Futurists cannot prove their assertions.

I believe such a period is clearly taught in the book of revelation 19-20 and inferred throughout the Old Testament and gospels. I think a person has to do mental gymnastics to avoid the clear concluson of a 1000 year period in Revelatin 19-20. I add chapter 19 because there is an indisputable clear chronological connection between 19 and 20 that is obvious and clear to any unbiased reader.

 

True. Getting into the weeds is really pointless. All that truly matters is whether we take up our cross and follow Christ. Eschatological views, Baptismal views, Gifts of the Spirit views, etc. are important, but they can also be distractions from the main issue.

 

Most theologians who deny a literal 1000 year period in Revelation 19-20 usually deny the literal salvation of Israel as an ethnic nation in Romans 11. However, both texts support both views easily and clearly.

 

Gee Whiz David... I've read Foxe's Book Of Martyr's, I believe one volume back in the day, probably the paperback one you mentioned and truly got my fill but 8 Volumes over 6,000 pages... Kind of long in the tooth and don't know if I have that much time left to tackle that project... But I did read the Readers Digest Version... Brother Glen

 

As you've probably noticed if you've been reading through this discussion, I believe the 1,000 years in Rev 20 is symbolic. It's not much different from the Lord owning the cattle on 1,000 hills, or a day with the Lord is better than 1,000 elsewhere. I see where the events of Rev 20 follow Rev 19, but I don't see how that makes a case for a literal 1,000 years. Maybe I'm just missing something. I could be wrong. Of course, only time will tell, as this is definitely a future event. As a side note, I have always held the "amillennial" view of that passage, even when I was a "futurist".

 

Yes, I believe you are missing something, a great deal of something. The first rule of Scripture is to never assume something is symbolic unless, and except literalism makes no sense. All who chuck this rule can make the scriptures teach anything they want it to teach. How do you approach the text?

Symbols may be used to describe literal historical scenes without denying the actual literal historicity of the primary event. For example, Revelation 19 describes the actual historic second coming of Christ not some kind of symbolic coming. However, that historic event may be described using symbolism. For example, the power of his coming my be symbolized by a horse as it was in John's day the most powerful weapon used by ancient armies. However, this is the second coming and it is with literal saints. For example, "chains" were used as the strongest means to bind an enemy in John's day and therefore may symbolize the security and might that binds Satan, but still Satan is a literal historical being and he is really bound by secure means and placed in a place where he cannot do any harm. So, I don't object to symbolism because a literal horse in heaven does not make sense, and literal chains to hold a spirit being does not make sense but I don't use that to demand the whole scene is symbolic and not a real historical event. Follow my drift?

 

Yes, that does make sense. It certainly can be a challenge to discern the literal from the symbolic. I try to see what similar symbolism was used in other Scripture, such as the OT prophets. Even that can still be a challenge, though.

 

I kind of fall into that same camp (except that I'm not much of a theologian). I believe that the Jewish people are not totally lost, but God doesn't have a future plan for the nation of Israel. I take the "Spiritual Israel" passages quite literally. Time to run, so I hope to visit tomorrow.

 

Well, I'm glad we're all getting along. The last page and a half have been informative and edifying.

 

Two Simple questions:

1. In Romans 9:7-11 what kind of Israel is Paul speaking about? What kind of Israel has fallen/broken off/cast away and rejected by God?

2. Is not it the same kind of Israel broken off that is grafted back in "again"? If not, then please explain how "spiritual" Israel was broken off and grafted back in again?

 

The "cattle on 1000 hills" is clearly hyperbole, mentioned only one time. The "day as a 1000 years" is clearly theology and therefore literal: God as existing outside of the space time continuum, not limited by days or years. One day with God is just as clearly seen as 1000 years--that's great theology by Peter!

On the other hand, the Rev. 20 passage mentions "1000 years" six whole times in just 7 verses! How in the world is that symbolic? Who does that, mentions the same symbol six times with different emphases? It can't be hyperbole or metaphor or simile or idiom or any other figure of speech that I know of. Tell me please, what figure of speech is the 1000 years of Rev. 20?

