The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[WPM]

You deny that the Chiliasts spoke of the binding of Satan at Christ's 2nd Coming in the face of Irenaeus' clear statement of the same. You aren't objective, and you're not reasonably open to being critiqued.

Of course, I do! I wonder why? Because there are multiple quotes that I have presented above that prove that Irenaeus believed Satan was bound at the First Advent. You duck around these as if they don't exist and transpire to your own theories without any ancient support. This is totally ridiculous. You totally twist one quote that (ironically) makes NO mention of the second coming to prove your faulty analyze.

He understood the binding of the strong man 2,000 years ago related to the victory Christ won over Satan and Him spiritually establishing God’s Kingdom on the earth and invading the kingdom of darkness with the light of the Gospel and seeing the ignorance banished amongst the Gentiles. Satan can persecute, he can deceive, he can even destroy the body. But he cannot stop the light of God’s truth, (the good news of the kingdom) from going into the nations. He cannot prevent anyone from repenting and confessing Christ. This is completely up to the individual.

For this end did He put enmity between the serpent and the woman and her seed, they keeping it up mutually: He, the sole of whose foot should be bitten, having power also to tread upon the enemy’s head; but the other biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man, until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head,—which was born of Mary, of whom the prophet speaks: “You shall tread upon the asp and the basilisk; you shall trample down the lion and the dragon;” — indicating that sin, which was set up and spread out against man, and which rendered him subject to death, should be deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men]; and that the lion, that is, antichrist, rampant against mankind in the latter days, should be trampled down by Him; and that He should bind “the dragon, that old serpent” and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down. Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 23, 7).​

Irenaeus makes it abundantly clear that “the foe [Satan] was conquered.” We’re not looking at some future event. We are looking at a past victory which has resulted in an incredible ongoing spiritual reality. This is reinforced by the idea that he teaches that the said victory would be reinforced by Satan being subject to the power of man – the New Testament Church. This has been an ongoing reality for 2000 years. This is long been fulfilled.

This thesis starts off by describing the separation that came “between the serpent and the woman and her seed” after the Fall. Irenaeus identifies man’s great enemy and what he wrought. He then reveals God’s great antidote – the Lord Jesus Christ. He shows how Christ came to correct what was wrong. He testifies how Satan had been “biting, killing, and impeding the steps of man,” until the seed did come appointed to tread down his head, — which was born of Mary.”

Most sane theologians relate Genesis 3:15 to the cross of Calvary. They identify the injuring of Christ’s heel with the cross and the crushing of Satan’s head to the same. Once again, the defeat of sin and death are carefully identified with the binding of Satan. Irenaeus once again highlights the successful mission of Christ in addressing the sin issue and its awful consequences death. Sin was “deprived of its power, along with death, which rules [over men].”

The ancient writer relates the trampling down and bruising of the devil’s head to the victory of Christ’s ministry. The work of Christ is seen here by Irenaeus as causing a serious impairment of the devil’s strength, movement and ability. He is a crippled foe. He is impaired in his strategies. Satan had to be defeated for man to receive new life. The writer here shows this victory as a past event. He supports his contention by employing Genesis 3:15, which predicted the injuring of Satan at the cross: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

He relates the binding of the devil to the bruising of Satan’s head. He shows that through this Satan was subjected “to the power of man, who had been conquered so that all his might should be trodden down.” Multiple Scripture support this. This is not talking about some distant hope in some alleged future millennium after the second coming, it is talking about a current reality in our day. Satan is under the feet of the Church as they spread the good news of the Gospel throughout the nations. Through the binding of Satan, the Church has gained power over Satan. Jesus said in Luke 10:19, “Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.” We also see this in Matthew 16:16, 1 John 2:14, 1 John 4:4 and Revelation 12:11.

 

[WPM]

You deny that the Chiliasts spoke of the binding of Satan at Christ's 2nd Coming in the face of Irenaeus' clear statement of the same. You aren't objective, and you're not reasonably open to being critiqued.

