Physical Kingdom Problems
Comments
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.
“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)
“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)
“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)
“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)
“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.
“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)
“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)
“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)
“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)
“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)
And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.
“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)
“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)
“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)
“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)
“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)
And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.
If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.
“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)
“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)
“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)
“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)
“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)
And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.
If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.
Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.
“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)
“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)
“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)
“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)
“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)
And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.
If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.
Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.
Where does NT scripture mention another kingdom?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.
“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)
“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)
“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)
“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)
“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)
And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.
If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.
Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.
Where does NT scripture mention another kingdom?
Have you listened to ANYTHING I have said?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.
“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)
“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)
“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)
“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)
“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)
And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.
If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.
Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.
Where does NT scripture mention another kingdom?
Have you listened to ANYTHING I have said?
I don't think you can refute may claim that scripture nowhere presents a physical kingdom in this world, in the present (Postmillennialism) or future (Premillennialism/Dispensationalism). If you could, this conversation would not have dragged on as long as it has.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.
“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)
“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)
“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)
“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)
“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)
And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.
If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.
Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.
Where does NT scripture mention another kingdom?
Have you listened to ANYTHING I have said?
I don't think you can refute may claim that scripture nowhere presents a physical kingdom in this world, in the present (Postmillennialism) or future (Premillennialism/Dispensationalism). If you could, this conversation would not have dragged on as long as it has.
I have. Revelation 20. You refuse to accept it because it isn't Scripture according to Dave and that is all that matters.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.
“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)
“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)
“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)
“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)
“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)
And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.
If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.
Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.
Where does NT scripture mention another kingdom?
Have you listened to ANYTHING I have said?
I don't think you can refute may claim that scripture nowhere presents a physical kingdom in this world, in the present (Postmillennialism) or future (Premillennialism/Dispensationalism). If you could, this conversation would not have dragged on as long as it has.
I have. Revelation 20. You refuse to accept it because it isn't Scripture according to Dave and that is all that matters.
You must limit Revelation 20 to what Jesus says about the kingdom being spiritual. And not drag pharisaic physical kingdom concepts into it. If you do, you add to the book.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.
“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)
“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)
“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)
“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)
“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)
And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.
If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.
Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.
Where does NT scripture mention another kingdom?
Have you listened to ANYTHING I have said?
I don't think you can refute may claim that scripture nowhere presents a physical kingdom in this world, in the present (Postmillennialism) or future (Premillennialism/Dispensationalism). If you could, this conversation would not have dragged on as long as it has.
I have. Revelation 20. You refuse to accept it because it isn't Scripture according to Dave and that is all that matters.
You must limit Revelation 20 to what Jesus says about the kingdom being spiritual. And not drag pharisaic physical kingdom concepts into it. If you do, you add to the book.
Nothing Jesus said precludes a physical 1,000 year reign in the future. Seriously, like talking to a brick. Unless you want to bring some real evidence against the 1,000 year reign there is no point in discussing this further. It is just wasting drive space on Jan's server.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
What are we discussing?
- How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
- What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?
If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM
All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.
The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.
They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).
The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism
If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm
I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.
Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....
Jesus was Amillennial.
Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.
Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.
Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.
Name one place where he affirms it.
That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.
How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?
Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.
If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.
Revelation 20
It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.
It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.
Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.
That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?
If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.
This has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.
Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.
If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?
Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.
Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.
I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.
No direct quotes.
I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.
All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"
How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.
Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.
I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.
“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)
“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)
“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)
“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)
“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)
And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.
If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.
Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.
Where does NT scripture mention another kingdom?
Have you listened to ANYTHING I have said?
I don't think you can refute may claim that scripture nowhere presents a physical kingdom in this world, in the present (Postmillennialism) or future (Premillennialism/Dispensationalism). If you could, this conversation would not have dragged on as long as it has.
I have. Revelation 20. You refuse to accept it because it isn't Scripture according to Dave and that is all that matters.
You must limit Revelation 20 to what Jesus says about the kingdom being spiritual. And not drag pharisaic physical kingdom concepts into it. If you do, you add to the book.
