Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 151

Thread: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,006

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    Well you did, unless you need to clarify for those on this thread....



    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.



    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.



    Huh? Some enter eternal life but not have eternal life?
    Aaahhhh! Even if we don't agree on whether they were Christians or not, we can now agree that a further resurrection takes place for the "rest of the dead". I say its 1,000 years later, and you say it is at a "indeterminable" time after that. I rejoice in this.

    But you still have a problem. You cannot pit one verse against another. This is to declare the Bible worthless. 1st Corinthians 15:23 says that the Church will be raised at Christ's coming IRRESPECTIVE OF WORKS. The criteria for this resurrection is THAT WE ARE HIS. The answer to this dilemma is in the word "first resurrection" (Rev.20:5-6).

    The Greek word for "first" CAN MEAN first in TIME. But it equally CAN MEAN "first in importance". Which one does it mean in Revelation 20? The answer is simple. In TIME the boy of Elijah's time was raised, followed by two at Elisha's time followed by three at our Lord Jesus' time BEFORE He was resurrected. So, with seven people resurrected from ca.750 BC to 30 AD, neither Christ's resurrection nor those "at His Coming" can be the first in TIME. Thus, the resurrection of Revelation 20 MUST be "FIRST IN IMPORTANCE". And this is backed by the context, as you pointed out. These are those who partake of a special resurrection BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DID. Thus, your argument collapses because the resurrection of Revelation 20 does not concern TIME but IMPORTANCE.

    May I pass on your last comment. It will lead us into another quagmire and derail the thread. Thanks bro.

  2. #47
    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 The Beginner View Post
    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?
    You and me both wonder that.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,006

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    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
    My posting was just a general word. I'm happy to let your opinion stand if you are. Let's move on bro.

  4. #49
    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
    Aaahhhh! Even if we don't agree on whether they were Christians or not, we can now agree that a further resurrection takes place for the "rest of the dead". I say its 1,000 years later, and you say it is at a "indeterminable" time after that. I rejoice in this.
    I see the martyred in Rev 20:4 resurrected BEFORE Christ returns. We do them already in Zion redeemed from the earth Rev 14:1. Thus the rest of the dead (believers) take part in the first resurrection when Christ returns, the wicked are resurrected on the same day after the rest of the dead believers at the GWT.

    5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. = This is the first resurrection.

    The first resurrection relates to these rest of the dead not go back a verse. Again Rev 20:4 only speaks of the martyred where are the others?

  5. #50
    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
    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 aójust as I also have received from My Father.
    To clarify I do believe that the reign is on earth and in heaven I believe that we alive reign now on the earth and Rev 20:4 is showing us that we still reign even after we die> I also don't believe that Jesus reigns because satan is bound but that Jesus reigns because of who He is

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,006

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    When you say before Adam, what exactly is this implying? A gap of some kind in Genesis ch 1?
    If Genesis 1:2 says that God's Spirit hovered over "the deep" and verse 6 says that the waters needed to be divided, then we can safely assume that the earth was covered with water. Since covering the earth with water is a judgment by God, as is darkness, and there was no life in this tohu-bohu, Peter includes this as a judgment. So then do I. Peter's grammar in 2 Peter 3:5-6 leaves no room for anything else tha what is recorded in Genesis 1:2.

    5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
    6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"


    1. The heaven were of old being made first
    2. The earth that then came stood out of water (when the angels rejoiced in Job.38:7)
    3. Then it stood IN the water (Gen.1:2)
    4. Then it was restored. It "was then" - Adam's world
    5. Then this world perished under water a second time
    6. Then Noah new world is reserved for immersion in FIRE, not water because of the Covenant of the Rainbow.

    These verses need a quiet moment to analyze. The theme of 2nd Peter 3 is judgment and scoffers who don't know how long God is prepared to wait to give men a chance.

  7. #52
    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 ross3421 View Post
    I see the martyred in Rev 20:4 resurrected BEFORE Christ returns. We do them already in Zion redeemed from the earth Rev 14:1. Thus the rest of the dead (believers) take part in the first resurrection when Christ returns, the wicked are resurrected on the same day after the rest of the dead believers at the GWT.

    5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. = This is the first resurrection.

    The first resurrection relates to these rest of the dead not go back a verse. Again Rev 20:4 only speaks of the martyred where are the others?
    You are incorrect though, and verse 6 proves it.

    Revelation 20:6 *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.


    Who shall reign with Him a thousand years? Those who have part in the first resurrection of course. The rest of the dead seen in verse 5 are not even alive during the thousand years. The text indicates they don't live again until the thousand years finishes first. And verse 6 indicates it is those that have part in the first resurrection, who shall reign with Christ, and that it logically can't be meaning any of the rest of the dead. Therefore, when it mentions this is the first resurrection in verse 5, that is obviously pointing back to verse 4 and is also pointing to verse 6. This part....But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished....this is apparently parenthetical in this particular context.

  8. #53
    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 divaD View Post
    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
    .

    Let's look at the whole picture of rev 12 where Rev 20 takes place.

    9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

    This verse says he is cast INTO the earth.

