But, why is there a time period that is sort of like a half-half? Not as bad as the fallen world we know have, but not quite eternity in the new heavens/new earth. Why have a period like this where people will be born to make a choice that is the same as we all do know in a fallen world?
Doesn’t it make more sense that at Christ’s second coming, that’s it? All the people who have ever existed have made a choice, yes or no. Satan is therefore judged, along with sinful men. Death is done away with, the cosmos is renewed.
Because, when I read all the verses in the NT (leaving out Revelation for a moment), all of them seem to point to all these issues being dealt with AT Christ’s second coming. I don’t see any of this other fiddly stuff being described or needed.
So…yeah…I’m curious as to what you see that period being for?

No one has invented the Millennium to claim there is a need for it.

Revelation 20 is pretty clear. Since it says Satan is bound for 1000 years, on the same terms it states he is loosed for a little season.

Any one can come in and change the definition of 1000 and little season, and make up any time frame they imagine in their own human understanding. It has been explained why God says to remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy. The Millennium is the Sabbath Day God set aside as Holy, after 6000 years of Adam's punishment on earth.

No one gets a do over. Those resurrected in Revelation 20:4 are the firstfruits, who like Noah and his family re-populate the earth, after it is destroyed by fire. Of course it sounds weird. Noah and his sons went into the ark as families. Those resurrected become new families. God did not give us the details, but that does not give theology the license to make up stuff, like we are in the Millennium already.


The earth has yet to be baptized in fire. Satan has yet to be bound. Sin has yet to be eradicated. The Sabbath day is not some mystical parallel universe running concurrently with the fulness of the Gentiles.

Genesis 1:14-19 explains the roles of the angels from the very beginning. Revelation 6:13-14 brings their role to an end, what God put in place on the 4th day. The Millennium will be a new heaven and earth. Then after 1000 years, there will be a totally different reality altogether. The New Jerusalem, about 2 thirds the size of the moon, will sit on a larger earth. There will be no sun or moon. So, yes, a totally different reality.

 

[Naomi25]

You do not use any Scripture to prove Lazarus was not raised. John 11 is the passage that Jesus claims He is the Resurrection and the Life. The event was so huge, it led to the Pharisees seeking the death of Jesus.

Fine, let’s look directly at the passage and see what it says.

John 11:38-44
[38] Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. [39] Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” [40] Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” [41] So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. [42] I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” [43] When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” [44] The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

The only comment on Lazarus as he ‘comes out’ is that his face it wrapped with a cloth.
I must ask you, where in this passage do you justify it telling us that Lazarus is raised in such a body as this:

1 Corinthians 15:38-49
[38] But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. [39] For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. [40] There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. [41] There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
[42] So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. [43] It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. [44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. [45] Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [46] But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. [47] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. [48] As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. [49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Does John 11 give you any leave to assume or state outright that Lazarus had a ‘heavenly body’, an ‘imperishable’ body that would never die again. Where in John 11 do you see the idea that Lazarus ‘bore the imagine of the man of heaven’?…especially since Christ did not, even then, have a ‘heavenly body’. He had not yet died or been resurrected. As it says, Jesus ‘became’ a life-giving spirit. Thus it points to his own resurrection.
Put that together with together with this:

1 Corinthians 15:22-23
[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

You really have nothing left but an argument from silence. You have no other passages to suggest your argument from silence is justifiable.
I have used 1 Cor 15 to show the incongruity of asserting that John 11 must be speaking of a resurrected, imperishable body. At best the only conclusion that can be drawn by John 11 in the light of 1 Cor 15, is that, as I said previously, Lazarus was restored to his earthly body.

.
You also never address 2 Corinthians 5:1-3.

2 Cor 5 does not save you…rather, it only supports me more.

2 Corinthians 5:1-6
[1] For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. [2] For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, [3] if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. [4] For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. [5] He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
[6] So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,

The imperishable body we gain at the resurrection? It’s a “heavenly dwelling”…”eternal in the heavens”.
Being in this perishable body, an earthly body, it to ‘be away from the Lord’.
In other words, this tells us two things: our imperishable bodies are for when we are with the Lord and we have left this earth and are dwelling with him.
It also tells us that that while we are on this earth and ‘away from the Lord’, we dwell in ‘this tent’.

There is nothing here that gives us leave to assume that Lazarus, or anyone else, were gifted with an imperishable body while they still dwelled on earth. Because really…the implication of Lazarus having said imperishable body, would mean the man still lived today. Our imperishable is immortal, undefiled. Is there anywhere in scripture that tells us that Lazarus will live to the judgment? That’s the implication of what you are saying.

.Our spirit is not dead. No scripture claims that. So until death of the spirit, the Second Death, there is no need for a spiritual Resurrection.

No scripture claims we are dead, spiritually, before even are born again? Yikes…you might have wanted to think that one through a bit first.

