What is biblical literalism?

We renegades start out with the literal, and if that doesn't work then we slip over into the allegorical perspective to see if and how the allegory relates to literal concepts that can be grasped by the human mind...AND if the intent was for it to be grasped at all...

Example: We tend to believe that when the Lord said the duration of something is a thousand years, and that number is repeated in relation to the same period of events, then it's probably meant to be taken...literally:

Revelation 20:2-7

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Now, if I were brain dead, then I might hold to the idea that these verses, which are sequentially aligned with one another (hint, hint), mean something other than what they say. However, I see not even a hint to the idea that we might logically assume into these some weird and wonky interpretation of the objects of the time span mentioned are anything OTHER than what they say. :confused:

Systematic Theology method of study also bears this out in a number of doctrines that have been weirded out into some wonky and freakish interpretations by use of the battering rams of allegoricalization swindling and hustle in order to make the scripture fit some pre-conceived notions about doctrines and prophesies that go so far as to even corrupt the very nature of God's sense of justice (I would mention a flowery acronym at this point as a case in point, but will abstain since there are some who subscribe to the extremes of that outlandish system of thought that not even Calvin himself believed, even though he is credited with it all).

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
We renegades start out with the literal, and if that doesn't work then we slip over into the allegorical perspective to see if and how the allegory relates to literal concepts that can be grasped by the human mind...AND if the intent was for it to be grasped at all...

Example: We tend to believe that when the Lord said the duration of something is a thousand years, and that number is repeated in relation to the same period of events, then it's probably meant to be taken...literally:

Revelation 20:2-7

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Now, if I were brain dead, then I might hold to the idea that these verses, which are sequentially aligned with one another (hint, hint), mean something other than what they say. However, I see not even a hint to the idea that we might logically assume into these some weird and wonky interpretation of the objects of the time span mentioned are anything OTHER than what they say. :confused:

Systematic Theology method of study also bears this out in a number of doctrines that have been weirded out into some wonky and freakish interpretations by use of the battering rams of allegoricalization swindling and hustle in order to make the scripture fit some pre-conceived notions about doctrines and prophesies that go so far as to even corrupt the very nature of God's sense of justice (I would mention a flowery acronym at this point as a case in point, but will abstain since there are some who subscribe to the extremes of that outlandish system of thought that not even Calvin himself believed, even though he is credited with it all).

MM
Click to expand...
You said.........
"We renegades start out with the literal,.................".

I resemble that remark!;)
Amen!
 
Musicmaster said:
We renegades start out with the literal, and if that doesn't work then we slip over into the allegorical perspective to see if and how the allegory relates to literal concepts that can be grasped by the human mind...AND if the intent was for it to be grasped at all...

Example: We tend to believe that when the Lord said the duration of something is a thousand years, and that number is repeated in relation to the same period of events, then it's probably meant to be taken...literally:

Revelation 20:2-7

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Now, if I were brain dead, then I might hold to the idea that these verses, which are sequentially aligned with one another (hint, hint), mean something other than what they say. However, I see not even a hint to the idea that we might logically assume into these some weird and wonky interpretation of the objects of the time span mentioned are anything OTHER than what they say. :confused:

Systematic Theology method of study also bears this out in a number of doctrines that have been weirded out into some wonky and freakish interpretations by use of the battering rams of allegoricalization swindling and hustle in order to make the scripture fit some pre-conceived notions about doctrines and prophesies that go so far as to even corrupt the very nature of God's sense of justice (I would mention a flowery acronym at this point as a case in point, but will abstain since there are some who subscribe to the extremes of that outlandish system of thought that not even Calvin himself believed, even though he is credited with it all).

MM
Click to expand...


Odd, then, that it is not mentioned anywhere else. Not in 2 Peter 3 which is the longest running number of verses on what the 2nd coming is like. In Hebrew idioms, a thousand of something is simply very long beyond any humans life span or usage: 'a thousand generations' in Ps 105 was more than the time the person was talking about (from Abraham to conquest) and the person was happy to report that God keeps his promises, which Joshua also said ('all the promises of God were kept'). Same with God owns the cattle 'on a thousand hills.'

