Main Problems w "A" or "Post" Millenialism?

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

So, after coming back from a business trip, and going through a pre-millenial thread I posted, which made a number of amillenialists angry, I think my reasons for believing pre-millenialism over amillenialism or post-millenialism is becoming stronger.

That I see a lack of answers and a lot of jingoism and evasion definitely is a key factor there.

So, some current conclusions, but also soliciting others:

1. 'satan no longer deceives the nations'. It is really difficult to look back a 1000 years, 1500 years, or really anywhere in the current times or past to see any place where we could argue reasonably the Satan has not been deceiving the nations. Far less so for any kind of 1000 year period.

This is true whether you look to the West, or to the East. In history.

2. What Church, exactly, did Jesus reign through? You pretty well have to speaking of the Catholic Church there. Does anyone want to make that argument? I think they would not find that an easy position to maintain. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the colonialism and violent expansionism, the whole 'Holy Roman Empire', for that matter. Not even to go into all of the severe and basic doctrinal errors they introduced.

For anyone unclear, of the Millennium, it states that 'Jesus reigns for a thousand years with his saints'.

3. Chronology of Revelation. Some passages of Revelation is undeniably not in chronological order. But, arguing that the entire book is not in any sort of chronological order in order to say 'pre-millenialism is impossible' is patently absurd. Most of the book is specifically designed to be chronological in order. Seven seals, seven trumpets, and three woes. It was written like one would expect a fine clockmaker to write such a book.

This chronological order continues with the transition of the 'last trumpet' - the seventh one - to the Millennium. It continues with the binding up of Satan in the Abyss right into the Millennium, which explicitly is stated does not happen until that happens.

That binding its' self does not happening until "Babylon" falls and the "False Prophet" and "Beast" are 'thrown in the Lake of Fire'.

Granted, I have never found an amillenialist doctrine which denies that, at least, some events preceding the Millennium description have not already come to pass. One of these (I will not state which one) is relatively reasonable, but still, very strange.

'God is not a God of chaos, but of order'.

4. The very bad explanations or arguments against pre-millenialism. I would really like to hear some good ones, but I find I only get evasion.

And what ones are given are evasive and really bad standards of proof.


There are many other reasons for it, but these are some of the top ones which come to mind.

 

[HTacianas]

So, after coming back from a business trip, and going through a pre-millenial thread I posted, which made a number of amillenialists angry, I think my reasons for believing pre-millenialism over amillenialism or post-millenialism is becoming stronger.

That I see a lack of answers and a lot of jingoism and evasion definitely is a key factor there.

So, some current conclusions, but also soliciting others:

1. 'satan no longer deceives the nations'. It is really difficult to look back a 1000 years, 1500 years, or really anywhere in the current times or past to see any place where we could argue reasonably the Satan has not been deceiving the nations. Far less so for any kind of 1000 year period.

This is true whether you look to the West, or to the East. In history.

2. What Church, exactly, did Jesus reign through? You pretty well have to speaking of the Catholic Church there. Does anyone want to make that argument? I think they would not find that an easy position to maintain. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the colonialism and violent expansionism, the whole 'Holy Roman Empire', for that matter. Not even to go into all of the severe and basic doctrinal errors they introduced.

For anyone unclear, of the Millennium, it states that 'Jesus reigns for a thousand years with his saints'.

3. Chronology of Revelation. Some passages of Revelation is undeniably not in chronological order. But, arguing that the entire book is not in any sort of chronological order in order to say 'pre-millenialism is impossible' is patently absurd. Most of the book is specifically designed to be chronological in order. Seven seals, seven trumpets, and three woes. It was written like one would expect a fine clockmaker to write such a book.

This chronological order continues with the transition of the 'last trumpet' - the seventh one - to the Millennium. It continues with the binding up of Satan in the Abyss right into the Millennium, which explicitly is stated does not happen until that happens.

That binding its' self does not happening until "Babylon" falls and the "False Prophet" and "Beast" are 'thrown in the Lake of Fire'.

Granted, I have never found an amillenialist doctrine which denies that, at least, some events preceding the Millennium description have not already come to pass. One of these (I will not state which one) is relatively reasonable, but still, very strange.

'God is not a God of chaos, but of order'.

4. The very bad explanations or arguments against pre-millenialism. I would really like to hear some good ones, but I find I only get evasion.

And what ones are given are evasive and really bad standards of proof.


There are many other reasons for it, but these are some of the top ones which come to mind.

Jesus reigns through the original apostolic Churches. They are the Churches that ended chiliasm.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Jesus reigns through the original apostolic Churches. They are the Churches that ended chiliasm.

