Revelation 19- A major Key to understanding Revelations

[Revelation1v8]

Now we're back to you ignoring Acts 15:

Acts 15:14-17

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; AS IT IS WRITTEN,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

 

[Gideon300]

Saying “I never claimed Israel’s restored monarchy” doesn’t fix the problem, because your model still assumes the very thing the NT never teaches — that the literal, modern state of Israel is the divinely chosen staging ground for Jesus’ earthly millennial kingdom. That claim is not found in any NT text. The NT affirms Israel’s priority, Israel’s Messiah, Israel’s promises — but it never says the millennium begins from Israel as a geopolitical state. That’s the jump your system keeps making, and the apostles never make it.

"On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half the mountain moving to the north and half to the south." Zechariah 14:4. A prophecy yet to be fulfilled.

Jesus ascended to heaven from the Mount of Olives.

"Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.” Then they returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, which is near the city, a Sabbath day’s journey away." Acts 1:11 & 12

So where does Jesus return to? The Mount of Olives. Why? Because He will rule from Jerusalem as foretold. Psalm 2 speaks of this time as well as many other scriptures.

 

[OMC]

"On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half the mountain moving to the north and half to the south." Zechariah 14:4. A prophecy yet to be fulfilled.

Jesus ascended to heaven from the Mount of Olives.

"Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.” Then they returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, which is near the city, a Sabbath day’s journey away." Acts 1:11 & 12

So where does Jesus return to? The Mount of Olives. Why? Because He will rule from Jerusalem as foretold. Psalm 2 speaks of this time as well as many other scriptures.

Zechariah 14 and Acts 1 absolutely locate where Jesus returns — the Mount of Olives — but they do not say why He returns there or what political structure He establishes when He does.
You’re taking a geographical detail and turning it into a geopolitical doctrine, and the NT never makes that jump.
The NT affirms the location of His return, but it never says He will rule a 1,000‑year earthly kingdom from Jerusalem as a geopolitical capital. That’s the difference between what the text says and what your system assumes.

 

[Gideon300]

Zechariah 14 and Acts 1 absolutely locate where Jesus returns — the Mount of Olives — but they do not say why He returns there or what political structure He establishes when He does.
You’re taking a geographical detail and turning it into a geopolitical doctrine, and the NT never makes that jump.
The NT affirms the location of His return, but it never says He will rule a 1,000‑year earthly kingdom from Jerusalem as a geopolitical capital. That’s the difference between what the text says and what your system assumes.

Where was David's throne? Jerusalem. What throne will Jesus occupy? The throne of David. Where do you imagine that Jesus will rule and reign from? London? New York? Psalm 2 indicates that the Lord Jesus will rule literally on the earth. It could not be clearer where His reign will be from.

 

[OMC]

Where was David's throne? Jerusalem. What throne will Jesus occupy? The throne of David. Where do you imagine that Jesus will rule and reign from? London? New York? Psalm 2 indicates that the Lord Jesus will rule literally on the earth. It could not be clearer where His reign will be from.

Pointing to where David’s throne once stood does not tell you where Jesus’ throne will stand, because the NT explicitly relocates the Davidic throne from earthly Jerusalem to heavenly authority.
You’re taking an OT shadow and insisting it must be fulfilled in the same geopolitical location, but the apostles say the fulfillment is Christ’s present enthronement at the Father’s right hand, not a future Israeli capital.
Yes, Jesus returns to the Mount of Olives — that’s geography.
But geography is not government.
The NT never says He will rule the millennium from earthly Jerusalem; it says He already sits on David’s throne (Acts 2:30–36), already rules the nations (Rev 12:5), already possesses the ends of the earth (Ps 2 interpreted in Heb 1), and already reigns from heavenly Zion (Heb 12:22).
Your model assumes: “David’s throne was in Jerusalem, therefore Jesus must reign from Jerusalem.”
The apostles say: “David’s throne is fulfilled in the risen Christ’s heavenly reign.” That’s the difference between David’s throne as type and Christ’s enthronement as fulfillment.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Pointing to where David’s throne once stood does not tell you where Jesus’ throne will stand, because the NT explicitly relocates the Davidic throne from earthly Jerusalem to heavenly authority.
You’re taking an OT shadow and insisting it must be fulfilled in the same geopolitical location, but the apostles say the fulfillment is Christ’s present enthronement at the Father’s right hand, not a future Israeli capital.
Yes, Jesus returns to the Mount of Olives — that’s geography.
But geography is not government.
The NT never says He will rule the millennium from earthly Jerusalem; it says He already sits on David’s throne (Acts 2:30–36), already rules the nations (Rev 12:5), already possesses the ends of the earth (Ps 2 interpreted in Heb 1), and already reigns from heavenly Zion (Heb 12:22).
Your model assumes: “David’s throne was in Jerusalem, therefore Jesus must reign from Jerusalem.”
The apostles say: “David’s throne is fulfilled in the risen Christ’s heavenly reign.” That’s the difference between David’s throne as type and Christ’s enthronement as fulfillment.

