Romans 16:20 is a Strong Proof of Christ's 70 AD Return

[michael-acts17:11]

I believe that Mark 13:32 sheds a little light on this. [re: Mk 13 & Mt 24]
But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father [ONLY].

The Son did not even know when he would return;
he was speaking to his DISCIPLES in response to their questions.
In this case he was prophesying concerning his return.

Of course, your assumption seems to be that (genetic) Israel is "forever cut-off", and so even any "hint"
of the possibility of future (genetic) Israelite disciples must be rejected out-of-hand.

Rather than focusing on those cryptic passages and parables and different "audiences" presented in the Gospels,
may I recommend the clear-concise language of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, to bring clarity and understanding.

I believe that Romans 11 will bring real "clarity and understanding" on this issue:
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graft them in again. - vs. 23
You see, nothing is impossible with God.

Paul goes on:
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits;
that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Jesus will sit on David's Throne.

Cryptic: of an obscure nature, having a secret or hidden meaning
There's dispensationalism in a nutshell. Obscure references to lengths of time & hidden meaning behind clearly written passages. Even dispy's can't agree on the mythical number of dispensations. Your beliefs make Jesus out to be the most cryptic person in history. He either meant exactly what He said, or He didn't. It's as simple as that. Reread the Gospels. Jesus was not being cryptic.

Which of the following verses are "cryptic"? SERIOUSLY, WHICH ONES?

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Mat 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27)
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. (Luke 21:20, Matt 24:15, Mark 13:14)
Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. (Mar 13:30)
(You're right Mark 13 sheds much light on it that you are unwilling to see. Who was Christ speaking directly to? Or was it some cryptic message meant for those who would not be born for another 2,000yrs?)

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Rom 9:6-8)

"I come quickly", spoken to the real life churches to whom Revelation was directly written. This speaks of His coming in judgement; the same as in the OT.

Matthew 13 where Christ explains the removal of ALL persons from the world when He returns. Who is taken first? The lost or the church? Hmmmmmm. Isn't that interesting? Where is the cryptic super-secret rapture? I love taking my theology from the exactly spoken words of Christ.

According to dispy-ism, when Christ says you, ye, this generation, soon, or quickly, He really meant something cryptic that must be read "between the lines". It could mean this, He could have meant that, He could have possibly within remote possibility have done that. Do you not realize how foolish that is? It's guess-work theology. Explain the grammatical inconsistencies in your doctrine without all of the cryptic assumptions.

 

[JesusFan]

Cryptic: of an obscure nature, having a secret or hidden meaning
There's dispensationalism in a nutshell. Obscure references to lengths of time & hidden meaning behind clearly written passages. Even dispy's can't agree on the mythical number of dispensations. Your beliefs make Jesus out to be the most cryptic person in history. He either meant exactly what He said, or He didn't. It's as simple as that. Reread the Gospels. Jesus was not being cryptic.

Which of the following verses are "cryptic"? SERIOUSLY, WHICH ONES?

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Mat 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27)
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. (Luke 21:20, Matt 24:15, Mark 13:14)
Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. (Mar 13:30)
(You're right Mark 13 sheds much light on it that you are unwilling to see. Who was Christ speaking directly to? Or was it some cryptic message meant for those who would not be born for another 2,000yrs?)

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Rom 9:6-8)

"I come quickly", spoken to the real life churches to whom Revelation was directly written. This speaks of His coming in judgement; the same as in the OT.

Matthew 13 where Christ explains the removal of ALL persons from the world when He returns. Who is taken first? The lost or the church? Hmmmmmm. Isn't that interesting? Where is the cryptic super-secret rapture? I love taking my theology from the exactly spoken words of Christ.

