The Thousand Year Reign

ewq1938 · Nov 30, 2015

throughfireytrial said:
Please use the answer to the riddle which I provided and insert it into the areas in question before posting so we can discuss better. You will see that I assumed you would do this or you wouldn’t be asking me some of your questions.

Up to this point Scripture speaks nowhere of a thousand year reign and yet here it appears, putting one’s understanding of the Scriptures into question…or at least it had that effect on me. But if one reads through Revelation in total one can quickly see that it needs to be made plain…hints such as:

Revelation 13:18:

This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.That has nothing to do with Rev 20's thousand years.

That has nothing at all to do with Rev 20'S thousand years.

The thousand year reign…a play on I Peter 3:8-10…

Click to expand...

No, that also is unrelated.

The first resurrection is speaking of all the “dead” (dead in our sin) who came alive…were born again.

Click to expand...

No, that is not supported by Rev 20. You are re-writing it to claim it says something it does not.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

What we are given is people who had died not in their sins as you claim but were beheaded for refusing to take the mark of the beast. So their resurrection is a physical resurrection not a spiritual one. Before they were beheaded they already were spiritually resurrected. Then, being faithful to Christ they were murdered physically and were bodily resurrected to LIVE and reign with Christ for a thousand years.

The rest of the “dead” (dead in their sin) did not come alive it states. Those born again live and reign with Christ as Colossians and Ephesians state…I believe I cited you those passages.

Click to expand...

They are not contextually related to the verses in Rev 20.

I will add that you seem to be getting the resurrections confused...at the end of the 1000 year reign comes the second resurrection which begins at verse 11.

Click to expand...

I know that and I also know the first resurrection of a group of people in the first part of Rev 20 is a bodily resurrection. The second resurrection is also bodily but resurrected back to mortal bodies instead of immortal bodies.

We also know that Christ's Kingdom includes the dead in Christ...that too seems to be a point of some confusion.

Click to expand...

Christ's kingdom begins when he returns so, no, the dead in heaven are not part of that until it happens, and that is when the first resurrection of a group of the dead occurs.

throughfiierytrial · Nov 30, 2015

hroughfireytrial said: ↑
Please use the answer to the riddle which I provided and insert it into the areas in question before posting so we can discuss better. You will see that I assumed you would do this or you wouldn’t be asking me some of your questions.

Up to this point Scripture speaks nowhere of a thousand year reign and yet here it appears, putting one’s understanding of the Scriptures into question…or at least it had that effect on me. But if one reads through Revelation in total one can quickly see that it needs to be made plain…hints such as:

Revelation 13:18:

This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.That has nothing to do with Rev 20's thousand years.
Click to expand...

That has nothing at all to do with Rev 20'S thousand years.

Not sure what you are alluding to...the citation of the calculation 666 ...I state why it is cited...shows things are not to be taken literally. Please ty to understand what I am conveying as I try to understand you.

The thousand year reign…a play on I Peter 3:8-10…
No, that also is unrelated.

Now you saying it is not proves nothing to me...it is related indeed...I Peter 3:8-10 tells us that Jesus is returning at an unknown time and uses the 1000 years expression...like it or not...this riddle solving is not going to fit your formula of understanding Scripture. Solving a riddle is unique I think we all know, and this one happens to use Scripture.

The first resurrection is speaking of all the “dead” (dead in our sin) who came alive…were born again.
No, that is not supported by Rev 20. You are re-writing it to claim it says something it does not.

Yes it is indeed...you need to re-read.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

What we are given is people who had died not in their sins as you claim but were beheaded for refusing to take the mark of the beast. So their resurrection is a physical resurrection not a spiritual one. Before they were beheaded they already were spiritually resurrected. Then, being faithful to Christ they were murdered physically and were bodily resurrected to LIVE and reign with Christ for a thousand years.

Not at all...to give you a like-wise answer, you are very wrong. When was Christ's work accomplished...from the beginning right? You must look at the big picture first.
And, I am not claiming they died in their sins...I claim some live in their sin...the opposite of being born again or to say simply they never were born again and so they face the second death...hell. You don't read to understand the person you are supposedly communicating with...only b/c you seem to have your own pet theory already...at least I didn't run-ahead and invent some new scenario so I could claimed I understood. Wait upon the Lord for your understanding!!

The rest of the “dead” (dead in their sin) did not come alive it states. Those born again live and reign with Christ as Colossians and Ephesians state…I believe I cited you those passages.

They are not contextually related to the verses in Rev 20.
It is a riddle...how many times must you be told.