Nothing Jesus said precludes a physical 1,000 year reign in the future. Seriously, like talking to a brick. Unless you want to bring some real evidence against the 1,000 year reign there is no point in discussing this further. It is just wasting drive space on Jan's server.
except, he doesn't mention one.
-
@reformed said:
Nothing Jesus said precludes a physical 1,000 year reign in the future. Seriously, like talking to a brick. Unless you want to bring some real evidence against the 1,000 year reign there is no point in discussing this further. It is just wasting drive space on Jan's server.well, what the angel Gabriel told Mary concerning Jesus' reign already precludes a physical 1000 year reign .... because Gabriel declared "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom [his reign] there shall be no end." (Lk 1:33)
Quite obviously, there is NO 1000 year reign, because such would come to an end after 1000 years which would contradict the angel Gabriel's prophecy. -
@reformed said:
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.Hmn .... there is no millennium reign of Jesus spoken of in Rev 20. Furthermore, such a limitation to a millennium reign would contradict what the angel Gabriel already told Mary at the time of the announcement of Jesus' conception.
By the way, I do believe the Bible - as originally inspired and given by God -- is the Word of God. I do not believe that translations are necessarily the Word of God, because there are obviously differences and even contradictions between various translations, showing that translations are not God-inspired in the sense in which the original writers were inspired by God
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Nothing Jesus said precludes a physical 1,000 year reign in the future. Seriously, like talking to a brick. Unless you want to bring some real evidence against the 1,000 year reign there is no point in discussing this further. It is just wasting drive space on Jan's server.well, what the angel Gabriel told Mary concerning Jesus' reign already precludes a physical 1000 year reign .... because Gabriel declared "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom [his reign] there shall be no end." (Lk 1:33)
Quite obviously, there is NO 1000 year reign, because such would come to an end after 1000 years which would contradict the angel Gabriel's prophecy.Of course this isn't true either. The reign doesn't end after 1,000 years. There is a final victory. No contradiction.
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.Hmn .... there is no millennium reign of Jesus spoken of in Rev 20. Furthermore, such a limitation to a millennium reign would contradict what the angel Gabriel already told Mary at the time of the announcement of Jesus' conception.
Apparently, we do not read the same Bible. There is definitely a 1,000-year reign of Christ in Revelation 20, and as stated above, it does not contradict.
By the way, I do believe the Bible - as originally inspired and given by God -- is the Word of God. I do not believe that translations are necessarily the Word of God, because there are obviously differences and even contradictions between various translations, showing that translations are not God-inspired in the sense in which the original writers were inspired by God
And how did they mistranslate the 1,000-year reign?
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Nothing Jesus said precludes a physical 1,000 year reign in the future. Seriously, like talking to a brick. Unless you want to bring some real evidence against the 1,000 year reign there is no point in discussing this further. It is just wasting drive space on Jan's server.well, what the angel Gabriel told Mary concerning Jesus' reign already precludes a physical 1000 year reign .... because Gabriel declared "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom [his reign] there shall be no end." (Lk 1:33)
Quite obviously, there is NO 1000 year reign, because such would come to an end after 1000 years which would contradict the angel Gabriel's prophecy.Of course this isn't true either. The reign doesn't end after 1,000 years. There is a final victory. No contradiction.
What isn't true either? If you speak of a 1000 year reign then that reign lasts 1000 years, and not for 1001 or 10000 or forever. So who is correct ... those who declare a 1000 year reign of Christ of the angel Gabriel which declared that Messiah's reign would last for ever?
@Wolfgang said:
Hmn .... there is no millennium reign of Jesus spoken of in Rev 20. Furthermore, such a limitation to a millennium reign would contradict what the angel Gabriel already told Mary at the time of the announcement of Jesus' conception.Apparently, we do not read the same Bible.
It looks to me more like we may read the same Bible but apparently one of us is not reading what the text actually says and what would be in harmony with other scriptures (such as Lk 1:33 mentioned above) but rather is reading some popular theology into the text ...
There is definitely a 1,000-year reign of Christ in Revelation 20, and as stated above, it does not contradict.
So you claim ... where in Rev 20 is there a 1000 year reign of Christ ?? And, no matter how you want to twist it, IF a reign is 1000 years it is not forever and thus you would produce a contradiction between Lk 1:33 and your claim about 1000 year reign of Christ.
