(Pre) Millennialism/Chiliaism

[zone]

"Since many Apostolic teachers have stood on the grounds that something must be apostolic if the disciples of the apostles taught it in extracanonical writings, despite the fact that the apostles taught nothing of it in explicit epistle teachings, let me state a truism: It does not matter if someone aside from John or any other apostle wrote about a belief ONE MOMENT after the final book of the New Testament, Revelation, was written, if it was never explicitly taught in the New Testament epistles or Gospels, then it is NOT grounds for doctrine.

Would any apostolic accept a doctrine of how to be saved that was not explicitly written in the epistles as being a plan of salvation, on the basis that it was written one moment after the last New Testament writer wrote the last New Testament book, who was a disciple of the apostles?

After all, Jude informed us that there were already false prophets abounding in the churches in his day. Who is to say that John would have approved of one of his disciples proposing a physical thousand year reign of Christ on earth just because John heard of a thousand year rule in his spiritual visions?

Anything in Revelation must be based upon explicit teachings in the epistles and Gospels, and not vice versa. And so the thousand year reference MUST BE spiritual, and not one thousand physical years, because nothing in the epistles or gospels ever reflects a physical thousand years. Nothing in the prophets does either!

I want nothing to do with derived conclusions that comprise doctrines. As I said, I would like to see any futurist here accept a derived conclusion for the plan of salvation for us today, aside from the explicit note of Acts 2:38, as they accept derived conclusions without any specific teaching in the epistles or Gospels. They'd never do it in.... one thousand years!

They give the right to assume and derive conclusions for prophetic doctrine that they would give to NO OTHER DOCTRINE!

Ask them if they demand an explicit teaching about salvation before they will accept it. They will say "No!" However, that is what they do with prophecy!

Notice that even the encyclopedia says that there is a thought taken from Genesis' 7 days and Psalm's mention of a day with the Lord as a thousand years. And it is the ONLY Basis in the bible to state that there will be a physical thousand year millennium in the future. The reasoning is that since there were 7 days in the week, and a day is like one thousand years, then there must be seven thousand years in earth's history.

One problem there, despite it's obscene assumption, is that we are already in the start of the seventh "one thousand year day"!"



CHILIASM < click
cont....

 

[zone]

"Chiliasm was NOT predominant before second century.

“Chiliastic of Revelation interpretation predominated during the second and third centures of this era. Chiliasts (from the Greek for "thousand," chilioi) took a literal interpretation of Rev 20:4-5 and looked forward to a thousand year reign with Christ on earth. The word "millenarian" (from the Latin for "thousand year," mille annus), is used today for people who take a literal view of this passage. Chiliastic readings in the second century ce tended towards materialistic interpretation of the millennium kingdom and the wealth described in the New Jerusalem. Wainwright mentions a number of important early church figures who were also Chiliasts; chief among these are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (others, such as Hippolytus and Lactanius, are not as important for the development of Christian doctrine and dogma).”

http://persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/royaltyr/chiliaug.html

“Problems with the Text. The other prominent line of ancient interpretation, particularly in the ancient Greek East, was allegory. At the end of the second century, Clement of Alexandria chastised Christian women who took the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 as a warrant for wearing jewelry (Paed. 2.12, 119.1 3). Clement, in his typical manner, points out the allegorical or spiritual meaning of the passage; the brilliancy of the stones signifies the brilliancy of the spirit.”

In other words, chiliasm had no precedence over allegory of the thought in those early centuries.

I agree with this statement

“We object to the millenarian scheme, because it is grounded chiefly on those portions of the Bible which are symbolic, and enigmatic, and difficult to be understood.”

Doctrine must be something that is plain and explicit, and not amidst visionary elements of which some are clearly symbolic and others may not be. Who is to say which is which, without EXPLICIT DISCUSSION IN TEACHING IN THE EPISTLES?

Therefore, it is incumbent upon any serious apostolic child of God to reject chiliasm and anything else that is not explicitly taught by the apostles and Jesus in the Bible.