Irenaeus believed that Satan will be destroyed at the Second Advent! You have been careful to duck around this in your posts. Irenaeus lists the resurrection at the coming of Christ as the time when the curse is finally removed, incorruption is introduced and death and the devil are eliminated. This climactic portrayal fits consistently with the Chiliast vision of future state. There is no space for sin and sinner, death and disease, war and terror, Satan and his demons. We are looking at a perfect pristine arrangement.

There shall in truth be a common joy consummated to all those who believe unto life, and in each individual shall be confirmed the mystery of the Resurrection, and the hope of incorruption, and the commencement of the eternal kingdom, when God shall have destroyed death and the devil. For that human nature and flesh which has risen again from the dead shall die no more; but after it had been changed to incorruption, and made like to spirit, when the heaven was opened, [our Lord] full of glory offered it (the flesh) to the Father (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, L.).​

The glorification of God’s people described in this ancient text occurs at the second coming. It is here that this corruptible will take on incorruption. This Chiliast father teaches that every vestige of the Fall is removed when Christ returns never to arise again. The approaching earth will be totally different from the current corrupt one and will be totally renewed and eternally free of corruption.

Irenaeus reckons that man’s sinful makeup must be changed in order to allow him to grace a future millennial earth. Every trace of the fall must be divested before entering into that new arrangement. This is accomplished by way of glorification. Whilst we have “earthly” bodies now, at the Lord’s Coming we will have new “spiritual” bodies. Our current bodies that are corruptible must be changed into incorruptible ones, so that no trace of the curse remains. Paul presents glorification as the means by which this supernatural metamorphous occurs.

According to this early writer, the saints will undergo the same simultaneous transformation that creation experiences. The creature is thus then adequately prepared to inherit the new incorrupt glorified earth. Both can now live in perfect harmony in God’s new order. This arrangement is shown to never again be blighted by the bondage of corruption. Man and creation enter into a new irreversible ongoing arrangement.

The ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire (Against Heresies Book I, Chapter X, 1 – Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world).​

Again, the coming of Christ is here represented as glorious and climatic. It involves God’s righteous final judgment upon all wickedness. There is no indication that sin and sinners survive the Lord’s future return. Wicked man and wicked angels are both collectively shown to experience “everlasting fire.”

This is classic Amil. This completely refutes the claims of Premils that Irenaeus was one of them. He wasn't! Ancient Chilaism and modern Premil are as far apart as day and night.

 

[jeffweeder]

No just one.

That would be the one Jesus refers to in the gospels and Revelation. 

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Tossing it back at me, huh? Nice try.

You are the one basically complaining about someone else taking the Amil vs. Premil debate too seriously and, yet, you spend quite a bit of time debating Amils yourself. So, why complain about someone else who is doing the same thing you are doing (taking part in Amil vs. Premil debates)?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Were you hoping they all would come on line and defend their error?

Has any poster here even defended that position?

What about all the pre-mill who don't push such theories?

They can ignore the criticism of those particular beliefs that they don't share. Is that too hard?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm saying that if God threatens us if we add or subtract with respect to the Revelation, perhaps it's safest to say, "I think this," or "I think that," rather than take a statement, turn it into an allegory, and then badger those who disagree with you?

I think you might be a tad bit overly sensitive. It goes without saying that we're all sharing our opinions here. Do we really have to say "I think this" or "I think that" all the time to make that clear? I think that is unnecessary.

We need to keep God front and center in our thoughts and doctrines, and keep charity our rule.

Yes, we should do that, but I have seen you fail to do that many times on this forum. For example, I have tried to politely ask you to stop using the term "replacement theology" when talking to me, but you continued to do so, anyway, even though you know it offends me. So, it's a little hard to take you seriously when you talk about things like this.

This is not a competition. This is not about human pride. This is about us being the subjects, and God being the Lord. We should not be promoting doctrines as if they belonged to us. They belong to God, and He decides what they mean.

Do you think I don't understand all of this? I promote doctrines like Amil and doctrines that relate to Amil (such as that Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords now and so on) because I strongly believe it is true. I don't think it belongs to me or any nonsense like that.

