Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 151

Thread: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

  1. #31
    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 Walls View Post
    In my opinion
    Added to this, if you declare the 1,000 years to be metaphorical you have make all the rest metaphorical.
    Why?

    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".
    I think you can call that unlimited.

    what contradiction does it cause?

    Only these....

    1. The resurrection of the dead both godly and ungodly occurs on the same day and not 1000+ years apart.
    2. Are there really two little seasons? We see one in Rev 6 before Christs returns? Are they different or really the same time?
    3. 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?
    4. Does not IS 14 already so Satan in the pit prior to the 2nd coming? Does he go down twice?
    5. 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?
    6.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?

  2. #32

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Okay, I'm back with my last point (for now)… this will be quoting from a post I made (ignore that it was from a different CONVO context... it relates here):

    [quoting that post]

    ...other thing to consider, along with that, is the SEQUENCE of Isaiah 24:21-22[23] (with its TWO "PUNISH" words) that is parallel to Revelation 19:19,21/16:14-16/20:5 (the FIRST of these TWO "PUNISH" words occurring at the time of His Second Coming to the earth, Rev19)… which is consistent with what we see in the 1Cor15:24-28 passage, with v.24's "THEN [sequentially] then end" (NOTE: not "THEN [immediately] the end"... due to the specific Grk word for "THEN" being used here).

    IOW, His "reign" on the earth follows His "RETURN" to the earth, and at the end of which "the last enemy [DEATH]" will be destroyed. [that is, at the time of the SECOND of the TWO "PUNISH" words, at the GWTj time slot, Rev20:11-15, esp. v.14]. This doesn't happen (for all ppl of all times) at the time of our Rapture.

    [end of quoting that post]

    ____________

    So the Grk word for "THEN" in 1Cor15:24 is "G1534 - eita" which is a SEQUENCE word only, with no time element attached... and we can see in the THREE LISTED ITEMS, that the first TWO listed items take place 2000 years apart from each other (v.23's "Christ firstfruit" [32ad] and "afterward they that are Christ's" [hasn't happened yet, some nearly 2000 yrs later]), so there is no problem at all for the THIRD LISTED ITEM ["THEN the end...[i.e. at, last enemy/DEATH]" to come 1000 yrs after the SECOND listed item. (note: the word "comes/cometh" is not in the Grk text).

    So both of these passages show the same "span" of time between His return and the later GWTj point in time, it just doesn't supply the specific number of years [1000 yrs], but why should every passage that speaks of it, have to?


    [I also believe the following phrases all speak of that future (earthly) time period: Matt25:31-34's "WHEN the Son of man SHALL COME in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, THEN shall he sit upon the throne of his glory..." (see also Matt19:28! and then also Lk22:30,16,18 parallel to THAT! and then also Matt26:29 parallel to THAT!); and all of the "kingdom of the heavens" passages (this is "on the earth" not "UP IN Heaven"); and "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER" passages; and about 10 or so "BLESSED" passages (together with Dan12:12's "BLESSED is he that waiteth, and cometh to the 1335 days"); and so many more... As for the time period in Paul's writings, they are written with this understanding already in place, but the phrase "the DOTL" encompasses both the Trib years (when "the man of sin" will be "present" to do all he will do over the course of those 7 yrs) but also the entire earthly MK age as well (the related phrase "IN THAT DAY" in contexts where "the DOTL" is also mentioned), so Paul's writing is concerned with the ARRIVAL of that time period ("the DOTL's" ARRIVAL point in time) because of how THAT fits IN RELATION (time-wise) TO our Rapture/Departure--which pertains SOLELY to "the Church which is His body," not to all other saints of all other time periods (not to OT saints, not to Trib saints, not to MK saints)]

  3. #33
    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
    I'm sorry. I did not say anything of the sort.
    Well you did, unless you need to clarify for those on this thread....

    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.
    Who are raised up in rev 20:4? All Christians? No only those beheaded for not accepting the mark which are the 144,000 redeemed from the earth ie firstfruits. Hence the "rest of the dead" is a reference to the rest of the dead "beleivers" which did not die in this manner.

    And that is what the White Throne is - a judgement of WORKS of the heathen.
    Yes works are judged even believers for your information.

    For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

    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).
    Huh? Some enter eternal life but not have eternal life?

  4. #34

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Allow me to just add (to my post, above, for clarity)... "the DOTL" is entirely "earthly-located"

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,015
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDivineWatermark View Post
    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)Ö

    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)Ö

    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.
    Actually all I am really saying is that there is not one place in the bible that has all of the following in it

    A thousand year reign on the earth

    A thousand year reign with Jesus on the earth

    A thousand years of peace on the earth

    On a side note what is the purpose of it?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,900

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Actually all I am really saying is that there is not one place in the bible that has all of the following in it

    A thousand year reign on the earth

    A thousand year reign with Jesus on the earth

    A thousand years of peace on the earth
    I do not see it either.
    I don't see Jesus teaching it or alluding to it when he teaches about his coming . He speaks of the opposite occurring at his coming.

    On a side note what is the purpose of it?


    Can they come to saving faith in what they will then see?

