Ez 44 does look like a millennium scenario, but it could also apply to an eternal kingdom. People say it's not a literal temple, but I disagree. If there was a millennium, I think that Jesus would have mentioned it, even once? And as I've said before; Jesus said 'then the end will come' when asked about it.. yeah maybe the end of the age, but it seems to me that he is describing the sorting out of the fish in the net, the gathering of the wheat and the destruction of the tares.. not waiting for 1000 years.. it's over with.. that's what people in my church believe, even if on other occasions they cant see the contradictions in the Rev. scenario.. belief in a millennium doesn't seem to be big in Anglicanism. or Catholicism as far as I know.
The reason that I am stuck on the Paul thing, is because I haven't heard a good explanation to counter my ideas.. it's not just me that sees this.. I've read others who see the same thing and reach the same conclusion..
Paul says 'comfort one another with this'.. and so I remain stuck on that, because the day of the Lord, just isn't a thing to comfort anyone.
I agree with Biblewriter these days on this matter. The pre-trib rapture isn't a new idea.
As discussed; the millennium as depicted in Rev. doesn't work out either way, as literal or as the church age. It doesn't work out literal, as there is no good reason to set the devil loose from the abyss at the end of the 1000 years.. it just says 'the devil must be loosed' .. why?
no reason given, just accept it.. even if the devil was confined to the abyss, which I suppose is possible. And when exactly is the devil set loose? For how long?
I think that historically, people have preferred to go amillennial, for good reason, but that doesn't work.. the devil is not confined to the abyss during the church age.. the devil remains in heaven.