 

[WPM]

You deny that the Chiliasts spoke of the binding of Satan at Christ's 2nd Coming in the face of Irenaeus' clear statement of the same. You aren't objective, and you're not reasonably open to being critiqued.

You have previously located the fulfilment of this event at the First Advent:

that He should bind the dragon, that old serpent Revelation 20:2 and subject him to the power of man, who had been conquered Luke 10:19 so that all his might should be trodden down.

Hello! I agree. You see what I see - that this the binding of Satan refers to the First Advent.

In Luke 9:1 Jesus “called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils.” In Luke 10:17 the disciples testified: “Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” He responded: “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you” (Luke 10:18-19).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I should hope so. However, the argument about how "thousand" is used elsewhere in Scripture then is not valid.

If I'm merely making the point that the term CAN be used figuratively, then it is valid.

We already know it can be used as a saying, a metaphor, a symbol, or literally.

Yes, you know that, but there are some who don't even allow that possibility. Believe me, they are out there. That's why we have to show them the scripture about God's promises to "a thousand generations" and the cattle on "a thousand hills" and so on.

Why go to lengths to show it can be used metaphorically, if it is context that determines the meaning in Rev 20?

For the benefit of those type of people I'm talking about. If that's not you, fine. I'm not going to take time trying to convince you that the word can be used figuratively then. But, others need to be convinced.

I'm telling you what *God* said--not Man! God said don't mess with what is being said. That means, don't assume a passage, given at face value, can be interpreted symbolically.

LOL. Where does it say that?!!! Nowhere! You are twisting what it means to add to or take away from the book. It means to purposely add things to it or take away from its intended meaning. I am not doing that!! If I'm mistaken in my interpretation, so be it. It's not because I'm purposely trying to add or take away from it! I'm sincerely seeking the truth and trying to interpret it in such a way that matches up with the rest of scripture. Surely, the verses in Revelation you're talking about are not saying we should not do that!

In a book of Aesop's Fables you can find many statements that are made to be taken quite literally. The book of Revelation had many obvious symbols. That doesn't mean you can reduce to symbols everything you read in the book!

Exaggerate much? I am not doing that! I try to take the literal text literally and the symbolic text symbolically. We all believe there is a mix of the two in the book, but we obviously disagree on how much is literal and how much is symbolic. I take the following passage literally when it comes to the scope of people that it says will be destroyed when Jesus returns.

Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

Obviously, Jesus isn't going to destroy believers when He returns, so it should be obvious that this is talking about Him destroying unbelievers who are still on the earth at that point (we will be caught up "in the air" with Jesus). It indicates that "all people, free and slave, great and small" will be killed at that time. That is all-inclusive language that doesn't allow for exceptions (when it comes to His enemies). So, I take that very literally. Yet, here you are trying to tell me I symbolize everything in the book. Nonsense!

We agree that context determines how a word should be used. We cannot go to other books of the Bible to see how "thousand" should be used in Rev 20. We can't say, "Revelation has many symbols so I can reduce "thousand" in Rev 20 to a symbol." Without any obvious statement that renders "thousand" a metaphor, we must take it literally. At best we should say, "I'm not sure."

This really illustrates the problem with Premillennialism, in general. What you are basically telling me here is that we should interpret Revelation 20 in isolation from the rest of scripture and then interpret the rest of scripture in light of how we interpret Revelation 20 in isolation. That is not a wise approach! We should form the foundation of our doctrine on clear scripture and then interpret scripture within highly symbolic books like Revelation accordingly. I interpret Revelation 20 in such a way that doesn't contradict what other scripture teaches. But, you're basically telling me I shouldn't do that. Unbelievable!

Other scripture teaches that Jesus reigns now (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-23, etc.), that we are priests of the Father and the Son now (Rev 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9), that all of the dead will be resurrected at generally the same time (Daniel 12:1-2, John 5:28-29) and that all people will be judged at the same time (Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50, Matthew 25:31-46, John 5:28-29). So, I interpret Revelation 20 accordingly instead of trying to change what those other scriptures say in light of interpreting Revelation 20 in isolation.