    2 Thessalonians 2:13
    But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pitt Meadows b.c.
    Posts
    5,015
    Blog Entries
    2

    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.
    Although I agree with your point we can't just guess at what the meaning is and then accept it as truth but only a theory


    My point is that revelation 20 mentions a thousand year reign with Jesus

    Revelation doesn't say that it is on the earth

    Revelation doesn't say that it is a time of peace

    So where does Revelation say that the reign is?

    Revelation 20:4
    4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

    John sees a vision of up in heaven were he was. The thrones are in heaven and then its goes on to say that John sees the dead people coming back to life. Where are we when we die as saints? We are in heaven.

    Verse 4 doesn't say John sees the thrones in heaven and then he sees the souls of the beheaded come back to life on the earth or even Jesus going to the earth it says And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

    There is no transition from heaven to earth in that verse and I don' t think that's an unreasonably thought to think that the location is the same


    I hope you see what I am saying now


    P.S. I will reply to your first post on this I just haven't had time yet

  8. #38

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    Actually all I am really saying is that there is not one place in the bible that has all of the following in it

    A thousand year reign on the earth

    A thousand year reign with Jesus on the earth

    A thousand years of peace on the earth

    On a side note what is the purpose of it?
    Well, part of the answer to these is found in the very passage I alluded to in my Post #32 (second section, about the 1Cor15 passage, so esp. vv.24-28). This "time period" parallels the other passage I referred to, in Isaiah 24:21-23, esp. v.23..., and Isaiah 27:12-13 [which parallels Matt24:29-31], as well as Daniel 7:27 [which follows the specific time period named in v.25, there], where v.27 says, "the greatness of the kingdom UNDER the whole heaven [not UP IN Heaven]… and ALL dominions shall serve and obey Him"... as well as Acts 3:21 "...UNTIL the TIMES of restitution OF ALL THINGS WHICH GOD HATH SPOKEN by [means of] the mouth OF ALL HIS HOLY PROPHETS from the age" [in contrast to that which had not yet been disclosed by means of His "NT apostles and prophets" FOLLOWING His death/resurrection/exaltation], IOW, to fulfill all OT prophesies regarding such.

    But then the question becomes, why was it prophesied to come about? Well, my answer to that... I'll hold off for a few more mins, while I go search for a related post I'd made on THAT general topic... [BBLater ]

  9. #39

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    *prophecies [spelling correction, in one spot, ugh]

  10. #40

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Oh, and keep in mind, all up to and including the time Jesus spoke His Olivet Discourse, He didn't really ever speak of any other thing [that is, our Rapture was not the Subject of His Olivet Discourse], but almost entirely regarding the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom, as was their [correct] expectation (not including the places where He speaks of salvation/eternal life... I'm just meaning regarding prophecies concerning the future... does that make sense?)

  11. #41

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    So where does Revelation say that the reign is?
    Both Rev19:15b and Rev2:26-27 refer to "shepherd the nations"... "nations" are on the earth (not up in Heaven),

    26 And the one overcoming and keeping My works until the end, I will give to him authority over the nations, 27 and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken in pieces ajust as I also have received from My Father.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,361
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    In 2 Corinthians 12 Paul talks about being taken up to heaven and shown many future things. We read about many of these events in his epistles like the rapture or the man of lawlessness but why didnít Paul ever mention a thousand year reign of Christ on the earth?

    The early church seamed to know all that they needed to know about the future or end time events before the book of revelation was written from The gospels or Johnís and Paulís epistles and the books of Peter but none of them ever mentioned the thousand years do you wonder why?


    I wonder why Paul and the others also...

    Never spoke about a non physical first resurrection?

    Never spoke of Satan being currently locked away in the abyss?

    Never indicated that the ďnations were no longer being deceivedĒ?

    Never spoke of a FIGURATIVE thousand year current reign of Christ?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    18,004

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Revelation 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.

    Let's start here and logically work through some of these things.

    And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan

    What does this tell us about location? If an angel is seen coming down from heaven, obviously the location of the angel changes. Where would the angel be coming down to since that is where satan is obviously dwelling once this angel encounters satan?

    The obvious answer is earth. That's where the angel comes down to because that is where satan is obviously hanging around at the time. What else does this tell us? It tells us Revelation 20:1-3 is meaning a time post satan being cast out of heaven unto the earth, as per Rev 12.

    In Rev 12 though, what initially happens once satan has been cast to the earth? The fulfilling of Revelation 20:1-3, IOW his thousand year binding? No. That is not correct. What is correct though is this.

    Revelation 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
    14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
    15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
    16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
    17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

    All of the above has to be fulfilled before satan can even be bound per Rev 20:1-3.

    Let's look at verse 17 above....And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


    Does satan make war with anyone while he is in the pit? Of course not, that idea is silly. He has to be unbound before he can even fulfill verse 17. Keeping in mind, as of verse 17, Rev 20:1-3 isn't even fulfilled yet.

    In Rev 13 we see there is war made against the saints. And that is exactly what Revelation 12:17 is referring to, this same war against the saints seen in Rev 13. The 42 month reign of the beast happens at the end of this age, which is followed by the 2nd coming. Therefore this 42 month reign has to end before Rev 20:1-3 can even be fulfilled. And since the timing would have to be at the end of this age at the 2nd coming, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the means in regards to Rev 20:4-6.

