The Millennium literal or symbolic?

[PlainWord]

How does that modify what the consensus of most people on this subject. You have the maverick view assuming you are right and the world is wrong. Methinks you are objecting too much!!!

And the majority all lean on one obscure and unclear third-hand source recalling a conversation he had with someone who was relating the original conversation he had 100 years earlier. Do you really want to take that to the bank? How many times does a story change when repeated and repeated again? Ever play that game? This is why hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

Besides, when in the Bible have the majority been right about anything? Were they right about their fear of going into the promised land; or being in the wilderness? Were they right about the identity of Messiah? Was the majority right about idol worship that caused their defeat by Assyria or their captivity to Babylon? Were they right in worshiping the golden calf? Were they correct in ignoring the warnings of the prophets? Was the majority correct in kneeling in front of Gideon? God ALWAYS uses the minority to do His greatest work thus He gets the glory and laughs at the majority.

 

[valiant]

You are an ignorant saying the Roman army dispersing the Jews at that time was the tribulation? Then why was Revelation written by John about 90 to 100 AD?

Exegesis not eisegesis. Your historical time of the writing of the New Testament has you using eisegesis

actually I did not say that. But it was the beginning of it. Revelation does not mention it. Revelation is dealing with tribulation on Christians.

Luke tells us clearly what it is:

Luk 21:21
Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein.
Luk 21:22
For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Luk 21:23
Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath unto this people.
Luk 21:24
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled


You are the eisegete.

 

[valiant]

Claiming Revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD ignores the simple fact that John wrote it in 90 to 100 AD. Please explain why you people who keep pushing this concept keep ignoring the fact that Revelation was written decades after 70 AD. I have pointed this out earlier and it is ignored. Your supposed knowledge of history is flawed by ignoring the date Revelation was written. That simple fact throws your belief into the garbage can.

LOOK AT ALL FACTS ABOUT TIMING OF REVELATION BEING WRITTEN AND THE EVENTS YOU TALK ABOUT.

LOL who knows when it was written? 'Five are fallen and one is' suggests a much earlier date.

 

[valiant]

full-preterism is of satan. its satan tricking believers in the last times. this is heresy stop in the name of the Lord

A bit harsh? And what about pre-Millennialism?

 

[Snoozy]

A bit harsh? And what about pre-Millennialism?

not harsh at all Paul says full preterists have strayed from the truth. he even names a couple of those heretics.

pre-millennialism is bible teaching. its clear. revelaton 19 Jesus returns and in 20 sets up the kingdom. u just dont see it because of your replacement theology.

 

[abcdef]

Yes they are ruling in the spiritual kingdom now - the "millennium" though was a specific period that ran until the old covenant ended with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.

The old covenant ended when Jesus died on the cross. that is when the old covenant was ended.

This is the time Paul spoke of in the casting out of the children of Hagar:

Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

This shows the difference between faith and unbelief, and perhaps the dest of Jerusalem, but it does not define the mill. period.

Until the casting out there were two groups claiming to be the children/people of God - the destruction of Jerusalem in the war of 66-70AD put that to rest forever.

Again, this does not define the mill period as pre 70 ad. only.

 

[valiant]

not harsh at all Paul says full preterists have strayed from the truth. he even names a couple of those heretics.

pre-millennialism is bible teaching. its clear.

It is far from CLEAR. It arises from a failure to recognise the new vision in Rev 20.

The binding of Satan had to occur BEFORE Rev 9. And nowhere is a reign ON EARTH mentioned.

 

[Snoozy]

It is far from CLEAR. It arises from a failure to recognise the new vision in Rev 20.

The binding of Satan had to occur BEFORE Rev 9. And nowhere is a reign ON EARTH mentioned.

as i said its not clear to u because of replacement theology. its not a new vision. binding of satan didnt need to happen before revelation 9. rev9 and rev 20 isnt the same.. can u read? it doesnt say satan/devil or dragon is bound or unbound in revelation 9.

 

[abcdef]

Interesting,

It is far from CLEAR. It arises from a failure to recognise the new vision in Rev 20.

I agree

The binding of Satan had to occur BEFORE Rev 9.

The beast that comes out of the abyss and kills the 2 witnesses Rev 11:7, had to be put into the abyss sometime previous to that point.

The beast is Rome. Iron legs/toes Dan. 2, 4th beast Dan. 7, beast with 7 heads Rev 17:7 & 9, dragon Rev 12:3.

So how is Rome thrown into the abyss?

And how does The Roman beast come out again? (To kill the 2 witnesses, who are restored to Jerusalem)

What is your opinion?

And nowhere is a reign ON EARTH mentioned.

Well, Jesus reigns over heaven and earth now. But He will not be returning to this planet, except to destroy it Rev 20:9.

 

[valiant]

as i said its not clear to u because of replacement theology. its not a new vision. binding of satan didnt need to happen before revelation 9. rev9 and rev 20 isnt the same.. can u read? it doesnt say satan/devil or dragon is bound or unbound in revelation 9.

Lol WAKE UP.

I. I do not believe in replacement theology, I believe we have been incorporated into the new Israel

2. It says the king of the angels. Do you think God kept releasing them bit by bit?

3. Rev 20 gives our position in the present age, risen and united with Christ.

 

[Snoozy]

Lol WAKE UP.

I. I do not believe in replacement theology, I believe we have been incorporated into the new Israel

2. It says the king of the angels. Do you think God kept releasing them bit by bit?

3. Rev 20 gives our position in the present age, risen and united with Christ.

1. ok

2. it doesnt say devil/dragon/satan still u are just thinking it there

3. if this is revelation 20, then this is the worst millennium ever. war,disease, famine, evil everywhere, pain and suffering, persecution for christians. nice delusion u have there.

