Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 151

Thread: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Coastal Mountains
    Posts
    8,236

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    But as I stated it doesn't say Jesus living on the earth in a time of peace
    Sure , but it is pretty clear by implication. For example we are reigning with Jesus from the second coming, and we reign over the nations according to Rev 2:26-27

    During the 1000 years, there is a "camp of the saints" in Jerusalem.

    And I know you are referring to NT verses, but if you read Revelation combined with OT verses a fuller picture emerges of a period of strict rule over the nations after the DOTL.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,975

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Paul probably wasn't given anything specific about what I call the Jewish Hope, the Age to Come, or the Messianic Age. Many Jews in the time of Christ would've known what the Kingdom of God referred to. And as I understand it, even the Jews, before Christianity, held to the Sabbath Millennial theory, or the sexta-septamillennial tradition. Apparently the Book of Jubilees, prior to Christ, and a few OT Scriptural passages, indicate the possibility that a "day" can be used as a symbol for a period of a thousand years. Paul was likely aware of this, but was more interested in communicating the basics of Christianity for the Gentile converts. That, in itself, was a huge task. John was given the job of bringing OT prophecy into the New Testament.
    I agree. The Millennial Kingdom is already revealed in Hosea 6:2 - for instance. There would be two days of chastisement and a revival in the third day. Of the five meanings of a "day" that scripture reveals, only one could possibly fit - that of Psalm 90:4. "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." Hosea's hope was that the two "yesterdays" would pass quickly.

    But there is more. While re-incarnation was a belief that some heathen held, resurrection was not. ONLY Israel had the hope of resurrection because of gaining the Land for an "everlasting possession". So in a number of scriptures where our Lord Jesus was teaching before Jews, He plainly pointed to their resurrection. And in each case it was "AT the last DAY" (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54, 11:24, 12:48). The phrase "AT the Last" is one word in the Greek - "eschatos". Strong gives the following on it; "a superlative probably from <G2192> (echo) (in the sense of contiguity); farthest, final (of place or time) :- ends of, last, latter end, lowest, uttermost." (Strong's Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.) Now, the "last day" could not be 24 hours, or even a year (as it is in prophecy) BECAUSE it would BE THE START OF ISRAEL'S REVIVAL in which they would gain the Land for an everlasting possession. If it was the "last 24 hour day" what use would it be to the jew if there was no next 24 hour day for him to occupy, possess and enjoy the Land promised to him by Jehovah? "AT the last day" can thus only mean "at the cusp of the next 1,000 years", with everlasting to follow.

    But there is more. God made a Covenant with David that He would set the House of David as a royal house over Israel. And when things collapsed because of Solomon's apostasy, the prophets predicted that God would restore this fallen-down House. It of course pointed to our Lord Jesus - Son of David (Matt.1:1). But it is NOT the SEED of David alone that the Covenant is made, but the HOUSE. And so there is no option other than all David's lineage will be resurrected, especially David (Jer.30:9). So, when Hosea speaks of Israel revived in the third day, it implies David's House too. Amos 9:11 predicts a "DAY" in which David's House will be built again. Again, which "day" is spoken off? Acts 15:14-15 tells us. The Church must be complete before this happens - and the Church is completed in TWO MILLENNIAL DAYS because the arrival of Jesus ushers in God's REST - the SEVENTH MILLENNIAL DAY (Hebrews Chapters 3 & 4).

    The Millennium is there, but sometimes well hidden.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,005
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    I don't get your point? Even Amils obviously believe in a thousand year reign. They just don't interpret it in a literal sense like Premils typically do, nor do they place it during a time post the 2nd coming, such as Premils typically do. If Paul taught zero about a thousand year reign, that has to also apply to Amils' take on this thousand year reign, that he never taught their take either. So why is there even a mention of a thousand year reign in Rev 20 if none of the other authors in the NT ever taught about such a reign, in any sense, whether literal, whether symbolic, or whatever?
    My bad and good catch I meant to say a literal thousand year reign but we can't edit anymore. Paul did teach reigning with Jesus but not the term thousand years

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,004

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    If it was the "last 24 hour day" what use would it be to the jew if there was no next 24 hour day for him to occupy, possess and enjoy the Land promised to him by Jehovah? "AT the last day" can thus only mean "at the cusp of the next 1,000 years", with everlasting to follow.