That's where you're confused. The Bible clearly shows His throne sitting on both earth and in Heaven, as I just showed you earlier in Acts 15:14-17. That's why I said earlier in this thread that scripture has BOTH a literal fulfillment and a spiritual one. You're trying to turn everything during the Millennial Kingdom period into allegory, when it's not. It's both. You first have the earthly Millennial Kingdom period and then you see the Heavenly Jerusalem coming down from Heaven after the 1,000 years are over.

 

[OMC]

That's where you're confused. The Bible clearly shows His throne sitting on both earth and in Heaven, as I just showed you earlier in Acts 15:14-17. That's why I said earlier in this thread that scripture has BOTH a literal fulfillment and a spiritual one. You're trying to turn everything during the Millennial Kingdom period into allegory, when it's not. It's both. You first have the earthly Millennial Kingdom period and then you see the Heavenly Jerusalem coming down from Heaven after the 1,000 years are over.

Acts 15:14–17 does not show Jesus sitting on two thrones (one earthly, one heavenly); it shows James quoting Amos to explain the Gentile mission, not the geography of the millennial kingdom — the “rebuilding of David’s fallen tent” is fulfilled in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ (Acts 2:30–36), not in a future Israeli monarchy, and the proof is that James applies the prophecy to what is happening right then (“God first visited the Gentiles”), not to a future earthly throne; your claim that Scripture teaches “both literal and spiritual fulfillments” only works if the NT ever says David’s throne will be re‑established in Jerusalem, but it never does — instead it says Christ is already enthroned, already ruling the nations, already seated at the Father’s right hand, already reigning from heavenly Zion, and Revelation places the descent of the New Jerusalem after the millennium, not as a second throne during it; the confusion in your model is that you treat OT shadows (earthly throne, earthly Zion, earthly kingdom) as if they must be repeated in the same geopolitical form, but the apostles say the fulfillment is Messianic, heavenly, and present, not Israeli, earthly, and future, and once you keep the NT’s own categories intact, the idea of “two thrones” disappears — Christ reigns from one throne, the throne of David, and the NT says that throne is in heaven, not in millennial Jerusalem.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Acts 15:14–17 does not show Jesus sitting on two thrones (one earthly, one heavenly); it shows James quoting Amos to explain the Gentile mission, not the geography of the millennial kingdom — the “rebuilding of David’s fallen tent” is fulfilled in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ (Acts 2:30–36), not in a future Israeli monarchy, and the proof is that James applies the prophecy to what is happening right then (“God first visited the Gentiles”), not to a future earthly throne; your claim that Scripture teaches “both literal and spiritual fulfillments” only works if the NT ever says David’s throne will be re‑established in Jerusalem, but it never does — instead it says Christ is already enthroned, already ruling the nations, already seated at the Father’s right hand, already reigning from heavenly Zion, and Revelation places the descent of the New Jerusalem after the millennium, not as a second throne during it; the confusion in your model is that you treat OT shadows (earthly throne, earthly Zion, earthly kingdom) as if they must be repeated in the same geopolitical form, but the apostles say the fulfillment is Messianic, heavenly, and present, not Israeli, earthly, and future, and once you keep the NT’s own categories intact, the idea of “two thrones” disappears — Christ reigns from one throne, the throne of David, and the NT says that throne is in heaven, not in millennial Jerusalem.

You said that Acts 15:14-17 only works if the NT ever says that David's throne would be re-established in Jerusalem, and it does at the end of this list of verses. However, your thinking that the NT absolutely has to say it this way in order for OT prophecy to be fulfilled is just biased thinking, and it probably has a lot to do with what theology school you went to.