    Obviously then, Christ would be physically present on the earth at the beginning of the thousand years. He wouldn't still be in heaven if His 2nd coming had already taken place. Therefore the location in Rev 20:4-6 is also the earth, and that Jesus would literally be physically present on it at the time.


    This also agrees with the obvious location seen in Rev 20:7-9.

    Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
    8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
    9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.


    It can't get any clearer than this. The location in these 3 verses are clearly the earth, and it says so right in verse 8 and 9 in case some have their doubts about it.



    What I have shown above then, the location for these events are the earth and remain the earth throughout. Amils will of course disagree, thus claim I am mistaken, yet never actually show me how or why.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,005

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    [QUOTE=ross3421;3514292]



    Why?



    I think you can call that unlimited.




    Only these....

    1. The resurrection of the dead both godly and ungodly occurs on the same day and not 1000+ years apart.
    2. Are there really two little seasons? We see one in Rev 6 before Christs returns? Are they different or really the same time?
    3. 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?
    4. Does not IS 14 already so Satan in the pit prior to the 2nd coming? Does he go down twice?
    5. 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?
    6.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?
    I did not address points 2 - 4. I will answer 1, 5 and 6.
    (1)
    1st Corinthians 15:22 says all men will be resurrected.Verse 23 gives an order or sequence. First Christ, then those that are His at His coming. This makes a gap of 2,000 years. But it implies more. If ONLY "those which are Christ's" are resurrected at His coming, those who are NOT Christ's are not resurrected. Whether 1 day or 1 millennia is the interval, there is an interval. What is this interval. It is the time that Christ reigns until death is defeated. You decide. 1 day, 1 month, 1 year or 1 millennium. But you cannot say that all men are resurrected on the same day.

    (5)
    There are two battles. One in Jezreel at Megiddo, and one at Jerusalem. The Leader of that at Megiddo is the Beast. The Leader of the one at Jerusalem is Magog. The provoker of the battle of Megiddo is Satan after he has been cast out of heaven. The provoker of the battle of Jerusalem is Satan after he has been let loose from a subterranean prison. At Armageddon Christ, the Overcomers and angels fight. At Jerusalem God fights. The other differences in these two battles can be seen in Ezekiel 38 into 39. Revelation 19 into 20 puts them 1,000 years apart. The language is plain. Christ reigns for 1,000 years. Even you declare an "undetermined time in Revelation 20". THEN comes the rebellion of Magog.

    (6)
    You do not give scripture, but by the use of your language I judge that you mean 2nd Peter 3:3-12. The context there is scoffers who deny the coming of the Lord because He has delayed. It is primarily a teaching on the Second Coming of Christ from the view of His delay.
    • Verse 3 introduces the subject - scoffers
    • Verse 4 shows their short-sightedness. They being men who die make a long time the length of the life of the "the Fathers"
    • Verses 5-6 shows TWO coverings of the earth by water - the first before Adam's time and the second at Noah's time. The delay till judgement came is then 1655 years
    • Verse 7 gives the fate of this earth and the UNGODLY at the end. From Noah to Christ was 2,500 years. Christ's first coming to His second is 2,000 years, and then the earth flees from Crist's countenance 1,000 years later (or after an indeterminable time according to you). That is, the dissolving of the earth is earliest another 1,000 years after Christ's second coming, making the grand total from Noah to the New Earth 5,500 years.That is, the UNGODLY will be judged over 5,000 years from the flood (more for you because your 1,000 year is not 1,000 years but longer in metaphor). So you now have the time when the UNGODLY are judged. When are the GODLY judged then? Well, the Church is judged in the air at the Bema in Romans 14:10 and 2nd Corinthians 5:10 AT CHRIST?S COMING which is TWO DAYS according to Hosea 6, or, as verse 8 says, 2,000 years. Do the maths brother and you have 1,000 years between the judgements



    In this passage Peter jumps from before Adam, to Noah. Then he jumps from Noah to Revelation 20 when the earth cannot stand the countenance of Jesus. The details in between are NOT given. But what IS given is that the dissolving of the earth is the time when the UNGODLY are judged. The Church and Israel have already been judged as they are judged at the Lord's coming, whereas the judgment at around the White Throne is for "the REST of the dead". And the plain language is that this is NOT when Christ comes, as you write, but after Christ has reigned ON EARTH 1,000 years.

  15. #45
    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

    In this passage Peter jumps from before Adam, to Noah. Then he jumps from Noah to Revelation 20 when the earth cannot stand the countenance of Jesus. The details in between are NOT given. But what IS given is that the dissolving of the earth is the time when the UNGODLY are judged. The Church and Israel have already been judged as they are judged at the Lord's coming, whereas the judgment at around the White Throne is for "the REST of the dead". And the plain language is that this is NOT when Christ comes, as you write, but after Christ has reigned ON EARTH 1,000 years.
    When you say before Adam, what exactly is this implying? A gap of some kind in Genesis ch 1?

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
  •