    I have thought along these lines as well. The problem I encountered with this thinking, when the rest of the dead live again, they live again after the thousand years are finished. If the resurrection from the dead, for both the just and unjust, occurs at the last day, assuming the last day is this thousand years in question, well the rest of the dead though, they wouldn't be raised at the last day, they would be raised after the last day. The last day would already be in the past if they are not raised back to life until the last day concludes first.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,975

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Part of debating is trying to fathom why your opponent thinks like he does. Sometimes we get it right and sometimes we don't - for who really knows the thoughts and motives of a man but God? So, with those reservations, I would like to propose what our brother Marty Fox is getting at. He wants the Bible written a certain way. It must be written like we humans would write a story. I sometimes wish for this myself. But God has an infinite mind, and He has decided to write His Book to men in a very clever way. Although the Bible is a long Book for us, if one could line up all the information it imparts in books like we humans would write, it would be al least ten times longer. The Bible is written to explain and enlarge itself. And so those much desired direct statements are just not found. But they are there - just intertwined with other things to make the writ that much comprehensive.

    Therefore, it is not given to us to be disappointed at the way God has written His Book, but to humble ourselves before Him and ask for His light, His map, His guidance through it's mysterious intricacies. If the Millennium is said plainly and mathematically precisely by John, then let us believe that although Paul did not ever state this number plainly, but that he, Peter, James and those who walked with our Lord for the length of time it takes to get the average university degree, he knew that it was a Millennium of rule on the old earth, and an unending rule on the new.

    There are literally hundreds of examples of those inspired by God to write His Book who left out explanations because they are already established somewhere else. God wrote His Book to be studied, and mere men will always struggle with a mind so high as God's. But if the Millennium is established by plain language in one scripture, and half revealed in others, let us apply it IN FAITH. Do you know that the word "water" is mention about 400 times in scripture, but the word "wet" only 6 times. But it is an established fact that water wets. It is no good trying to deny that water wets because of this ratio. So also the Millennial Kingdom.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,004

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Part of debating is trying to fathom why your opponent thinks like he does. Sometimes we get it right and sometimes we don't - for who really knows the thoughts and motives of a man but God? So, with those reservations, I would like to propose what our brother Marty Fox is getting at. He wants the Bible written a certain way. It must be written like we humans would write a story. I sometimes wish for this myself. But God has an infinite mind, and He has decided to write His Book to men in a very clever way. Although the Bible is a long Book for us, if one could line up all the information it imparts in books like we humans would write, it would be al least ten times longer. The Bible is written to explain and enlarge itself. And so those much desired direct statements are just not found. But they are there - just intertwined with other things to make the writ that much comprehensive.

    Therefore, it is not given to us to be disappointed at the way God has written His Book, but to humble ourselves before Him and ask for His light, His map, His guidance through it's mysterious intricacies. If the Millennium is said plainly and mathematically precisely by John, then let us believe that although Paul did not ever state this number plainly, but that he, Peter, James and those who walked with our Lord for the length of time it takes to get the average university degree, he knew that it was a Millennium of rule on the old earth, and an unending rule on the new.

    There are literally hundreds of examples of those inspired by God to write His Book who left out explanations because they are already established somewhere else. God wrote His Book to be studied, and mere men will always struggle with a mind so high as God's. But if the Millennium is established by plain language in one scripture, and half revealed in others, let us apply it IN FAITH. Do you know that the word "water" is mention about 400 times in scripture, but the word "wet" only 6 times. But it is an established fact that water wets. It is no good trying to deny that water wets because of this ratio. So also the Millennial Kingdom.
    Very good post, Walls. I fully agree. God did indeed write the Bible in clever way, a very very clever way. Things are not always cut and dried, nor what they appear to be on the surface. Sometimes it takes a lot of digging to get to the bottom of things. And even then there could be some more digging involved.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,970
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    There is not a literal 1000 years. I will post this for all the chew on...I will reply individually to other posts.


    So why is the number "1000" a metaphor and does not actually mean specifically 1000 years?

    John is trying to quantify a measure of time which is unmeasurable. Now why is it unmeaseurable? Well outside this realm wherein the sun, moon, and stars gives us the ability to measure time there is are no instruments to measure time outside this realm. Thus John when speaking of how long Satan is in the pit uses the number 1000.


    Why does John use 1000? Why not 100 or 1 million?

    Well the number 1000 was used in scripture for the same purpose as a metaphor thus the Spirit has John use the same number for consistency. Both instances are used as a metaphor and not a literal 1000 years.

    Peter 3
    8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

    Rev 20
    2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,


    Are there any other scriptures which may show timelessness outside this realm which would support the need to use a metaphor?