Ephesians 2:1-6
[1] And you were dead in the trespasses and sins [2] in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—[3] among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. [4] But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, [5] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—[6] and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Colossians 2:13

[13] And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

How do we know Paul is telling us this is a death/life for the spirit, rather than a physical one?
Well, most obviously, clearly we are physically alive before we are saved. No brainer there.
But also because it is ‘sin’ that makes us dead. Sin is a spiritual issue. Sure, if affects everything around us, both body and nature. But it’s clearly speaking of spiritual issues: “disobedience, passions, desires.” Even the “uncircumcision of the flesh” refers to a spiritual issue…we are told that:

Romans 2:29
[29] But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Thus these verses speaking of being dead in our sins, and moving to life in Christ, is clearly…obviously…talking about the state of our spirits.

 

[Naomi25]

The point of submitting to the Holy Spirit is the spiritual birth, but this deals with the Holy Spirit, not ours. We can only be raised in heavenly places spiritually by the Holy Spirit.

And how does one submit to the Holy Spirit?

Romans 3:9-12
[9] What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, [10] as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
[11] no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
[12] All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”


On our own, before God’s direct intervention, we are incapable of ‘seeking God, being righteous or doing good’. So…what makes you think that without direct intervention from God, we CAN submit to the Holy Spirit?
Scripture tells us:

Ezekiel 11:19
[19] And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,

So, God himself, promises under the new Covenant, that He will remove from us a heart of stone, and give us a ‘new spirit’, and a heart of flesh.
If we need a ‘new spirit’ and a ‘new heart’, what do you suppose was the trouble with our old ones?
Could it be what the verses I posted above mean? That they were ‘dead in their sins’?
Most likely.

.If you do not see that as a permanent condition upon physical death, then in your view it will never be physical until a future time. It will simply remain spiritual. The point being, once you arrive in Paradise it will be a mute point to make any more to those on earth. Getting your inheritance earlier than expected, should not make you too upset.

Once again, your system and ordering seems baffling. And I’m simply not seeing you back it up by sound exegesis.
I’ve shown…fairly well, I think, from scripture, not my own reasoning, that when God redeems us, he gives us a new spirit (but its still clearly US), capable of ‘submitting to the Holy Spirit’ in our daily lives.
Then, at the return of Jesus, we all (dead AND alive at that time) are given our new, resurrection bodies.
THAT is what scripture tells us, and what it backs up.
You can make assertions about what form of body we’re in between death and the resurrection all you want, you have no scriptures to support you.

 

[Naomi25]

No one has invented the Millennium to claim there is a need for it.

I wasn’t claiming they had. But every legitimate doctrine HAS a need, or explanation for it. No? So, those claiming an earthly Millennium, ought to be able to tell me what it is.

.
Revelation 20 is pretty clear. Since it says Satan is bound for 1000 years, on the same terms it states he is loosed for a little season.

‘Clear’ is not something that has ever been used to describe Revelation.
And, according to the principle of letting scripture interpret scripture, we could also go on to say that the ‘1000’ years, is, in fact, just a single day.

2 Peter 3:8
[8] But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Or, we could say that it obviously means an infinite period of time.

Deuteronomy 7:9
[9] Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,

Psalm 50:10
[10] For every beast of the forest is mine,
the cattle on a thousand hills.

To prove irrefutably, that Revelation MUST mean a literal 1000 years, you would first need to demonstrate that 1000 is only ever used in scripture in a literal sense.
You cannot, it specifically states otherwise.

.
Any one can come in and change the definition of 1000 and little season, and make up any time frame they imagine in their own human understanding. It has been explained why God says to remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy. The Millennium is the Sabbath Day God set aside as Holy, after 6000 years of Adam's punishment on earth.

Yes, I suppose they can. Just like ‘anyone’ can claim the 1000 HAS to be regarded ONLY in a literal sense.
The problem I see is, one has biblical backing to suggest the 1000 MIGHT be figurative, and the other has no biblical backing, only assertions by people desperate to read it that way.

And please…show me the scriptures where we are told that the Millennium is the Sabbath Day.
Again…that would be symbolic in sense, would it not? As literal 1000 years can not be a ‘Day’….even a very special, important day.

.
No one gets a do over. Those resurrected in Revelation 20:4 are the firstfruits, who like Noah and his family re-populate the earth, after it is destroyed by fire. Of course it sounds weird. Noah and his sons went into the ark as families. Those resurrected become new families. God did not give us the details, but that does not give theology the license to make up stuff, like we are in the Millennium already.

It sounds weird, because it is.
Let me ask you this. If you didn’t already have a clear idea in your head that the Millennium was a ‘literal’ 1000 years AFTER Christ came back, where in scripture do you find anything that speaks of people with perishable and imperishable bodies dwelling together on earth? Where do you find scripture that speaks of people living in sin after Christ comes back? Where do you find scriptures that speak of a ‘repopulation’ occurring after Christ returns?
I ask sincerely, but I cannot think of any…at all.
Which suggests, does it not, that those things have been created to fit within a time period.