I strongly warn any apostolic to reject pre-millenarianism based upon this notion. THE ONLY place it is pointed to in scripture is Revelation 20. And who is to say what and what not is symbolic?"



end.
CHILIASM < click

 

[zone]

Premillennialists of this older kind, while expecting an earthly millennium, do not distinguish two peoples of God, each with separate destinies. But the dispensationalists described above, though they see God's purposes for Israel and the church merging into one in the eternal state, still must be called dispensationalists because they continue to stress the abiding importance of national, ethnic Israel and look to the millennium as that period of time when once again God will fulfill many Old Testament prophecies by pouring out peculiar blessings upon Israel.

...

The extent to which modern dispensationalists reflect these five trends varies considerably. Moreover, differences among them go beyond the degree to which they embrace these modifications. For example, the interpretation of prophecy, supposedly easy to those who employ the principle "literal where possible," has led to a vast array of differing conclusions. For the sake of convenience, however, we will identify four major types of dispensationalists that are prominent at this present time.

...

The third type of dispensationalist is the modified dispensationalist or neo-dispensationalist. Those from this school of thought would generally embrace the first four of the five developments outlined above: the denial of two ways of salvation, the refusal to separate Israel and the church in eternity, the willingness to speak of secondary applications of Old Testament prophecy to the church, and the recognition of the cumulative and progressive character of revelation. They would deny that direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy ever takes place in the church, but would not hesitate to affirm that it is legitimate to recognize secondary applications of Old Testament prophecy with reference to the church. Some modified dispensationalists also go to considerable lengths to repudiate the easy-believism and antinomianism so prevalent in the ranks of hardline dispensationalists.

...

In the fourth place are what may be termed one-people-of-God dispensationalists. These interpreters would assent to all five of the developments presented above. In the thinking of these dispensationalists the church not only makes application of but also actually participates in the promises made to God's ancient people even if only in a preliminary way. To begin with, Israel and the church are distinct. But ultimately their destiny is one. One-people-of-God dispensationalists are very close in their thinking to that of historic premillennialists. But they still look for a millennium in which God will fulfill his promise to national ethnic Israel. God's people are not truly one until the eternal state.

...

Because of the variety that exists among dispensationalists it is not always easy to identify a particular dispensationalist with one of the four categories delineated above. But our purpose has not been to enable the reader to make such a decision in each case. Rather, we have sought to present the two extremes (ultradispensationalism on one end and one-people-of-God dispensationalism on the other) and the various positions on a sliding scale between. The two extremes represent the greatest and the least consistency (within dispensationalism) in the extent to which the church/Israel distinction is applied. Between these extremes are varying degrees of consistency in the application of the principle. Hence, some dispensationalists may indeed take a mediating position between two of the four positions just described.

...


The preserving factor in the thinking of many dispensationalists is that basically they are evangelical. And the more dominant true evangelicalism becomes in such a person's thinking, the more his dispensationalist principles will begin to give way. Blessed inconsistency!

Modern Dispensationalism, A Biblical Analysis, Part 4 of God in All Ages as One < click (excerpts)

this is a very detailed site, and one i recommend for understanding various beliefs.
it's got tons on it.

site map:

Topical Sermons, Modern Dispensationalism, A Biblical Analysis, Part 1 < click

 

[zone]

"The "Radical Reformation" is the name given to diverse groups and individuals who were engaged not so much in a reformation of the church, but rather in the restitution of the church. Modern historians of the Radical Reformation define the movement in terms of three distinct groupings: Anabaptists, Spiritualists, and Rationalists. The Radical Reformation differed from the Magisterial Reformation in its impatience with mere reform. As George H. Williams described it, "Instead, it espoused a radical rupture with the immediate past and all its institutions and was bent upon either the restoration of the primitive church or the assembling of a new church, all in an eschatological mood far more intense than anything to be found in normative Protestantism or Catholicism" (Radical Reformation 857).

Thomas Müntzer and the Peasants' Revolt.
The "principal spokesman of Revolutionary Spiritualism" (Williams, Radical Reformation 45) was Thomas Müntzer, a fierce fanatic who became the leader of the rebellious peasants of Middle Germany in the 1520s. It was as a follower of Luther that Müntzer first broke away from Catholic orthodoxy, and came to think of himself as a chosen instrument of God. As a preacher in Zwickau, he interpreted the Reformation movement in a socially radical way. In 1520 he entered the circle of the three so-called "prophets of Zwickau", preaching radical views characterized by direct revelations in dreams and visions, Spirit-possession, the rejection of infant baptism, and the belief in a millennium to be preceded by the ascendancy of the Turks as Antichrist.