    Yes. John himself in trying to determine a length of an event has to surmise at the time prior to the 7th seal being opened. Was John not sure, did not the Spirit give him the specific time? No John could not be sure as time outside this realm is not measured. Though the time was relatively short he knew it was "about" a half hour.

    Rev 20:8
    1. And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

    Now another support is the fact that no one not even Christ himself knows when the when the son of man will come. How is this possible? Well only because the instruments of being able to measure time have vanished, IE the sun, moon and stars.

    Mark 13
    31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
    32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.


    Other events contradict the possibility of a literal 1000 years.

    The resurrection of the dead both godly and ungodly occurs on the same day and not 1000+ years apart. Actually the saved are judged also at the GWT
    Are there really two little seasons? We see one in Rev 6 before Christs returns? Are they different or really the same time?
    Are there really two instances whereby an entity comes up from the bottomless pit? We see a beast come up AFTER 3.5 years referenced in Rev 11 and Rev 17. Which beast could this possibly be? The other beasts are already on earth. Also is the pit really like a revolving door? Open and shut, and open and shut again and then opened one last time?
    Does not IS 14 already so Satan in the pit prior to the 2nd coming? Does he go down twice?
    Are there really two great battles which take place whereby the whole world is gathered?. We see the battle of the great day in Rev 16 and another in Rev 20, different or the same?
    Does not the earth burn with unquenchable fire at the presence of the Lord at his return. Does not the sun, moon, stars and old earth roll up as a scroll at the 2nd coming? Thus the old earth passes away and a new earth would replace it. Is the supposed millennium with a new earth?


    Current day Amils are wrong.

    Though they are correct that there is not a 1000 years after Christ returns, most error in that they try place a literal 1000 years prior to the 2nd coming. They fail to see the 1000 number is a metaphor. Thus raising the question about satan being bound now or in the past. Satan is clearly NOT bound thus making their claims void.


    So how long is Satan then in the pit? When does this happen?

    We can't be exactly sure but it will coincide with the future 3.5 years on earth wherein the son of Satan the little horn will rule. Satan is cast into the pit in Rev 12 wherein afterwards we see a beast rise up for 42 months. Then as mentioned a second beast rises up which could be Satan himself.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,975

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    I have thought along these lines as well. The problem I encountered with this thinking, when the rest of the dead live again, they live again after the thousand years are finished. If the resurrection from the dead, for both the just and unjust, occurs at the last day, assuming the last day is this thousand years in question, well the rest of the dead though, they wouldn't be raised at the last day, they would be raised after the last day. The last day would already be in the past if they are not raised back to life until the last day concludes first.
    I too have wondered at length on this. One answer could be as follows: The resurrection of the Church and Israel occurs at the beginning of the Millennium. The resurrection of the "rest of the dead" occurs at the end of it - but within it. But there is a strong objection to this. It is Revelation 20:5 and 7. They read:
    5 "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."
    7 "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison".

    That is, the war of Magog, the massive slaughter of men it causes and their subsequent resurrection are part of the age after the SEVENTH Millennium

    To date, I understand the following. There is only ONE set of verses that deals with this resurrection AFTER the Millennium. It is John 5:27-29

    27 "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
    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."


    The Church is resurrected first, then Israel. Then a thousand years passes, and then ALL who are in the graves are resurrected. And in this scripture the time is not given. There is no "Last Day" mentioned. Added to this, scripture is not violated because if the SEVENTH 1,000 year day is the Millennium, the next Millennium is the EIGHTH. And it was on the EIGHTH day that Christ was raised. EIGHT is the number of resurrection in scripture and it would seem that it is not that the "rest of the dead" are resurrected late, but that the Church and Israel, "those that are His at His coming", are resurrected early. The general resurrection is exactly on time if it is on the eighth day. The enemy "death" was conquered on an EIGHTH day when the Prince of Life emerged from His tomb. Likewise, death is abolished on the EIGHTH Millennial day. The Church and Israel are just privileged to be resurrected early.

    Do you also see this?

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,970
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Rev 20 is pretty clear. And is in the New Testament :
    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.
    Is this on earth or in Heaven?

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,970
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Sure , but it is pretty clear by implication. For example we are reigning with Jesus from the second coming, and we reign over the nations according to Rev 2:26-27
    Can't we reign over the nations in the KOG?


    During the 1000 years, there is a "camp of the saints" in Jerusalem.

    Are you sure the camp is located on earth and not in heaven? Looks there is a reference to his camp being in heaven and at the time of the 2nd coming, Are there two camps? Two separate times?