 

[valiant]

The beast that comes out of the abyss and kills the 2 witnesses Rev 11:7, had to be put into the abyss sometime previous to that point.

The beast is Rome. Iron legs/toes Dan. 2, 4th beast Dan. 7, beast with 7 heads Rev 17:7 & 9, dragon Rev 12:3.

So how is Rome thrown into the abyss?

The demonic powers behind Rome were thrown into the abyss.

And how does The Roman beast come out again? (To kill the 2 witnesses, who are restored to Jerusalem)

By the angel who carries the key to the abyss.

 

[abcdef]

The demonic powers behind Rome were thrown into the abyss.

Yes, and that spirit was the Dragon Rev 13:2, who is Satan.

By the angel who carries the key to the abyss.

Obviously, yes, but I was hoping for a little more to your answer, concerning the relationship to Rome and the meaning of the ascent out of the abyss.

 

[Locutus]

The old covenant ended when Jesus died on the cross. that is when the old covenant was ended.

Maybe explain that to Paul because he was writing to Christians being dead to the law - how can Christians be dead to a law that supposedly ended at the cross?

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Also explain how in Hebrews that is it written on whatever they wrote on back then that the old was nigh unto passing if it passed at the cross.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

 

[abcdef]

Maybe explain that to Paul because he was writing to Christians being dead to the law - how can Christians be dead to a law that supposedly ended at the cross?

The Law was completely fulfilled, completed, at the cross. There is no more sacrifice for sin to be made. If the Law was still in force in God's eyes, at that time (the writing of Heb.), further sacrifice would be called for.

Just because there were some who chose to live under the Law, doesn't mean that the Law covenant was still in force in God's eyes.

Is that what you are saying, that because men chose to live under the Law, that God had to live by it also, even though it was dead, ended, in God's eyes?

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Paul is contrasting the Law with the new covenant and how the new is better. But there were some teaching that the Law was still in force at that time. Paul is explaining that the Law is dead, that you cannot return to it as Christians.

Also explain how in Hebrews that is it written on whatever they wrote on back then that the old was nigh unto passing if it passed at the cross.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Paul is quoting from the OT, Jer 31:31-32, Heb 8:8-9, at the time of the original writing, they were still under the old covenant, waiting for the new to begin. At the time the statement was made, originally, it was old and ready to vanish. Paul was stating that it had passed as a fulfillment of prophecy.

====

The old covenant ended at the cross, the new covenant/kingdom began on Pentecost.

Some tried to hold on to the old covenant, but it was dead.

The temple still was there, but the veil had been torn "...from the top to the bottom." Mk 15:38.

But now you say that maybe the Law was still kind of in force, that maybe the veil had a few threads still hanging together until 70 AD?

It is impossible for God to be enforcing the 2 covenants at the same time. But that seems to be what you are implying.

 

[Locutus]

The new covenant began at the cross the old ran by it's side for 40 or so years.

If the old covenant had passed at the cross James would have told these zealous Messianics that it had ended at the cross:

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

But we don't see him saying this do we?

 

[Endoscopy]

When you smarten up?

You are an ignorant windbag spouting gibberish nonsense about the end times
Theologians for centuries have come up with 4 possible versions of eschatology. Your version isn't one of them. How did you come to the conclusion that you are so much smarter than them?

I have heard this before and it isn't Biblical taking all end times sections of the Bible into consideration. You left out most of Daniel and Revelation along with sections in the Gospels and old Testament prophecies. You have to use all of those sections to make a valid eschatology. Go back to the drawing board and start again this time taking into consideration all sections and the time they were written. Almost all Biblical scholars date Revelation near 90 AD with some going as early as 69 with him doing a rewrite between 80 and 90.

I repost this.

Early Church tradition dates the book to end of the emperor Domitian (reigned AD 81–96), and most modern scholars agree, although the author may have written a first version under Vespasian (AD 69–79) and updated it under Domitian.

 

[Locutus]

 

[abcdef]

You are an ignorant windbag spouting gibberish nonsense about the end times
Theologians for centuries have come up with 4 possible versions of eschatology. Your version isn't one of them. How did you come to the conclusion that you are so much smarter than them?

I have heard this before and it isn't Biblical taking all end times sections of the Bible into consideration. You left out most of Daniel and Revelation along with sections in the Gospels and old Testament prophecies. You have to use all of those sections to make a valid eschatology. Go back to the drawing board and start again this time taking into consideration all sections and the time they were written. Almost all Biblical scholars date Revelation near 90 AD with some going as early as 69 with him doing a rewrite between 80 and 90.

I repost this.

Early Church tradition dates the book to end of the emperor Domitian (reigned AD 81–96), and most modern scholars agree, although the author may have written a first version under Vespasian (AD 69–79) and updated it under Domitian.

Friend,

We could argue about scholars and writings, but even though I'm thinking after 70 AD,

I think that the Revelation scriptures will say the same thing,

Whether they were written before or after 70 AD.

That is, God's judgement is on Israel for rejecting the kingdom.

I believe that the dest of Jerusalem is shown at the 6th seal, but as an event that has already past at the writing of the Revelation.

 

[abcdef]

The new covenant began at the cross the old ran by it's side for 40 or so years.

If the old covenant had passed at the cross James would have told these zealous Messianics that it had ended at the cross:

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

But we don't see him saying this do we?

Are you S.D.A.?

Israel in the flesh, kept "the Law" even after the destruction of 70 AD, until this present day.

They are dead to God as much as they were before 70 AD after rejecting the kingdom.