Will we be vegetarians in the millennial reign of Christ?

[thomas15]

Darrell C

Dispensationalists argue for the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies related to Israel. Dispensationalists argue for a literal temple in Jerusalem according to Ezekiel. Now you are telling me that you spiritualize the prophecy regarding sin offerings!

According to the a-mil/post-mil scheme, we are, as the church, sort of, kind of living in the kingdom right now as we speak. So for those of that persuasion, no need to go to the Bible because no covenant A-mil or Post-mil that I know of is a vegatarian due to doctrinal considerations.

As for the temple and sacrifices in the kingdom, since there is mention of them in the Bible it would be prudent to consider the possibility that they will be a part of the kingdom experience.

Maxdeaf mentions that there will be bacon in the kingdom. I believe that this is correct. It will be thin, crisp and the leanest bacon ever. With lots of old smoked hickory flavor!

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C

Answer me a question or two.

Scripture tells us that man cannot look on the Glory of God and live.

1 Timothy 6:13-16
13. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14. That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15. Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16. Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Exodus 33:22, 23
22. And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23. And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, is to return in power and Great Glory.

First let me say I apologize for the confusion about my statement concerning atheists, I reviewed that and see how you may have taken it as directed at you, and I assure you it was not. I will try to be more careful in how I state things, though, I would just say that what (I was trying to say...lol) I said is very true: atheists love it when we rip each other apart (I like to witness to atheists and will seek them out on their own turf).

Okay, I guess the premise here is that it is not reasonable to think that Christ will rule on earth, based upon these verses.

The problem I would have with that is that when He returns, man will look upon Him. Here are a few verses that I think show a double reference to an Old Testament reference to Christ:



Zechariah 12:10

King James Version (KJV)

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

...The original statement.



John 19:37

King James Version (KJV)


37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.



...used in a context of the immediate event described in the passage, which is at the time of His death.


Revelation 1:7

King James Version (KJV)

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.


...also a reference referring to His return, and while it may not be a direct quote, most would agree that 1) it speaks of the death of Christ and 2) it would seem unbelievers will see His coming and 3) it establishes that Christ in His Glory can be viewed by mortal man when he returns.


Consider:


16. Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.


...I view this to refer to man's inability to enter into the presence of God in His realm. This would be a general rule that some might say is not absolute based upon Paul's trip to the third heaven and John's viewing of God on His throne where we are not told the face of God was veiled.


Consider what John saw:



Revelation 1:13-15

King James Version (KJV)

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.



I guess it could be debated whether this was the Lord or not, but I view this to speak of Christ, and the description given by John calls into question whether it is reasonable to think that the Lord could not rule upon the earth because it is thought that He will not appear to men.

I look at it this way: it is true that man cannot enter into the realm of God and live, but it is seen in scripture several times where God has appeared before man.

An Old Testament example would be Genesis 18. Would any deny that this was God? I believe it was the Son of God Himself that appears to Abraham. Would we say that Abraham did not look upon the face of God when he served them (the Lord and two Angels)? Either it was the Lord, or it wasn't.



Zechariah 14:3-5

King James Version (KJV)


3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.


This is taken by many (myself included) to speak of Christ's return. It pictures the Lord in the process of judgment upon the unbelieving.

Scripture tells us that man cannot look on the Glory of God and live.

If you don't mind me asking, could you present the scriptural basis for this statement.

I view it in the manner of no man can enter God's presence in his temporal state, not that God cannot or has not presented Himself before man in his physical environment.

As I said I am guessing that the premise is that Christ's earthly rule is not reasonable because it is believed that man cannot enter His presence, thereby making a Millennial Kingdom improbable, however, Christ will, I believe, be seen by those that rejected Him when He comes to judge them.


Continued (due to length)...

 

[Darrell C]

Revelation 19:11-16
11. And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Matthew 24:30. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Now you say that Jesus Christ in all the Glory of the Godhead is going to dwell in a stone house in the midst of sinful mankind. Yet Scripture [shown above] states that man cannot look upon the Glory of God and live. So how is this possible? Are you saying that these mortals on earth during the millennium never see the Glorified Savior? He sits there all alone?