I will add that you seem to be getting the resurrections confused...at the end of the 1000 year reign comes the second resurrection which begins at verse 11.

I know that and I also know the first resurrection of a group of people in the first part of Rev 20 is a bodily resurrection. The second resurrection is also bodily but resurrected back to mortal bodies instead of immortal bodies.
I'd like to see you back that up with Scripture!

We also know that Christ's Kingdom includes the dead in Christ...that too seems to be a point of some confusion.

Christ's kingdom begins when he returns so, no, the dead in heaven are not part of that until it happens, and that is when the first resurrection of a group of the dead occurs.

We who are born again and serve Christ are doing Kingdom work in His Kingdom right now:

Colossians 1:12-14:
and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Revelation 1:6:
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Back up your claims with Scripture...all your comments are directed at me as though I am to accept you because you say so. I assert it is short of a miracle that one can solve a riddle and end up with pure Gospel. Do you think I just grabbed this out of my hat?

ewq1938 · Nov 30, 2015

throughfireytrial said:
Not sure what you are alluding to...the citation of the calculation 666 ...I state why it is cited...shows things are not to be taken literally. Please ty to understand what I am conveying as I try to understand you.

The 666 is literal. It is the number of the beasts name.

The thousand year reign…a play on I Peter 3:8-10…
No, that also is unrelated.

Now you saying it is not proves nothing to me...it is related indeed...I Peter 3:8-10 tells us that Jesus is returning at an unknown time and uses the 1000 years expression...like it or not

Click to expand...

The thousand years in 1 Peter has nothing to do with the return of Christ.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

A long period of time seems very short to God. There is nothing more to this than that other than the possibility that the 6 days of creation might have been long periods of time rather than literal days. However, the thousand years of Rev 20 is not a day.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

That the return of Christ is found 2 verses later does not justify trying to force a thousand years in relation to his return. That's terrible scholarship.

The first resurrection is speaking of all the “dead” (dead in our sin) who came alive…were born again.
No, that is not supported by Rev 20. You are re-writing it to claim it says something it does not.

Yes it is indeed...you need to re-read.

Click to expand...

I already explained that you are wrong by quoting the verses. It is you that is not reading them.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

What we are given is people who had died not in their sins as you claim but were beheaded for refusing to take the mark of the beast. So their resurrection is a physical resurrection not a spiritual one. Before they were beheaded they already were spiritually resurrected. Then, being faithful to Christ they were murdered physically and were bodily resurrected to LIVE and reign with Christ for a thousand years.

Not at all...to give you a like-wise answer, you are very wrong. When was Christ's work accomplished...from the beginning right? You must look at the big picture first.
And, I am not claiming they died in their sins...I claim some live in their sin...the opposite of being born again or to say simply they never were born again and so they face the second death...hell. You don't read to understand the person you are supposedly communicating with...only b/c you seem to have your own pet theory already...at least I didn't run-ahead and invent some new scenario so I could claimed I understood. Wait upon the Lord for your understanding!!

Click to expand...

It is very telling that you don't dispute what I said using any scriptures, you just claim I am wrong offering no evidence. At least I have proven what I claim using the verses of Rev 20. They don't show what you claim they do.

They are not contextually related to the verses in Rev 20.
It is a riddle...how many times must you be told.

Click to expand...

There is no riddle in Rev 20. It is plainly written. You are simply altering what it says so you can make up something new and then call it a "riddle".

I know that and I also know the first resurrection of a group of people in the first part of Rev 20 is a bodily resurrection. The second resurrection is also bodily but resurrected back to mortal bodies instead of immortal bodies.
I'd like to see you back that up with Scripture!

Click to expand...

It's proven in Rev 20 which I have already cited.

We who are born again and serve Christ are doing Kingdom work in His Kingdom right now:

Click to expand...

Colossians 1:12-14:
and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Revelation 1:6:
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Click to expand...

Those aren't speaking of the Millennial kingdom which is a reign with a rod of iron of the nations of the Earth. That is a temporary and uniqure kingdom and reign. You can't just blur in any other kingdom or reign.

Back up your claims with Scripture...

Click to expand...

I have. You have not. Any scripture you have provided is contextually unrelated to Rev 20.

all your comments are directed at me as though I am to accept you because you say so. I assert it is short of a miracle that one can solve a riddle and end up with pure Gospel. Do you think I just grabbed this out of my hat?