Much more to the point: in the middle of this section are the difficult 1st resurrection and 2nd deaths. As far as I know the 1st resurrection is Christ's--or is it Himself, speaking at Lazarus grave "I am the resurrection"? (I'm aware the 2nd death is defined next chapter). So the 1000 years is not here in the literal sense, or it is not death in the literal sense. But it was actual death; they were beheaded for their testimony. Since Christ's resurrection was his Davidic enthronement (Acts 2:30,31), it seems clear enough that they are with him (and Stephen, and James) in the noisy, chorusy scene in heaven ("Heaven must celebrate Christ until the time of restoration of everything" Acts 3).

Then we have both a reign (Christ is clearly enthroned now) while they are dead to us and we have a 'short time when Satan is loosed at the end.'

I have heard people overthink this and say that the rest of the dead means 'everyone is resurrected but not to life and fellowship with God.' But notice in v4 that those beheaded immediately reign with Christ a thousand years. Other believers (for ex., who 'fall asleep in the Lord') come to life at the end of it. It's very uplifting to see God honor those beheaded with immediate reign in the loud singing of heaven! So their reign is already going on, and here it is clearly those who were beheaded. So: "they reigned with Christ a thousand years" is what happens like Stephen and James immediately after being killed, but is not on this earth and they aren't alive (to us, the rest of the dead) until after when we get there--I think because the NHNE is next after.

This should remove the pressure I often hear to make the millenium a 'catch-up station for promises to Israel here on earth.' Well, read above: it's not here on earth. The millenium is not mentioned in 2 Peter 3 and no Judaic details are either. At the end of time, earth is a place where Satan's runs his game for a bit and then is impounded, the earth burned, and the NHNE replace all that was before, chs 21-22.

I was once watching a documentary on Jerusalem right after statehood and people were shown picking up bombed and ruined buildings and rebuilding. Among the ruins was an item which one man totally believed was the cornerstone of the new temple, based on some rather scarred lettering he was pointing to. But if you know Ps 118 and Acts 4, you know that this is not the Christocentric meaning of how the new temple was to come about. What the man did was literalism; what the apostles did with Ps 118 in Acts 4 is Christocentric.
 
Decoder said:
Odd, then, that it is not mentioned anywhere else. Not in 2 Peter 3 which is the longest running number of verses on what the 2nd coming is like. In Hebrew idioms, a thousand of something is simply very long beyond any humans life span or usage: 'a thousand generations' in Ps 105 was more than the time the person was talking about (from Abraham to conquest) and the person was happy to report that God keeps his promises, which Joshua also said ('all the promises of God were kept'). Same with God owns the cattle 'on a thousand hills.'

Much more to the point: in the middle of this section are the difficult 1st resurrection and 2nd deaths. As far as I know the 1st resurrection is Christ's--or is it Himself, speaking at Lazarus grave "I am the resurrection"? (I'm aware the 2nd death is defined next chapter). So the 1000 years is not here in the literal sense, or it is not death in the literal sense. But it was actual death; they were beheaded for their testimony. Since Christ's resurrection was his Davidic enthronement (Acts 2:30,31), it seems clear enough that they are with him (and Stephen, and James) in the noisy, chorusy scene in heaven ("Heaven must celebrate Christ until the time of restoration of everything" Acts 3).

Then we have both a reign (Christ is clearly enthroned now) while they are dead to us and we have a 'short time when Satan is loosed at the end.'

I have heard people overthink this and say that the rest of the dead means 'everyone is resurrected but not to life and fellowship with God.' But notice in v4 that those beheaded immediately reign with Christ a thousand years. Other believers (for ex., who 'fall asleep in the Lord') come to life at the end of it. It's very uplifting to see God honor those beheaded with immediate reign in the loud singing of heaven! So their reign is already going on, and here it is clearly those who were beheaded. So: "they reigned with Christ a thousand years" is what happens like Stephen and James immediately after being killed, but is not on this earth and they aren't alive (to us, the rest of the dead) until after when we get there--I think because the NHNE is next after.

This should remove the pressure I often hear to make the millenium a 'catch-up station for promises to Israel here on earth.' Well, read above: it's not here on earth. The millenium is not mentioned in 2 Peter 3 and no Judaic details are either. At the end of time, earth is a place where Satan's runs his game for a bit and then is impounded, the earth burned, and the NHNE replace all that was before, chs 21-22.