Now you say that Jesus Christ in all the Glory of the Godhead is going to dwell in a stone house in the midst of sinful mankind.

Actually, it was you that presented this. I am not dogmatic concerning the physical location of Christ during the Millennial Kingdom. From my viewpoint it seems rather obvious that the Millennial Kingdom will consist of those that live through Daniel's Seventieth Week, who will produce offspring that will rebel against the rule of Christ.

Those that are caught away will at that time, prior to the Millennial Kingdom, be glorified, having the ability to be in both the realm of God (the Thisrd Heaven) as well as on earth. I don't believe we will dwell upon the earth, but will have our abode with God, though I do think (and it is just opinion) that there will be work for us, perhaps ministry as I believe Angels carry out in this age.

But I have no problem seeing Christ both dwell among His people as is prophecied as well as sitting in judgment upon those that rebel during that time. A primary purpose for Christ coming in the first place was to reverse the separation which resulted from Adam's disobedience.

God walked with Adam and Adam was capable of sin. Not really any different in the Kingdom.

Yet Scripture [shown above] states that man cannot look upon the Glory of God and live.

I understand how it can be viewed this way, but what I see is...

16. Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

...no man can approach the light in which He dwells. It does not say no man can approach Christ. We would all be in trouble if that were the case.

And...

23. And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen

An instance where God does not allow man to see His face. I look at this to speak of God's presence in His Glory which is different from His manifestation to Adam, Abraham, or His appearing to Daniel, for example:



Daniel 7:9-10

King James Version (KJV)


9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.


It could be argued "this was just a vision," but, is that a reasonable argument? Did he or did he not see the Ancient of Days?


Consider also Isaiah:



Isaiah 6:1-3

King James Version (KJV)


6 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.


Did he see the Lord...or not?

So the context would not create a concrete "no man can see God and live," for God has revealed Himself to men in several passages. However, when He did, we would consider it to be possible because this is what God intended to occur.

So Iagain, I do not see this to rule out the possibility of the very One prophecied to rule in a Kingdom here on earth...actually ruling.

So how is this possible? Are you saying that these mortals on earth during the millennium never see the Glorified Savior? He sits there all alone?

No, I think very much that they will see Him. Whether He will have an abiding presence on an earthly throne or not, I do not speculate. But that there will be an earthly Kingdom in which Messiah reigns, I do not question, nor have I seen a scriptural presentation that causes me do doubt this.

Okay, I have spent far more time than I should have, but there should be enough here to get an idea of where I am in my belief concerning the Millennial Kingdom.

Have to get going,

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I am not aware of any doctrine that teaches the restoration of the Jewish millennium and Temple worship other than dispensationalism!

One other comment on your long post.

I believe that God has been reigning since dirt, well actually throughout eternity. The Jehovah;s Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ started reigning on earth in 1914.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in an earthly millennial reign, apparently with Jesus Christ in Heaven. I don't. I believe in a general resurrection just as Jesus Christ said [John 5:2, 29] and a New Heavens and New Earth [Revelation 21, 22; Isaiah 65; 2 Peter 3] where the redeemed will dwell with the Triune God eternally.

It would appear that you have more in common with the JW's than I do.

Have to get going so I will try to clarify what seems to be a misunderstanding of what I said:

I am not aware of any doctrine that teaches the restoration of the Jewish millennium and Temple worship other than dispensationalism!

It can be seen in the Old Testament as well as the Gospels, and I have referenced Acts 1 as an example. I will await commentary upon the assertion that the Spiritual Kingdom of God which we are currently in is to be contrasted with the literal earthly Kingdom which is so often referenced by Christ in His teaching.

Which leads me to...

One other comment on your long post.

I believe that God has been reigning since dirt, well actually throughout eternity. The Jehovah;s Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ started reigning on earth in 1914.

Gotta ask...since dirt? lol...good one.

So we need not consider that a Kingdom was to be, or has, been established? Since creation the Kingdom of God has been here on earth? You do not distinguish the Kingdom of God "being at hand" from God's sovereignty?

