Where does Jesus Speak about the Millennium?

[posthuman]

Why can't this verse be understood literally?

2 Pet 3:
8) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Why can't the thousand years here be literal?

i know this was already addressed, but there's something obvious about it that i didn't see pointed out, that might help someone "get it"

Peter didn't just come up with this saying in a vaccuum. he's paraphrasing Psalm 90:4

For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it passes by,
Or as a watch in the night.​

first thing you might notice is that "1,000yr" is compared to two time periods, not just one, in the Psalm - though Peter, in paraphrasing, only restated one of them. if you want to take Peter's words as a literal unit-conversion equation, then you ought to have exactly the same literal view of the source material Peter is quoting.
but then you have an equation like this:

1,000 years = 1 day = 3 or 4 hours

((in David's time, a "watch" was 4 hours, but after Roman occupation, it was generally changed to 3 - as Matthew observes it in his gospel, ch. 14 v. 25, when he mentions "the fourth watch" - there are only three watches per night when they're each four hours long))

hopefully you see that taking this saying as literal leads immediately to contradiction -- and you can only resolve the 'math' if you delete part of the Psalm. either 1,000yr = 24hr or 1,000yr = 4hr, which is it? can't be both, because 24 ≠ 4.

second thing you might notice - especially now that your eyes have probably drifted back up to Psalm 90:4 at least once, is that the psalmist uses some words that are very clearly indicating a simile -- 1,000 years are like yesterday, or as a watch in the night. ding! ding! symbolic language.
of course, this is probably what we should have noticed first - then we never would have come up with the unworkable math in the first place.

i believe there is clearly also symbolic and figurative language in the scripture that doesn't have obvious indication of it in the text like "like" and "as" -- but in this case, there it is. when such tells are not there, context and comparing what's said to where the same & similar things are written about in the scripture usually leads us to the right understanding of it, whether it's idiomatic or literal or symbolic. usually.

 

[J7]

Don't flatter yourself. Just stick to trying to argue yourself out of your preterist shaped box

Not really I've embarrassed you a few times, the rest you've done yourself as was evident in your preterism thread....

 

[Ahwatukee]

Yes, I am well aware of them. I would try to explain this to you but I know it would be a complete waste of time because I know you would never accept the explanation.

You are correct in that I would never accept it and that because it is the false teachings of men. Your explanation is just an apologetic to support preterism, which, along with amillennialism, is one of the most destructive false teachings out there.

You went in the wrong direction sir!

 

[Locutus]

Good one Bones, Peter is bringing his readers attention to the Psalms and should be understood in light of what David was trying to convey.

 

[Locutus]

Don't flatter yourself. Just stick to trying to argue yourself out of your preterist shaped box

I'm not the one that had to have his posts edited for foul language and then beg the mod's to not ban - you never had much credibility on here, but since then you have gone into the negative well past zero.

 

[GaryA]

Jesus was crucified after the 69th week.

Dan 9:
26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

In the middle of the 70th week the antichrist will renege on his covenant.

27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The 62 weeks from Daniel 9:26 started in the middle of the 8th week - not the end of the 7th week.

The 62 weeks ended in the middle of the 70th week.

Christ was crucified in the middle of the 70th week.

The 70 weeks of Daniel ended ~3.5 years after Christ was crucified.

It is suggested by many that Stephen was stoned about that time.

The timing of the 70 weeks of Daniel have nothing whatsoever to do with any [ prophetic ] antichrist action or event.

 

[J7]

You sound like an old drama queen. Chuckles

I'm not the one that had to have his posts edited for foul language and then beg the mod's to not ban - you never had much credibility on here, but since then you have gone into the negative well past zero.

 

[GaryA]

So how do reconcile Daniel's statement about the city and his people:

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

If you properly understood all of what that verse is saying, you would be able to answer your own question.

CLUE: The end of the 70 weeks marks the end of "the times of the Jews" and the start of "the times of the Gentiles"...