By the way, I do believe the Bible - as originally inspired and given by God -- is the Word of God. I do not believe that translations are necessarily the Word of God, because there are obviously differences and even contradictions between various translations, showing that translations are not God-inspired in the sense in which the original writers were inspired by God
And how did they mistranslate the 1,000-year reign?
I did not claim that someone mistranslated the 1000 year reign ... as a matter of fact, I know of no English or German translation in which there is a 1000 year reign in Rev 20 ... that idea of "1000 year reign of Christ" in Rev 20 is the result of incorrect reading of what the passage in fact does say mixed with an incorrect interpretation which then causes the contradiction between that false claim and scriptures which speak of the reign of Christ and clearly tell that it is NOT limited to 1000 years but that it is forever!
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Nothing Jesus said precludes a physical 1,000 year reign in the future. Seriously, like talking to a brick. Unless you want to bring some real evidence against the 1,000 year reign there is no point in discussing this further. It is just wasting drive space on Jan's server.well, what the angel Gabriel told Mary concerning Jesus' reign already precludes a physical 1000 year reign .... because Gabriel declared "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom [his reign] there shall be no end." (Lk 1:33)
Quite obviously, there is NO 1000 year reign, because such would come to an end after 1000 years which would contradict the angel Gabriel's prophecy.Of course this isn't true either. The reign doesn't end after 1,000 years. There is a final victory. No contradiction.
What isn't true either? If you speak of a 1000 year reign then that reign lasts 1000 years, and not for 1001 or 10000 or forever. So who is correct ... those who declare a 1000 year reign of Christ of the angel Gabriel which declared that Messiah's reign would last for ever?
Read the text Wolfgang. the reign doesn't end at the end of the 1,000 years.
@Wolfgang said:
Hmn .... there is no millennium reign of Jesus spoken of in Rev 20. Furthermore, such a limitation to a millennium reign would contradict what the angel Gabriel already told Mary at the time of the announcement of Jesus' conception.Apparently, we do not read the same Bible.
It looks to me more like we may read the same Bible but apparently one of us is not reading what the text actually says and what would be in harmony with other scriptures (such as Lk 1:33 mentioned above) but rather is reading some popular theology into the text ...
Yes, I know you are struggling with that. I already showed that it doesn't contradict Lk 1.33 but apparently you ignored that.
There is definitely a 1,000-year reign of Christ in Revelation 20, and as stated above, it does not contradict.
So you claim ... where in Rev 20 is there a 1000 year reign of Christ ?? And, no matter how you want to twist it, IF a reign is 1000 years it is not forever and thus you would produce a contradiction between Lk 1:33 and your claim about 1000 year reign of Christ.
Read the text Wolfgang. Revelation 20:4 specifically says reigned with Christ for 1,000 years. Then if you read verses 7-10 you see that the reign doesn't end after the 1,000 years. Satan is vanquished at the end of the 1,000 years. This is not difficult.
By the way, I do believe the Bible - as originally inspired and given by God -- is the Word of God. I do not believe that translations are necessarily the Word of God, because there are obviously differences and even contradictions between various translations, showing that translations are not God-inspired in the sense in which the original writers were inspired by God
And how did they mistranslate the 1,000-year reign?
I did not claim that someone mistranslated the 1000 year reign ... as a matter of fact, I know of no English or German translation in which there is a 1000 year reign in Rev 20 ... that idea of "1000 year reign of Christ" in Rev 20 is the result of incorrect reading of what the passage in fact does say mixed with an incorrect interpretation which then causes the contradiction between that false claim and scriptures which speak of the reign of Christ and clearly tell that it is NOT limited to 1000 years but that it is forever!
It does actually say it, pretty specifically actually. AND, it has no contradiction if you actually read the text.
-
@reformed said:
Read the text Wolfgang. the reign doesn't end at the end of the 1,000 years.So you acknowledge that it is NOT really a 1000 year reign ...
It looks to me more like we may read the same Bible but apparently one of us is not reading what the text actually says and what would be in harmony with other scriptures (such as Lk 1:33 mentioned above) but rather is reading some popular theology into the text ...