The earth has yet to be baptized in fire. Satan has yet to be bound. Sin has yet to be eradicated. The Sabbath day is not some mystical parallel universe running concurrently with the fulness of the Gentiles.

.

And yet, MY bible tells me this ‘baptism in fire’ that the creation will go through, as well as the ‘destruction of the ungodly’, will happen AT Christ’s return:

2 Peter 3:4-12
[4] They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” [5] For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, [6] and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. [7] But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
[8] But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. [9] The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. [10] But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. [11] Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, [12] waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!

Tell me, if the events of Rev 20:11-15 (destruction of the ungodly) happens AFTER the passages about Satan’s binding and the Millennium, how do you reconcile the fact that 2 Peter 3 says that the destruction of the ungodly happens AT Christ’s coming?
In fact, if we read to Rev 21, we see the new heavens and new earth. 2 Peter 3 puts the destruction of the cosmos AT Christ’s coming…what are we supposed to see this “millennium” lived out on?

. Genesis 1:14-19 explains the roles of the angels from the very beginning. Revelation 6:13-14 brings their role to an end, what God put in place on the 4th day. The Millennium will be a new heaven and earth. Then after 1000 years, there will be a totally different reality altogether. The New Jerusalem, about 2 thirds the size of the moon, will sit on a larger earth. There will be no sun or moon. So, yes, a totally different reality.

How can the Millennium be “a new heaven and earth” if sin and death still exist within it?
The new heaven and new earth is a place where:

Revelation 21:1-4
[1] Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. [2] And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. [3] And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. [4] He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

The bible specifically states that the rebellion that happens within the Millennium CANNOT be within the new heavens and new earth.

 

[farouk]

@Naomi25 Suggestion: One figure of speech using the word 1000 does not prove a figure of speech at every use of the word 1000; rather, context plays a part.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 Suggestion: One figure of speech using the word 1000 does not prove a figure of speech at every use of the word 1000; rather, context plays a part.

No, indeed it does not, but it does prove the bible uses it in such a manner. As far as context goes, Revelation is classed as an apocalyptic book, which relies heavily on symbolism. Numbers play a fairly heavy role in that symbolism; seven, for example, is seen throughout the book so many times, one would have to be blind to miss it. Speak to any biblical scholar, and they will tell you that seven in the bible (so yes, just generally, not only in Revelation) represents perfection, or completeness. Even many Dispensationalists will recognize the use of numbers in Revelation this way.
So…my contention is: if number CAN be and, in fact, HAVE been used thusly….we must have some startling evidence at hand to start demanding the 1000 years can ONLY be literal.

 

[farouk]

No, indeed it does not, but it does prove the bible uses it in such a manner. As far as context goes, Revelation is classed as an apocalyptic book, which relies heavily on symbolism. Numbers play a fairly heavy role in that symbolism; seven, for example, is seen throughout the book so many times, one would have to be blind to miss it. Speak to any biblical scholar, and they will tell you that seven in the bible (so yes, just generally, not only in Revelation) represents perfection, or completeness. Even many Dispensationalists will recognize the use of numbers in Revelation this way.
So…my contention is: if number CAN be and, in fact, HAVE been used thusly….we must have some startling evidence at hand to start demanding the 1000 years can ONLY be literal.

There is also the matter of who is being spoken of in any given passage: Jews, Gentiles or the church of God (1 Corinthians 10.32).

 

[Naomi25]

There is also the matter of who is being spoken of in any given passage: Jews, Gentiles or the church of God (1 Corinthians 10.32).

Perhaps. However, I would caution the notion that just because God seems to have Paul teach that Jewish people will be bought back to him, or ‘grafted back onto the tree’ after the times of the Gentiles are complete, that that automatically means there is a “different program”, for lack of a better word, for the Jews.
The bible seems to clearly teach that there is ONE way to God…through Christ. Through being grafted onto this tree, to use Paul’s analogy. We see the national Jews were removed from that tree because of their unbelief in Christ, and Gentiles were grafted on when they accept him, along with remaining believing Jews. The promise that unbelieving Jews will be added back on IF they come to Christ, tells us that in truth, there is no separate program for them…they must become one with us all, as we are one in Christ.

 

[farouk]

Perhaps. However, I would caution the notion that just because God seems to have Paul teach that Jewish people will be bought back to him, or ‘grafted back onto the tree’ after the times of the Gentiles are complete, that that automatically means there is a “different program”, for lack of a better word, for the Jews.
The bible seems to clearly teach that there is ONE way to God…through Christ. Through being grafted onto this tree, to use Paul’s analogy. We see the national Jews were removed from that tree because of their unbelief in Christ, and Gentiles were grafted on when they accept him, along with remaining believing Jews. The promise that unbelieving Jews will be added back on IF they come to Christ, tells us that in truth, there is no separate program for them…they must become one with us all, as we are one in Christ.

@Naomi25 The question is, When exactly will that grafting occur? not necessarily before the Rapture...