Thank you, I was just thinking on how the Barbourites and Watchtower society holds or held that belief. (So do the Catholics and Orthodox, but they have the Catholic Church and 'Holy Roman Empire' to explain on that one.)

Regardless, this is new, and I expect you will be much more forthcoming then they.

So, some questions:

1. Does your group believe the events preceding Chapter 20 as having happened already, or no?

2. Does your group relate the fall of Babylon and the 'throwing into the lake of fire of the Beast and False Prophet' as being associated with the Reformation?

3. Satan is locked up and 'unable to deceive the nations any longer', so how do you see the atrocities by the Nazis, Communists, Islamists? (Or, for instance, outlaying groups, such as the Hutus and the Rwandan genocide?)

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So, after coming back from a business trip, and going through a pre-millenial thread I posted, which made a number of amillenialists angry, I think my reasons for believing pre-millenialism over amillenialism or post-millenialism is becoming stronger.

That I see a lack of answers and a lot of jingoism and evasion definitely is a key factor there.

So, some current conclusions, but also soliciting others:

1. 'satan no longer deceives the nations'. It is really difficult to look back a 1000 years, 1500 years, or really anywhere in the current times or past to see any place where we could argue reasonably the Satan has not been deceiving the nations. Far less so for any kind of 1000 year period.

This is true whether you look to the West, or to the East. In history.

2. What Church, exactly, did Jesus reign through? You pretty well have to speaking of the Catholic Church there. Does anyone want to make that argument? I think they would not find that an easy position to maintain. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the colonialism and violent expansionism, the whole 'Holy Roman Empire', for that matter. Not even to go into all of the severe and basic doctrinal errors they introduced.

For anyone unclear, of the Millennium, it states that 'Jesus reigns for a thousand years with his saints'.

3. Chronology of Revelation. Some passages of Revelation is undeniably not in chronological order. But, arguing that the entire book is not in any sort of chronological order in order to say 'pre-millenialism is impossible' is patently absurd. Most of the book is specifically designed to be chronological in order. Seven seals, seven trumpets, and three woes. It was written like one would expect a fine clockmaker to write such a book.

This chronological order continues with the transition of the 'last trumpet' - the seventh one - to the Millennium. It continues with the binding up of Satan in the Abyss right into the Millennium, which explicitly is stated does not happen until that happens.

That binding its' self does not happening until "Babylon" falls and the "False Prophet" and "Beast" are 'thrown in the Lake of Fire'.

Granted, I have never found an amillenialist doctrine which denies that, at least, some events preceding the Millennium description have not already come to pass. One of these (I will not state which one) is relatively reasonable, but still, very strange.

'God is not a God of chaos, but of order'.

4. The very bad explanations or arguments against pre-millenialism. I would really like to hear some good ones, but I find I only get evasion.

And what ones are given are evasive and really bad standards of proof.


There are many other reasons for it, but these are some of the top ones which come to mind.

I say believe in Pre-millinalism and don't worry about us who do not. Why do you need confirmation? Ultimately, we just don't know right? So, be content with your view of eschatology and immerse yourself with all those who are like minded as you. BUT, if you have some reservation or are not perfectly convinced, then I am sure you can make time to research this very contested subject.

 

[ewq1938]

For anyone unclear, of the Millennium, it states that 'Jesus reigns for a thousand years with his saints'.

And some of those saints had their heads cut off during the great trib for refusing to take the mark and then they resurrected into immortality to reign with Christ. Clearly none of those things have happened yet yet Amil claims we are in the thousand years so the saints resurrecting, the GT and the mark all would have to be historical events and since the resurrection happens at the 2nd coming further proves false the idea that the millennium is now.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

I say believe in Pre-millinalism and don't worry about us who do not. Why do you need confirmation? Ultimately, we just don't know right? So, be content with your view of eschatology and immerse yourself with all those who are like minded as you. BUT, if you have some reservation or are not perfectly convinced, then I am sure you can make time to research this very contested subject.

I have researched it. Hence, the severe problems with it I highlighted, which I find none can answer... or are unwilling to go that extra mile to attempt to do so.

Pretty big holes, but the Apostolic Church guy who responded to this thread may have a more tenable position. Waiting to see his answers.

I think everyone should be able to explain their viewpoints in a reasonable manner.

Avoiding doing so sends up red flags to me.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

And some of those saints had their heads cut off during the great trib for refusing to take the mark and then they resurrected into immortality to reign with Christ. Clearly none of those things have happened yet yet Amil claims we are in the thousand years so the saints resurrecting, the GT and the mark all would have to be historical events and since the resurrection happens at the 2nd coming further proves false the idea that the millennium is now.

