Why the "thousand years" in Revelation 20 does not simply mean "a long time."

[whitebeaches]

Mod Hat On​

This thread has undergone a cleanup due to the violation of the following CF rule: Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.

As a reminder, full preterism may not be promoted in Eschatology. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up. Please remember the board rules when posting. Thank you and may you have a wonderful day. ​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Biblewriter]

This closed thread is now re-opened for further discussion.

Mod Hat On​

This thread has undergone a cleanup due to the violation of the following CF rule: Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.

As a reminder, full preterism may not be promoted in Eschatology. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up. Please remember the board rules when posting. Thank you and may you have a wonderful day. ​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[ebedmelech]

The millennium will be under the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant. Both covenants were made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

That's just wrong. See Hebrews 8:7-13...and perhaps you'll never make this response again.

Regarding Matthew 23:38, it refers to the spiritual desolation of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37) insofar as it rejects Jesus (1 John 5:12b, cf. Galatians 4:25), whereas Matthew 23:39 refers to the future salvation of all the unbelieving elect Jews in Jerusalem at Jesus' 2nd coming, when they will see him in person and believe in him (Zechariah 12:10-14, Romans 11:26-29).

Regarding that response...please read the history of the Roman/Jewish war! Also please note that immediately after Jesus utters Matthew 23:37-39, He reveals the destruction of Herod's Temple to the disciples. We KNOW the temple is what Israel's Sinaitic Covenant revolves around. May you never utter that statement again either.

Also, Matthew 23:38, like Matthew 27:51, didn't mean that the 2nd Jewish temple in Jerusalem had become spiritually desolate. For it remained holy even after Jesus' death and resurrection. That's why the church continued to worship God there (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17). What the rending of the veil in Matthew 27:51 pictured was the opening of the holiest place in heaven to Christians (Hebrews 10:19-22, Hebrews 9:24) by the abolishing of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-27, Hebrews 10:9b) and the establishment of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28) at the moment that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins (Hebrews 9:15-17, Hebrews 10:19-20, Matthew 27:50-51).

The rending of the veil in Matthew 27:51 didn't mean that God no longer dwelt in the 2nd temple (as in Matthew 23:21). That's why (again) the church continued to worship God in the 2nd temple, even after Jesus' death and resurrection (Luke 24:53, Acts 2:46, Acts 22:17).

That is just flat wrong. The veil partitioned off the Holy of Holies, and the high priest would enter once a year on the day of atonement to make atonement for himself and the people. Do you even think on that?

Hebrews says Jesus entered ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Need I say more?

 

[Biblewriter]

That's just wrong. See Hebrews 8:7-13...and perhaps you'll never make this response again.

Regarding that response...please read the history of the Roman/Jewish war! Also please note that immediately after Jesus utters Matthew 23:37-39, He reveals the destruction of Herod's Temple to the disciples. We KNOW the temple is what Israel's Sinaitic Covenant revolves around. May you never utter that statement again either.


That is just flat wrong. The veil partitioned off the Holy of Holies, and the high priest would enter once a year on the day of atonement to make atonement for himself and the people. Do you even think on that?

Hebrews says Jesus entered ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Need I say more?

Yes, you need to say that you have ignored a full third of the Old Testament.

 

[ebedmelech]

Yes, you need to say that you have ignored a full third of the Old Testament.

What I need to say is you don't get a "full third" of the Old Testament...and that's because you approached it with your own view Biblewriter...and in your "dispensational paradigm" you can't get "out of the box".

 

[Biblewriter]

What I need to say is you don't get a "full third" of the Old Testament...and that's because you approached it with your own view Biblewriter...and in your "dispensational paradigm" you can't get "out of the box".

No, I don't approach it "with my own view." I simply believe what it explicitly and repeatedly says, more times than I can count.

 

[ebedmelech]

No, I don't approach it "with my own view." I simply believe what it explicitly and repeatedly says, more times than I can count.

Yes...and it failure on your part...literally!