The Jehovah;s Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ started reigning on earth in 1914.

They believe He "returned," and they distinguish between His return and the general concept of God's sovereignty. Meaning, they do not, to my knowledge, teach that God had no Kingdom before 1914.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in an earthly millennial reign, apparently with Jesus Christ in Heaven.

Again I have to ask why this is relevant?

In view are your beliefs and mine.

I don't. I believe in a general resurrection just as Jesus Christ said [John 5:2, 29] and a New Heavens and New Earth [Revelation 21, 22; Isaiah 65; 2 Peter 3] where the redeemed will dwell with the Triune God eternally.

So what do you do with the catching away as taught by Paul, and the First Resurrection? In both, only the saved are raised, whereas the "general teaching" of the Old Testament is that both are raised...at the same time.

For example:


Daniel 12

King James Version (KJV)

12 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.


But this gets back to the progression of revelation, as well as the progression of understanding...two entirely different matters. Resurrection was revealed, but understanding was not yet forthcoming. Just as Christ taught His disciples He would die for their sins, yet it was not understood until Pentecost.

It would appear that you have more in common with the JW's than I do.

Ouch...lol.

Okay, if you say so. I cannot deny I believe in a literal Millennial Kingdom or that it may be that Christ will rule from Heaven, I just do not think we can be dogmatic about it to the point we ridicule our brothers.

:thumbs:

Gotta go, but I have enjoyed it.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

And just so the topic is not entirely lost...can one be vegan and eat eggs?

lol

God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

According to the a-mil/post-mil scheme, we are, as the church, sort of, kind of living in the kingdom right now as we speak. So for those of that persuasion, no need to go to the Bible because no covenant A-mil or Post-mil that I know of is a vegatarian due to doctrinal considerations.

As for the temple and sacrifices in the kingdom, since there is mention of them in the Bible it would be prudent to consider the possibility that they will be a part of the kingdom experience.

Maxdeaf mentions that there will be bacon in the kingdom. I believe that this is correct. It will be thin, crisp and the leanest bacon ever. With lots of old smoked hickory flavor!

Pig meat is unclean to Jews!

 

[USN2Pulpit]

To be honest, these are one of the questions I might wonder about, but it goes in the "doesn't really matter" category, at least for me. I believe the feast and the food will be wonderful - beyond imagination, and I trust the Lord that it will be so, regardless of my admittedly preconcieved notion that nothing tastes better than a succulent slow cooked roast...

I trust God. Whatever is contained within the spread, I'm sure we'll all enjoy.

Interesting question though with some thought-provoking answers.

 

[OldRegular]

It would appear that you do not believe the bible.

You are incorrect! I believe the Bible, I just prefer my understanding rather than that of Darby/Scofield or Russell.

You do not believe in the literal 6 day creation according to your own account.

That is simply a lie. You need to look at my posts on appropriate threads.

You do not believe in a literal 1000 year rule of Christ here on earth.

You got one thing correct so far.

You do not believe in the restoration of the sacrifices.

Jesus Christ was the only sacrifice that provided for the forgiveness of sins. The blood sacrifices offered prior to the death of Jesus Christ were provisional.

Hebrews 10:1-4
1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Therefore, it is nonsense to insist that blood sacrifices will be instituted again. But since there will be no earthly millennial the argument is moot.

You appear not to believe the bible as it is written.

Let me see. Somewhere else I was compared to Satan with the excuse that I falsely accused a brother. However, I will not do that. Now you answer this question: Are you Roman Catholic? If so you should not post on this Forum. If you are not you obviously do not believe all the Bible as written. {I always like to ask dispys this question.} Do you believe what Jesus Christ said in the following Scripture?

John 6:53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Have you eaten the flesh and drunk the blood of Jesus Christ? If not you obviously do not believe Scripture as written.

Do you believe in a general resurrection of all the dead?

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

If not you obviously do not believe Scripture as written.

Perhaps you have more in common with the JW's then you think.

Darby, Scofield, and Charles Taze Russell have much in common. These men promulgated two egregious Biblical errors in the 18th century: dispensationalism and the Watchtower Society..

