Eschatological and Millennial Theories and their problems.

We will not be flesh and blood for eternity.

We will be like Jesus.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

 

He is no longer flesh and blood but a resurrected body of flesh and bones.

as resurrected individuals we will be alive by the power of the Spirit not oxygenated blood.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,

 

Sorry, this passage does not prove what you want it to prove. Peter is merely using it to prove that Jesus had a physical resurrection as prophesied. That is because a king must have a physical body before He can rule from a physical throne. It says nothing about Jesus reigning over David's kingdom.

Prove to me that this is David's throne and not the throne of the Kingdom of God. This chapter does not mention David. In fact, the whole book of 1 Cor. does not mention David. Until you learn that context is vital in interpretation, you will likewise fail in your efforts to convince.

Well of course! This passage is about the future Kingdom on earth, the throne of David. And Christ (who is speaking) compares it to His throne in Heaven, that of the Kingdom of God. You have completely failed to prove anything here except that your interpretation is not literal.

 

Yes, that's specifically the Kingdom of God, not the throne of David. Read the passage again.

 

That sounds like Amillennialism to me.

 

No, David's throne is David's throne. That's plain English. You can't change meaning in the Bible in that way without becoming Humpty Dumpty as portrayed by Lewis Carroll:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

 

You did not give "scriptures." You gave two verses, one of which has nothing to do with David's throne.

Your other verse was 1 Chronicles 29:23, “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.” This might prove your point, but you did not say how, so what do you want me to say?

As for refuting them, I don't want to refute the Bible. I want to refute you, but you don't give any statements for me to refute.

 

My son just pointed out to me that to say the Kingdom of God is only spiritual and not physical is a false dichotomy. How could it be manifested in the physical world as it is if it is only spiritual? And how can something be spiritual in such a way that it rules out the physical? As I've pointed out on this thread, we tread a line close to Gnosticism if we say that the physical is ergo, never spiritual. Gnosticism teaches that the physical is evil. We don't want to go there.

So to say that the millennial throne of Jesus (the "throne of David") is physical but not spiritual is simply wrong. It is both.