Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213141516
Results 226 to 239 of 239

Thread: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

  1. #226
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,002
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    I can't agree. (we seem to be at odds frequently lately).
    I see Jesus as just as much their savior as my savior.
    When you say saviour, what actually do you mean by that term?

    I don't think He put Himself in a box, and waiting until His incarnation to fellowship with faithful believers like Abrham and Daniel, etc...and that is why all of the scriptures you were given, show their interaction with Him.
    Nope, He didn't interact with them as saviour or in fellowship. None of those passages show Jesus having an interaction with them.

    You tend to make it impersonal, and solely prophetic, as if they had no idea what they were presenting; but I see it as much more personal. Christ is their Lord, He did for each one of them, no less than us; and I think He did reveal Himself to them.
    Their relationship was much more with their Father, rather than their brother.

    There are many Theophanies and Christophanies in the OT, and I feel confident that many if not most of those were preincarnate visits from Jesus to them.
    Not one is definitely a Christophany, though there are indeed Theophanies.

    I don't think Daniel or Job or David or Isaiah had impersonal relationships with Jesus....I think they were deeply personal.
    Whereas I see them having a personal relationship with the Father.

    They may not have known His name as 'Jesus', but He was their Lord. Jesus was always present in the lives of the OT faithful.
    I also spoke and shared some in the other threads, about no man can seek God unless he is drawn and it is the work of God. He fills believers, it is very personal. OT believers were no less people that post-pentecost people.
    If they did good, if they sought God, if they followed the path of righteousness, it was through the leading of the Spirit in them....not of their own fleshly ability.
    As to what is of God and what is of Man, I think it says "deep calls to deep..." Psalm 42

    You see, as Christians we often focus TOO much on Jesus, and barely let the Holy Spirit or the Father get a word in.
    In the OT they related to the Father far more, and didn't have a relationship with the Son. At most they knew about the Father providing salvation and sending a Messiah, but there is never a verse which speaks of a relationship with that Messiah.

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,641

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    When you say saviour, what actually do you mean by that term?
    There is one Saviour. Jesus Christ.
    Every Human Being is plagued under the curse of sin and death, following the fall.
    Jesus is the Saviour, because He is the way, the truth and the life. He is the only name under Heaven given among men by which we can be saved.
    Saved from what? Saviour of what?
    Our sins.

    Only via the shed blood of the Saviour Jesus Christ, is any human being saved from their sins.

    Whether or not a human is saved from their sins by the blood of Christ the savior or not; will determine their eternal destiny either in the Lake of Fire, or with the Christ in the glory eternal.


    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope, He didn't interact with them as saviour or in fellowship. None of those passages show Jesus having an interaction with them.


    Their relationship was much more with their Father, rather than their brother.
    If Jesus is not the saviour of the OT faithful, then they they are damned to the Lake of Fire.
    No other way to spin it.

    [QUOTE=ForHisglory;3498609]
    Not one is definitely a Christophany, though there are indeed Theophanies.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Whereas I see them having a personal relationship with the Father.

    As to what is of God and what is of Man, I think it says "deep calls to deep..." Psalm 42

    You see, as Christians we often focus TOO much on Jesus, and barely let the Holy Spirit or the Father get a word in.
    In the OT they related to the Father far more, and didn't have a relationship with the Son. At most they knew about the Father providing salvation and sending a Messiah, but there is never a verse which speaks of a relationship with that Messiah.
    YHWH is YHWH. You almost sound pan-thiestic above.
    To have a relationship with the Father is to have a relationship with the Son and the Spirit.

    Again, if they were not drawn of God and lead by the Holy Spirit, they could not have had faith. Their own works would be dead and fleshly and wicked, never able to please God.

    Just because they had less detailed knowlege about Jesus, doesn't remove Him as their saviour, and their means of eternal salvation.

    When you start to build paths of different ways to salvation, based on when someone was born, and based on what you think or don't think they knew or experience, and those differing paths of salvation attempt to not go via Jesus; you are straying from Christianity.

    Your eschatlogy is forcing you so hard to build groups and subgroups and different paths and different destinies, that you are fogetting that all men are sinners, and that only Jesus can forgive those sins and provide eternal salvation to each human being.