I was once watching a documentary on Jerusalem right after statehood and people were shown picking up bombed and ruined buildings and rebuilding. Among the ruins was an item which one man totally believed was the cornerstone of the new temple, based on some rather scarred lettering he was pointing to. But if you know Ps 118 and Acts 4, you know that this is not the Christocentric meaning of how the new temple was to come about. What the man did was literalism; what the apostles did with Ps 118 in Acts 4 is Christocentric.
Click to expand...

You know...., when I try to put your comments together, I come away not really knowing what you tried to say.

Others may be better at understanding you and Please feel free to correct my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Major said:
You know...., when I try to put your comments together, I come away not really knowing what you tried to say.

Others may be better at understanding you and Please feel free to correct my opinion.
Click to expand...

OK, maybe too much at a time.

Try the 1st: (MM had said it was quite obvious that the period was to be taken as a normal time period on earth). Odd, then, that the thousand years (on earth) is not mentioned anywhere else. Not in 2 Peter 3 which is the longest running number of verses on what the 2nd coming is like. (Ie, the largest normal non-symbolic language section in the NT on the 2nd coming).

Some other shorter ones are I Cor 15, Heb 9, I Thess 1, 2, II Thess 1, 2 Tim 3

Yes, when the serpent tempts, the answer is obvious. In this case, when nothing is said about Israel, nor anything Judaic nor a millenium, and yet Peter is giving as complete an answer as possible, then...
 
Decoder said:
OK, maybe too much at a time.

Try the 1st: (MM had said it was quite obvious that the period was to be taken as a normal time period on earth). Odd, then, that the thousand years (on earth) is not mentioned anywhere else. Not in 2 Peter 3 which is the longest running number of verses on what the 2nd coming is like. (Ie, the largest normal non-symbolic language section in the NT on the 2nd coming).

Some other shorter ones are I Cor 15, Heb 9, I Thess 1, 2, II Thess 1, 2 Tim 3

Yes, when the serpent tempts, the answer is obvious. In this case, when nothing is said about Israel, nor anything Judaic nor a millenium, and yet Peter is giving as complete an answer as possible, then...
Click to expand...

I believe and He will speak for himself, but my take is that he was saying that a THOUSAND YEARS is a THOUSAND YEARS.

Is there some doctrine or implied truth that says that there has to be several other Scriptures to validate "One" specific Scripture?
 
Major said:
I believe and He will speak for himself, but my take is that he was saying that a THOUSAND YEARS is a THOUSAND YEARS.

Is there some doctrine or implied truth that says that there has to be several other Scriptures to validate "One" specific Scripture?
Click to expand...

Only that when something is as shaky as this (see above about the clear indication that '1000 years' is not on earth and is now), it is best to have multiple locations for clarity. The Rev has all kinds of visual sketches that aren't ordinary, as do other apocalyptic literature. When a thing is not mentioned in the plainest of passages like 2 Peter 3 or 2 Tim 3 or Heb 9 or I Cor 15 or the Thess passages, then the plain meaning of the NT is that it is not on earth and His reign is now, Acts 2:30, 31. And the Rev passage is, as I said, spoken for the comfort of those who die in awful conditions, that they are immediately reigning with Christ now until the reign is over and the earth is blasted. "The rest of the dead (believers) seems to be those who simply 'fall asleep in the Lord' as Paul calls them in other locations.

Surely if you were going to come to an understanding of divorce or adultery, you would want to consult widely in the NT, wouldn't you? Would you only go with 'whoever looks on a woman in lust has committed adultery'? What if there are other kinds, of if you were to find that the conditions of remarriage are far more of a concern to Christ than divorce itself?

I once interviewed Dr. Walvoord (Dallas TS) at a conference in WA. I said doesn't Acts 1:7-8 indicate we shouldn't really be looking into 'the kingdom of Israel' very much? He said 'It's none of your business.' Oh, no, he said, it can't mean that at all. I countered that the very next special words Jesus used were about a kingdom: You will be clothed with power etc (actually combining priesthood and kingdom). 'Interesting, he said, but the NT is very concerned with the kingdom of Israel.'

So in his case, the plain (literal) meaning of 'It's not for you to know' is that you are supposed to try to find out. ???
 