Good points, thank you.

 

[HTacianas]

Thank you, I was just thinking on how the Barbourites and Watchtower society holds or held that belief. (So do the Catholics and Orthodox, but they have the Catholic Church and 'Holy Roman Empire' to explain on that one.)

Regardless, this is new, and I expect you will be much more forthcoming then they.

So, some questions:

1. Does your group believe the events preceding Chapter 20 as having happened already, or no?

2. Does your group relate the fall of Babylon and the 'throwing into the lake of fire of the Beast and False Prophet' as being associated with the Reformation?

3. Satan is locked up and 'unable to deceive the nations any longer', so how do you see the atrocities by the Nazis, Communists, Islamists? (Or, for instance, outlaying groups, such as the Hutus and the Rwandan genocide?)

The original apostolic Churches are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The Orthodox Church has no official teaching on the Revelation, except that it condemned the idea of a literal millennium on the earth in the fourth century. The Nicene Creed was modified to reflect that Christ's reign "shall have no end".

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And some of those saints had their heads cut off during the great trib for refusing to take the mark and then they resurrected into immortality to reign with Christ. Clearly none of those things have happened yet yet Amil claims we are in the thousand years so the saints resurrecting, the GT and the mark all would have to be historical events and since the resurrection happens at the 2nd coming further proves false the idea that the millennium is now.

Interesting. I am confused on that.
So where do Amills see the 2nd coming/Parousia, occurring in Revelation?

Luke 21:28 shows the Saints' redemption upon the destruction of Jerusalem. What does that mean? Did that happen in 70ad?

Luke 21:
22 That days of Vengeance these are, of the to be fulfilled all the having been written, .
23 “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
For there will be Great Distress in the land and Wrath/ὀργὴ <3709> upon this people.
28 Of beginning yet of these to be becoming, up-bend! and lift up! the heads of ye, thru that is nearing the redemption of ye.'

I keyed in the phrase "day of God" shown in 2 Peter, and came up with only 2 verses in the Bible:

2 Peter 3:12
waiting for and hasting to the parousia<3952> of the day of God, by which the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements with burning heat shall melt;

Revelation 16:14
For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and[fn] of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

"Almighty" occurs in only 1 verse outside of Revelation in the NT:

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)
"almighty" occurs 57 times in 57 verses
Last time used in OT:

Joel 1:15
Alas for the day!
For the day of YAHWEH is at hand;
It shall come as destruction from the Almighty.

The phrase "God Almighty" occurs in 11 verses

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)

"god almighty"occurs 11 times in 11 verses, 6 verses in Revelation

Revelation 4:8
The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying:
“Holy, holy, holy,[fn] Lord God Almighty,
Who was and is and is to come!”

Revelation 11:17
saying:“We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty,
The One who is and who was and who is to come,[fn]
Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.

Revelation 15:3
They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying:
“Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty!
Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints![fn]

Revelation 16:7
And I heard another from[fn] the altar saying,
“Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.”

Revelation 16:14
For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and[fn] of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Revelation 21:22
But I saw no Sanctuary in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its Sanctuary.



.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

The original apostolic Churches are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The Orthodox Church has no official teaching on the Revelation, except that it condemned the idea of a literal millennium on the earth in the fourth century. The Nicene Creed was modified to reflect that Christ's reign "shall have no end".

Yes, I read that on the wiki, regarding the Orthodox viewpoint. I also read all of their books, the Philokalia. Ended not long after the break with Rome. There were some interesting works from Russia since then.

I do not really have any major judgment about their belief system, though their modern model is weak.

I do not recall any truly massive and persistent immoralities in their history, as is the case with the Catholic Church. Ruling out the possibilty of the Millennium as not yet having come, however is not good.

Otherwise the Orthodox and Catholic churches are still standing, and so do you continue to accept their authority as apostolic churches, and if not, why not?

 

[ewq1938]

Interesting. I am confused on that.
So where do Amills see the 2nd coming/Parousia, occurring in Revelation?

They believe Jesus is the fire God sends down:

Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Interesting. I am confused on that.
So where do Amills see the 2nd coming/Parousia, occurring in Revelation?

Luke 21:28 shows the Saints' redemption upon the destruction of Jerusalem. What does that mean? Did that happen in 70ad?

Luke 21:
22 That days of Vengeance these are, of the to be fulfilled all the having been written, .
23 “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
For there will be Great Distress in the land and Wrath/ὀργὴ <3709> upon this people.
28 Of beginning yet of these to be becoming, up-bend! and lift up! the heads of ye, thru that is nearing the redemption of ye.'