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14,657
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by journeyman View Post
    It ends when when Jesus returns in glory.
    No, scripture says it begins after he has returned.

    Rev 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

    That is the second coming.

    Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

    After "the end" comes, there is given power over the nations to those that are overcomers which naturally includes those who "are alive and remain" at the second coming. They will be given power over the nations.

    Rev 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

    After the second coming and after "the end" will the overcomers be given power over the nations, ruling them with a rod of iron. That proves the rod of iron rule over the nations does not even start until Christ has returned and has given overcomers this power to rule over the nations.


    Rev_19:15 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.

    Again, the nations will be ruled over which cannot happen if they are all dead. This depicts the second coming and it states "he shall rule them" which is future tense. It doesn't begin until Christ defeats the beast and FP who these nations currently are ruled over. Again, both passages support the rule over the nations starting after the return of Christ. Nothing supports that ending when Christ returns.
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,795

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    When you say saviour, what actually do you mean by that term?
    Nope, He didn't interact with them as saviour or in fellowship. None of those passages show Jesus having an interaction with them.
    Their relationship was much more with their Father, rather than their brother.
    Not one is definitely a Christophany, though there are indeed Theophanies.
    A distinction without a difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    Whereas I see them having a personal relationship with the Father.
    A distinction without a difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As to what is of God and what is of Man, I think it says "deep calls to deep..." Psalm 42

    You see, as Christians we often focus TOO much on Jesus, and barely let the Holy Spirit or the Father get a word in.
    In the OT they related to the Father far more, and didn't have a relationship with the Son. At most they knew about the Father providing salvation and sending a Messiah, but there is never a verse which speaks of a relationship with that Messiah.
    You seem to want to distinguish between the Persons of the Trinity while ignoring their unity. To deal with a Theophany is to deal with a Christophany. To relate to Jesus is to relate to both the Father and the Spirit.

    Jesus said that when we see him we see the Father. In other words, they are in such unity that you can see the characteristics of one in the characteristics of the other.

    Technically, Christ did not exist *as Christ* before his birth. But as the divine word of God he pre-existed his humanity, and has eternal origins. To thus deal with Christ is to deal with the eternal word of God. To deal with a vision of God in any form is to deal with God Himself.

  5. #230
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,263
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    Don’t really need to. The question that is paramount is when did the Kingdom begin? How one develops their view on the Kongdom later stems from that. And few if any even ask or consider where it began, even though it has substantial bearing on what it is later.
    I see. In the end, Dr Woods posited his own understanding of the subject which may or not agree with scripture without peer review.

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,263
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I am not saying being faithless is fine, and I am agreeing that IF you are faithless then denying God is a possible outcome. I am simply noting that being faithless by itself is NOT denying God.
    I have no problem you noting they are interconnected, but they are still separate.

    This is why the early church had a saying in which they noted these things:
    2Ti 2:11* The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him;*
    2Ti 2:12* if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;*
    2Ti 2:13* if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself.

    Note it also includes the point about rewards - if we endure we reign.
    If you say so.

    I see it a wee bit different. The way I see it, a Christian without "faith" is not a believer because it is faith in Christ that makes us one of his. End of! Having faith and not putting it to work is one thing, but the assumption that a believer can be faithless is an anomaly, IMHO.

    Finally, even though Paul said if "we" are faithless - I still don't believe he was referring to the church.

  7. #232
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,263
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I haven;t said anything about those who rejected Him, but there are still people (for example in North Korea) who have NOT heard about Him. There are also a few tribes in scattered places that have not heard about Him, and this is after 2,000 years.
    Romans 2 was NOT about those who lived BEFORE Christ, but rather those who lived WITHOUT knowledge of Christ.
    Everyone who is at the GWToJ is someone who did NOT receive Jesus, so will include those who rejected Him, and their lives will show this.
    The KEY is noting that Jesus is the JUDGE of this GWToJ and so He decides who gets put into the Book of Life.

    It is ONLY Jesus who decides, and therefore we have a requirement to tell people that they can avoid this judgement by believing in Him. (I simplify).
    Thanks for clarifying above. Of course, I concur.

