we have one return of Christ, no specific identification of the tribulation as to time. We have the complete victory of Christ.
True.
As Paul later says, the death of death, in that very same chapter 1 Cor 15, and during the very same discussion of the resurrection.
True. The end of death for resurrected and changed saints. Not for the ungodly dying to God on earth, and forever dead to God in the second death.
It is the end of this age
True. It will be the end of man's gvt on earth without Christ. Only the resurrected saints will be governing with the Lord upon the earth, over every city given them by reward of faithful service.
and the restoration of all things. Rev 21.
No restoration, but a new heaven and earth.
There is no literal thousand years of dealing with the redemption of national Israel that follows.
If you mean the establishing of Abraham's natural seed in the land given to resurrected Abraham, that is during the Lord's millennium on this earth.
Nothing is said of Jew or Gentile on the new earth, but only of nations outside the gates of New Jerusalem, and God and the Lamb dwelling with man in New Jersualem.
If you mean the Lord's millennium is not a thousand years on this earth, then that is just anti-Lord's millennium governing upon the earth.
The thousand years represents the period between his resurrection and his return.
There is no time allowed for in prophecy of Scripture, between the Lord's return and resurrection of His people. He descends with a shout into the air, resurrects His people at the same moment in a twinkling of the eye, and then has them ascend to meet Him up there, where the clouds are brightest.
Just as a thousand and multiples of a thousand elsewhere in Scripture represents a long but specified by number period of time.
Sure, but the thousand years of the Lord's governing upon the earth is a thousand years, that expires after the thousand years is up. Probably to the day.
I'm not sure why people claiming faith in the Bible as the sure and perfect word of God, want to then change them, as though God has made a mistake, or the apostles wrote them in error. Some run to manuscript arguments to change God's words. The created Christ-angel believers have to do that alot, just to deny John 1:1.
It's all the same thing. Whether adding
a in John 1:1, or
as in Rev 20:2-6.
It is just that you and countless others do not know how to read prophecy and particularly the book of Revelation.
Not like some I don't add my own words to God's words, where they don't belong. Such as adding the word
as to Scripture in Rev 20, where no
as is.
It is a very difficult book because we are so far away from the time of its writing and it is alien to us.
Quite a confession. But then, that's what happens when people change God's words to suit themselves. His own words become more and more alien to them, the more they do so. And Scripture is written to ensure anyone changing the words in one place, will be compelled to change the words of other places in the Bible.
It was not alien to the original recipients of the letter.
Nor to me. If you mean the Jews and Gentiles were conversant in their own histories, legends, and myths, then there remains enough writiings for any modern reader to get the gist of such things.
But, of course, none of them apply to God's teaching and prophecy, unless specifically recorded in Scriptures of truth.
Dispensationalist tend to try and interpret it utterly forgetting it contains a series of visions,
Which are visions of true things to come. Christ is not a false prophet writing of things that do not come to pass as written.
Eze 8:4And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there, according to the vision that I saw in the plain.
Many people don't believe the vision of God on His throne in the air above the plain, was real.
Eze 43:2And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.
Eze 43:3And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face. And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.
And some don't believe the vision of the Lord entering the house of His kingdom upon the earth. I mean, if someone's not going to believe the first vision at Chebar was real, then of course they're not going to beleive the latter vision of the Lord in Jerusalem to come.
It's like anyone not believing the first prophecy of the Lord coming to govern all nations upon the earth, they certainly aren't goiing to believe any of the following prophecies about Him doing so.
and go all literal as though it were not a vision, no matter if it contradicts other Scripture or is inconsistent with itself.
Show where any Scripture taken literally, contradicts other Scripture taken literally.
I say the thousand years is not literal but represents a long unspecified period of time and is the time between the two advents, and the above is your response? Do you comprehend what you read?