His millenarian beliefs were learned from Niklas Storch, a fiery preacher of the old Bohemian Taborite doctrine. What most appealed to Müntzer was the war of extermination which the righteous were to wage against the unrighteous. After he abandoned Luther, Müntzer thought and talked only on the Book of Revelation and of such incidents in the Old Testament as Elijah's slaughter of the priests of Baal and Jehu's killing of the sons of Ahab (Cohn 236). The elect would prepare the way for the millennium, and in Müntzer's view the elect were those who had received the Holy Spirit. As such they would be endowed with perfect insight into the will of God. Only those so qualified would be able to carry out the eschatological mission.....

Conclusion
The Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican traditions remained basically amillennial or postmillennial. Premillennialism did gain some standing within these traditions in the late- and post-reformation period. During the devastating Thirty Years War of the early 1630s, there were occasional speculations about the beginning of the millennium, as in the cases of the German Calvinists Johann Alsted (1588-1638) Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) (Gerstner 15-16).

During the same period the growth of the Puritan movement in England witnessed a flowering of millenarian doctrines, as illustrated by the views of Puritan Presbyterian Thomas Brightman and Cambridge scholar Joseph Mede. Both believed the events of Revelation were taking place in their own time. The Thirty Years War was proof that the vials of wrath were still being poured out, and the remaining vials symbolized the final events before the dawning of the millennium--the destruction of the Catholic Church and papacy, the destruction of the Turks, and the conversion of the Jews (Clark 122-123). Many sermons of the period saw the outbreak of civil war in England in the 1640s as the final struggle with Antichrist and evidence of the approaching millennium (Hill 33-35, 96-97).

However, speculations such as these were exceptions during the Reformation period. The Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican traditions generally followed the views of the earliest reformers such as Luther and Calvin, who relied heavily on Augustine. Most protestant churches remained basically amillennial or postmillennial well into the 18th century.



MILLENIALISM IN THE REFORMATION < click



"Thomas Müntzer....a fierce fanatic....entered the circle of the three so-called "prophets of Zwickau", preaching radical views characterized by direct revelations in dreams and visions, Spirit-possession, the rejection of infant baptism, and the belief in a millennium to be preceded by the ascendancy of the Turks as Antichrist.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

"Since many Apostolic teachers have stood on the grounds that something must be apostolic if the disciples of the apostles taught it in extracanonical writings, despite the fact that the apostles taught nothing of it in explicit epistle teachings, let me state a truism: It does not matter if someone aside from John or any other apostle wrote about a belief ONE MOMENT after the final book of the New Testament, Revelation, was written, if it was never explicitly taught in the New Testament epistles or Gospels, then it is NOT grounds for doctrine.

Would any apostolic accept a doctrine of how to be saved that was not explicitly written in the epistles as being a plan of salvation, on the basis that it was written one moment after the last New Testament writer wrote the last New Testament book, who was a disciple of the apostles?

After all, Jude informed us that there were already false prophets abounding in the churches in his day. Who is to say that John would have approved of one of his disciples proposing a physical thousand year reign of Christ on earth just because John heard of a thousand year rule in his spiritual visions?

Anything in Revelation must be based upon explicit teachings in the epistles and Gospels, and not vice versa. And so the thousand year reference MUST BE spiritual, and not one thousand physical years, because nothing in the epistles or gospels ever reflects a physical thousand years. Nothing in the prophets does either!

I want nothing to do with derived conclusions that comprise doctrines. As I said, I would like to see any futurist here accept a derived conclusion for the plan of salvation for us today, aside from the explicit note of Acts 2:38, as they accept derived conclusions without any specific teaching in the epistles or Gospels. They'd never do it in.... one thousand years!

They give the right to assume and derive conclusions for prophetic doctrine that they would give to NO OTHER DOCTRINE!

Ask them if they demand an explicit teaching about salvation before they will accept it. They will say "No!" However, that is what they do with prophecy!