• 2 Samuel 7:12-16 records God’s covenant with David, promising that his house and kingdom would endure forever and his throne would be established eternally.
• Jeremiah 33:15-16 prophesies that a righteous Branch from David’s line will reign as king and execute justice, specifically linking this rule to Zion and Jerusalem.
• Isaiah 9:7 declares that the government will be upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, establishing it with justice and righteousness from that time forward and forever.
• Acts 2:30 references the oath God swore to David to place one of his descendants on his throne, which biblical commentary identifies as being located in Jerusalem for future fulfillment.
• Luke 1:32 — The angel Gabriel tells Mary: "The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

Note to add: Just because God/Jesus' kingdom starts on earth and ends up in Heaven fulfills the prophecy that Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob "forever" and His kingdom will never end.

 

[OMC]

You said that Acts 15:14-17 only works if the NT ever says that David's throne would be re-established in Jerusalem, and it does at the end of this list of verses. However, your thinking that the NT absolutely has to say it this way in order for OT prophecy to be fulfilled is just biased thinking, and it probably has a lot to do with what theology school you went to.

• 2 Samuel 7:12-16 records God’s covenant with David, promising that his house and kingdom would endure forever and his throne would be established eternally.
• Jeremiah 33:15-16 prophesies that a righteous Branch from David’s line will reign as king and execute justice, specifically linking this rule to Zion and Jerusalem.
• Isaiah 9:7 declares that the government will be upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, establishing it with justice and righteousness from that time forward and forever.
• Acts 2:30 references the oath God swore to David to place one of his descendants on his throne, which biblical commentary identifies as being located in Jerusalem for future fulfillment.
• Luke 1:32 — The angel Gabriel tells Mary: "The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

Note to add: Just because God/Jesus' kingdom starts on earth and ends up in Heaven fulfills the prophecy that Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob "forever" and His kingdom will never end

Your list proves the exact distinction I’ve been pressing: every OT text you cited promises David’s throne, David’s house, David’s kingdom — but none of them say the throne must be re‑established in earthly Jerusalem after the resurrection. That location‑requirement is something you are adding, not something the texts demand. The NT repeatedly takes those same promises and relocates their fulfillment to Christ’s heavenly enthronement, not a future geopolitical throne in Jerusalem. Again you are defending a system that is contrary to what scripture actually says. And your accusation only lands if my argument were “the NT must repeat the OT wording or prophecy fails,” but that’s not what I said. My claim is simple: the NT is the Spirit‑given interpretation of the OT, so whatever the OT promises, the NT tells you how it is fulfilled. That’s not bias, that’s how biblical theology works.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Your list proves the exact distinction I’ve been pressing: every OT text you cited promises David’s throne, David’s house, David’s kingdom — but none of them say the throne must be re‑established in earthly Jerusalem after the resurrection. That location‑requirement is something you are adding, not something the texts demand. The NT repeatedly takes those same promises and relocates their fulfillment to Christ’s heavenly enthronement, not a future geopolitical throne in Jerusalem. Again you are defending a system that is contrary to what scripture actually says. And your accusation only lands if my argument were “the NT must repeat the OT wording or prophecy fails,” but that’s not what I said. My claim is simple: the NT is the Spirit‑given interpretation of the OT, so whatever the OT promises, the NT tells you how it is fulfilled. That’s not bias, that’s how biblical theology works.

Sorry, but your projected allegory doesn't hold up when there are specific dimensions given to the temple in Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48, the earthly descriptions of the House of Jacob still working and living off of the fruit of their own labor in the land God promised them, or the prophecies of people living hundreds of years, dying, and reproducing in the book of Isaiah.

 

[OMC]

Sorry, but your projected allegory doesn't hold up when there are specific dimensions given to the temple in Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48, the earthly descriptions of the House of Jacob still working and living off of the fruit of their own labor in the land God promised them, or the prophecies of people living hundreds of years, dying, and reproducing in the book of Isaiah.

Brother, appealing to Ezekiel’s temple dimensions or Isaiah’s millennial imagery doesn’t overturn the apostolic hermeneutic; it just shows you’re reading prophetic architecture literally while the NT reads it typologically.
Ezekiel 40–48 also has animal sacrifices, sin offerings, Levitical priests, and a Zadokite priesthood — all of which Hebrews says are abolished and cannot return (Heb 7:12; 10:1–18).
If you take the dimensions literally, you must also take the sacrifices literally. You don’t. That’s the problem.
Isaiah’s long lifespans, death, childbirth, and sin in the age to come cannot be literal descriptions of the final state, because the NT says the resurrection brings no death, no sin, no childbirth, and immortality (1 Cor 15:50–54; Rev 21:4).
The OT uses earthly imagery to depict eschatological realities, and the NT tells you which parts are type and which parts are fulfilled. That’s why the apostles locate David’s throne in Christ’s present heavenly reign, not a future Jerusalem monarchy (Acts 2; Eph 1; Heb 12). Your system requires the OT imagery to be re‑literalized after the NT has already transposed it into its fulfilled form.
The issue isn’t seminary bias; it’s that the NT itself gives the interpretive key:
OT temple → Christ’s body,
OT Zion → heavenly Jerusalem,
OT throne → heavenly enthronement,
OT sacrifices → once‑for‑all cross,
OT priesthood → Melchizedek,
OT kingdom → present reign of Christ.