 

[freeatlast]

You are incorrect! I believe the Bible, I just prefer my understanding rather than that of Darby/Scofield or Russell.

That is simply a lie. You need to look at my posts on appropriate threads.


You got one thing correct so far.

Jesus Christ was the only sacrifice that provided for the forgiveness of sins. The blood sacrifices offered prior to the death of Jesus Christ were provisional.

Hebrews 10:1-4
1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Therefore, it is nonsense to insist that blood sacrifices will be instituted again. But since there will be no earthly millennial the argument is moot.

Let me see. Somewhere else I was compared to Satan with the excuse that I falsely accused a brother. However, I will not do that. Now you answer this question: Are you Roman Catholic? If so you should not post on this Forum. If you are not you obviously do not believe all the Bible as written. {I always like to ask dispys this question.} Do you believe what Jesus Christ said in the following Scripture?

John 6:53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Have you eaten the flesh and drunk the blood of Jesus Christ? If not you obviously do not believe Scripture as written.

Do you believe in a general resurrection of all the dead?

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

If not you obviously do not believe Scripture as written.



Darby, Scofield, and Charles Taze Russell have much in common. These men promulgated two egregious Biblical errors in the 18th century: dispensationalism and the Watchtower Society..

Well if you believe in the literal 6 day creation account then I apologize. As for those men you mentioned I have never met or spoke with any of them or read anything they teach. I simply have the bible which teaches a 1000 year rule of Christ here in earth and if that is not believed then one cannot believe the bible as written.

 

[Grasshopper]

Darrell C

Sorry, this does not look like a memorial:

Eze 45: 20*You shall do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who has sinned through error or ignorance; so you shall make atonement for the temple.

Does the MK come before or after the New Heavens and New Earth?
Does the MK come before or after the Second Coming?

 

[Darrell C]

To be honest, these are one of the questions I might wonder about, but it goes in the "doesn't really matter" category, at least for me. I believe the feast and the food will be wonderful - beyond imagination, and I trust the Lord that it will be so, regardless of my admittedly preconcieved notion that nothing tastes better than a succulent slow cooked roast...

I trust God. Whatever is contained within the spread, I'm sure we'll all enjoy.

Interesting question though with some thought-provoking answers.

Hello USN2, I would agree with you, this falling into the category of "Yes someone can be saved and believe either way," lol.

What I did want to ask was does USN stand for U.S. Navy?

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C

Sorry, this does not look like a memorial:

Eze 45: 20*You shall do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who has sinned through error or ignorance; so you shall make atonement for the temple.

As far as those that live in this time (the MK, that is), I believe (and am not dogmatic) that those which dwell at this time will be even as we are today, which is, indwelt by the Spirit of God, but not yet glorified (or redeemed from this flesh). There is some debate as to whether they will be indwelt by God, some seeing that the ministry of the Holy Spirit will revert to as it was before Pentecost, which I do not agree with, seeing that if one have not the Spirit of Christ he does not belong to God.

Going from there, I view that men will be born again (and lean heavily to the belief that no-one that is not born again will enter the Kingdom, meaning all those that reject Christ by the end of the Tribulation will perish), but will, like as we, because they are in this body, still sin. And just as under the Law men offered up sacrifice without understanding the role Christ would play concerning the taking away and remission of sin, and in reality it played no part in the removal or forgiveness but was established for the mantter of obedience to God, I believe it quite reasonable to see this in the same light in the Millennial Kingdom.

Today when we sin we go before God and do that which is commanded: confess it for the purpose of forgiveness (1 John 1:9)

Okay, let's think about that for a minute: why is it if all sin has been taken away and forgiven, why do we need to confess it rather than simply say, "Oh well, that sin was paid for by Christ, I need not worry about it?"

Because we are still capable, in this flesh, of sin, and we are to repent of it as we grow, which is how scripture teaches salvation works. We are instantly transformed into sinless people, because we yet live in a world that is cursed, and abide in a body that is under that curse. We are being conformed to the image of Christ, not "have alreadsy been."