Yes, I know you are struggling with that. I already showed that it doesn't contradict Lk 1.33 but apparently you ignored that.
I did not ignore anything but even replied to your arguments showing that they were not what the text actually tells.
Now, in the meantime, you acknowledged yourself above that there is no 1000 year reign of Christ mentioned in Rev 20Read the text Wolfgang.
Do you really think I am not reading the text? I am the one pointing out the text and showing that you sort of freely interpret rather than read ...
Revelation 20:4 specifically says reigned with Christ for 1,000 years.
Indeed ... please note, this is NOT saying and thus NOT equal to claiming that there is a 1000 year reign of Christ.
Then if you read verses 7-10 you see that the reign doesn't end after the 1,000 years. Satan is vanquished at the end of the 1,000 years. This is not difficult.
Indeed, reading is not difficult and I see you are reading more accurately here. So now you are acknowledging that the reign is NOT a 1000 years but rather is longer .. which I have been pointing out all along.
I did not claim that someone mistranslated the 1000 year reign ... as a matter of fact, I know of no English or German translation in which there is a 1000 year reign in Rev 20 ... that idea of "1000 year reign of Christ" in Rev 20 is the result of incorrect reading of what the passage in fact does say mixed with an incorrect interpretation which then causes the contradiction between that false claim and scriptures which speak of the reign of Christ and clearly tell that it is NOT limited to 1000 years but that it is forever!
It does actually say it, pretty specifically actually. AND, it has no contradiction if you actually read the text.
Not quite ... see above. YOU yourself even point out the contradiction and produce the contradiction by saying (a) there is a 1000 year reign of Christ, and (b) the reign is actually NOT 1000 years but longer than that.
-
Quite the opposite, there is a specific 1,000 year period where the Kingdom has a special time where Satan is bound before his final defeat.
It looks to me more like we may read the same Bible but apparently one of us is not reading what the text actually says and what would be in harmony with other scriptures (such as Lk 1:33 mentioned above) but rather is reading some popular theology into the text ...
Yes, I know you are struggling with that. I already showed that it doesn't contradict Lk 1.33 but apparently you ignored that.
I did not ignore anything but even replied to your arguments showing that they were not what the text actually tells.
Actually you didn't.
Now, in the meantime, you acknowledged yourself above that there is no 1000 year reign of Christ mentioned in Rev 20
No actually I didn't.
Read the text Wolfgang.
Do you really think I am not reading the text? I am the one pointing out the text and showing that you sort of freely interpret rather than read ...
Not really. And, no, I don't think you are reading the text.
Revelation 20:4 specifically says reigned with Christ for 1,000 years.
Indeed ... please note, this is NOT saying and thus NOT equal to claiming that there is a 1000 year reign of Christ.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Then if you read verses 7-10 you see that the reign doesn't end after the 1,000 years. Satan is vanquished at the end of the 1,000 years. This is not difficult.
Indeed, reading is not difficult and I see you are reading more accurately here. So now you are acknowledging that the reign is NOT a 1000 years but rather is longer .. which I have been pointing out all along.
Then we have been saying the same thing all along.
I did not claim that someone mistranslated the 1000 year reign ... as a matter of fact, I know of no English or German translation in which there is a 1000 year reign in Rev 20 ... that idea of "1000 year reign of Christ" in Rev 20 is the result of incorrect reading of what the passage in fact does say mixed with an incorrect interpretation which then causes the contradiction between that false claim and scriptures which speak of the reign of Christ and clearly tell that it is NOT limited to 1000 years but that it is forever!
It does actually say it, pretty specifically actually. AND, it has no contradiction if you actually read the text.
Not quite ... see above. YOU yourself even point out the contradiction and produce the contradiction by saying (a) there is a 1000 year reign of Christ, and (b) the reign is actually NOT 1000 years but longer than that.
You are misunderstanding what my position is.
-
Brethern,
A particular position, point, or place of the millennial reign of Christ and His saints in Rev 20:1-10 is an issue on which biblical scholars have NOT reached a consensus.- The majority view -- argues for an earthly locus of the millennial reign of Christ and His saints.
- A minority view -- holds to a heavenly place of this reign.