According to dispy-ism, when Christ says you, ye, this generation, soon, or quickly, He really meant something cryptic that must be read "between the lines". It could mean this, He could have meant that, He could have possibly within remote possibility have done that. Do you not realize how foolish that is? It's guess-work theology. Explain the grammatical inconsistencies in your doctrine without all of the cryptic assumptions.

maybe if we look into rightly dividing jesus answering his Apostles regarding what would soon come to pass in AD 70, and what would be the signs of His future return, and what would be happening at THAT time?

he answered all of the above, just have to discover which aspect he was asnwering to!

 

[michael-acts17:11]

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6-7)

Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. (Jer 33:20-21)

Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not. (Jer 36:30-31)


If these passages are referring to a physical throne in a brief 1,000yr period of time, then God is a liar. Has the eternal throne been vacant for thousands of years? Will the eternal rule be for a short 1,000yr period of time? Or was the Spirit being "cryptic" when He used eternal, unending language when describing Christ's reign? This is why I left dispensationalism, it is Biblically & hermeneutically inconsistent on a foundational level.

Dispensationalists conveniently overlook the passages which describe the physical throne of David remaining empty due to a broken covenant. The physical throne is empty & gone due to man's sin. The eternal throne is filled at God's right hand due to Christ's faithfulness.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

maybe if we look into rightly dividing jesus answering his Apostles regarding what would soon come to pass in AD 70, and what would be the signs of His future return, and what would be happening at THAT time?

he answered all of the above, just have to discover which aspect he was asnwering to!

I prefer not to cut & dice Scriptural passages to make them fit a particular ideology. If you have to change the natural meaning of the text to make it fit your theology, you should rethink your theology. Our beliefs should be changed to conform to Scripture, not the other way around.

 

[JesusFan]

I prefer not to cut & dice Scriptural passages to make them fit a particular ideology. If you have to change the natural meaning of the text to make it fit your theology, you should rethink your theology. Our beliefs should be changed to conform to Scripture, not the other way around.

just saying that NNE has a historical reference to jesus returning to the earth, other than JW, with his 'spiritual return in 1914"....

And Jesus was asked specific questions, gave specific answers..

 

[michael-acts17:11]

just saying that NNE has a historical reference to jesus returning to the earth, other than JW, with his 'spiritual return in 1914"....

And Jesus was asked specific questions, gave specific answers..

He hasn't returned yet. AD70 was a time of judgement, not the Second Coming. This is where hyperpreterists fall off the theological wagon. When He returns, He will take everyone out via His angels, starting with the unbelievers, and we(believers) will return to the new earth once He has finished recreating it. I figure this will take no longer than seven days, but that is just a personal assumption based upon the first creation account. Matthew 13 & 2 Peter 13 are clear on what will happen when Christ physically returns.


He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matt 13:37-43)


But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (2Peter 3:10-13)

 

[beameup]

Which of the following verses are "cryptic"? SERIOUSLY, WHICH ONES?

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death,
till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Mat 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27)

hmmmmm. I guess Josephus and all the other historians of the time
must have been asleep, having missed that occurring in 70AD.

Mt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

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

And after six days Jesus taketh [with him] Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves:
and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. Mk 9:2-3

And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment [was] white [and] glistering. Lk 9:28-29

 

[Grasshopper]

Rather than pull a quote of Gill out of context, here is Article Ten of the Goat yard Delaration of Faith which was written personally by Gill for his church at Horse Lie Down, London:-

Read Gill's commentary on Matthew 26. How did I take it out of context? Why not deal with what he said?

Note that this coming of Christ was still future in 1729 when Gill wrote about it. Note also that it is Christ's Second Coming, not His Third.

Not the one in Matthew 26. read it again.

 

[Grasshopper]

hmmmmm. I guess Josephus and all the other historians of the time
must have been asleep, having missed that occurring in 70AD.

Mt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

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

And after six days Jesus taketh [with him] Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves:
and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. Mk 9:2-3

And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment [was] white [and] glistering. Lk 9:28-29

Are you saying verse 27 was fulfilled?

 

[beameup]

Are you saying verse 27 was fulfilled?