No different in the Millennial Kingddom, I believe. The nature of sacrifice under the Law, before the death of Christ, and the nature after are identical. Only the sacrifice of Christ takes away sin, and in particular the penalty of sin, but it was required by God that they observe in obedience that which God commanded them.

And seeing that the Temple and practice of Ezekial 40-48 have not been fulfilled, we either take the view that God either means to fulfill this at some point, or, He did not realize that it would not be necessary, making the sacrifice of Christ an afterthought of sorts.

I choose the former, knowing the latter to be an impossibility.

Does the MK come before or after the New Heavens and New Earth?

From my study I hold to the belief that veents run in this order: the catching away (to include the resurrection of first the dead in Christ followed by those that remain), the Tribulation (daniel's Seventieth Week), the return of Christ (at the end of the Tribulation), a brief time of establishment of the Kingdom (about 45 days), the Millennial Kingdom (and don't laugh but I view this to be the seventh millenium, and the time of "Rest" intended for man pictured in the weekly Sabbath), then...the eternal state, in which this world and it's curse passa away and the new heavens and new earth are created, which will be suitable for those that at this point are all glorified.

Does the MK come before or after the Second Coming?

Revelation is clear that the Return of Christ comes at the end of the Tribulation.

Hope that helps, and thanks for the response.

God bless.

 

[Grasshopper]

Do you see "the day of the Lord" as the second coming?

 

[thomas15]

Pig meat is unclean to Jews!

I'm a gentile son.

 

[OldRegular]

I'm a gentile son.

Yes but the discussion is about the Jewish Levitical system and blood sacrifices. Then of course the Apostle Paul throws a clod in the churn when he states:

Galatians 3:27-27
27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

No pork belly for you in the millennium!

 

[thomas15]

Yes but .....

No pork belly for you in the millennium!

What a thoughtful and well researched contribution to this matter. Write a best selling book and get you some well earned respect in academia. And don't fporget to challange the a-mil/post-mil contention that (the church) is already mostly in the kingdom. I think they call it a realized millennium.

 

[Darrell C]

Do you see "the day of the Lord" as the second coming?

In part. The use of the phrase "The Day of the Lord" in scripture references basically (in my view) any visitation of God upon the people of this world, usually involving judgment (which in turn is usually followed with promise of restoration, whether implicit or explicit). It can refer to a coming judgment as well as an initial arrival with subsequent presence, as in the case of 2 Peter 3:10, which I believe points to the new heavens and new earth.

So I would say yes, I do consider the use of "the Day of the Lord" in regards to His Return to be accurate, though not limited to the Return itself, just as the judgment prophecied upon Israel was called "the Day of the Lord" and was not limited to that event.

I believe we will see a "restoration" of the earth in that day (the MK), that, while not complete, will see some things restored to replicate God's original plan for the earth.

God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

What a thoughtful and well researched contribution to this matter.

More thoughtful than your comment:

Originally Posted by thomas15
I'm a gentile son.

I wasn't sure whether you misspelled "gentle" or not!

Write a best selling book and get you some well earned respect in academia. And don't fporget to challange the a-mil/post-mil contention that (the church) is already mostly in the kingdom. I think they call it a realized millennium.

For all you know I may have written several books! As for challenging the realized millennial doctrine; I try not to challenge the truth. As for defending dispensationalism; sorry, I don't defend the indefensible.

Regarding post millennialism you need to expand your learning before you comment!

 

[thomas15]

For all you know I may have written several books! As for challenging the realized millennial doctrine; I try not to challenge the truth. As for defending dispensationalism; sorry, I don't defend the indefensible.

Don't be bashful professor; please tell us what you have written!

 

[Baptist Believer]

The Gospel of Luke reveals that Jesus, in His resurrection body, asked for some food and ate a piece of fish and some honey (Luke 24:41-43). The Gospel of John depicts Jesus as having prepared breakfast of fish for the disciples, again in His resurrection body, also taking part of their miraculous catch to prepare (John 21:9-13).

Since Jesus was in His resurrection body, a type of body that we will one day have, and he was not a vegetarian, I think we can safely assume that we will not be either.