The other mistake your making is thinking I am a preacher and that I have some bias based on that.
I am not a preacher.
I am a theology teacher and i study scripture and the languages therein. My purpose is to show you where and what and why. You can argue your system till you are blue in the face but scripture is scripture and I don't need to prove any of it to you as the Lord God himself speaks for himself in the very scriptures we study. You are not trying to prove me wrong, you are trying to prove God wrong and well, good luck with that.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Brother, appealing to Ezekiel’s temple dimensions or Isaiah’s millennial imagery doesn’t overturn the apostolic hermeneutic; it just shows you’re reading prophetic architecture literally while the NT reads it typologically.
Ezekiel 40–48 also has animal sacrifices, sin offerings, Levitical priests, and a Zadokite priesthood — all of which Hebrews says are abolished and cannot return (Heb 7:12; 10:1–18).
If you take the dimensions literally, you must also take the sacrifices literally. You don’t. That’s the problem.
Isaiah’s long lifespans, death, childbirth, and sin in the age to come cannot be literal descriptions of the final state, because the NT says the resurrection brings no death, no sin, no childbirth, and immortality (1 Cor 15:50–54; Rev 21:4).
The OT uses earthly imagery to depict eschatological realities, and the NT tells you which parts are type and which parts are fulfilled. That’s why the apostles locate David’s throne in Christ’s present heavenly reign, not a future Jerusalem monarchy (Acts 2; Eph 1; Heb 12). Your system requires the OT imagery to be re‑literalized after the NT has already transposed it into its fulfilled form.
The issue isn’t seminary bias; it’s that the NT itself gives the interpretive key:
OT temple → Christ’s body,
OT Zion → heavenly Jerusalem,
OT throne → heavenly enthronement,
OT sacrifices → once‑for‑all cross,
OT priesthood → Melchizedek,
OT kingdom → present reign of Christ.

The other mistake your making is thinking I am a preacher and that I have some bias based on that.
I am not a preacher.
I am a theology teacher and i study scripture and the languages therein. My purpose is to show you where and what and why. You can argue your system till you are blue in the face but scripture is scripture and I don't need to prove any of it to you as the Lord God himself speaks for himself in the very scriptures we study. You are not trying to prove me wrong, you are trying to prove God wrong and well, good luck with that.

No, what all of your responses are showing is that you choose to assign all unfulfilled details of the Old Testament as allegory to the New Testament. This is why it fails. You have claimed in the past that you don't do that, but you do. You've already conceded to me in the past that the Millennial Kingdom must be on the earth since Revelation 20 and Isaiah 65 shows that it is, but you don't really believe it and you're trying to flip flop again.

Yes, scripture is scripture and you're ignoring whole swaths of it and try to claim it's allegory with absolutely no other detailed information. Until you can tell me exactly what the spiritual meaning is behind 8 CHAPTERS of a described temple that includes its dimension, you're not winning the argument. Until you can explain why people will still be living, dying, and reproducing like Isaiah 65 shows in Heaven, instead of on earth, you don't have an argument left.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Brother, appealing to Ezekiel’s temple dimensions or Isaiah’s millennial imagery doesn’t overturn the apostolic hermeneutic; it just shows you’re reading prophetic architecture literally while the NT reads it typologically.
Ezekiel 40–48 also has animal sacrifices, sin offerings, Levitical priests, and a Zadokite priesthood — all of which Hebrews says are abolished and cannot return (Heb 7:12; 10:1–18).
If you take the dimensions literally, you must also take the sacrifices literally. You don’t. That’s the problem.
Isaiah’s long lifespans, death, childbirth, and sin in the age to come cannot be literal descriptions of the final state, because the NT says the resurrection brings no death, no sin, no childbirth, and immortality (1 Cor 15:50–54; Rev 21:4).
The OT uses earthly imagery to depict eschatological realities, and the NT tells you which parts are type and which parts are fulfilled. That’s why the apostles locate David’s throne in Christ’s present heavenly reign, not a future Jerusalem monarchy (Acts 2; Eph 1; Heb 12). Your system requires the OT imagery to be re‑literalized after the NT has already transposed it into its fulfilled form.
The issue isn’t seminary bias; it’s that the NT itself gives the interpretive key:
OT temple → Christ’s body,
OT Zion → heavenly Jerusalem,
OT throne → heavenly enthronement,
OT sacrifices → once‑for‑all cross,
OT priesthood → Melchizedek,
OT kingdom → present reign of Christ.

