There is no Millennium according to Jesus

[agedman]

But, you reject the gospel of the kingdom and side with the wicked Pharisees. Think about how serious this is.

You have taken the view of the Pharisees, not me.

if God stated it, I take the Scriptures as literal.

God gave John the account to be written down and the account will happen as recorded. .

Pharisees did not heed (though they knew) the prophets because they considered the statements less then literal.

So by your own statements do you.

Why you do not take the written word as factual when it comes to the Revelation 19, 20, 21 I do not know. But just as the Pharisees were blinded, they still were without excuse.

 

[1689Dave]

You have taken the view of the Pharisees, not me.

if God stated it, I take the Scriptures as literal.

God gave John the account to be written down and the account will happen as recorded. .

Pharisees did not heed (though they knew) the prophets because they considered the statements less then literal.

So by your own statements do you.

Why you do not take the written word as factual when it comes to the Revelation 19, 20, 21 I do not know. But just as the Pharisees were blinded, they still were without excuse.

Revelation is not literal. It is symbolic. Do you actually believe Red Dragons will be seen other than by drunks?

 

[agedman]

Revelation is not literal. It is symbolic. Do you actually believe Red Dragons will be seen other than by drunks?

Just as the Prophets of old, and the Pharisees of the Lords earthly time, they took the same view.

What other than symbolic could a virgin conceive mean?

What other than metaphorical could the suffering of the messiah be considered?

We can discuss dragons in another thread, for this seems to be about the veracity of a millennium and the reign of Christ.

 

[Revmitchell]

Revelation is not literal. It is symbolic. Do you actually believe Red Dragons will be seen other than by drunks?

But those symbols represent something literal not just some idea.

 

[timtofly]

The 1000 years represent Satan's binding, not the Kingdom. Notice the years begin when he is bound and end when he is loosed. Take care not to read false prophecy into it.

So Jesus is not reigning during this period? A false interpretation is declaring this time to be in the here and now, ie spiritual and not physical. What do you have in Revelation 20 that denies the physical for the spiritual? Is the first resurrection spiritual or physical? Can you define a spiritual resurrection, where all NT authors have not?

 

[1689Dave]

Just as the Prophets of old, and the Pharisees of the Lords earthly time, they took the same view.

What other than symbolic could a virgin conceive mean?

What other than metaphorical could the suffering of the messiah be considered?

We can discuss dragons in another thread, for this seems to be about the veracity of a millennium and the reign of Christ.

But you are saying the 1000 years are the Pharisee's Millennium when scripture never mentions a millennium. This is adding to God's word and will reap severe consequences. It also shows total disregard for the Gospel of the Kingdom.

 

[1689Dave]

But those symbols represent something literal not just some idea.

The symbols do represent physical realities. But many look for the symbols to appear rather than what they represent.

 

[Revmitchell]

The symbols do represent physical realities. But many look for the symbols to appear rather than what they represent.

Really? Just who are these?

 

[1689Dave]

Really? Just who are these?

Do you look for a 666 stamp? Or for what the symbol represents?

 

[agedman]

But you are saying the 1000 years are the Pharisee's Millennium when scripture never mentions a millennium. This is adding to God's word and will reap severe consequences. It also shows total disregard for the Gospel of the Kingdom.

A millennium is 1000 years.

Using the term millennium is synonymous with using 1000 years. That is not adding to God’s word, rather it is stating a specific verifiable and reliability of the Scriptural veracity.

Being as I am historically pre-mill (not Darby thinking) means I believe in the physical return of Christ to this earth, typically called the second coming, in which He and the saints will rule with all nations for 1000 years.

Perhaps you can discredit the second great portion of prophecy concerning the Christ, but such lack on your part does not oblige me to join, but rather to hold more supremely to the statements concerning the events as related in Revelation 19, 20, and 21.

 

[1689Dave]

A millennium is 1000 years.

Using the term millennium is synonymous with using 1000 years. That is not adding to God’s word, rather it is stating a specific verifiable and reliability of the Scriptural veracity.

Being as I am historically pre-mill (not Darby thinking) means I believe in the physical return of Christ to this earth, typically called the second coming, in which He and the saints will rule with all nations for 1000 years.

Perhaps you can discredit the second great portion of prophecy concerning the Christ, but such lack on your part does not oblige me to join, but rather to hold more supremely to the statements concerning the events as related in Revelation 19, 20, and 21.

But you are saying this is John's use when he spoke in symbols. If scripture doesn't say it's a millennium, who are you to say it is. In that passage is the chain literal? How about the serpent?. Or the bottomless pit? Why would the 1000 years be literal when the rest are symbols. And the OT uses it for "a large portion". Or something vast? You are forcing Phariseeism into Revelation That God warns against doing.

 

[Revmitchell]

But you are saying this is John's use when he spoke in symbols. If scripture doesn't say it's a millennium, who are you to say it is. In that passage is the chain literal? How about the serpent?. Or the bottomless pit? Why would the 1000 years be literal when the rest are symbols. And the OT uses it for "a large portion". Or something vast? You are forcing Phariseeism into Revelation That God warns against doing.

and it’s possible to over symbolize revelation. Not everything in Revelation is symbolic.

 

[timtofly]

One of the promises to believers is that we will rule and reign with Him. That can only take place in reading the Revelation and seeing the fulfillment during the Millennium.

I am amazed at how often folks will argue over the validity of and rendering of certain passages, yet when it comes to this passage they arrange some scheme to discredit the statements by removing their veracity.