I keyed in the phrase "day of God" shown in 2 Peter, and came up with only 2 verses in the Bible:

2 Peter 3:12
waiting for and hasting to the parousia<3952> of the day of God, by which the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements with burning heat shall melt;

Revelation 16:14
For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and[fn] of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

"Almighty" occurs in only 1 verse outside of Revelation in the NT:

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)
"almighty" occurs 57 times in 57 verses
Last time used in OT:

Joel 1:15
Alas for the day!
For the day of YAHWEH is at hand;
It shall come as destruction from the Almighty.

The phrase "God Almighty" occurs in 11 verses

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)

"god almighty"occurs 11 times in 11 verses, 6 verses in Revelation

Revelation 4:8
The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying:
“Holy, holy, holy,[fn] Lord God Almighty,
Who was and is and is to come!”

Revelation 11:17
saying:“We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty,
The One who is and who was and who is to come,[fn]
Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.

Revelation 15:3
They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying:
“Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty!
Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints![fn]

Revelation 16:7
And I heard another from[fn] the altar saying,
“Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.”

Revelation 16:14
For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and[fn] of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Revelation 21:22
But I saw no Sanctuary in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its Sanctuary.



.

The Temple was destroyed, and there was great distress on that land, but these other verses are speaking of another time and place, one which that foreshadowed... something even the amillienialists and post-millenialists tend to believe in what they see as the Second Coming.

As for which biblical verses are fulfilled at the coming of the millenium and which are fulfilled at what they see as the Second Coming, they do not know.

It is okay, to not know, but what explanations I have seen are poorly done and nonsensical.

At best, perhaps one could say that the events described preceding the Millennium in Revelation do not happen until after Satan is thrown into the Lake of Fire?

Or, somewhere during?

But, in context of the transition... this seems like putting the cart before the horse.

Really a disorganized mess.

As for this question, "Interesting. I am confused on that.
So where do Amills see the 2nd coming/Parousia, occurring in Revelation?"...

I believe ewq's answer suffices, but it raised for me a good point on amillienialists: that, personally, I have seen strange enough things that I forget how it can be.

That is, I feel no need to fill in the blanks on how it is the nations would dare attack. Which means I do not fill in the blanks on the substance of the Millennium.

I have been head scratching on why I keep getting this answer from them, therefore, on why they think we must have a Kingdom in the flesh. There are simply so many other possibilities on that. And, they seem to have no problem claiming they already rule the earth, spiritually, through Christ... so it seems like a painful double standard.

The bodies we will have are hidden within, but explained at the Transfiguration.

One does not have to full blown transfigure to find perfection that comes at the rapture.

Jesus perfect, having that full grown body within. One which we saw Moses and Elijah also had, though, they 'slept'.

'Those who sleep precede those still alive'...

 

[HTacianas]

Yes, I read that on the wiki, regarding the Orthodox viewpoint. I also read all of their books, the Philokalia. Ended not long after the break with Rome. There were some interesting works from Russia since then.

I do not really have any major judgment about their belief system, though their modern model is weak.

I do not recall any truly massive and persistent immoralities in their history, as is the case with the Catholic Church. Ruling out the possibilty of the Millennium as not yet having come, however is not good.

Otherwise the Orthodox and Catholic churches are still standing, and so do you continue to accept their authority as apostolic churches, and if not, why not?

Yes, I do accept their authority as apostolic.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Yes, I do accept their authority as apostolic.

What about all of the other Protestant denominations? Are they inferior to the Catholic and Orthodox church, and if so, why?

(By implication, this seems to be your argument.)

 

[HTacianas]

What about all of the other Protestant denominations? Are they inferior to the Catholic and Orthodox church, and if so, why?

(By implication, this seems to be your argument.)

I believe that the protestant communities are under the jurisdiction of the Roman Church.

Please, whoever's reading this, I am not flaming in any way. I am merely expressing my beliefs.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

The original apostolic Churches are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The Orthodox Church has no official teaching on the Revelation, except that it condemned the idea of a literal millennium on the earth in the fourth century. The Nicene Creed was modified to reflect that Christ's reign "shall have no end".

Christ eternal Kingdom obviously doesn't have an end , however His 1,000 literal reign on this sin soaked world will have an end.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

I believe that the protestant communities are under the jurisdiction of the Roman Church.

Please, whoever's reading this, I am not flaming in any way. I am merely expressing my beliefs.

Thanks for being respectful.
That being said the Church in no way whatsoever are not under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church.
Christ is the head of the Church not the RCC or any other denomination.

 

[ewq1938]

Christ eternal Kingdom obviously doesn't have an end , however His 1,000 literal reign on this sin soaked world will have an end.