One needs to look with fresh eyes at Rev 20:1-10 and the immediate and wider contexts in order to determine whether the millennial reign of Christ and His saints will take place on earth or in heaven.
It seems to make sense in order to understand Rev 20, one needs to make a structural analysis of chaps. 19-22, which shows a chronological progression between chaps. 19 and 20. This indicates that the millennium follows the Parousia (second coming of Christ).
In looking at Rev 20, one would find A lexical-grammatical, literary and contextual connection, especially in verses 2-4. A close look shows that 20:1-10 has an earth-heaven-earth pattern. This means that--
Rev. 20:4-6 is located in heaven.
Looking at the many times the word "thrones" (Gk-- "thronous") appears in Revelation indicates a heavenly place for this reign. Look at passages parallel to 20:4-6, shows a heavenly reign. This is supported by other NT passages.
There are parallels to some OT passages in Rev 19-22, but there are also significant differences between them. All things considered, the place the millennial reign of Christ and His saints are in heaven after the coming of Christ ("Parousia"). Please review my earlier outline (page one) of Oct 15 [Step back and take a closer look at Rev 20 and the Millennium].
I hope this will bring a better understanding of Rev 20. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Brethern,
A particular position, point, or place of the millennial reign of Christ and His saints in Rev 20:1-10 is an issue on which biblical scholars have NOT reached a consensus.- The majority view -- argues for an earthly locus of the millennial reign of Christ and His saints.
- A minority view -- holds to a heavenly place of this reign.
One needs to look with fresh eyes at Rev 20:1-10 and the immediate and wider contexts in order to determine whether the millennial reign of Christ and His saints will take place on earth or in heaven.
It seems to make sense in order to understand Rev 20, one needs to make a structural analysis of chaps. 19-22, which shows a chronological progression between chaps. 19 and 20. This indicates that the millennium follows the Parousia (second coming of Christ).
In looking at Rev 20, one would find A lexical-grammatical, literary and contextual connection, especially in verses 2-4. A close look shows that 20:1-10 has an earth-heaven-earth pattern. This means that--
Rev. 20:4-6 is located in heaven.
Looking at the many times the word "thrones" (Gk-- "thronous") appears in Revelation indicates a heavenly place for this reign. Look at passages parallel to 20:4-6, shows a heavenly reign. This is supported by other NT passages.
There are parallels to some OT passages in Rev 19-22, but there are also significant differences between them. All things considered, the place the millennial reign of Christ and His saints are in heaven after the coming of Christ ("Parousia"). Please review my earlier outline (page one) of Oct 15 [Step back and take a closer look at Rev 20 and the Millennium].
I hope this will bring a better understanding of Rev 20. CM
The Nicene Creed
[Jesus] and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead;** Whose kingdom shall have no end.**
Note how this refutes a 1000 year physical kingdom.........
-
@Dave_L said:
The Nicene Creed[Jesus] and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.
@ Dave_L said: The Nicene Creed...
What does the Bible say on the matter?
@Dave_L said: "Note how this refutes a 1000 year physical kingdom........."
Where?
What are you trying to say?
- Is there no physical "Kingdom" in heaven nor on earth?
- Or there is no physical "Kingdom" during the Millennium?
- Or there is physical "Kingdom" only in heaven during the Millennium?
Please review all that I have shared and then select one of the above. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The Nicene Creed[Jesus] and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.
@ Dave_L said: The Nicene Creed...
What does the Bible say on the matter?
@Dave_L said: "Note how this refutes a 1000 year physical kingdom........."
Where?
What are you trying to say?
- Is there no physical "Kingdom" in heaven nor on earth?
- Or there is no physical "Kingdom" during the Millennium?
- Or there is physical "Kingdom" only in heaven during the Millennium?
Please review all that I have shared and then select one of the above. CM
It says nothing about a physical 1000 year long kingdom if you consider the New Testament as the final authority.
-
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The Nicene Creed[Jesus] and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.
@ Dave_L said: The Nicene Creed...
What does the Bible say on the matter?
@Dave_L said: "Note how this refutes a 1000 year physical kingdom........."
Where?
What are you trying to say?
- Is there no physical "Kingdom" in heaven nor on earth?