No, Michael-Acts and Logos are... in 70AD.

------------------------------------------------------
It is important to "rightly divide" the scripture,
and it is also recommended to pay close attention
to the "small details" that the Holy Spirit puts in the text.

For example, the Holy Spirit could curse the line of David
which went through Joseph without cursing the lineage
of David through Mary. Like I said, you have to "pay attention". :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Logos1]

The difference between understanding scripture and twisting scripture

Logos1, I'd apply all of my questions which asterisktom ran away from to you as well.

Perhaps the most significant is, if Jesus did return in AD 70, why does no one record His second coming when there are many records of His first coming? Why wouldn't Jesus appear to His living apostles in His AD 70 return?

Didn’t you mean to say “your frustration in Tom not twisting biblical understanding to suit your point of view.”

Well the disciples were kind enough to record Jesus’ teachings and doings and gave us Matthew 24:1-3

Matthew 24:1-3
English Standard Version (ESV)
Matthew 24
Jesus Foretells Destruction of the Temple
1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2 But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
Signs of the End of the Age
3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”


So we see in the disciples question (and Jesus answer) Destruction of the temple = sign of your coming = end of age.

Since history thoroughly records the destruction of the temple (you wouldn’t argue that it wasn’t destroyed would you and you wouldn’t dispute the Holy Scripture’s accuracy would you) we see the sign of His coming associated with the destruction of the temple.

How simple can it get? What part of the above scripture don’t you get?

Matthew 26:64
English Standard Version (ESV)
64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Caiaphas, is told he will “see” Jesus coming in clouds of judgment. The Greek word for “see” is “Optomai”, which does not denote see with eyeballs, and but means discerning or perceiving or understanding.

65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need?

Caiaphas clearly understands Jesus is applying the understanding of coming on the clouds the way it was applied to God’s presence in the Old Testament. No one ever saw God physically parting the clouds and appearing in the sky—yet that is the way your preconceived notions insist on twisting scripture.

If you would apply as much effort to understanding scripture the way it was intended to be understood as you do to twisting scripture to prevent you from understanding it you would be amazed at just how easy the answers to your questions come to you.

I will leave that to the superb eisegesis of Logo...Oldregular

You are obviously of superior intellect, why I guess relative to anyone on this Forum…..Oldregular

Enlighten all us poor Biblical illiterates…Oldregular

A lesser man might get discouraged in this task, but I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

 

[JesusFan]

Didn’t you mean to say “your frustration in Tom not twisting biblical understanding to suit your point of view.”

Well the disciples were kind enough to record Jesus’ teachings and doings and gave us Matthew 24:1-3

Matthew 24:1-3
English Standard Version (ESV)
Matthew 24
Jesus Foretells Destruction of the Temple
1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2 But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
Signs of the End of the Age
3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”


So we see in the disciples question (and Jesus answer) Destruction of the temple = sign of your coming = end of age.

Since history thoroughly records the destruction of the temple (you wouldn’t argue that it wasn’t destroyed would you and you wouldn’t dispute the Holy Scripture’s accuracy would you) we see the sign of His coming associated with the destruction of the temple.

How simple can it get? What part of the above scripture don’t you get?

Matthew 26:64
English Standard Version (ESV)
64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Caiaphas, is told he will “see” Jesus coming in clouds of judgment. The Greek word for “see” is “Optomai”, which does not denote see with eyeballs, and but means discerning or perceiving or understanding.

65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need?

Caiaphas clearly understands Jesus is applying the understanding of coming on the clouds the way it was applied to God’s presence in the Old Testament. No one ever saw God physically parting the clouds and appearing in the sky—yet that is the way your preconceived notions insist on twisting scripture.

If you would apply as much effort to understanding scripture the way it was intended to be understood as you do to twisting scripture to prevent you from understanding it you would be amazed at just how easy the answers to your questions come to you.

