Can a believer sin?

Those words in Luke are both prophetic and future. Neither shall they say. He is speaking of the end times.

Only a couple of verses later he says:
Luke 17:24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
--haven't see that either.

 

Do you deny that there will be a literal 1000 year reign with Christ?

 

yes............... I believe like the old church believed, that it is spiritual and as some believe begins when you are born again.

Anyway, in this 1000 year reign, only the souls of the beheaded were there. In the scripture that speaks of it, says "reigned" and "lived", past tense.

You only have around 200 years of this literal 1000 year reign doctrine, beginning with Darby and maybe a couple before him. Up to 3AD they actually taught the Jewish doctrine of which they are still looking for the Messiah.


The Judaistic features of Chiliasm can be readily seen by an examination of the Apocalyptic writings of the Jews. The genesis of this doctrine may be found in these writings which are generally dated in the pre-Christian period.


Chiliasm is not unique with the Christian religion. Its roots can be found in most religions throughout the world. A key element which exists in most religions is that there will be a time when evil will be destroyed by the powers of good followed by a long period of peace. Historically, then, the word Chiliasm has taken on the added meaning of a time of universal peace.
According to Schaff, the belief of a period of a thousand years of peace from evil powers had its origin with the religion of Zoroastrianism. This religion began prior to the Babylonian captivity and was in vogue during the time of the captivity. Zoroastrians believe that they were the ones who first taught the concept of one all powerful god, and the coming of a redeemer to save the world from the evil powers that pervade upon the earth. The Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament are filled with speculations of a time of universal peace, which would be ruled by the people of God. Only in these books do we find the doctrine of Chiliasm among God's people. The Old Testament scriptures do not teach such a doctrine. If we consider the period in which these books were written, and the uninspired nature of these books, then this doctrine can be put into its proper place. It was a period of religious turmoil and persecutions by the enemies of God's people. The influence of Zoroastrian chiliasm was evident, thus the climate was ripe for the hope that God would intervene, destroying the enemy, and ushering in a period of universal peace.

 

Do you base your doctrine on the Bible or on history (that is, historical commentaries). If your doctrine is based on history you will surely fall into heresy. Many followed the teachings of Origen because of his prominence, but later even the Catholic Church declared him to be a heretic. We have the great advantage "hindsight is better than foresight." The accumulated knowledge of 2,000 years of men who have studied the Bible over the knowledge of just a few men in the first couple of centuries gives even a greater advantage. The earlier Christians never had a Strong's concordance to work with, neither a computer, internet resources, or anywhere near the number of books that anyone of us have access to. In earlier centuries people tended to copy each other's doctrine. If one person was amillenial then that was the going "fad" at the time and no one questioned it.

The question is: What does the Bible say? Not what does Iraneus say, or Polycarp, or Athanasius, or Tertulliun, etc.? Many of them had their own heresies and could not be trusted in many areas of doctrine.

Is the Bible to be allegorized when it says:

Revelation 20:2-7 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Five times the term "thousand years" is used, sometimes the thousand years, making a very specific time period. Are you going to allegorize this and say it doesn't mean what it says. If so, will you allegorize the resurrection like the J.W.'s do and say that it is spiritual and not literal as well? If not, why?

 

You have used history many many times so don't throw rocks in a glass house.

Listen DHK; I know many believe what you do, I just don't and base it also on the scripture. You fellows really hang to the tense when its in your favor, but if it goes against you, you reject it or make an excuse for it. If the souls were living and reigning now with Christ for a thousand years, we couldn't see them. You must be honest enough to wonder WHY was the 1000 year reign hidden for 1600 years from the church?
I think the JW were some of the first to embrace it, I could be wrong, I would have to research it. Just common sense would make a person wonder why, when we have an all powerful God.

 

I don't use history to base my doctrine. I may use history to expose error, like the error of SDA, Oneness Pentecostal, J.W., etc. Error that has begun with a specific person. But my beliefs are based on Scripture alone. There is nothing hidden for 1600 years. Where do you get that? If you say that, then you might well come to the conclusion, that because Christ promised, "I come quickly," and he didn't come in the first century that he lied. That is the same logic that you are using.
He hasn't come for the last 2000 years, therefore his coming is spiritual and not literal--just like his resurrection, eh??