  8. #233
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,002
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    If you say so.
    I see it a wee bit different. The way I see it, a Christian without "faith" is not a believer because it is faith in Christ that makes us one of his. End of! Having faith and not putting it to work is one thing, but the assumption that a believer can be faithless is an anomaly, IMHO.
    Finally, even though Paul said if "we" are faithless - I still don't believe he was referring to the church.
    In order for a Christian to come to God requires faith.
    However I also accept that NOTHING can remove us from out of His hand.
    We however can be faithless, as 2 Timothy 2 states and STILL God will not deny Himself, for He has placed His seal on us.
    Yet, I also don't hold to OSAS, and this is because we CAN deny Him, and in that situation He will deny us.
    To get to that place means we are faithless, but I think it is one step away.

    It is a bit like when God dealt with Israel as a whole. They were sometimes faithless, and so God worked on them to bring them back. He didn't deny Israel as a whole, even though they were faithless. Yet I see judgement coming when they were not only faithless, but were denying Him.

    The saying Paul notes is 100% about the early Christian church. It is NOT about Jews, and it was sent by Paul to Timothy to encourage him in his pastoring and life.

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,002
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    A distinction without a difference?
    Well IF you truly believe there is NO difference between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, then you could say that.

    A distinction without a difference?
    See point above. Of course there is a difference between how you relate to your Father and to your older brother.

    You seem to want to distinguish between the Persons of the Trinity while ignoring their unity. To deal with a Theophany is to deal with a Christophany. To relate to Jesus is to relate to both the Father and the Spirit.
    Jesus said that when we see him we see the Father. In other words, they are in such unity that you can see the characteristics of one in the characteristics of the other.
    Technically, Christ did not exist *as Christ* before his birth. But as the divine word of God he pre-existed his humanity, and has eternal origins. To thus deal with Christ is to deal with the eternal word of God. To deal with a vision of God in any form is to deal with God Himself.
    As there is a distinction between them so I am going with that distinction.
    A Christophany is NOT the same as a Theophany. The KEY difference is that in Jesus, God was also fully Man, and not simply in a Man's form.
    Indeed when we see Him we do see the Father, but that does NOT mean the Father and the Son are identical.
    If you look at a child you can see the parent in them. This is the same for Jesus, but at a deeper level.
    Jesus DID exist before His birth as He existed when the world was made. He simply did NOT exist as a Man. However He had NOT taken on the mantle (role) of Christ.
    To deal with a vision of God you have to deal with it as God shows Himself.
    In Revelation they are seen separately.

    However as you note, and what is truly the point is that they did NOT know Christ, for as Christ He did not exist, and yet it is in KNOWING Christ that we are Christians, for it is through the work He came and did that we enter NOW into the KoG.
    Something which did not happen to anyone before the bandit on the cross.

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,263
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    In order for a Christian to come to God requires faith.
    However I also accept that NOTHING can remove us from out of His hand.
    We however can be faithless, as 2 Timothy 2 states and STILL God will not deny Himself, for He has placed His seal on us.
    Yet, I also don't hold to OSAS, and this is because we CAN deny Him, and in that situation He will deny us.
    To get to that place means we are faithless, but I think it is one step away.

    It is a bit like when God dealt with Israel as a whole. They were sometimes faithless, and so God worked on them to bring them back. He didn't deny Israel as a whole, even though they were faithless. Yet I see judgement coming when they were not only faithless, but were denying Him.

    The saying Paul notes is 100% about the early Christian church. It is NOT about Jews, and it was sent by Paul to Timothy to encourage him in his pastoring and life.
    I somehow find some of your assumptions disturbing. For the faithful Christ-abiding believer, NOTHING can remove/take him away from Christ. But on the other hand, the believer who chose to continue in sin and wickedness will no longer be Christ'. I believe it's important to clarify this, so the young believer understands that he needs to remain steadfast to win the price. No one should be deceived into believing that wallowing in sin after they have confessed Christ will not make them a caste away in the end.

    Your analogy with Israel is not the same an individual's lack of faith because while the majority in Israel lacked faith, there are always a few whose faith remained unshakeable.