The church is already ruling with Him. We see that God has always had a council in the OT, per Job. Paul says we (physically) sit with Christ since the Cross in Paradise. Not sure why any one would not accept that as physical already. There has been a ongoing physical resurrection since the Cross. If that is Phariseesism, then so be it.

David pointed out that He could not sit at that time. He was waiting for the redemption of the Cross. Jesus explained the OT believers were waiting in Abraham's bosom, but Paul claimed that changed with the Cross. Jesus told the thief that on the Cross. Paradise was physically opened in heaven for the church that day. The OT believers from Abraham's bosom were the firstfruits. That is the first resurrection per Paul.

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits (Abraham's bosom and ongoing arrivals into Paradise); afterward they that are Christ's at his coming (only those alive and remain). Then cometh the end (those alive on earth at the end of the Millennium), when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."


The OT waited in Abraham's bosom. The church is ongoing, complete at the Second Coming. But the kingdom completion comes at the end of the Millennium, 1000 years after the Second Coming.

That would only be confirmed in hindsight after 1991 years of church history.

 

[agedman]

The church is already ruling with Him. We see that God has always had a council in the OT, per Job. Paul says we (physically) sit with Christ since the Cross in Paradise. Not sure why any one would not accept that as physical already. There has been a ongoing physical resurrection since the Cross. If that is Phariseesism, then so be it.

I really don’t follow your reasoning, however, I would not put much stock on any reports of folks being raised from the dead by any human when Christ states, “I am the resurrection…”.

David pointed out that He could not sit at that time. He was waiting for the redemption of the Cross. Jesus explained the OT believers were waiting in Abraham's bosom, but Paul claimed that changed with the Cross. Jesus told the thief that on the Cross. Paradise was physically opened in heaven for the church that day. The OT believers from Abraham's bosom were the firstfruits.

Again, the presentation seems partially foundational; however, Paradise was not and is not formed in heaven. There is no record of paradise being in the heavens.

Jesus is the first fruits. (1 Corinthians 15).

There are other “first fruits” such s those mentioned in the Revelation 14:4

That is the first resurrection per Paul.

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits (Abraham's bosom and ongoing arrivals into Paradise); afterward they that are Christ's at his coming (only those alive and remain). Then cometh the end (those alive on earth at the end of the Millennium), when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."

No comment

The OT waited in Abraham's bosom. The church is ongoing, complete at the Second Coming. But the kingdom completion comes at the end of the Millennium, 1000 years after the Second Coming.

The church is complete NOT at the second coming, but as Peter reminds the impatient believers,

9The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is long suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.​

So when the last person is brought to Christ in repentance, then the church is complete. But that is not an indicator of the return, only that the Spirit no longer will strive with rebellious humans. (My Spirit will not always…”

That would only be confirmed in hindsight after 1991 years of church history.

Why that date?

 

[agedman]

But you are saying this is John's use when he spoke in symbols. If scripture doesn't say it's a millennium, who are you to say it is. In that passage is the chain literal? How about the serpent?. Or the bottomless pit? Why would the 1000 years be literal when the rest are symbols. And the OT uses it for "a large portion". Or something vast? You are forcing Phariseeism into Revelation That God warns against doing.

That is your own lack of discernment. Very few of what you call symbols are found in The Revelation.

Certainly, there are a few, and within those some are caused to stumble, but that is as the reading of many areas of Scripture.

I find the time line beginning from the statement given John to prophecy against the nations (chapter 10) to be consistently reliable.

So why would I revert to something other than fairly linear in the last few chapters? There is nothing significantly found to detract from a timeline approach.

As far as the rest of the questions, unless you can show why to not take a scripture passage as not literal, then it must remain to be taken literal.

There is no alternative, Scripture prophecy is literal unless stated and/or obviously to be taken differently. Any other position relegates the person to assume the viewpoint of a Pharisee who could not see the literal fulfillment of prophetic statements.

 

[timtofly]

I think the end is near, Satan having been loosed based on the state of the church.

The same state all humanity have been in since Noah, since Moses, since David, since Daniel, and since Christ. This world will have no sin either when Satan is bound. Not applicable to right now. Satan was never bound under such conditions, because humanity does not need to be free of Satan. They need freedom from the curse of Adam's disobedience. God says Satan being bound goes hand in hand with no sin condition on earth.

 

[timtofly]

But, you reject the gospel of the kingdom and side with the wicked Pharisees. Think about how serious this is.

The same could be said of those who deny God's Word like the Sadducees.

 

[Reformed1689]

Did you know scripture does not mention a Millennium? So you are adding to God's word when you turn John's 1000 years into the Pharisee's Millennium because it is supposedly 1000 years long. This is shoddy and dangerous eisegesis.

Um...it explicitly does

 

[1689Dave]

and it’s possible to over symbolize revelation. Not everything in Revelation is symbolic.

Here's is where you miss it. Because John mentions 1000 years, you think of the Pharisee's millennium which they say is 1000 years. But scripture never mentions a millennium. Scripture and John use 1000 symbolically for a huge amount of anything. It's not literal. Revelation is a book of symbols. If you are born-again, the scriptures spoken by Jesus in my OP should enlighten you to the gospel of the kingdom. But only the born-again can see it.

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3 (KJV 1900)

“But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.” Luke 11:20 (KJV 1900)

 

[1689Dave]

and it’s possible to over symbolize revelation. Not everything in Revelation is symbolic.

Now that's the trick, isn't it? If 1000 is in a group of symbols, a serpent, a chain, a bottomless pit, do you think it is a millennium scripture never mentions but only the Pharisees do??