The other mistake your making is thinking I am a preacher and that I have some bias based on that.
I am not a preacher.
I am a theology teacher and i study scripture and the languages therein. My purpose is to show you where and what and why. You can argue your system till you are blue in the face but scripture is scripture and I don't need to prove any of it to you as the Lord God himself speaks for himself in the very scriptures we study. You are not trying to prove me wrong, you are trying to prove God wrong and well, good luck with that.

As for being a theology teacher, I know what your background is and I know what theology school you went to, which is why you have an Amillennialist bias, which is in the minority when you look back at the survey I posted a couple of pages back. You were taught with a denominational biased instead of reading the scriptures plainly for what they show and point to. No matter how much you TRY to spin it, the bottom line will ALWAYS be...

Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Jesus didn't tell His Disciples that He would fulfill them the way a future New Testament was written. He will fulfill them the way the Old Testament wrote them, just in His own timing.

 

[OMC]

As for being a theology teacher, I know what your background is and I know what theology school you went to, which is why you have an Amillennialist bias, which is in the minority when you look back at the survey I posted a couple of pages back. You were taught with a denominational biased instead of reading the scriptures plainly for what they show and point to. No matter how much you TRY to spin it, the bottom line will ALWAYS be..

The “bottom line” you’re trying to land isn’t about my background, it’s about your assumption that reading prophecy plainly means reading it literally, even when the NT explicitly reassigns the categories.
You keep saying I’m Amillennial because of a school, but the argument I’m giving isn’t denominational — it’s apostolic:
Hebrews says the Levitical system is abolished and cannot return,
Acts 2 says the Davidic‑throne promise is fulfilled now in Christ’s resurrection and heavenly enthronement,
Hebrews 12 says believers have come to heavenly Jerusalem, not earthly, and
Revelation 21 says the final state has no death, no childbirth, no temple.
That’s not a system imposed on Scripture; that’s Scripture interpreting Scripture.
The majority/minority survey doesn’t matter — truth isn’t democratic.
What matters is that your model requires Ezekiel’s sacrifices to return, Isaiah’s death to exist after resurrection, and David’s throne to relocate back to earthly Jerusalem after the NT already places all of those realities in Christ’s present heavenly reign.
The “plain reading” isn’t the literal reading; it’s the reading that follows the apostles’ own hermeneutic.

 

[Revelation1v8]

You say:

Hebrews says the Levitical system is abolished and cannot return,
Acts 2 says the Davidic‑throne promise is fulfilled now in Christ’s resurrection and heavenly enthronement,
Hebrews 12 says believers have come to heavenly Jerusalem, not earthly, and
Revelation 21 says the final state has no death, no childbirth, no temple.

I say:

• Ezekiel 40–48: Provides the most detailed blueprint for the Millennial Temple, including specific instructions for the Levitical priests (specifically the sons of Zadok) to offer burnt offerings, grain offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.
  
  • Ezekiel 43:18–27: God instructs Ezekiel on how to consecrate the altar and offer the first bull as a sin offering.
  • Ezekiel 44:15–16: States that only the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who remained faithful, shall come near to minister to God and offer the fat and blood.
  • Ezekiel 45:17: Notes that the prince (a mortal ruler, distinct from the Messiah) shall provide the bulls, goats, lambs, and grain offerings for the house of Israel.
• Jeremiah 33:15–18: Explicitly promises that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne and that the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in God’s presence to offer burnt offerings, grain offerings, and sacrifices forever, contingent only on the stability of day and night.
• Zechariah 14:16–21: Prophesies that all survivors of the Tribulation will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and keep the Feast of Tabernacles, implying a restored sacrificial system associated with these feasts.
• Isaiah 56:6–8: God declares He will bring foreigners to His holy mountain and accept their burnt offerings and sacrifices, for His house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.
• Hebrews 10:3: Clarifies the purpose of such sacrifices in this context: "in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year," indicating they do not remove sin but serve as a memorial.
  