- Or there is no physical "Kingdom" during the Millennium?
- Or there is physical "Kingdom" only in heaven during the Millennium?
Please review all that I have shared and then select one of the above. CM
It says nothing about a physical 1000 year long kingdom if you consider the New Testament as the final authority.
Then what are the 1,000 years in Revelation 20 Dave? You can't just ignore that it is there...
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The Nicene Creed[Jesus] and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.
@ Dave_L said: The Nicene Creed...
What does the Bible say on the matter?
@Dave_L said: "Note how this refutes a 1000 year physical kingdom........."
Where?
What are you trying to say?
- Is there no physical "Kingdom" in heaven nor on earth?
- Or there is no physical "Kingdom" during the Millennium?
- Or there is physical "Kingdom" only in heaven during the Millennium?
Please review all that I have shared and then select one of the above. CM
It says nothing about a physical 1000 year long kingdom if you consider the New Testament as the final authority.
Then what are the 1,000 years in Revelation 20 Dave? You can't just ignore that it is there...
Let's not read anything into the passage and see what it says. The 1000 years are the binding of Satan. When they end Satan is loosed. The saints reign over him in this binding.
The 1000 years are not the kingdom. Satan attacks the kingdom (still present) when the 1000 years end and he is loosed.
To what extent is Satan bound? Answer: From deceiving the nations. When loosed, he deceives the nations (Gog and Magog) causing them to attack the Kingdom (Church).
We must limit his binding to not being able to deceive the elect from around the world or we violate much of the NT.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The Nicene Creed[Jesus] and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.
@ Dave_L said: The Nicene Creed...
What does the Bible say on the matter?
@Dave_L said: "Note how this refutes a 1000 year physical kingdom........."
Where?
What are you trying to say?
- Is there no physical "Kingdom" in heaven nor on earth?
- Or there is no physical "Kingdom" during the Millennium?
- Or there is physical "Kingdom" only in heaven during the Millennium?
Please review all that I have shared and then select one of the above. CM
It says nothing about a physical 1000 year long kingdom if you consider the New Testament as the final authority.
Then what are the 1,000 years in Revelation 20 Dave? You can't just ignore that it is there...
Let's not read anything into the passage and see what it says. The 1000 years are the binding of Satan. When they end Satan is loosed. The saints reign over him in this binding.
The 1000 years are not the kingdom. Satan attacks the kingdom (still present) when the 1000 years end and he is loosed.
To what extent is Satan bound? Answer: From deceiving the nations. When loosed, he deceives the nations (Gog and Magog) causing them to attack the Kingdom (Church).
We must limit his binding to not being able to deceive the elect from around the world or we violate much of the NT.
Dave you are ignoring a very key part of the passage. Please note verses 4-8. This clearly talks about believers reigning WITH CHRIST for 1,000 years while Satan is bound.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
The Nicene Creed[Jesus] and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.
@ Dave_L said: The Nicene Creed...
What does the Bible say on the matter?
@Dave_L said: "Note how this refutes a 1000 year physical kingdom........."
Where?
What are you trying to say?
- Is there no physical "Kingdom" in heaven nor on earth?
- Or there is no physical "Kingdom" during the Millennium?
- Or there is physical "Kingdom" only in heaven during the Millennium?
Please review all that I have shared and then select one of the above. CM
It says nothing about a physical 1000 year long kingdom if you consider the New Testament as the final authority.
Then what are the 1,000 years in Revelation 20 Dave? You can't just ignore that it is there...
Let's not read anything into the passage and see what it says. The 1000 years are the binding of Satan. When they end Satan is loosed. The saints reign over him in this binding.
The 1000 years are not the kingdom. Satan attacks the kingdom (still present) when the 1000 years end and he is loosed.
To what extent is Satan bound? Answer: From deceiving the nations. When loosed, he deceives the nations (Gog and Magog) causing them to attack the Kingdom (Church).
We must limit his binding to not being able to deceive the elect from around the world or we violate much of the NT.
Dave you are ignoring a very key part of the passage. Please note verses 4-8. This clearly talks about believers reigning WITH CHRIST for 1,000 years while Satan is bound.
I mentioned this. The saints rule over Satan in his binding.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