 

[Locutus]

.............................

 

[oldhermit]

Well, an excerpt from my Bibles "Archaeological Supplement" would disagree with you in that is states the following regarding the excavation of Ephesus:

"Other discoveries included a lovely marble bath house with many rooms, a fine library, a large basilica church dedicated to "St. John the Theologian," the "Catacomb of the Seven Sleepers" in which were hundreds of burial places, and a temple dedicated to emperor worship. In it was a statue of Domitian, the emperor who banished John to the island of Patmos and who was persecuting the Christians while Christ was giving his revelation to John."

Domitian reigned as Emperor from 81 - 96 AD, which would mean that the book of Revelation was written well after 81 AD.

The only reason for your claim is that you have to produce an apologetic for this, because if Revelation was written during Domitian's reign, it destroys your whole preterist theory.

I am afraid you are going to have to do better that this. How does the discovery of a statue of Domition prove that he was the one who banished John? In what century was this statue made and by whom? What evidence is there in this discovery that connects Domition to John?

John was banished either by Nero or Galba, not Domition. The argument of Domition will not fit the 7 kings of chapter 17. There is simply no way to make that work.

The "kings," therefore, were the rulers of the Roman Empire of John's day. The "kings" were not ruling at the same time, for the text stated "five have fallen," meaning that five of those kings had come and gone. Then, "one is," meaning the king who was ruling at the time Revelation was written. Here in this verse, we have one of the clearest proofs for dating this book. If we simply examine the list of Roman Emperors, we will be able to determine who the sixth king was, and the time Revelation was written.
There are seven kings.
1. "Five have fallen" – Augustus (27 BC - 14 AD), Tiberius (14-37), Caligula (37-41), and Claudius (41-54), Nero (54-68)
2. "One now is" - Galba who reigned only seven months from (68-69)
3. "The other has not yet come and when he comes, he will remain only a little while" - It is noteworthy to remember that this began a time of brief reigns with Otho reigning only 3 months from January 15 to April 16, 69 AD and Vitellius who reigned only 8 months from April 16 to December 22, 69 AD. After this Vespasian assumes the throne and reigns for 10 years from December of 69 to 79 AD. It was under his reign that Rome began to stabilize politically. Why are only seven kings mentioned? Because it is during the reign of Galba that Jerusalem is destroyed.
We find in Nero and Galba the terrible persecutors of the Christians at whose hand Peter and Paul were martyred. God used Nero to destroy the Jews. Nero commanded Vespasian to destroy Jerusalem. This was the seventh king, suggesting that Revelation was written before the siege of Jerusalem. Historically, Nero is the one that persecuted Christians beyond all comparison. John's banishment to Patmos was a result of the great persecutions of Nero and Galba.

 

[Locutus]

If you properly understood all of what that verse is saying, you would be able to answer your own question.

CLUE: The end of the 70 weeks marks the end of "the times of the Jews" and the start of "the times of the Gentiles"...

Au contraire, you have (and those supporting this) arbitrarily attributed the stoning of Stephen as the end of the 70 weeks with no biblical justification based on the supposed rejection of the gospel by the Jews and the "turning" to the Gentles.

This is incorrect because Paul's ministry while gentile based was to both the jews and gentiles as evidenced in his letters and the book of Acts.

 

[oldhermit]

The book of Revelation itself tells us precisely when it was written. It was written in the time of the king which John designated as the who "now is" which offers only two possibilities. It was either Nero or Galba.

 

[shrume]

The 62 weeks from Daniel 9:26 started in the middle of the 8th week - not the end of the 7th week.

The 62 weeks ended in the middle of the 70th week.

Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Christ was crucified in the middle of the 70th week.

Christ was crucified at the end of the 69th week.

The 70 weeks of Daniel ended ~3.5 years after Christ was crucified.

The 69 weeks ended when Christ was crucified. The 70th week is still future.