  The Old Testament is full of passages where God says He does not primarily desire or take pleasure in animal sacrifices. The recurring theme is that obedience, mercy, and a contrite heart matter far more than the ritual itself.
  
  
• The nuance: God commanded the sacrificial system (Leviticus 1–7), but the prophets consistently make clear it was never the point. The animals were a means — a pedagogical and covenantal framework — pointing toward what God actually wanted: a right heart, justice, mercy, and wholehearted obedience. When Israel reduced worship to empty ritual while ignoring those things, God rejected the sacrifices as meaningless.
• Isaiah 1:11 — "I have had enough of burnt offerings… I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats."
• Jeremiah 7:22 — "I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this I commanded: Obey my voice."
• Hosea 6:6 — "I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."
• Psalm 40:6 — "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire… burnt offering and sin offering you have not required."
• Psalm 51:16–17 — "You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it… a broken and contrite heart you will not despise."
• 1 Samuel 15:22 — "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams."
• Amos 5:21–23 — God rejects their feasts and offerings outright: "I hate, I despise your feasts."

 

[Revelation1v8]

The “bottom line” you’re trying to land isn’t about my background, it’s about your assumption that reading prophecy plainly means reading it literally, even when the NT explicitly reassigns the categories.
You keep saying I’m Amillennial because of a school, but the argument I’m giving isn’t denominational — it’s apostolic:
Hebrews says the Levitical system is abolished and cannot return,
Acts 2 says the Davidic‑throne promise is fulfilled now in Christ’s resurrection and heavenly enthronement,
Hebrews 12 says believers have come to heavenly Jerusalem, not earthly, and
Revelation 21 says the final state has no death, no childbirth, no temple.
That’s not a system imposed on Scripture; that’s Scripture interpreting Scripture.
The majority/minority survey doesn’t matter — truth isn’t democratic.
What matters is that your model requires Ezekiel’s sacrifices to return, Isaiah’s death to exist after resurrection, and David’s throne to relocate back to earthly Jerusalem after the NT already places all of those realities in Christ’s present heavenly reign.
The “plain reading” isn’t the literal reading; it’s the reading that follows the apostles’ own hermeneutic.

As for Acts 2, it says:

Acts 2:34-35

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

Because we know there is 1,000 years on earth, like Revelation 20 says so in verse 8, Jesus will be spending this Millennial Kingdom period making all of God's enemies His footstool. The Bible tells us that the last enemies are Satan, Hell & Death, but they aren't done away with until AFTER the 1,000 years are over. If you think God is going to do this 1,000 years after everyone is already judged and sitting in Heaven or hell, you're mistaken. He does this immediately after the 1,000 years of peace described in Revelation 20 and the book of Isaiah.

Remember, after Jesus makes all of God's enemies His footstool, He hands the keys to the kingdom back over to the Father...in Heaven. Jesus will rule on earth until all of those enemies are destroyed, and then we'll see Heaven materialize.

 

[OMC]

You say:

Hebrews says the Levitical system is abolished and cannot return,
Acts 2 says the Davidic‑throne promise is fulfilled now in Christ’s resurrection and heavenly enthronement,
Hebrews 12 says believers have come to heavenly Jerusalem, not earthly, and
Revelation 21 says the final state has no death, no childbirth, no temple.

I say:

• Ezekiel 40–48: Provides the most detailed blueprint for the Millennial Temple, including specific instructions for the Levitical priests (specifically the sons of Zadok) to offer burnt offerings, grain offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.
  • Ezekiel 43:18–27: God instructs Ezekiel on how to consecrate the altar and offer the first bull as a sin offering.
  • Ezekiel 44:15–16: States that only the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who remained faithful, shall come near to minister to God and offer the fat and blood.
  • Ezekiel 45:17: Notes that the prince (a mortal ruler, distinct from the Messiah) shall provide the bulls, goats, lambs, and grain offerings for the house of Israel.
• Jeremiah 33:15–18: Explicitly promises that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne and that the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in God’s presence to offer burnt offerings, grain offerings, and sacrifices forever, contingent only on the stability of day and night.
• Zechariah 14:16–21: Prophesies that all survivors of the Tribulation will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and keep the Feast of Tabernacles, implying a restored sacrificial system associated with these feasts.
• Isaiah 56:6–8: God declares He will bring foreigners to His holy mountain and accept their burnt offerings and sacrifices, for His house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.
• Hebrews 10:3: Clarifies the purpose of such sacrifices in this context: "in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year," indicating they do not remove sin but serve as a memorial.
  