I'm not arguing what I wish to see in Rev 20. I'm arguing only what is there. Do you see anything in Rev 20 itself that demands a "thousand years" be taken symbolically? I don't.

In Revelation 20 itself, I neither see anything that explicitly indicates whether it is figurative or literal. So, we can't determine that just from the Revelation 20 text itself. Do you not take other scripture into consideration when interpreting Revelation 20? Why wouldn't you?

Randy isn't making that his claim. Randy is saying that is what he sees, the same that you see, the same that we all see. We do not see an obvious need to take a "thousand years" symbolically.

We need to do that in order to not contradict many other scriptures, such as the ones I referenced above.

That's why Amils typically go elsewhere in the Bible to prove that a "thousand" can be used symbolically. But we already know this.

Not everyone does. Believe me on this. We sometimes have to show people that because they are unaware of it.

We already know "thousand" can be taken any number of ways, and we don't need to prove it.

Except that we do. You're not an Amil, so you don't know what we've come across sometimes in these debates. There are some who can't even fathom how the word "thousand" could possibly be used figuratively in scripture, so we have to show them. We don't do it to prove that it has to be used that way in Revelation 20, but just to prove that it can be.

It is the context in Rev 20 that determines whether a "thousand years" is to be taken literally or not. To be safe, I just take it as I read it, with full recognition of the context.

How exactly does the context of Revelation 20 determine that? I believe that is nonsense. The context does not indicate one way or another if it's literal or not, so we have to take our understanding of other scripture into it in order to determine that.

I cannot assume that the thousand years is symbolic of the NT age. That actually sounds way off the charts of what is in this chapter. And that's why early Church Fathers had a number of prominent Chiliasts.

I don't care what people from long ago believed except for the actual authors of scripture. False doctrine has existed for a long time now, so showing what some people believed back then has no bearing on what I believe. And Justin Martyr made it clear that there were many who didn't agree with his Premil beliefs, so there was a variety of beliefs back then just as there still are today. We can't determine what is true based on that. If a vast majority believed one way then we obviously should take that into consideration, but that wasn't the case.

 

[Timtofly]

Why can you not tell the truth?

Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

That was as a corruptible sinner. Not the time prior to being placed in the Garden of Eden.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. Hello! What else can we go on apart from the "remaining works of the Church Fathers"? That is such a ridiculous argument. It is also another glaring admission that the surviving works that history has left us totally negate your thesis. You need to take it up with the ancient Chiliasts why you view them as inconsistent about their belief re Revelation 20. Your battle is with them, not me. The reality is: this is another proof to the fact that their views were heavily influenced by elements of apostate Judaism who believed in a future millennium devoid of Satan's little season.

What do you mean "you say the earliest Chiliasts were largely Amillennialists because they didn't speak much about the binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming"? When speaking on my behalf, quote me accurately. When have i said "much" in regard to the existence of evidence on this subject? Hello! They did not teach it at all. This has been shown to you countless times on this thread. You twist one quote by Irenaeus to support your bias, but that is exposed by several other unambiguous and damning quotes on the same subject by the same author that forbid your claims. So far, you have not brought one single authentic historic rebuttal to the table.

What do you mean "they didn't speak much of the mortality and sin nature of those in the Millennium"? Again, where do you get this "much" from? They did not teach it at all! You have been unable to bring any evidence to the country to the table because you know what I'm saying is true. You have admitted that they did not believe this. Now you are doing another U-turn. That is your pattern. That is your form. It is so hard to take your rebuttal serious. They are contradictory.



Not so. When we look for the originators and formulators of modern-day Premillennialism we actually arrive at four shadowy early figures. The first two operated at the very infancy of early Church history – Cerinthus of Asia Minor (AD 50-100) and Marcion of Sinope, Asia Minor (Born: AD 85, Died: AD 160). Both of these were viewed as arch-heretics and were strongly resisted by the early Church fathers for their corrupt perversion of Christianity. They invented a dual-covenant concept of two parallel yet coexisting peoples of God, under two different agreements, serving two different gods, with two different time-tables and two different ultimate outcomes. This was seasoned throughout with Gnostic elements.