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. I don't care where you got this nonsense. Your end time beliefs do not match with what scripture provides. You can't even dispute the fact that the beheaded saints had a spiritual resurrection LONG before they were murdered, which proves the resurrection they experience while physically dead must be a physical resurrection because it's the only one that have yet to experience. That might seem as a riddle to you but it's quite simple actually. You are forcing a spiritual resurrection in Rev 20 when it is impossible due to it having already occurred. A man is not born again a third time, especially one who died as a martyred saint! Amil never tends to understand this simple fact. No one ever directly deals with how this proves Amils view of Rev 20's first resurrection to be fully errant.

throughfiierytrial · Dec 1, 2015

This is fruitless.
Be careful you do not add or subtract from the Scriptures and in so doing lose your place in heaven. You can do that by placing a literal interpretation on Revelation and then teaching it as such corrupting still more souls.

ewq1938 · Dec 1, 2015

throughfireytrial said:
This is fruitless.
Be careful you do not add or subtract from the Scriptures and in so doing lose your place in heaven. You can do that by placing a literal interpretation on Revelation and then teaching it as such corrupting still more souls.

Parts of Rev are literal, parts figurative but making errors understanding those will not "lose your place in heaven" as you claim. That's as false as your view of Rev 20's first resurrection.

throughfiierytrial · Dec 1, 2015

Most people who use a literal interpretation on Revelation...much as yourself...end up with "findings" which contradict the rest of Scripture...that is a real danger. These are not simple errors, this is blindly and stubbornly wanting to put forth one's own interpretation.

ewq1938 · Dec 1, 2015

throughfireytrial said:
Most people who use a literal interpretation on Revelation...much as yourself...end up with "findings" which contradict the rest of Scripture...that is a real danger. These are not simple errors, this is blindly and stubbornly wanting to put forth one's own interpretation.

Re-read my post. I don't read Rev strictly literally but I do when it is literal. It is easy to recognize literal speech vs. figurative. The issue here is you take the literal and figurize it to alter the meaning to something else and that is a real danger. These are not simple errors but are the result of blindly and stubbornly wanting to put forth one's own interpretation.

It is very telling that you don't dispute what I said using any scriptures, you just claim I am wrong offering no evidence. At least I have proven what I claim using the verses of Rev 20. They don't show what you claim they do. That is a typical avoidance within the Amil camp.

throughfiierytrial · Dec 1, 2015

I think we must agree to disagree because you do not wish to see a beautiful riddle unfolded to reveal the Truth...you wish things proven on your grounds. While I do prove doctrinal points in Scripture using many references at times that is not possible when revealing a riddle and you know it. You simply put forth passages from Revelation and say they mean something different than I say. I didn't get into picking at your points, but I did observe from you what many in the past have done...you conclude a type of resurrection and reign which goes contrary to the rest of the Scriptures. I can see we are simply spinning wheels.
Don't know if you have already heard the interpretation I offered or not, but your rebuttal was along the lines of that has nothing to do with this...it's a riddle, so yes, and no. Yes, because it answers the riddle and it covers the topic (1000 year reign or resurrections) and no it does not sound like it relates the way you think it should...it's a clue to a riddle.
First you have to be wise enough in your handling of Scripture that you do not allow for contradictory Scripture to creep up in your doctrine and pray about when it seems as such and use great care and caution as you proceed.

ewq1938 · Dec 1, 2015

Yet more avoidance of what Rev 20 actually says and does not say. This is very common in Amil believers. No one can take you seriously until you focus upon and deal with what Rev says....without changing anything and without inserting scriptures that are fully unrelated.

throughfireytrial said:
I think we must agree to disagree because you do not wish to see a beautiful riddle unfolded to reveal the Truth...you wish things proven on your grounds. While I do prove doctrinal points in Scripture using many references at times that is not possible when revealing a riddle and you know it. You simply put forth passages from Revelation and say they mean something different than I say. I didn't get into picking at your points, but I did observe from you what many in the past have done...you conclude a type of resurrection and reign which goes contrary to the rest of the Scriptures. I can see we are simply spinning wheels.
Don't know if you have already heard the interpretation I offered or not, but your rebuttal was along the lines of that has nothing to do with this...it's a riddle, so yes, and no. Yes, because it answers the riddle and it covers the topic (1000 year reign or resurrections) and no it does not sound like it relates the way you think it should...it's a clue to a riddle.
First you have to be wise enough in your handling of Scripture that you do not allow for contradictory Scripture to creep up in your doctrine and pray about when it seems as such and use great care and caution as you proceed.

Search

Search

The Thousand Year Reign

ewq1938

I love you three.

More options

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover

More options

ewq1938

I love you three.

More options

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover

More options

ewq1938

I love you three.

More options

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover

More options

ewq1938

I love you three.

More options

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover

More options

ewq1938

I love you three.

More options

Similar threads