Notice that even the encyclopedia says that there is a thought taken from Genesis' 7 days and Psalm's mention of a day with the Lord as a thousand years. And it is the ONLY Basis in the bible to state that there will be a physical thousand year millennium in the future. The reasoning is that since there were 7 days in the week, and a day is like one thousand years, then there must be seven thousand years in earth's history.

One problem there, despite it's obscene assumption, is that we are already in the start of the seventh "one thousand year day"!"



CHILIASM < click
cont....

Eph 5:14
(14) Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

When shall we arise from the dead? Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. (1 Thess. 4:13,14)

Col 3:1
(1) If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Col 2:12
(12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Eph 2:5-6
(5) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
(6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Rom 6:4-13
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
(6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
(7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.
(8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
(9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
(10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
(11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(12) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
(13) Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God."

All of the above are written as a figures of speech - the Prophetic Perfect or heterosis. It is used when something was absolutely going to happen in the future, and is written as occurring in the past, or as already in existence. (info from E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech used in the Bible; Young's Concordance, Hint #60 in "Hints and Helps") In other words - it is for a surety that we will be raised, alive from the dead, and seated in heavenly places. The church is not the subject of Old Testament Prophecy nor the Gospels. . . because the church was kept a "mystery". The "mystery" concerning the Church "was kept secret since the world began" (Rom. 26:25). "In other ages it was not made known unto the sons of men" (Eph. 3:5) and "from the beginning of the world, it has been hid in God" (Eph. 3:9) and it "has been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to the saints" (Col 1:26). So we need to ask whether the Chruch is likely to be the subject of prophecy in Revelation when we learn from the epistles the future and end of the Body of Christ. The members of that Body are waiting to be "received up in glory" (1 Tim. 3:16). They are waiting for their "calling on high" (Phil. 3:14). We are looking for the Saviour, who shall change our vile bodies to be fashioned like unto his own glorious body (Phil. 3:20,21). When Revelation opens we have the events which shall take place after the Church has been "received up in glory."

 

[zone]

All of the above are written as a figures of speech - the Prophetic Perfect or heterosis. It is used when something was absolutely going to happen in the future, and is written as occurring in the past, or as already in existence. (info from E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech used in the Bible; Young's Concordance, Hint #60 in "Hints and Helps") [/COLOR]In other words - it is for a surety that we will be raised, alive from the dead, and seated in heavenly places. The church is not the subject of Old Testament Prophecy nor the Gospels. . . because the church was kept a "mystery". The "mystery" concerning the Church "was kept secret since the world began" (Rom. 26:25). "In other ages it was not made known unto the sons of men" (Eph. 3:5) and "from the beginning of the world, it has been hid in God" (Eph. 3:9) and it "has been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to the saints" (Col 1:26). So we need to ask whether the Chruch is likely to be the subject of prophecy in Revelation when we learn from the epistles the future and end of the Body of Christ. The members of that Body are waiting to be "received up in glory" (1 Tim. 3:16). They are waiting for their "calling on high" (Phil. 3:14). We are looking for the Saviour, who shall change our vile bodies to be fashioned like unto his own glorious body (Phil. 3:20,21). When Revelation opens we have the events which shall take place after the Church has been "received up in glory."

Bullingerism is hyper-dispensationalism and is roundly condemned as extreme heresy....by other dispensationalists.

i wouldn't be referencing him.

~

Ethelbert William Bullinger AKC (December 15, 1837 – June 6, 1913) was an Anglican clergyman, Biblical scholar, and ultradispensationalist theologian.

Bullinger's friends included well-known Zionist Dr. Theodor Herzl. This was a personal friendship, but accorded with Bullinger's belief in a Biblical distinction between the Church and the Jewish People.

Bullinger's views were often unique, and sometimes controversial. He is so closely tied to what is now called "hyperdispensationalism" that it is sometimes referred to as Bullingerism.[10] Noted dispensationalist Harry A. Ironside (1876–1951) declared Bullingerism an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth" [11] Bullingerism differs from mainstream dispensationalism with regard to the beginning of the church. Mainstream dispensationalism holds that the Church began at Pentecost as described early in the New Testament book entitled "Acts of the Apostles". In stark contrast, Bullinger held that the Church, which the Apostle Paul revealed as the Body of Christ, began after the close of Acts,[12] only revealed in the Prison Epistles of the Apostle Paul.[13] Other dispensationalists (often described as "mid-Acts" dispensationalists, i.e., Acts 9 or 13) hold that the Church, the Body of Christ, began at or shortly after Saul's conversion.