It is suggested by many that Stephen was stoned about that time.

Not relevant.

The timing of the 70 weeks of Daniel have nothing whatsoever to do with any [ prophetic ] antichrist action or event.

Disagree.

 

[shrume]

The book of Revelation itself tells us precisely when it was written.

If it did, people would not be arguing about it.

 

[oldhermit]

If it did, people would not be arguing about it.

Of course they would.

 

[shrume]

i know this was already addressed, but there's something obvious about it that i didn't see pointed out, that might help someone "get it"

Peter didn't just come up with this saying in a vaccuum. he's paraphrasing Psalm 90:4

For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it passes by,
Or as a watch in the night.​

first thing you might notice is that "1,000yr" is compared to two time periods, not just one, in the Psalm - though Peter, in paraphrasing, only restated one of them. if you want to take Peter's words as a literal unit-conversion equation, then you ought to have exactly the same literal view of the source material Peter is quoting.
but then you have an equation like this:

1,000 years = 1 day = 3 or 4 hours

((in David's time, a "watch" was 4 hours, but after Roman occupation, it was generally changed to 3 - as Matthew observes it in his gospel, ch. 14 v. 25, when he mentions "the fourth watch" - there are only three watches per night when they're each four hours long))

hopefully you see that taking this saying as literal leads immediately to contradiction -- and you can only resolve the 'math' if you delete part of the Psalm. either 1,000yr = 24hr or 1,000yr = 4hr, which is it? can't be both, because 24 ≠ 4.

second thing you might notice - especially now that your eyes have probably drifted back up to Psalm 90:4 at least once, is that the psalmist uses some words that are very clearly indicating a simile -- 1,000 years are like yesterday, or as a watch in the night. ding! ding! symbolic language.
of course, this is probably what we should have noticed first - then we never would have come up with the unworkable math in the first place.

i believe there is clearly also symbolic and figurative language in the scripture that doesn't have obvious indication of it in the text like "like" and "as" -- but in this case, there it is. when such tells are not there, context and comparing what's said to where the same & similar things are written about in the scripture usually leads us to the right understanding of it, whether it's idiomatic or literal or symbolic. usually.

There is no denying that "thousand" is frequently figurative.

Does that mean it's always figurative?

I'm not convinced it is.

 

[shrume]

Have you received the holy spirit

Yep.

and if you have what is the source?

Jesus Christ (Acts 2:33).

 

[Desertsrose]

I'm not asking about John's revelation.

Where in the gospels or letters is the millennium addressed?

Does John's revelation not meet with your approval, Locutus?

No matter where we find them, they are the words of Jesus. He decided to reveal this through His chosen apostle and at His appointed time according to His Sovereign will.

 

[Locutus]

There is only one source for the holy spirit:

Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

To claim you have the holy spirit and at the same time claim the book of revelation is not fulfilled makes no sense. You are placing the water of life at the end of the "millennium".

 

[posthuman]

The book of Revelation itself tells us precisely when it was written. It was written in the time of the king which John designated as the who "now is" which offers only two possibilities. It was either Nero or Galba.

i don't really have a fully-formed understanding of all this -- so this is just a question, not trying to make an argument --
aren't there a number of early-church-fathers writings that associate Domitian as being the emperor that banished John? and put the time of his Apocalypse being written at 'near the end' of Domitian's reign, i.e. late 90's AD?

[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
a separate question - in Revelation 17 John marvels at the woman on the beast, and is kinda reproached by the angel for doing so. that beast is described - to John's perspective - as was, now is not, and will come up out of the abyss. so it was before John, and at the time John writes, it is not, but will rise up after the time John received this vision. do you think John recognized the beast? maybe that has to do with him marveling?
and the beast is "one of the seven and also the eighth" -- what does that mean? if the 7 are seven Roman emperors, does that make the beast one of those men - one of the five, i guess, since it "was and is not" at the time John sees all these things?