Decoder said:
I once interviewed Dr. Walvoord (Dallas TS) at a conference in WA. I said doesn't Acts 1:7-8 indicate we shouldn't really be looking into 'the kingdom of Israel' very much? He said 'It's none of your business.' Oh, no, he said, it can't mean that at all. I countered that the very next special words Jesus used were about a kingdom: You will be clothed with power etc (actually combining priesthood and kingdom). 'Interesting, he said, but the NT is very concerned with the kingdom of Israel.'

So in his case, the plain (literal) meaning of 'It's not for you to know' is that you are supposed to try to find out. ???
Click to expand...
(Act 1:7) And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
(Act 1:8) But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

coupled with the question...

(Act 1:6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

The question was 'wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?'
...not 'are you ever going to restore Israel?'

This is simply highlighting the difference between the Church And Israel, first hinted at in Mt 16:18.
 
Decoder said:
Only that when something is as shaky as this (see above about the clear indication that '1000 years' is not on earth and is now), it is best to have multiple locations for clarity. The Rev has all kinds of visual sketches that aren't ordinary, as do other apocalyptic literature. When a thing is not mentioned in the plainest of passages like 2 Peter 3 or 2 Tim 3 or Heb 9 or I Cor 15 or the Thess passages, then the plain meaning of the NT is that it is not on earth and His reign is now, Acts 2:30, 31. And the Rev passage is, as I said, spoken for the comfort of those who die in awful conditions, that they are immediately reigning with Christ now until the reign is over and the earth is blasted. "The rest of the dead (believers) seems to be those who simply 'fall asleep in the Lord' as Paul calls them in other locations.

Surely if you were going to come to an understanding of divorce or adultery, you would want to consult widely in the NT, wouldn't you? Would you only go with 'whoever looks on a woman in lust has committed adultery'? What if there are other kinds, of if you were to find that the conditions of remarriage are far more of a concern to Christ than divorce itself?

I once interviewed Dr. Walvoord (Dallas TS) at a conference in WA. I said doesn't Acts 1:7-8 indicate we shouldn't really be looking into 'the kingdom of Israel' very much? He said 'It's none of your business.' Oh, no, he said, it can't mean that at all. I countered that the very next special words Jesus used were about a kingdom: You will be clothed with power etc (actually combining priesthood and kingdom). 'Interesting, he said, but the NT is very concerned with the kingdom of Israel.'

So in his case, the plain (literal) meaning of 'It's not for you to know' is that you are supposed to try to find out. ???
Click to expand...

You said...............
"Would you only go with 'whoever looks on a woman in lust has committed adultery'?

Adultery is a sin of huge proportion. But Jesus taught a deeper law affecting the heart: But God said in Matthew 5:28 literally .........
“But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart”.

This fantasy of the mind is so pervasive in all forms of media that temptation is relentless.
I have no problem at all grasping the idea that 1000 years is actually 1000 years.

As for you "interviewing" Dr. Walvoord and as you describe......placing him in his place, so to speak--I am having a real problem with that.
Now this is just me, but it seems to me that you are placing yourself on the same level or even above Dr. Walvoord.
"YOU INTERVIEWED him."---" I countered that ........".

I can not help but wonder one of Christianity's greatest teachers and the man who has more intelligence about the book of the Revelation ---- if he was alive and able to talk to us if he would tell the story the same way you did.

As for the Kingdom of Israel and as you said he said......
"'Interesting, he said, but the NT is very concerned with the kingdom of Israel.'

That is a 100% correct statement.

The disciples expected Jesus to tell them that he is in fact about to restore the Kingdom and take his father David’s throne in Jerusalem. Much like the crowds in Luke 19:11, the disciples expected the Kingdom of God, as described by the prophets, to arrive at that moment.

Yet it is no surprise when Jesus reminds them it is not for them to known when the kingdom will be restored. The idea of an interim period between the present and the coming kingdom is well known in Second Temple Period Judaism.

For example in 4 Ezra 4:33-37 the prophet asks........
“How long and when will these things be? Why are our years few and evil?”

The answer in this late first century text is that “the time of threshing is delayed for the righteous—on account of the sins of those who dwell on earth.” The interim is to be used wisely. The new age will certainly dawn, but in the meantime the righteous will continue to labor. Many of Jesus’ parables have a similar theme
Source: https://readingacts.com/2019/01/23/acts-1-will-you-now-restore-the-kingdom-to-israel/

When we read through the New Test., we can see that when the word ISRAEL is used (70 times) in every case it is a reference to the people or land of Israel and never to the church.