Philip Schaff says in his History of the Christian Church (Volume 2, Chapter 12): “The Jewish chiliasm rested on a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic kingdom, a literal interpretation of prophetic figures, and an overestimate of the importance of the Jewish people and the holy city as the centre of that kingdom. It was developed shortly before and after Christ in the apocalyptic literature, as the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4th Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. It was adopted by the heretical sect of the Ebionites, and the Gnostic Cerinthus.”



This is a political answer. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth at the one time. That is not advisable. In one breath you are admitting to my claim and then the next you are denying it. You must admit it because it is a fact. You deny it because you are a bias commentator who refuses to do the hard work required in order to establish the facts.

You have not addressed them in detail. Your answers consist of you promoting your opinions, instead of acknowledging their position. This only serves to reinforce the Op. Facts are stubborn things!

See?

You still have not pointed out they were comparing the first coming to the Second Coming. That is what Amil do. Not what the ECF did.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Find any Greek dictionary of the bible. Online, bible hub and blue letter bible are exzcellent. It is not the first and normal definition, but is a perfectly accurate definition of "heis hora" in greek writing.

You understand that I'm not saying that it can't refer to a time period, right? I believe it is referring to a time period in a verse like Revelation 17:10 rather than a literal one hour (60 minutes). The point here is that you seemed to think that there is something in the text itself which indicates that "one hour" is a time period rather than a literal one hour, as in 60 minutes. Where are you seeing that in the text itself? It's not there. You are discerning that. Just like we Amils discern that the thousand years isn't a literal one thousand years.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That was as a corruptible sinner. Not the time prior to being placed in the Garden of Eden.

LOL. You can't be taken seriously when you try to say that Adam was 1,930 years old when he died. Not that you could be taken seriously, anyway, but things like this just make it impossible to take you seriously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is not what the Lord said any where. No where did Jesus claim He will return after 1,000 years. No one should accept that belief.

Where did Jesus claim that He would return before the thousand years?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If you are seriously interested, I will post you the series of verses about life on earth during the 1,000 year kingdom.

Jewsih , Gentile sacrificial systems. millenial temple the varied lands that stay destroyed, government etc. But only if you really wish to know.

I don't ask questions for no reason, so of course I'm interested in what scriptures you base your beliefs on. For reference, this is what I had said that you responded to here:

What would be the purpose of these supposed offerings at this supposed Millennial temple? Keep in mind that keeping the feast of tabernacles involves giving offerings for the atonement of sins.

So, in particular, I'd like you to show me the verses which show the purpose of the offerings you believe will be made at a supposed future Millennial temple which are in line with keeping the feast of tabernacles.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well I fully recognize that the other 4 instances of 1,000 are symbolic or euphemistically used because not from some mystic revelation but because of grammar and construct!

REv. 20 has no construction to lend itself to be taken euphemistically or symbolically. If anything the construct confirms we should view these 1,000 years as literal.

That is simply not true. We can't use any grammar rules or anything else to determine whether the thousand years is literal. We need to use spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit and we need to use other scripture to help us so that we don't interpret it in such a way that contradicts other scripture. The idea that whether it is literal or not can be determined from the Revelation 20 text alone is just false. Period.

Once again just because something is symbolic in one place does not demand it is symbolic everywhere.

Can you show me where I said otherwise? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Well six occurences of a tim epassage in a very few verses all connected , when no words to inform us it is a comparative or symbolic usage is powerful evidence God is trying to teach.

Again, the number of times it is used has no relevance to whether or not it is literal. Why can't you acknowledge that? The beast is referred to over 30 times in the book of Revelation. Does that make it a literal beast? Obviously not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Of course it makes sense that we can still look forward to Revelation 21 while experiencing Revelation 20. John did, because that is how he wrote it down in the book of Revelation.