E. W. Bullinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click


we really ought to know where we get our beliefs from.
there's a lot of this "distinction" going around.
i wonder why?

 

[nathan3]

Bullinger is a great scholar . and his work he left the Christian community is top notch. hes not perfect but to call him heretic is a over board. I use Bullinger's work.

You know nothing about Bullingers scholarly work. yet you are quick to quote false rumors from fake teachers.

To quote you Zone ""we really ought to know where we get our beliefs from.""

you should know where your getting your rumors from, because rumors are from sick people most all the time.

where do you get your beliefs from ?? from rumors ? Everything stated from that dirty site you quoted , is fake, its not truth. you run to rumors a lot.

 

[zone]

Bullinger is a great scholar . and his work he left the Christian community is top notch. hes not perfect but to call him heretic is a over board. I use Bullinger's work.

You know nothing about Bullingers scholarly work. yet you are quick to quote false rumors from fake teachers.

To quote you Zone ""we really ought to know where we get our beliefs from.""

you should know where your getting your rumors from, because rumors are from sick people most all the time.

where do you get your beliefs from ?? from rumors ? Everything stated from that dirty site you quoted , is fake, its not truth. you run to rumors a lot.

rumors?
get real.
you get your teaching from Shepherd's Chapel & Arnold Murray.
every last drop.

i own a Companion Bible.
i know who Bullinger is and what he taught.

if you like him, that's great.
that's your problem, not mine.

since you insist on dragging your stuff into this thread, i'll start one on Bullinger tomorrow.
you can post your defense of him there.

maybe we'll finally get around to what YOU really believe.
as if i didn't know.

stop derailing my thread.

Bullinger's on it for a reason.
not for you to defend.
thanks.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Bullingerism is hyper-dispensationalism and is roundly condemned as extreme heresy....by other dispensationalists.

i wouldn't be referencing him.

~

Ethelbert William Bullinger AKC (December 15, 1837 – June 6, 1913) was an Anglican clergyman, Biblical scholar, and ultradispensationalist theologian.

Bullinger's friends included well-known Zionist Dr. Theodor Herzl. This was a personal friendship, but accorded with Bullinger's belief in a Biblical distinction between the Church and the Jewish People.

Bullinger's views were often unique, and sometimes controversial. He is so closely tied to what is now called "hyperdispensationalism" that it is sometimes referred to as Bullingerism.[10] Noted dispensationalist Harry A. Ironside (1876–1951) declared Bullingerism an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth" [11] Bullingerism differs from mainstream dispensationalism with regard to the beginning of the church. Mainstream dispensationalism holds that the Church began at Pentecost as described early in the New Testament book entitled "Acts of the Apostles". In stark contrast, Bullinger held that the Church, which the Apostle Paul revealed as the Body of Christ, began after the close of Acts,[12] only revealed in the Prison Epistles of the Apostle Paul.[13] Other dispensationalists (often described as "mid-Acts" dispensationalists, i.e., Acts 9 or 13) hold that the Church, the Body of Christ, began at or shortly after Saul's conversion.

E. W. Bullinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click


we really ought to know where we get our beliefs from.
there's a lot of this "distinction" going around.
i wonder why?

I knew who E.W. Bullinger was when I quoted him from his book Figures of Speech used in the Bible. This book though has nothing to do with dispensationalism but with figures of speech that have been used throughout scripture; so why you had to pick on his being a dispensationlist makes no sense to me.

I don't know if I am a hyperdispensationlist but I do see the different dispensations/administrations in the Bible. I also believe that the Age of the Church period began at Pentecost with the infilling of the Holy Spirit - the availability of the new birth began and where the apostles and the disciples were first called Christians.