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,002
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    There is one Saviour. Jesus Christ.
    Every Human Being is plagued under the curse of sin and death, following the fall.
    Jesus is the Saviour, because He is the way, the truth and the life. He is the only name under Heaven given among men by which we can be saved.
    Saved from what? Saviour of what?
    Our sins.
    Only via the shed blood of the Saviour Jesus Christ, is any human being saved from their sins.
    Whether or not a human is saved from their sins by the blood of Christ the savior or not; will determine their eternal destiny either in the Lake of Fire, or with the Christ in the glory eternal.
    Actually perhaps it might help to think WHEN an OT saint is saved from his sins?

    If Jesus is not the saviour of the OT faithful, then they they are damned to the Lake of Fire.
    No other way to spin it.
    And? I have said It is Jesus who gives them eternal life.

    YHWH is YHWH. You almost sound pan-thiestic above.
    To have a relationship with the Father is to have a relationship with the Son and the Spirit.
    God revealed Himself a certain way in OT times, and revealed Himself in Jesus in the NT.
    This was a mystery, which means they did NOT know it at the time:
    Rom 16:25* Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages*
    Rom 16:26* but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—

    Again, if they were not drawn of God and lead by the Holy Spirit, they could not have had faith. Their own works would be dead and fleshly and wicked, never able to please God.
    Just because they had less detailed knowlege about Jesus, doesn't remove Him as their saviour, and their means of eternal salvation.
    When you start to build paths of different ways to salvation, based on when someone was born, and based on what you think or don't think they knew or experience, and those differing paths of salvation attempt to not go via Jesus; you are straying from Christianity.
    Your eschatlogy is forcing you so hard to build groups and subgroups and different paths and different destinies, that you are fogetting that all men are sinners, and that only Jesus can forgive those sins and provide eternal salvation to each human being.
    I haven't built a DIFFERENT path. I have simply noted that God has revealed things at different times to different people.
    Further they had NO knowledge of Jesus, but they did KNOW that God was their saviour and would send a Messiah.
    I have NOT removed Jesus as the MEANS of their salvation, I have simply noted the difference in METHOD, in that we have knowledge of Jesus and are born from above and are part of the KoG NOW.
    John the Baptist was NOT part of the KoG, even though things were revealed to him and he met Jesus.
    I am not straying from Christianity, but noting that BEFORE people did NOT KNOW the gospel and preaching of Jesus, a revelation of the mystery that was kept SECRET!

  12. #237
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    10,002
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I somehow find some of your assumptions disturbing. For the faithful Christ-abiding believer, NOTHING can remove/take him away from Christ. But on the other hand, the believer who chose to continue in sin and wickedness will no longer be Christ'. I believe it's important to clarify this, so the young believer understands that he needs to remain steadfast to win the price. No one should be deceived into believing that wallowing in sin after they have confessed Christ will not make them a caste away in the end.

    Your analogy with Israel is not the same an individual's lack of faith because while the majority in Israel lacked faith, there are always a few whose faith remained unshakeable.
    How much faith is enough? What counts as faithless?
    A faithful Christ abiding Believer does in deed have NOTHING which can remove him, which is what I stated.
    So you are in FACT agreeing with me that when a person is no longer faithful, THEN they are in danger of losing their salvation.

    The difference between us, is that I have noted that Paul stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that a Christian who is faithless will NOT be denied by God.

    Perhaps then the question is what does it mean to be faithless?
    Do you meet Christians who believe Jesus came and died for them, and loves them, and yet struggle to get beyond that to believe that the love He showed is relevant to life today?
    Perhaps they have been praying for healing for someone and the person is not healed and so they stop believing God will keep His Word, and so are faithless?

    In the passage Paul states, you need to endure, which IS to remain steadfast, but the focus by Paul is NOT for eternal life, but in order to reign.
    IOW you can be a faithless servant as Jesus spoke about in Luke:
    Luk 19:26* ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.*
    Luk 19:27* But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”*

    Notice the servant loses out for being faithless, but he is not slaughtered as he was not an enemy of Jesus.