Blessing to you brother.
 
Decoder, when it gets to the level of appeals to silence in relation to the seeming rebuttal to my treatise about the literal 1000 years, I tend to fall back upon the position of, "There's no right answer to the wrong question," so thus hold my silence in the face of ticking time bombs like those.

MM
 
Major said:
You said...............
"Would you only go with 'whoever looks on a woman in lust has committed adultery'?

Adultery is a sin of huge proportion. But Jesus taught a deeper law affecting the heart: But God said in Matthew 5:28 literally .........
“But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart”.

This fantasy of the mind is so pervasive in all forms of media that temptation is relentless.
I have no problem at all grasping the idea that 1000 years is actually 1000 years.

As for you "interviewing" Dr. Walvoord and as you describe......placing him in his place, so to speak--I am having a real problem with that.
Now this is just me, but it seems to me that you are placing yourself on the same level or even above Dr. Walvoord.
"YOU INTERVIEWED him."---" I countered that ........".

I can not help but wonder one of Christianity's greatest teachers and the man who has more intelligence about the book of the Revelation ---- if he was alive and able to talk to us if he would tell the story the same way you did.

As for the Kingdom of Israel and as you said he said......
"'Interesting, he said, but the NT is very concerned with the kingdom of Israel.'

That is a 100% correct statement.

The disciples expected Jesus to tell them that he is in fact about to restore the Kingdom and take his father David’s throne in Jerusalem. Much like the crowds in Luke 19:11, the disciples expected the Kingdom of God, as described by the prophets, to arrive at that moment.

Yet it is no surprise when Jesus reminds them it is not for them to known when the kingdom will be restored. The idea of an interim period between the present and the coming kingdom is well known in Second Temple Period Judaism.

For example in 4 Ezra 4:33-37 the prophet asks........
“How long and when will these things be? Why are our years few and evil?”

The answer in this late first century text is that “the time of threshing is delayed for the righteous—on account of the sins of those who dwell on earth.” The interim is to be used wisely. The new age will certainly dawn, but in the meantime the righteous will continue to labor. Many of Jesus’ parables have a similar theme
Source: https://readingacts.com/2019/01/23/acts-1-will-you-now-restore-the-kingdom-to-israel/

When we read through the New Test., we can see that when the word ISRAEL is used (70 times) in every case it is a reference to the people or land of Israel and never to the church.

Blessing to you brother.
Click to expand...

And so who is the 'other' Israel in Rom 9:6 and the 'nation' in Mt 21's parable of the vineyard that removes the unproductive and puts productive people in jobs working it?

The kingdom of God is at work all through Acts but never once confused with the destiny of Israel which is explained in Acts 13's sermon. (Israel brings light to the world to the extent that it declares that Christ is the light). In Acts 26, Paul says Israel is still looking for something that they hope will come, because of their confusion about the resurrection, v6-8, 17-23, (which is explained back in Acts 13).

I must then take it that 'it is none of your business' is not literally true, because Dr. Walvoord said it is very much our business. He said that the immediate use of 'clothed' (as priest kings) and 'power' in the very next verse were only possibly of interest. I do not accept that, whether a Walvoord or a car mechanic tells me that. It is exactly what the apostles became, the power of the kingdom being enacted from the Spirit's arrival onward. It was God's way of unleashing the Gospel message all around the world in a very quick time, because those diverse people went home (from all over the known world) and had a little something to talk about.

re adultery
I was showing that no one passage is sufficient in itself. There are many more passages about the problem of remarriage-as-adultery, which Judaism failed to acknowledge. While 'lust after' is literally true, it is not the only way. The 'broken-nosed' Pharisees actually wore eye coverings to prevent them from looking at women; they also hit many buildings and hurt their faces.

Likewise, the 1000 years appears to me to be just another way of describing the reign Christ has right now. This world is his property and possession 'though the eye of sinful man / His glory may not see.' Ps 2 and 110 were fulfilled in Jesus' resurrection; early Acts is crammed with this, so no question there. But only those submissive to the reality of heaven know this.