 

[Abiding]

I hope the thread lasts long enough to show what i learned in Romans 9-11
It sits right out in the open but (cant use that word anymore) its been
sorta covered up with a different use and purpose to bolster a totally unrelated doctrine.

It sorta demolishes (Pre) Millennialism


But then so does 1 Cor 15.

I think it would take a page or two to explain.
Ha then noone would read it. Oh well i need the practice.

 

[zone]

I knew who E.W. Bullinger was.......so why you had to pick on his being a dispensationlist makes no sense to me.

he's fair game i reckon.

I don't know if I am a hyperdispensationlist but I do see the different dispensations/administrations in the Bible. I also believe that the Age of the Church period began at Pentecost with the infilling of the Holy Spirit - the availability of the new birth began and where the apostles and the disciples were first called Christians.

no, you don't see different 'dispensations' in the Bible.
you don't see any of that stuff in there.
you see them the footnotes you are reading.
your choice.

 

[zone]

I hope the thread lasts long enough to show what i learned in Romans 9-11
It sits right out in the open but (cant use that word anymore) its been
sorta covered up with a different use and purpose to bolster a totally unrelated doctrine.

It sorta demolishes (Pre) Millennialism


But then so does 1 Cor 15.

I think it would take a page or two to explain.
Ha then noone would read it. Oh well i need the practice.

go for it mike.
i'll read it.
speak plainly...i'll read it.

 

[RickShafer]

O.K. Just tell us zone.
Where are we, and when.
Those are my only two questions to you.
Where are we in the mill- llill- illi- inium.
And when.
Where and when.
Just spill it.
(I got no answers, only questions).
Just state it, I've seen you go over and over it so I know you have studied.
I trust you on this topic. - (I promise not to argue) - (No...really, I promise, ....honestly, I won't debate it!)
Just please tell us, where and when.

 

[zone]

there is no 'millennium'.

1000 is a symbolic number.

it just means the Messianic Age, from the First to Second Advent.

there's this:

Matthew 13
The Parable of the Weeds Explained
36Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. 41The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

and this:

Revelation 21
The New Heaven and the New Earth
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling placea of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people,b and God himself will be with them as their God.c 4He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.

 

[RickShafer]

Alright.
It's interesting.
Thanks for the information.
I will think on it and study.
Certainly opens a new vista.
Thanks again!

 

[zone]

hey Rick, why don't we do a Millennium Challenge

anyone who is certain there is a future 1,000 year (temporary but not really) kingdom, please tell us what happens just before, during and after it.

Here's What Happens Before, During and After the Coming Millennium



















(add pages as required)

 

[nathan3]

No 1000 years ???? ... Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven Mark 16:19; Hebrews 8:1.

after the antichrist -Christ return in the "future" >Zechariah 14:4; Acts 1:9-14. He then will take the Throne of David Isaiah 9:6-7; Luke 1:32-33.& rule on earth for the prophetic thousand years known as the millennium >>>
>(Revelation 20:4 Zechariah 14:9). ,,1000 years.

these are even called dispensations of time. How can you expect anyone not to read these scriptures and say there is no time nothing happens in the Bible. I don't see were your position is on anything.?? I cant refer to Bullinger , but you link people to unknown sites ? and that's, okay.
I gave scripture.

 

[zone]

Here's Why the Future Millennium is Required:




















(add pages as needed)

 

[zone]

No 1000 years ???? ... Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven Mark 16:19; Hebrews 8:1.

after the antichrist -Christ return in the "future" >Zechariah 14:4; Acts 1:9-14. He then will take the Throne of David Isaiah 9:6-7; Luke 1:32-33.& rule on earth for the prophetic thousand years known as the millennium >>>
>(Revelation 20:4 Zechariah 14:9). ,,1000 years.

these are even called dispensations of time. How can you expect anyone not to read these scriptures and say there is no time nothing happens in the Bible. I don't see were your position is on anything.?? I cant refer to Bullinger , but you link people to unknown sites ? and that's, okay.
I gave scripture.

who is keeping the Throne of David warm right now nathan?
the British Royal Family?

Stone of Scone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

 

[nathan3]

who is keeping the Throne of David warm right now nathan?
the British Royal Family?

Stone of Scone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

??????????????????????? can you address the scriptures I posted ?