    Joel 2
    10 The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
    11 And the Lord shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the Lord is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,970
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    27 "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
    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."

    The Church is resurrected first, then Israel. Then a thousand years passes, and then ALL who are in the graves are resurrected.
    "ALL" includes those of the church? Thus in your scenario you have the church resurrected at the 2nd coming then additional folks of the church are resurrected after the 1000 years. As "all"
    would include those which have done good (Church)

    Do you see this?

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,975

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    There is not a literal 1000 years. I will post this for all the chew on...I will reply individually to other posts.


    So why is the number "1000" a metaphor and does not actually mean specifically 1000 years?

    John is trying to quantify a measure of time which is unmeasurable. Now why is it unmeaseurable? Well outside this realm wherein the sun, moon, and stars gives us the ability to measure time there is are no instruments to measure time outside this realm. Thus John when speaking of how long Satan is in the pit uses the number 1000.


    Why does John use 1000? Why not 100 or 1 million?

    Well the number 1000 was used in scripture for the same purpose as a metaphor thus the Spirit has John use the same number for consistency. Both instances are used as a metaphor and not a literal 1000 years.

    Peter 3
    8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

    Rev 20
    2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,


    Are there any other scriptures which may show timelessness outside this realm which would support the need to use a metaphor?

    Yes. John himself in trying to determine a length of an event has to surmise at the time prior to the 7th seal being opened. Was John not sure, did not the Spirit give him the specific time? No John could not be sure as time outside this realm is not measured. Though the time was relatively short he knew it was "about" a half hour.

    Rev 20:8
    1. And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

    Now another support is the fact that no one not even Christ himself knows when the when the son of man will come. How is this possible? Well only because the instruments of being able to measure time have vanished, IE the sun, moon and stars.

    Mark 13
    31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
    32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.


    Other events contradict the possibility of a literal 1000 years.

    The resurrection of the dead both godly and ungodly occurs on the same day and not 1000+ years apart. Actually the saved are judged also at the GWT
    Are there really two little seasons? We see one in Rev 6 before Christs returns? Are they different or really the same time?
    Are there really two instances whereby an entity comes up from the bottomless pit? We see a beast come up AFTER 3.5 years referenced in Rev 11 and Rev 17. Which beast could this possibly be? The other beasts are already on earth. Also is the pit really like a revolving door? Open and shut, and open and shut again and then opened one last time?
    Does not IS 14 already so Satan in the pit prior to the 2nd coming? Does he go down twice?
    Are there really two great battles which take place whereby the whole world is gathered?. We see the battle of the great day in Rev 16 and another in Rev 20, different or the same?
    Does not the earth burn with unquenchable fire at the presence of the Lord at his return. Does not the sun, moon, stars and old earth roll up as a scroll at the 2nd coming? Thus the old earth passes away and a new earth would replace it. Is the supposed millennium with a new earth?


    Current day Amils are wrong.

    Though they are correct that there is not a 1000 years after Christ returns, most error in that they try place a literal 1000 years prior to the 2nd coming. They fail to see the 1000 number is a metaphor. Thus raising the question about satan being bound now or in the past. Satan is clearly NOT bound thus making their claims void.


    So how long is Satan then in the pit? When does this happen?

    We can't be exactly sure but it will coincide with the future 3.5 years on earth wherein the son of Satan the little horn will rule. Satan is cast into the pit in Rev 12 wherein afterwards we see a beast rise up for 42 months. Then as mentioned a second beast rises up which could be Satan himself.
    In my opinion you have not advanced a single reason why the 1,000 years must be taken metaphorically. You have merely declared it as fact. Added to this, if you declare the 1,000 years to be metaphorical you have make all the rest metaphorical. This would make the whole text meaningless. But maybe I have never seen it done, so if you will, show us the metaphorical meaning of the "angel", "heaven", "key", "bottomless pit", chain, and hand in verse 1. Then go on to show what they really mean. And then we will all hold our breaths when you come to explain why Jesus in verse 4 is metaphorical.

    Next, 1,000 is not used by scripture to show an unlimited time. Fir that scripture uses "everlasting" or "without end" or, as in Revelation 7, "a great number which no man could number". The number 1,000 is used often to show 1,000. Or is every mention of 1,000 metaphorical?

    Next, the 1,000 could be an immeasurable number because it has a specific end in other events.

    Next, the number 1,000 is mentioned SIX times in six consecutive verses. This is hard proof that Gd meant a thousand to be a thousand.