Christ has a long reign right now, and all believers should be announcing this to those around them; he deserves it. The kingdom of God has come. Both are effective ways of saying it. But it is not something in our future over in Judea, never mentioned in plain-language passages about the 2nd coming etc.

A courageous Christian is not one who 'has the whole future figured out' but who tells his people, whether public rulers or oil-change mechanics, that this world belongs to Christ and all must honor Him or be smashed as Ps 2 says. You will be rejected.

There is not even Judaic detail given in the passage, because the Rev is only concerned with the new temple (which is Christ) in 21:22.

What is the difference between your view and the Jewish settler in 1949 who thought he found the term 'cornerstone' carved in a stone in the rubble of Jerusalem and said it was how the new temple would be started?
 
Last edited:
Musicmaster said:
Decoder, when it gets to the level of appeals to silence in relation to the seeming rebuttal to my treatise about the literal 1000 years, I tend to fall back upon the position of, "There's no right answer to the wrong question," so thus hold my silence in the face of ticking time bombs like those.

MM
Click to expand...

The 'rest of the dead' were raised after is the answer. The martyred died and went immediately to reign with Christ now. The rest died comfortably and are raised after the 1000 years, which is the reign of Christ now, Acts 2:30,31, 36. To make Jesus 'Lord and Christ' per Ps 2, and 110, is to enthrone Him.

What silence? I'm quoting every pertinent passage I can think of.
 
Decoder said:
And so who is the 'other' Israel in Rom 9:6 and the 'nation' in Mt 21's parable of the vineyard that removes the unproductive and puts productive people in jobs working it?

The kingdom of God is at work all through Acts but never once confused with the destiny of Israel which is explained in Acts 13's sermon. (Israel brings light to the world to the extent that it declares that Christ is the light). In Acts 26, Paul says Israel is still looking for something that they hope will come, because of their confusion about the resurrection, v6-8, 17-23, (which is explained back in Acts 13).

I must then take it that 'it is none of your business' is not literally true, because Dr. Walvoord said it is very much our business. He said that the immediate use of 'clothed' (as priest kings) and 'power' in the very next verse were only possibly of interest. I do not accept that, whether a Walvoord or a car mechanic tells me that. It is exactly what the apostles became, the power of the kingdom being enacted from the Spirit's arrival onward. It was God's way of unleashing the Gospel message all around the world in a very quick time, because those diverse people went home (from all over the known world) and had a little something to talk about.

re adultery
I was showing that no one passage is sufficient in itself. There are many more passages about the problem of remarriage-as-adultery, which Judaism failed to acknowledge. While 'lust after' is literally true, it is not the only way. The 'broken-nosed' Pharisees actually wore eye coverings to prevent them from looking at women; they also hit many buildings and hurt their faces.

Likewise, the 1000 years appears to me to be just another way of describing the reign Christ has right now. This world is his property and possession 'though the eye of sinful man / His glory may not see.' Ps 2 and 110 were fulfilled in Jesus' resurrection; early Acts is crammed with this, so no question there. But only those submissive to the reality of heaven know this.

Christ has a long reign right now, and all believers should be announcing this to those around them; he deserves it. The kingdom of God has come. Both are effective ways of saying it. But it is not something in our future over in Judea, never mentioned in plain-language passages about the 2nd coming etc.

A courageous Christian is not one who 'has the whole future figured out' but who tells his people, whether public rulers or oil-change mechanics, that this world belongs to Christ and all must honor Him or be smashed as Ps 2 says. You will be rejected.

There is not even Judaic detail given in the passage, because the Rev is only concerned with the new temple (which is Christ) in 21:22.

What is the difference between your view and the Jewish settler in 1949 who thought he found the term 'cornerstone' carved in a stone in the rubble of Jerusalem and said it was how the new temple would be started?
Click to expand...
You asked.......
"And so who is the 'other' Israel in Rom 9:6?"

Paul explains from the origins of the nation why “not all who are descended of Israel (Jacob) are Israel” (Romans 9:6).
The nation was founded on promise and election. Of Abraham’s eight sons, Isaac alone was born of the promise, thus Isaac’s offspring alone were counted as Abraham’s descendants.

Then in Isaac’s generation an election took place: Isaac’s sons were born of the same mother and father and had near identical DNA (being twins). Yet, Jacob was chosen and Esau not. “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”.