  13. #238
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,263
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    How much faith is enough? What counts as faithless?
    A faithful Christ abiding Believer does in deed have NOTHING which can remove him, which is what I stated.
    So you are in FACT agreeing with me that when a person is no longer faithful, THEN they are in danger of losing their salvation.

    The difference between us, is that I have noted that Paul stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that a Christian who is faithless will NOT be denied by God.

    Perhaps then the question is what does it mean to be faithless?
    Do you meet Christians who believe Jesus came and died for them, and loves them, and yet struggle to get beyond that to believe that the love He showed is relevant to life today?
    Perhaps they have been praying for healing for someone and the person is not healed and so they stop believing God will keep His Word, and so are faithless?

    In the passage Paul states, you need to endure, which IS to remain steadfast, but the focus by Paul is NOT for eternal life, but in order to reign.
    IOW you can be a faithless servant as Jesus spoke about in Luke:
    Luk 19:26* ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.*
    Luk 19:27* But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”*

    Notice the servant loses out for being faithless, but he is not slaughtered as he was not an enemy of Jesus.
    I find your insight interesting. Fortunately, we agree on the majority save the few. Obviously, we have differing understandings of 2 Tim 2:4.
    I take nothing away from the examples you cited to explain the varying degrees of faith. Although I should point the obvious that losing faith that God will/have not answered a specific prayer/request does not mean the believer has lost faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour. There's obviously a difference.

    Furthermore, when Jesus said in Luke 19:26 that "even what he has shall be taken away" we should be cautious in claiming that this believer still retains his salvation since he has just shown himself unworthy of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    How much faith is enough? What counts as faithless?
    A faithful Christ abiding Believer does in deed have NOTHING which can remove him, which is what I stated.
    So you are in FACT agreeing with me that when a person is no longer faithful, THEN they are in danger of losing their salvation.

    The difference between us, is that I have noted that Paul stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that a Christian who is faithless will NOT be denied by God.

    Perhaps then the question is what does it mean to be faithless?
    Do you meet Christians who believe Jesus came and died for them, and loves them, and yet struggle to get beyond that to believe that the love He showed is relevant to life today?
    Perhaps they have been praying for healing for someone and the person is not healed and so they stop believing God will keep His Word, and so are faithless?

    In the passage Paul states, you need to endure, which IS to remain steadfast, but the focus by Paul is NOT for eternal life, but in order to reign.
    IOW you can be a faithless servant as Jesus spoke about in Luke:
    Luk 19:26* ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.*
    Luk 19:27* But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”*

    Notice the servant loses out for being faithless, but he is not slaughtered as he was not an enemy of Jesus.
    I find your insight interesting. Fortunately, we agree on the majority save the few. Obviously, we have differing understandings of 2 Tim 2:4.
    I take nothing away from the examples you cited to explain the varying degrees of faith. Although I should point the obvious that losing faith that God will/have not answered a specific prayer/request does not mean the believer has lost faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour. There's obviously a difference.

    Furthermore, when Jesus said in Luke 19:26 that "even what he has shall be taken away" we should be cautious in claiming that this believer still retains his salvation since he has just shown himself unworthy of Christ.

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,641

    Re: Re-examining the Millennial Kingdom

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Actually perhaps it might help to think WHEN an OT saint is saved from his sins?

    I haven't built a DIFFERENT path

    I have NOT removed Jesus as the MEANS of their salvation, I have simply noted the difference in METHOD
    The easiest question you have ever asked.
    Paul explains the correct method both of us should have.


    Romans 3:10 As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one

    Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

    Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

    Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord

    Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us

    Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

    Romans 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 26
    Last Post: Nov 4th 2016, 10:24 PM
  2. Eden and the Millennial Kingdom
    By Trivalee in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: Nov 3rd 2015, 07:23 PM
  3. Millennial Kingdom Animal Sacrifices
    By RCn10ec in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: Sep 21st 2013, 10:00 AM
  4. the millennial kingdom
    By locboxx in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: Mar 26th 2009, 09:49 PM
  5. Discussion Who are these mortals in the millennial kingdom
    By DIZZY in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: Dec 24th 2008, 11:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •