How many people do you think will be born in the millennial kingdom?

Aaron112 said:

My approach is from what the Creator has revealed in Scripture only -
not from any religion on earth.
If someone else agrees with Scripture - that is not any indication that
I knew about them or their ways , and that still stands.
Whether what you are stating about their approach is right or wrong , also
does not indicate why, so your assumptions in your posts are not proper nor right.

Click to expand...

you are not making any sense

Sorn said:

Without birth control a woman, who is healthy & not pregnant, can potentially fall pregnant every time they have sex.

Click to expand...

This is not true. And it has nothing to do with the presumptive posts you made previously with errors.

Sorn said:

you are not making any sense

Click to expand...

Simply, your assumptions and posts are in error.

Aaron112 said:

This is not true. And it has nothing to do with the presumptive posts you made previously with errors.

Click to expand...

ok, i'll qualify that by saying when they have sex during the right time of their menstrual cycle, but it still means that they can still fall pregnant every month and have a child every year or 2.
Sure, they can abstain from sex during their fertile period but then isn't that a form of birth control?

RandyPNW said:

So you suggest I'm unbiblical

Click to expand...

You said so.

RandyPNW said:

I acknowledge my statement was non-biblical, being based on current science and history. I'd like to hear about the "contrary in fact?"

Click to expand...

Aaron112 said:

You said so.

Click to expand...

I said my statements were extra-biblical--not anti-biblical. Consider the context of what I'm saying. Otherwise, you're just playing "gotcha."

Aaron112 said:

RandyPNW said:
I acknowledge my statement was non-biblical,

"gotcha"!

Click to expand...

"Non-biblical" is not *anti-biblical" -- go ahead and play your games by yourself. Science is not anti-biblical--it is extra-biblical. It is "non-biblical." You may not have a problem understanding--you may have a moral problem. But I'm not waiting around to find out.

Do you understand that modern genetic science is "non-biblical?" Do you understand that modern medical science is "non-biblical?" Lots of medical problems have been dealt with by "non-biblical" scientific understanding that has aided some of the medical issues that were not addressed in biblical times.

But the Bible does say that human life will be extended beyond what was normal in the times most of the Bible was written. One possibility is that advanced medical knowledge will enable people to live longer. This is *not* anti-biblical, as you seem to claim I'm saying. Rather, this is simply non-biblical surmising.

Playing "gotcha" games is adolescent. Go ahead and be entertained by your own rudeness. It won't get you anywhere as far as Christianity goes.

ValeriyK2022 said:

Modern Orthodoxy rejects hiliasm. Under the millennial kingdom, the Orthodox exegetic implies some rather long period from the first coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and up to the death of the world and the life of saints in paradise during this period..

Click to expand...

What an absurd statement! Modern orthodoxy does *not* view Chiliasm as unorthodox or heterodox! It was orthodox belief in the Early Church, and it is orthodox belief today, regardless of whether one agrees with it. Am I misunderstanding you?

ValeriyK2022 said:

In order to correctly understand the words and I saw the thrones and sitting on them, which was given to judge, and souls decapitated for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, who did not bow to the beast, nor his image, and did not accept the drawings of their own and on their hand. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (Rev. 20: 4), we must turn to the sacred about the Scripture as a whole. It clearly indicates that there will be only one coming of Jesus Christ in glory in order to make a court (Matthew 25: 31-38). There will be only one common resurrection on the last day (John 5: 25-29). And the kingdom will be one thing: he must reign, as long as he will lay all the enemies under his feet. The last enemy will destroy-death (1 Cor. 15: 25-26).

The above verse (Rev. 20: 4) does not say anything about the earthly millennium kingdom. Revolution is understood spiritual and moral. St. John the Theologian calls this the first resurrection (20: 5). The saints will reign with Christ in Paradise until a complete victory over the Antichrist, when the general resurrection and the court will occur. Then the souls of saints will connect to their bodies, and will reign forever. The number of "a thousand" is used symbolically as an expression of multiplicity and completeness.

Click to expand...

You're certainly entitled to your Amillennial opinion, and you're also certainly entitled to be called an "orthodox view." But you're *not* entitled to call Premillennialism "unorthodox" or "heterodox." Who does that?

Go ahead and argue your positions--this format may welcome a discussion in that regard. But when you begin by denouncing and categorizing another opinion as "corrupt," you do not debate sincerely. Your agenda is purely to promote your view among those who will accept it.

ValeriyK2022 said:

If we assume that after the second coming of Jesus Christ people will live on earth in their bodies for another 1000 years until the Last Judgment, then the Third Coming of Jesus Christ is also necessary to judge these people for their sins, which they will undoubtedly commit while continuing to live in these bodies damaged by sin. But the third coming of Jesus Christ is not written in the Bible.

Click to expand...

This is your error.

There is no sin, nor Adam's dead corruptible flesh in the Millennium. The Millennium is a restoration to humanity prior to Adam's disobedience.

Jesus will be present on the earth. Any disobedience will be immediate instant death. So, no, people will not be judged a second time after the millennium. The Millennium is for those already judged and removed from Adam's sinful body. That is the first resurrection; out of Adam's dead flesh into God's permanent incorruptible physical body. You have not experienced the first resurrection, if you are currently alive in that dead flesh from Adam.

RandyPNW said:

Do you understand that modern genetic science is "non-biblical?" Do you understand that modern medical science is "non-biblical?" Lots of medical problems have been dealt with by "non-biblical" scientific understanding that has aided some of the medical issues that were not addressed in biblical times.

Click to expand...

And thank God for that. Thank God that we now have discovered, through non-biblical science, a germ theory of disease and we can abandon the false, primitive Bronze-Age notion that maladies are caused by curses, or evil spirits, or sinning, or the Jews poisoning the water, etc... the way people used to believe under a strictly "Biblical" theory of disease.

Since the time of Christ's ascension there have been billions of people born. We don't know when our Lord will return in judgment and hand the kingdom over to the Father, so the number is at least as many as have been born over the last ~2,000 years, plus all who will be born between right now and the Lord's return.

-CryptoLutheran

parousia70 said:

And thank God for that. Thank God that we now have discovered, through non-biblical science, a germ theory of disease and we can abandon the false, primitive Bronze-Age notion that maladies are caused by curses, or evil spirits, or sinning, or the Jews poisoning the water, etc... the way people used to believe under a strictly "Biblical" theory of disease.

Click to expand...

Well yes and no, depending on what you mean by this? I think the natural penchant men have, including Christians, to judge causes them to blame demons for every malady that they experience. This obviously does not mean that evil spirits cannot cause maladies--the Bible indicates they do!

But yes, Christians often fear new information that challenges their set ways, which ways are not always inspired by God. For example, people became comfortable with the idea that the earth was the center of the universe and feared men like Copernicus and Galileo, who contradicted this view, even though in fact the earth was *not* the center of the universe!

So as technology advances, Christians need to remain flexible and recognize that not all of their foregone conclusions are accurate. They need to remain always open to God's voice to their conscience, being willing to test things by reason to know if we are right or not. I would agree with that.

Rejecting various kinds of medical aid is not biblical although the Bible does discourage Christians from leaning on pagans for assistance in things that God does not wish to be partners with. For example, God would not have us open a business with a pagan who is susceptible to making corrupt, immoral decisions that represent us as a partner.

We just need to be careful and to be discerning. Thanks for the comments. I would just add a comment on breaking news about the Pope, who is advocating for the need for Christians to "evolve" in their beliefs about divorced people and gay people.

I would agree that Catholics have been too stringent on matters of divorce and remarriage, but relaxing our beliefs about the immorality of gay people is not something that should ever be compromised. The Pope does not appear to be clear about what he is actually saying, and his ambiguity is somewhat telling about his willingness to relax traditional Catholic doctrine.

Timtofly said:

This is your error.

There is no sin, nor Adam's dead corruptible flesh in the Millennium. The Millennium is a restoration to humanity prior to Adam's disobedience.

Jesus will be present on the earth. Any disobedience will be immediate instant death.

Click to expand...

Show us where this is taught in scripture. Good luck.

Spiritual Jew said:

Show us where this is taught in scripture. Good luck.

Click to expand...

Show you where Adam's dead corruptible flesh lives on in heaven and earth?

Surely you don't think sin and death continue forever? Where is the verse that claims it all ends?

How do you interpret Daniel 9:24 with sin, evil, wickedness, and death still rampant on the earth?

RandyPNW said:

but relaxing our beliefs about the immorality of gay people is not something that should ever be compromised.

Click to expand...

I would challenge you on your statement “the immorality of gay people” and I would say unequivocally that not only a belief that gay people are intrinsically any more immoral than anyone else should be “relaxed”, it ought to be eliminated.

Gay people are no more intrinsically immoral that straight people.

Being gay is not immoral.
It what your DO that determines morality, not who you are. Being attracted to the same sex is not something gay people can control any more that I can control the fact that as a straight guy, I’m attracted to the opposite sex. We can only control what we do about it. That’s where morality comes into play.

I have gay friends and even family members who are purposefully celibate and are light years more “moral” than many of my straight friends and family members who I know have committed adultery, as an example.

Perhaps you didn’t mean to say that, and your beliefs are more in line with how I couched the issue, but I believe the distinction needs to be acknowledged.

Timtofly said:

Surely you don't think sin and death continue forever?

Click to expand...

Unless your are either a universalist or annhilationist, you must concede that sin and death will exist forever.

Eternal conscious punishment where the unrepentant suffer in their sin forever, is incompatible with the notion that sin and death are eliminated.

You can’t have somebody eternally suffering in a state of sin, in a universe where sin doesn’t exist anymore.

Perhaps your objection has more to do with the eternal location of sin and death that it’s certain eternal existence?

But a mere venue change doesn’t solve the philosophical problem of sin and death existing forever.

You either need to appeal to universalism or annihilationism for that.

parousia70 said:

I would challenge you on your statement “the immorality of gay people” and I would say unequivocally that not only a belief that gay people are intrinsically any more immoral than anyone else should be “relaxed”, it ought to be eliminated.

Gay people are no more intrinsically immoral that straight people.

Being gay is not immoral.
It what your DO that determines morality, not who you are. Being attracted to the same sex is not something gay people can control any more that I can control the fact that as a straight guy, I’m attracted to the opposite sex. We can only control what we do about it. That’s where morality comes into play.

Click to expand...

You are redefining being "gay." Being gay is not the attraction to the same sex, but rather, a commitment to a sexual relationship with the same sex. Temptations come with hormones, because in the flesh we are weak. But when the temptation becomes an indulgence, if only by intention, then it becomes "gay."

With this definition in mind, choosing to be "gay" is intrinsically "immoral." I never said, however, that having gay-like temptations, like homosexual fantasies that are suspended between temptation and choice to be gay, is immoral. We are having a typical breakdown in the language necessary to determine the Christian definition of "gay."

All people equally have temptations of various kinds, whether it is attraction to the same sex or attraction to the same sex. It only becomes immoral when we give in to these temptations and determine to *be* that thing that we are tempted to be and do.

I might, for example, have kleptomaniac tendencies, and be tempted to steal things that my eyes tend to covet, because in my past I may have sinned in this way. Having eaten of the apple, it is easier to fantasize the thing that we used to do that was wrong.

But still, we don't have to indulge those fantasies, and the mere thought that I may want to covet and steal something I want is not the same as actually being that kleptomaniac and indulging in theft.

I realize that Jesus said mere lusting after a woman in heart can be the sin of adultery. But again, lusting in the heart is more than imagination--it is the willful intention to take a married woman if the man yields to his temptation the actual thought to follow through.

parousia70 said:

I have gay friends and even family members who are purposefully celibate and are light years more “moral” than many of my straight friends and family members who I know have committed adultery, as an example.

Click to expand...

If they actually consider themselves to be "gay," as opposed to merely having temptations to be gay, then they are by definition "immoral." Others who are not gay may be as immoral as gays are, but following through with a temptation to *be* that thing is, by definition, immoral.

parousia70 said:

Perhaps you didn’t mean to say that, and your beliefs are more in line with how I couched the issue, but I believe the distinction needs to be acknowledged.

Click to expand...

Redefining being "gay" the way you do allows one to actually be gay and yet not feel immoral. But if he actually *is* gay in his thinking, then he is, by definition, immoral.

I refuse to confuse the matter. Being gay is, in Bible terms, wrong and corrupt. The steady slide to full-blown acceptance of homosexuality is a slide towards Sodom and Gomorrah.

A little sin becomes a bigger sin. And the more one sins, the more addicted to sin he becomes. Let's cut it off at the pass.

Let's not condemn people because they have too many of the opposite gender's hormones. Nor should we condemn anybody because they suffer temptations, due to their past lives. But let's not help them on the way to Divine condemnation either?

Timtofly said:

Show you where Adam's dead corruptible flesh lives on in heaven and earth?

Surely you don't think sin and death continue forever? Where is the verse that claims it all ends?

How do you interpret Daniel 9:24 with sin, evil, wickedness, and death still rampant on the earth?

Click to expand...

Was my question too difficult? I'm asking you to show where what you said in your post is taught in scripture. Any of it. You can start by showing where it indicates that "Any disobedience will be immediate instant death" during the supposed future Millennium. Again, good luck.

parousia70 said:

I would challenge you on your statement “the immorality of gay people” and I would say unequivocally that not only a belief that gay people are intrinsically any more immoral than anyone else should be “relaxed”, it ought to be eliminated.

Gay people are no more intrinsically immoral that straight people.

Being gay is not immoral.
It what your DO that determines morality, not who you are.

Click to expand...

But are they lusting after people of the same gender? That would be immoral and would be similar to how Jesus said that if anyone is lusting after someone else that isn't their spouse then they are committing adultery (Matt 5:28). It's not only what you do that determines morality, as Jesus indicated in the example I gave as well as when He said that hating someone makes you a murderer (1 John 3:15).

parousia70 said:

Being attracted to the same sex is not something gay people can control any more that I can control the fact that as a straight guy, I’m attracted to the opposite sex.

Click to expand...

This directly contradicts what Paul wrote here:

Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Paul indicated that to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex is unnatural, so for you to say they don't have any control over that contradicts what Paul indicated. If they have no control over being gay and being attracted to the same sex then it would be natural for them to be gay, but Paul indicated that it is unnatural for that to be the case.

RandyPNW said:

You are redefining being "gay."

Click to expand...

​

Not according to Webster:​

gay​

adjective​

ˈgā

1 of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's same sex