 

Well, you admit you use history, which is good. I will not run you down for using it.

I get my doctrine from scripture also, but I do not stick my head in the sand and not research history and the movement of Christians, to better understand Christianity. You can if you like, but I will be better informed if you do.

Hidden, may of been the wrong word. Literal kingdom considered heretic doctrine would of been better I would say.

 

You take care of your house and I will take care of mine. I am consistent. If Jesus said the Kingdom is within you now, I believe it, you do not. If the scripture says the "souls" lived and reinged (past tense) I accept it. you do not. I guess you are pretty consistent though, you always go the opposite of scripture it seems.

 

Bob, you haven't answered my original question in post 184.
How do you account for John's usage of the term "a thousand years," five times in just four verses? Do you allegorize all five usages? Or will you admit that the 1,000 years used this many times must refer to a specific period of time. If so, when is it?

 

Rev 20:

1: And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2: And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3: And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5: But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6: Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

They were all the same thousand years, of God's time. You ever try and measure God's time. Anyway, it says for all five of these thousand years, they "lived" and "reigned" all "past" tense and all were the souls, so it was spiritual and again, if it were going on now, we couldn't see it. The old Church believed it to be spiritual, and most believed it to begin when you are born again. I believe it was spiritual also.
This world is going to be like Israel when the Lord comes back, they are going to say, where is the literal Kingdom and Jesus will say, the word I spoke will now judge you, I told you the Kingdom was within my people and you would not accept it as Israel did.

BBob,


5507
cilioi
chilioi
khil'-ee-oy
plural of uncertain affinity; a thousand:--thousand.

chilioi is the Greek word for thousand in Rev. and its an uncertain affinity. Takes you back to the Jewish doctrine doesn't it, "a time".
It could be 1 day, or it could be as yesterday 0.

 

I would have to say, you may be right. We have sins that we do not even recognize at times.

 

AMEN! AMEN!

 

And you are not giving any answers.
1. Why was your doctrine of the Kingdom considered heretic by the church for 1600 years, care to explain. Has it ever bothered you that it took that long to become the doctrine of some in the church.

Have you considered this, the original Greek.

5507
cilioi
chilioi
khil'-ee-oy
plural of uncertain affinity; a thousand:--thousand.

chilioi is the Greek word for thousand in Rev. and its an uncertain affinity. Takes you back to the Jewish doctrine doesn't it, "a time".
It could be 1 day, or it could be as yesterday 0.
__________________

 

Well Said!

 

Sice the Jehovah Witnesses have only been aroiud since 1872, it would seem that they could not have been "some of the first to embrace it", as you put it.

Why was the clear teaching of justification by faith "hidden" for 1600 years as well. It wasn't predominately taught in the year 600, or 800 or 1000, or whenever, so it must be heretical?? Makes no sense.

You can't claim one teaching "hidden" for 1600 years is "heretic" and that another teaching ""hidden" for 1600 years, is "sound doctrine", and be consistent.

Ed

 

You are correct. Scripture alone should be key.

 

Jehovah's Witnesses have predicted Armageddon over nine times and they continued to grow

The correct understand of scripture is the key. If it were just the scripture itself without the understanding of the Lord, it would profit you nothing, I dare say. That is why we have so many different beliefs today.

Common sense would cause one to at least give it some thought why was the literal Kingdom doctrine considered heretic for around 1600 years. I did not make this happen, but it happened and I think it deserves some thought, for we believe the scriptures were given by the God, so why were they not revealed until a couple hundred years ago, or were they in fact revealed and the Kingdom is Spiritual, as Jesus Christ Himself said.

You can attack me all you want and I will do whatever is necessary to keep my sanity, but the truth will stand when the world is on fire. We should not stick our heads in the sand because it goes against out theology. There were some pretty smart Godly men that have lived and died during those 1600 years. I thought we had got past this "new" revelation doctrine, or is Ellen White of the Seventh Day Adventist correct after all.

 

And yet they still won't give me all their stuff when they tell me about it.