  The Old Testament is full of passages where God says He does not primarily desire or take pleasure in animal sacrifices. The recurring theme is that obedience, mercy, and a contrite heart matter far more than the ritual itself.
  
  
• The nuance: God commanded the sacrificial system (Leviticus 1–7), but the prophets consistently make clear it was never the point. The animals were a means — a pedagogical and covenantal framework — pointing toward what God actually wanted: a right heart, justice, mercy, and wholehearted obedience. When Israel reduced worship to empty ritual while ignoring those things, God rejected the sacrifices as meaningless.
• Isaiah 1:11 — "I have had enough of burnt offerings… I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats."
• Jeremiah 7:22 — "I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this I commanded: Obey my voice."
• Hosea 6:6 — "I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."
• Psalm 40:6 — "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire… burnt offering and sin offering you have not required."
• Psalm 51:16–17 — "You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it… a broken and contrite heart you will not despise."
• 1 Samuel 15:22 — "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams."
• Amos 5:21–23 — God rejects their feasts and offerings outright: "I hate, I despise your feasts."

What you’ve articulated is classic premillennial restorationism with literal‑temple reinstatement, a system that requires
(1) the Levitical priesthood to return,
(2) blood sacrifices to resume,
(3) a mortal Davidic prince ruling from Jerusalem,
(4) a rebuilt physical temple with exact architectural dimensions, and
(5) a millennial population that lives, dies, and reproduces under Messiah’s earthly reign.
In other words, your model is Restorationist Literal Premillennialism — the same structure held by early 20th‑century dispensationalists, except with your added nuance that millennial sacrifices are “memorials.”

The system I follow is established by the scripture itself and that's called Apostolic Fulfillment Hermeneutics: apostolic fulfillment is Scripture interpreting Scripture, where the NT itself tells you which OT structures were temporary signs and which realities they pointed to.

The NT itself reassigns temple → Christ’s body, priesthood → Melchizedek, sacrifices → once‑for‑all cross, Zion → heavenly Jerusalem, throne → heavenly enthronement, and kingdom → Christ’s present reign.
The reason these two systems collide is simple: your model requires Ezekiel’s Levitical cult to return after Hebrews says it is abolished and cannot return, and it requires Isaiah’s death and childbirth after the NT says resurrection life has no death, no childbirth, no temple.
So yes — the system you’re defending is a literal restoration of the Mosaic cult in the Millennium, and the system I’m defending is the apostolic transposition of OT shadows into NT realities. We will never agree.

 

[Revelation1v8]

What you’ve articulated is classic premillennial restorationism with literal‑temple reinstatement, a system that requires
(1) the Levitical priesthood to return,
(2) blood sacrifices to resume,
(3) a mortal Davidic prince ruling from Jerusalem,
(4) a rebuilt physical temple with exact architectural dimensions, and
(5) a millennial population that lives, dies, and reproduces under Messiah’s earthly reign.
In other words, your model is Restorationist Literal Premillennialism — the same structure held by early 20th‑century dispensationalists, except with your added nuance that millennial sacrifices are “memorials.”

The system I follow is established by the scripture itself and that's called Apostolic Fulfillment Hermeneutics: apostolic fulfillment is Scripture interpreting Scripture, where the NT itself tells you which OT structures were temporary signs and which realities they pointed to.

The NT itself reassigns temple → Christ’s body, priesthood → Melchizedek, sacrifices → once‑for‑all cross, Zion → heavenly Jerusalem, throne → heavenly enthronement, and kingdom → Christ’s present reign.
The reason these two systems collide is simple: your model requires Ezekiel’s Levitical cult to return after Hebrews says it is abolished and cannot return, and it requires Isaiah’s death and childbirth after the NT says resurrection life has no death, no childbirth, no temple.
So yes — the system you’re defending is a literal restoration of the Mosaic cult in the Millennium, and the system I’m defending is the apostolic transposition of OT shadows into NT realities. We will never agree.

Clearly, your response shows that you DID NOT read the scriptures that were posted to back up my view.

You aren't using scripture to back up your view. What's even more clear is that you're only familiar with the New Testament and haven't really taken the time to study the Old Testament and compare the Old & New Testament together to see where they match.