Yes, the rod of iron reign has an end but Jesus reigns forever. This reign ending thing is an Amil strawman fallacy.

 

[Billy Evmur]

Interesting. I am confused on that.
So where do Amills see the 2nd coming/Parousia, occurring in Revelation?

Luke 21:28 shows the Saints' redemption upon the destruction of Jerusalem. What does that mean? Did that happen in 70ad?

Luke 21:
22 That days of Vengeance these are, of the to be fulfilled all the having been written, .
23 “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
For there will be Great Distress in the land and Wrath/ὀργὴ <3709> upon this people.
28 Of beginning yet of these to be becoming, up-bend! and lift up! the heads of ye, thru that is nearing the redemption of ye.'

I keyed in the phrase "day of God" shown in 2 Peter, and came up with only 2 verses in the Bible:

2 Peter 3:12
waiting for and hasting to the parousia<3952> of the day of God, by which the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements with burning heat shall melt;

Revelation 16:14
For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and[fn] of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

"Almighty" occurs in only 1 verse outside of Revelation in the NT:

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)
"almighty" occurs 57 times in 57 verses
Last time used in OT:

Joel 1:15
Alas for the day!
For the day of YAHWEH is at hand;
It shall come as destruction from the Almighty.

The phrase "God Almighty" occurs in 11 verses

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)

"god almighty"occurs 11 times in 11 verses, 6 verses in Revelation

Revelation 4:8
The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying:
“Holy, holy, holy,[fn] Lord God Almighty,
Who was and is and is to come!”

Revelation 11:17
saying:“We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty,
The One who is and who was and who is to come,[fn]
Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.

Revelation 15:3
They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying:
“Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty!
Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints![fn]

Revelation 16:7
And I heard another from[fn] the altar saying,
“Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.”

Revelation 16:14
For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and[fn] of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Revelation 21:22
But I saw no Sanctuary in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its Sanctuary.



.

The most common confusion I have found with Amills is not understanding the difference between the Jerusalem [and Jewish] interpretation of "the day of God Almighty" and Paul's "day of Christ" which he refers to in 2.Thess.2. as "that day"

2.Peter makes it very clear, and directly in relation to one day being as a 1,000 years with the Lord, referring to the end times he mentions beloved Paul who wrote many things that are hard to understand, according to the wisdom given to him.

Important words there. Only Paul understood the church among the nations, the Jerusalem crowd refused to leave Jerusalem for they were still labouring under the idea that the nations would flock to Jerusalem, yes despite all the Lord's showing them that the gospel was to go to the nations.

This is exactly why Paul was raised up. He is the apostle to the nations.

Only Paul understood the rapture, he understood that if the church was among the nations they would have to be removed before God would pour out His wrath [God's wrath is not tribulation...'nother topic]

So Pauls "that day" or "the day of Christ" are different to the Jerusalem crowd's "Day of God Almighty" They talk about loud bangs and fervent heat to the melting of the elements etc but Paul speaks about the creation being released from it's bondage to decay, Paul speaks about God's plan for the fulness of time, a synonym for the 1,000 years, God's plan is to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth.

Both prophetic outlooks are correct, but the Jewish one happens AFTER the 1,000 years.

 

[Billy Evmur]

The most common confusion I have found with Amills is not understanding the difference between the Jerusalem [and Jewish] interpretation of "the day of God Almighty" and Paul's "day of Christ" which he refers to in 2.Thess.2. as "that day"

2.Peter makes it very clear, and directly in relation to one day being as a 1,000 years with the Lord, referring to the end times he mentions beloved Paul who wrote many things that are hard to understand, according to the wisdom given to him.

Important words there. Only Paul understood the church among the nations, the Jerusalem crowd refused to leave Jerusalem for they were still labouring under the idea that the nations would flock to Jerusalem, yes despite all the Lord's showing them that the gospel was to go to the nations.

This is exactly why Paul was raised up. He is the apostle to the nations.

Only Paul understood the rapture, he understood that if the church was among the nations they would have to be removed before God would pour out His wrath [God's wrath is not tribulation...'nother topic]

So Pauls "that day" or "the day of Christ" are different to the Jerusalem crowd's "Day of God Almighty" They talk about loud bangs and fervent heat to the melting of the elements etc but Paul speaks about the creation being released from it's bondage to decay, Paul speaks about God's plan for the fulness of time, a synonym for the 1,000 years, God's plan is to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth.

Both prophetic outlooks are correct, but the Jewish one happens AFTER the 1,000 years.

Surely the rap in Revs is when John saw the multitude which no man could number suddenly appear in heaven..."these are they who have come out of great tribulation"