    12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

    In addition we see not only inhibitors of the earth but also of the sea. What are going to be living in the seas in the future? No this speaks of those in Hell.

    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.
    Sure Satan can still have power to another (man of sin/son of Satan). First beast is this man. Second beast would be Satan. And notice the first and second beasts come up from the sea and the earth

    First beast from the sea

    2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.


    Second beast from the earth

    11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.



    Furthermore who comes up from the pit in Rev 11 to kill the 2W when was it cast into the pit?

    In addition, how is the woman kept from the "face" of the dragon for 3.5 years. He is in the pit.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    6,006

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    I see the martyred in Rev 20:4 resurrected BEFORE Christ returns. We do them already in Zion redeemed from the earth Rev 14:1. Thus the rest of the dead (believers) take part in the first resurrection when Christ returns, the wicked are resurrected on the same day after the rest of the dead believers at the GWT.

    5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. = This is the first resurrection.

    The first resurrection relates to these rest of the dead not go back a verse. Again Rev 20:4 only speaks of the martyred where are the others?
    But what do you think of 1st Corinthians 15:23? And what do you think of 1st Thessalonians 4:16? The dead IN CHRIST rise only AFTER Christ descends. You have created a resurrection that does not exist. And you did not comment on the "FIRST in importance" resurrection - a simple and true explanation of the resurrection of martyrs. I have shown that it cannot be the FIRST in time. This you have ignored.

    I think I'll wait for your exegesis on the whole package. Please reconcile 1st Corinthians 15:23, 1st Thessalonians 4:16 and Revelation 20:4, and when you have, explain why the parables of the talents, pounds and the wedding supper show that both good and bad servant/virgin RISE AT THE SAME TIME - and rise when their Master COMES. Then we'll go further.

    Take your time bro. It's 2 a.m here and I'm hitting the sack. Go well.

  10. #55
    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 Genesis 1:2 says that God's Spirit hovered over "the deep" and verse 6 says that the waters needed to be divided, then we can safely assume that the earth was covered with water. Since covering the earth with water is a judgment by God, as is darkness, and there was no life in this tohu-bohu, Peter includes this as a judgment. So then do I. Peter's grammar in 2 Peter 3:5-6 leaves no room for anything else tha what is recorded in Genesis 1:2.

    5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
    6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"


    1. The heaven were of old being made first
    2. The earth that then came stood out of water (when the angels rejoiced in Job.38:7)
    3. Then it stood IN the water (Gen.1:2)
    4. Then it was restored. It "was then" - Adam's world
    5. Then this world perished under water a second time
    6. Then Noah new world is reserved for immersion in FIRE, not water because of the Covenant of the Rainbow.

    These verses need a quiet moment to analyze. The theme of 2nd Peter 3 is judgment and scoffers who don't know how long God is prepared to wait to give men a chance.
    Maybe we can get into a deeper discussion about it in another thread at another time. It's a worthy topic IMO, yet it's not the topic currently under discussion. I don't agree with your conclusions, but that's for another thread, another time. But I was assuming what you submitted was implying a gap, but wanted to ask first just to be sure.

  11. #56
    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 ross3421 View Post
    .

    Let's look at the whole picture of rev 12 where Rev 20 takes place.

    You are somewhat confusing me here. You say "where Rev 20 takes place", yet I don't see where you ever submitted anything from Rev 20 in order to show this alleged correlation you are referring to.

  12. #57
    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 divaD View Post
    You are somewhat confusing me here. You say "where Rev 20 takes place", yet I don't see where you ever submitted anything from Rev 20 in order to show this alleged correlation you are referring to.
    Let's look at the whole picture of rev 12.

    9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

    This verse says he is cast INTO the earth.

    After this war this is where he is cast into the pit as also described in rev 20..

  13. #58
    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
    The dead IN CHRIST rise only AFTER Christ descends. You have created a resurrection that does not exist.

    There is a firstfruit resurrection which happens before the general resurrection.

    14 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
    2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
    3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
    4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.


    And you did not comment on the "FIRST in importance" resurrection
    First is "first" after the 2nd coming.

    I think I'll wait for your exegesis on the whole package. Please reconcile 1st Corinthians 15:23, 1st Thessalonians 4:16 and Revelation 20:4, and when you have, explain why the parables of the talents, pounds and the wedding supper show that both good and bad servant/virgin RISE AT THE SAME TIME - and rise when their Master COMES. Then we'll go further.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,278

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by marty fox View Post
    But still the fact is that there is no NT teaching of Jesus living on the earth for a thousand years in a time of peace would that really be missing is it is true?
    I don't think the exact length of time for the Age of Peace is critical, and thus lacks verification. Just the mention, by John, of the fact of the Millennium is itself important. We should accept it at face value unless there is explicit rejection of a literal application. It is in the canon!

    And as I said, there is reason to believe this was some of the Jewish expectation regarding the Messianic Kingdom.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,278

    Re: Why didnít Paul teach a thousand year reign?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    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.
    Some very interesting commentary here. Thanks--I'll have to mull it over...

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
  •