These match:

• 2 Samuel 7:12-16 records God’s covenant with David, promising that his house and kingdom would endure forever and his throne would be established eternally.
• Jeremiah 33:15-16 prophesies that a righteous Branch from David’s line will reign as king and execute justice, specifically linking this rule to Zion and Jerusalem.
• Isaiah 9:7 declares that the government will be upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, establishing it with justice and righteousness from that time forward and forever.
• Acts 2:30 references the oath God swore to David to place one of his descendants on his throne, which biblical commentary identifies as being located in Jerusalem for future fulfillment.
• Acts 15:14-17 - 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
  15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
• Luke 1:32 — The angel Gabriel tells Mary: "The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

 

[OMC]

Clearly, your response shows that you DID NOT read the scriptures that were posted to back up my view.

You aren't using scripture to back up your view. What's even more clear is that you're only familiar with the New Testament and haven't really taken the time to study the Old Testament and compare the Old & New Testament together to see where they match.

These match:

• 2 Samuel 7:12-16 records God’s covenant with David, promising that his house and kingdom would endure forever and his throne would be established eternally.
• Jeremiah 33:15-16 prophesies that a righteous Branch from David’s line will reign as king and execute justice, specifically linking this rule to Zion and Jerusalem.
• Isaiah 9:7 declares that the government will be upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, establishing it with justice and righteousness from that time forward and forever.
• Acts 2:30 references the oath God swore to David to place one of his descendants on his throne, which biblical commentary identifies as being located in Jerusalem for future fulfillment.
• Acts 15:14-17 - 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
  15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
• Luke 1:32 — The angel Gabriel tells Mary: "The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

I did read every OT passage you listed — and none of them say what you’re claiming they say.
They promise David’s throne, David’s house, David’s kingdom, David’s line, David’s rule, David’s dominion, David’s covenant, but not one of them says “the throne will be re‑established in earthly Jerusalem after the resurrection.”
That location‑requirement is something you are inserting.
The NT takes those same promises and tells you how they are fulfilled:
Christ is seated on David’s throne now (Acts 2),
reigning over the house of Jacob now (Luke 1),
in heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12),
with all things under His feet (Ephesians 1).
Your OT list matches my system perfectly — because the OT promises the throne, the king, the kingdom, the line, the reign, but never the geographical re‑installation you’re insisting on.
That’s why the apostles never preach a future earthly Davidic monarchy.
They preach a present heavenly Davidic reign.
You’re not exposing my ignorance of the OT; you’re exposing your refusal to let the NT interpret the OT.

 

[Revelation1v8]

What you’ve articulated is classic premillennial restorationism with literal‑temple reinstatement, a system that requires
(1) the Levitical priesthood to return,
(2) blood sacrifices to resume,
(3) a mortal Davidic prince ruling from Jerusalem,
(4) a rebuilt physical temple with exact architectural dimensions, and
(5) a millennial population that lives, dies, and reproduces under Messiah’s earthly reign.
In other words, your model is Restorationist Literal Premillennialism — the same structure held by early 20th‑century dispensationalists, except with your added nuance that millennial sacrifices are “memorials.”

The system I follow is established by the scripture itself and that's called Apostolic Fulfillment Hermeneutics: apostolic fulfillment is Scripture interpreting Scripture, where the NT itself tells you which OT structures were temporary signs and which realities they pointed to.

The NT itself reassigns temple → Christ’s body, priesthood → Melchizedek, sacrifices → once‑for‑all cross, Zion → heavenly Jerusalem, throne → heavenly enthronement, and kingdom → Christ’s present reign.
The reason these two systems collide is simple: your model requires Ezekiel’s Levitical cult to return after Hebrews says it is abolished and cannot return, and it requires Isaiah’s death and childbirth after the NT says resurrection life has no death, no childbirth, no temple.
So yes — the system you’re defending is a literal restoration of the Mosaic cult in the Millennium, and the system I’m defending is the apostolic transposition of OT shadows into NT realities. We will never agree.

So, on top of me constantly reminding you of Luke 24:44,

Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

You're also not considering these:

1 Corinthians 15:24 -

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Jesus doesn't destroy DEATH until AFTER the 1,000 years are over like Revelation 20 says. Verse 28 is still showing an earthly separation between the Father and the Son, which won't be so in Heaven. When" the "Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, God may be all in all." But verse 28 isn't reflecting that yet because Jesus is on earth.