 

First, there is no indication from any text within the book of Revelation that the church is symbolized as an olive tree. Even Romans 11 makes no such clearly stated comparison or direct application of that idea.

Second, you are merging two separate texts found in two different contexts and assuming they refer to the same thing. For example, in Revelation 1 we have the lampstand with seven lamps but only one lampstand representing all seven churches which immediately precedes chapters 2-3 where the seven letters to the seven churches are found, however, in Revelation 11 we have an entirely different context and we have two different lampstands and two different olive trees. There is indeed a personification of these two lampstands and olive trees that does not fit your application. Not only so, but we have a two-fold distinction of the temple where we have the inner sanctuary wherein no one but the High Priest could enter not only being entered by a plurality of people but we have the outer court trodden down by the Gentiles for a period of 42 months. So, this is not such a clear cut and dry application as you are attempting to make it.

More than likely, the scriptural background for this context has more to do with the book of Zechariah chapter 4 where we find two olive trees standing before the Lord. Indeed, the vast majority of metaphors and symbols used in Revelation are drawn from the Old Testament scriptures.

The same text that provides interpretation for the lambstand provides interpretation for the stars (messengers). Unless you believe John sent his letter by airmail, then these seven messengers are the pastors of the seven church as each are addressed in connection with each congregation. The pastor is designed to be a messenger boy. He is supposed to get his message from the Lord and convey it to the congregation.

 

The DIFFERENCE is, I've pointed out FACTS, not opinion, imagination, & guesswork. Anyone can check after me in what I've provided to see it's the TRUTH. A clear example of this are the facts about Nero. His life is extensively chronicled, espacially after he became Caesar, and those facts clearly show he could NOT have been the "beast". However, you still insist that he was, with no evidence at all to support that claim. The TRUE beast MUST fulfill ALL Scriptural criteria for the beast, simple as THAT. So, if you REALLY believe Scripture is 100% true, you MUST drop the idea that Nero was the beast!

Daniel wrote what the "abomination of desolation" will be - the 'beast' entering the temple & proclaiming himself to be God. And no such event occurred while the old temple stood.

Indeed, you're practicing another pret trait of changing the meaning of certain Scriptures. For instance, Jesus says they will see Himself coming in the sky, you say, "See doesn't necessarily mean 'View'." reminds me of Bill Clinton's "That depends upon what 'is' is." Sorry; THAT WON'T WORK!

TRUTH IS, YOU'RE TRYING TO SUPPORT THE FALSE 'PRETERISM' DOCTRINE WITH HOT AIR.

 

Apology accepted, and I issue my own apology to you for my being rude.

However, at times, preterists (not just you) remind me of a "Flat-Earther" who was on my ship in the USN. We stood beside each other on the ship out to sea while watching a fast destroyer with whom we'd rendezvoused, sailing over the horizon. That ship appeared to be sinking as it went over the horizon. We could see it slowly vanishing from our view. The flat-earther said, "It's just an optical illusion!" In other words, he refused to accept plain, uncontestable proof of the earth's roundness. Same with prets who refuse to accept plain evidence that preterism is false. I am astounded and at times angered that a person who claims to be a Christian could twist God's word so badly just to attempt to sustain a man-made doctrine.

 

The Scripture plainly says the FP will have men MAKE AN IMAGE. TO THE BEAST. using Occam's razor, that only leaves a statue or a picture of the 'beast'. And the fact that Scripture says the image's speaking will cause men to marvel leaves only the possibility that the FP will make it speak thru supernatural means, as men would not marvel at electronic means. We must apply COMMON SENSE here.

 

What REALLY astounds me is that the Pret gent trying to defend preterism here has gone so far as to distort Matt. 24:29-30, which are direct quotes from JESUS HIMSELF. When Jesus said "They shall SEE the Son of man coming..." I don't get how anyone could "take" that statement at anything but face value, that they will view, behold, scope out, perceive with the eye, etc. Jesus coming, especially when those verses are coupled with Rev. 1:7! The man's been quite polite, so I hate to hafta resort to using the "A" word or the "H" word in mentioning that "take" he's posted. But I certainly find it completely unacceptable!

 

Can you use Scripture to re-define "image" in Rev. 13 to mean anything but "statue" or "picture"?