These precedents continue to apply through-out the nation’s history. The true Israel is always the faithful part and never the unfaithful part, the elected part and not the rejected part. Simple ethnicity does not define the people of God.

YOU are still promoting the Preterist false teaching. I suggest that you start a new thread on Preterism instead of trying to interject that false teaching into all of you posts.
 
Decoder said:
The 'rest of the dead' were raised after is the answer. The martyred died and went immediately to reign with Christ now. The rest died comfortably and are raised after the 1000 years, which is the reign of Christ now, Acts 2:30,31, 36. To make Jesus 'Lord and Christ' per Ps 2, and 110, is to enthrone Him.

What silence? I'm quoting every pertinent passage I can think of.
Click to expand...

You have manipulated the Scriptures.

Revelation 20:11............
" And I saw a great white throne... (vs. 12) And I saw the dead...and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books..." These are the rest of the dead.

The "Rest of the dead" are the unbelievers, facing the judgement. They - the unbelievers, the wicked lost of all the ages will be resurrected which is the 2nd death and all of them will be cast into the Lake of Fire and they will NOT REIGN WITH CHRIST now or ever. They will be in torments eternally.

Rev. 20:6 says..........
"Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of the Messiah, and they will reign with Him for 1,000 years."

The ones who are involved in the 1st Resurrection....Born again believers are the ones who will be priests of God and
"they will reign with Him for 1,000 years."---THEY are NOT the ones of the REST OF THE DEAD!

After Armageddon in Rev. 19 will come the literal 1000 year rule of Christ.
After the 1000 year rule of Christ will come the 2nd Resurrection of the lost.
Then the lost will be judged and cast into the lake of fire.

The believers are not going to be judged, except as to receive reward. See 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.
 
Major said:
You have manipulated the Scriptures.

Revelation 20:11............
" And I saw a great white throne... (vs. 12) And I saw the dead...and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books..." These are the rest of the dead.

The "Rest of the dead" are the unbelievers, facing the judgement. They - the unbelievers, the wicked lost of all the ages will be resurrected which is the 2nd death and all of them will be cast into the Lake of Fire and they will NOT REIGN WITH CHRIST now or ever. They will be in torments eternally.

Rev. 20:6 says..........
"Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of the Messiah, and they will reign with Him for 1,000 years."

The ones who are involved in the 1st Resurrection....Born again believers are the ones who will be priests of God and
"they will reign with Him for 1,000 years."---THEY are NOT the ones of the REST OF THE DEAD!

After Armageddon in Rev. 19 will come the literal 1000 year rule of Christ.
After the 1000 year rule of Christ will come the 2nd Resurrection of the lost.
Then the lost will be judged and cast into the lake of fire.

The believers are not going to be judged, except as to receive reward. See 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.
Click to expand...


Then the only people who can be saved are beheaded Christians. That is how that works out.

A person needs to realize the parenthesis on v5 has been added by editors. I don't know why. I think they wanted to 'solve' the issue of the fact that both beheaded and other Christians 'reign with Christ' yet the 'rest of the dead' don't, but all the 1st resurrection people are still blessed and holy. The dead are judged, but they don't come to life. That makes me think the 'rest of the dead' are simply Christians who did not die cruelly. In addition to the facts that the kingdom is now, and the thing described here has no details on earth, and no Judaic details. Remember Stephen: immediately received by Jesus.

Isn't it odd that the 2nd resurrection is not explained anywhere?

You are right that they-- ones beheaded-- are not the rest of the resurrected. And by the way, all those who are in the 1st resurrection are blessed and holy, as it says. That's why that line cannot be about unbelievers too; theirs outcome not called a resurrection. They are merely brought to judgement. Notice in v 12 that they are still called the dead.

The 2nd death is thus not a resurrection; it is like you say, the eternal death, the punishment.

I don't base any doctrines on the Revelation that are not perfectly clear elsewhere; it solidifies scripture.

I do not mean to demean anyone else for what they believe, please forgive if you thought I did.
 
This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection.

Definitely not for the unbelieving dead, not when they are brought to judgement. If only beheaded Christians can gain this first resurrection, and the 2nd resurrection is not explained (it is not), then the 2nd must be those believers who died naturally, and the passage is to honor those who died cruelly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top