    The question you really have to answer is why should it not be a thousand? What absurdity, or what contradiction does it cause? If none, then a thousand is a thousand because God said it.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,975

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    "ALL" includes those of the church? Thus in your scenario you have the church resurrected at the 2nd coming then additional folks of the church are resurrected after the 1000 years. As "all"
    would include those which have done good (Church)

    Do you see this?
    I'm sorry. I did not say anything of the sort. But I know why you have a problem - why you must have Christians at the White Throne. It is because of the Book of Life.* If not, then you have a problem with plain English, for the phrase "rest of the dead" emphatically implies that a contingent of dead are already risen. And if 1st Corinthians 15:23 says that those who are already resurrected are "HIS", then you have no options left. The resurrection of 1st Corinthians 15:23 is NOT bound to works, but Christ's POSSESSION. Are the Church members HIS? YES! They are purchased at great price! Are all Israelites HIS? YES! They are redeemed at great price! Thus, "the REST of the dead" cannot contain believers or Israelites.

    And before you answer, remember that in a previous posting you have agreed to a "indeterminately" long period between these resurrections.

    * To explain the Book of Life here would derail the thread. But I will propose that if you studied it carefully, you will find that it ALWAYS is connected to WORKS. And that is what the White Throne is - a judgement of WORKS of the heathen. The same occurs in Matthew 25:31-46. The "NATIONS" are judged on works and some ENTER eternal life - not HAVE eternal life (v.46).

  14. #29

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    My bad and good catch I meant to say a literal thousand year reign but we can't edit anymore. Paul did teach reigning with Jesus but not the term thousand years
    So, it seems to me that you are just wanting it to say "thousand years" everywhere that the time period is being talked about (which is in a lot of different passages).

    Consider these few things.

    "King" is only mentioned TWO times in all of the epistles, and both of them are "future tense"... 1Tim6:15, "Which in His times HE SHALL [future] SHEW [openly manifest], who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords"... and we see this "King of kings, Lord of lords" phrase only elsewhere in Rev17:14 and Rev19:16 (at His return / His Second Coming)…

    Jesus spoke of His "RETURN" in Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44 "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding" (as an ALREADY-WED Bridegroom) THEN the meal (aka "the G347" of Matt8:11 and parallel, aka the earthly MK); and "RETURN" in Lk19:12,15,17,19, when He will deal out responsibilities having to do with "have thou authority over 10 cities"..." likewise... be thou also over 5 cities" ("cities" are on the earth)…

    and so many more passages...

    He spoke of the time period [MK] when addressing "the end [singular] of the age [singular]" (Matt13:24,30,39,40,49-50) which will precede what He'd already spoken to them about in the previous chpt, about "the age [singular] to come" ("age [singular]" is in connection with earth-time/-history), so I believe they well-understood "the age [singular] to come" (Matt12:32) to be referring to what WE commonly call "the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom"... So, in view of THIS, Paul DOES speak of "in the ages [plural] to come," which I believe encompasses both "the age [singular] to come" [what we call the MK] AND "the ages [plural] of the ages [plural]" [what we call eternity / eternal state / forever], and very likely also includes "the end [singular] of the age [singular]" [what we call the Trib yrs]--all those "ages [plural]" (both "earthly" ones and "eternal" ones, so to speak).

    I was going to make one other point, but I accidently dropped what I'd "copied to paste" so I'll be back after I go grab that again... which will require me to put it in a separate post... my apologies.

  15. #30

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    If the Kingdom starts at the coming of a "Stone" cut out without hands from a high place, then I, we, ...
    21 "..., that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
    22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight"
    (Colossians 1:21-22)

    ... are subdued by His love.
    Yes that's right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    "In His sight" means He has come and we stands before Him.
    As the Almighty God,

    And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him 1Cor.15:28

    He means "subject" by the resurrection. His Kingdom (1Cor.15:24 subdued by his love) doesn't include unbelievers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 102
    Last Post: Aug 23rd 2016, 01:13 PM
  2. THOUSAND YEAR PRESUMPTIONS
    By Keeth in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 628
    Last Post: May 1st 2015, 10:45 AM
  3. 7 Thousand Year Prophecy
    By m4rk in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 15th 2009, 04:21 PM
  4. Thousand Year Reign
    By lendtay in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Sep 22nd 2008, 06:55 PM
  5. Discussion Did Paul Teach Torah
    By manichunter in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Aug 13th 2008, 04:22 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
  •