I will leave that to the superb eisegesis of Logo...Oldregular

You are obviously of superior intellect, why I guess relative to anyone on this Forum…..Oldregular

Enlighten all us poor Biblical illiterates…Oldregular

A lesser man might get discouraged in this task, but I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Are we now in the new heavens and earth age?

death/sin/war/ etc all have been put down, especially death itself?

jesus and paul said that would haoppen at His second coming...

Were they both wrong?

 

[asterisktom]

Are we now in the new heavens and earth age?

According to the Bible's use of that specific term, yes.

death/sin/war/ etc all have been put down, especially death itself?

According to 1st Corinthians use of "death", yes.

jesus and paul said that would haoppen at His second coming...

Were they both wrong?

According to your theology, they are. Preterism takes them at their inspired word.

Thank you for asking these clear questions.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Matthew 24:1-3
English Standard Version (ESV)
Matthew 24
Jesus Foretells Destruction of the Temple
1 Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. 2 But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
Signs of the End of the Age
3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

So we see in the disciples question [sic] (and Jesus answer) Destruction of the temple = sign of your coming = end of age.

This is about as good an example of begging the question as it's possible to find. Actually, the disciples asked three questions:-
1. When will these things be?
2. What will be the sign of your coming?
3. And of the end of the age?

If you think that these are all the same question, then you have to show why you think so, and why they asked it three different ways.

Since history thoroughly records the destruction of the temple (you wouldn’t argue that it wasn’t destroyed would you and you wouldn’t dispute the Holy Scripture’s accuracy would you) we see the sign of His coming associated with the destruction of the temple.

How simple can it get? What part of the above scripture don’t you get?

Yes, history thoroughly records the answer to the first question. But history absolutely doesn't record the answer(s) to the second two.

Matthew 26:64
English Standard Version (ESV)
64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Caiaphas, is told he will “see” Jesus coming in clouds of judgment. The Greek word for “see” is “Optomai”, which does not denote see with eyeballs, and but means discerning or perceiving or understanding.

65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need?

Caiaphas clearly understands Jesus is applying the understanding of coming on the clouds the way it was applied to God’s presence in the Old Testament. No one ever saw God physically parting the clouds and appearing in the sky—yet that is the way your preconceived notions insist on twisting scripture.

If you would apply as much effort to understanding scripture the way it was intended to be understood as you do to twisting scripture to prevent you from understanding it you would be amazed at just how easy the answers to your questions come to you.

Yes indeed. How fortunate we are to have Logos 1 to guide us through the intricacies of the Greek language! The only slight problem is that I can find is that the word translated 'see' in Matt 26:64 is opsesthe which is the Second Person Plural Future Indicative of horao, which means 'to see.' Like the English word 'see,' horao can certainly mean to 'discern,' on occasion, but I draw your attention to 1Corinthians 9:1 and 15:5-8, where Paul's whole argument depends upon horao meaning to 'see with the eyeballs.' He uses the word five times.

Finally we come to Caiaphas. Fortunately, we know quite a bit about him. You can read about him here: http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caiaphas/caiaphas.htm Notice that Caiaphas was appointed High Priest in AD 18. Now High Priest was quite a senior post, and it certainly wouldn't have been given to a young man. Caiaphas would almost certainly have been at least 45 years old when he was appointed. Therefore in AD 70, at the age of 103, he is most unlikely to have been seeing or discerning or perceiving anything! You will see that his tomb contained the body of a man aged around 60. That suggests that he would have died some time shortly after our Lord's death and resurrection. So whatever our Lord meant in Matt 26:64, He did not mean that Caiaphas would 'see' Him in any sense whatsoever in AD 70.

Back to the drawing board, old friend!

A lesser man might get discouraged in this task, but I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

I really don't think you can blame the Lord Jesus for your incessant foolishness. I think you manage these all by yourself.

Steve

 

[DHK]

A belated Merry Christmas to you dhk--hope you had a jolly good one.

LOL, well dhk is it arrogance when it proves to be true. Besides I don’t think you can get into my brain and decide what I know—looks like I did know what I was talking about—Christ didn’t come back—which does more to validate my point on 70 AD than it does to support the 2,000 year record of failure of futurism doesn’t it. If you would actually read the bible straight up as opposed to wasting your time numbering post about this and that you would know that the 12 Apostles understood Christ’s teaching to them of a first century return and even though he didn’t date it for them it did in fact prove to be 70 AD.

Correct me if I am wrong. I thought your view was that Christ did come back in 70 A.D. Is not that the Preterist position, as well as yours?

The Apostles question of Matthew 24:3 certainly tells us when the temple would be destroyed is when the end of the age would be and that is when he would come back—and that just happen to be 70 AD. So therefore I have 12, count’em twelve, a whole dozen witnesses to the Preterist view point.

The apostles were expecting the kingdom; first, when Jesus first came; and then they asked about it again just before he ascended into heaven. The destruction of the temple was a foreshadowing of what would come, and still is to come, but was not the fulfillment. As Jesus said, no man knows the hour. He will come as a thief in the night, unexpectedly when no man is expecting him. It will be imminent.
The end of the age did not end in 70 A.D.
Most of the apostles had already died by 70 A.D., and never saw the destruction of the Temple.
Jude was still alive. John was still alive and did not write any of his letters, gospel or the book of Revelation until the 90's. That would disprove your theory right there. In the ascension they saw him go; not come.

Please show me your witnesses. When and where did the apostles witness Christ coming in the glory of the Father with the holy angels. Why did not the whole earth see him? Why did not all Israel mourn for him?

I don’t see any Apostles (or Christ’s answer) supporting your view point dhk. Just saying.

John does. In 98 A.D. he says:

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:7)

Then at the end of the book, Christ still had not come. Thus the last prayer of the book:
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:20)
--By the end of the first century, John testifies that Christ had not come.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.
I trust you are having a blessed holiday season.

 

[JesusFan]

According to the Bible's use of that specific term, yes.


According to 1st Corinthians use of "death", yes.


According to your theology, they are. Preterism takes them at their inspired word.

Thank you for asking these clear questions.

when does the Great White Throne Judgement occur in your understanding, because after that we see a new heavens and earth in the Bible !

 

[asterisktom]

when does the Great White Throne Judgement occur in your understanding, because after that we see a new heavens and earth in the Bible !

Before I answer that, please give me a verse or passage that states the above. Thanks.

 

[Amy.G]

Before I answer that, please give me a verse or passage that states the above. Thanks.

11 Then I saw a great white throne and One seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books.
13 Then the sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead; all[f] were judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

[asterisktom]

11 Then I saw a great white throne and One seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books.
13 Then the sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead; all[f] were judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

OK, this is in Rev. 20. Now, the question still stands: When is the new heavens and the new Earth in relation to the Great White Throne Judgment (the Bema)? I assume you see the New heaven and Earths at verse 11. Is that right?

Do you also follow the chronology of the entire chapter? If so, then these all happen after Satan is bound, after the 1000 years, and after Satan is loosed again (vs. 2-5).

But perhaps you, or JesusFan, believes that the chronology breaks at vs. 11.

Either way there is a problem with the futurist scenario.

 

[OldRegular]

OK, this is in Rev. 20. Now, the question still stands: When is the new heavens and the new Earth in relation to the Great White Throne Judgment (the Bema)? I assume you see the New heaven and Earths at verse 11. Is that right?

Do you also follow the chronology of the entire chapter? If so, then these all happen after Satan is bound, after the 1000 years, and after Satan is loosed again (vs. 2-5).

But perhaps you, or JesusFan, believes that the chronology breaks at vs. 11.

Either way there is a problem with the futurist scenario.

Do you really believe the 1000 years is to be taken literally?