You missed the point. I was talking about this verse:

2 Peter 3:13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

I assume you understand "his promise" refers to the promise of His coming that was first mentioned in 2 Peter 3:4 and referred to again in 2 Peter 3:9. It is in direct fulfillment of His second coming that we look forward to a new heaven and a new earth. If the new heaven and new earth weren't ushered in until 1000+ years after the fulfillment of the promise of His second coming, then this verse would not make sense. Instead, it should say we look forward to a temporary earthly kingdom in keeping with His promise of coming again instead of saying we look forward to a new heaven and new earth in keeping with the promise of His second coming.

Yes, considering Amil is not spelled out any where in Scripture both OT and NT.

It looks like you don't know what the word "ironic" means. It also looks like you didn't read what was being discussed very carefully, which is not surprising.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That would be the one Jesus refers to in the gospels and Revelation. 

yep! Right before the 1,000 year reign begins.

Jesus is already on earth for teh troubles found after teh 1,000 years are over and Satan deceives one more time!

 

[jeffweeder]

yep! Right before the 1,000 year reign begins.

Jesus is already on earth for teh troubles found after teh 1,000 years are over and Satan deceives one more time!

Satans activity in all unrestrained power goes forth one last time just before the judgment and destruction of the deluded at the second coming.

2Thess 2

7 For the mystery of lawlessness [rebellion against divine authority and the coming reign of lawlessness] is already at work; [but it is restrained] only until he who now restrains it is taken out of the way. 8 Then the lawless one [the Antichrist] will be revealed and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of His mouth and bring him to an end by the appearance of His coming.

9 The coming of the [Antichrist, the lawless] one is through the activity of Satan, [attended] with great power [all kinds of counterfeit miracles] and [deceptive] signs and false wonders [all of them lies], 10 and by unlimited seduction to evil and with all the deception of wickedness for those who are perishing, because they did not welcome the love of the truth [of the gospel] so as to be saved [they were spiritually blind, and rejected the truth that would have saved them]. 11 Because of this God will send upon them a misleading influence, [an activity of error and deception] so they will believe the lie, 12 in order that all may be judged and condemned who did not believe the truth [about their sin, and the need for salvation through Christ], but instead took pleasure in unrighteousness.

13 But we should and are [morally] obligated [as debtors] always to give thanks to God for you, believers beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through the sanctifying work of the Spirit [that sets you apart for God’s purpose] and by your faith in the truth [of God’s word that leads you to spiritual maturity]. 14 It was to this end that He called you through our gospel [the good news of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection], so that you may obtain and share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So you think God cracks jokes? OK.

No, I don't. Show me where I indicated that. Good luck.

Considering evolution, a thousand generations is quite literal. Considering the time it would take for 1,000 generations, God was just making a joke.

What? You speak unintelligible gibberish. God was just making a joke? What in the world?

Your point is 1,000 is just relative nonsense without any meaning or point at all, except a point Amil attempt to use when they have no other recourse.

What do you think "a thousand generations" means in Deuteronomy 7:9? What do you think "a thousand hills" means in Psalm 50:10?

If you think that God goes around pointing out nonsense, then you are worse off than I imagined.

Why would I think something ridiculous like that? Are you capable of saying anything but ridiculous nonsense? I can't take you seriously. I can't waste any more of my time on this.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You understand that I'm not saying that it can't refer to a time period, right? I believe it is referring to a time period in a verse like Revelation 17:10 rather than a literal one hour (60 minutes). The point here is that you seemed to think that there is something in the text itself which indicates that "one hour" is a time period rather than a literal one hour, as in 60 minutes. Where are you seeing that in the text itself? It's not there. You are discerning that. Just like we Amils discern that the thousand years isn't a literal one thousand years.

Well I didn't seem to think based on the one verse. I based that on the whole counsel of Scripture based on all verses talking about the ten kings!

So, in particular, I'd like you to show me the verses which show the purpose of the offerings you believe will be made at a supposed future Millennial temple which are in line with keeping the feast of tabernacles.

I will try. I am not sure the bible gives a why for the sacrifices, but just announces that there are the sacrifices. Tomorrowe is busy. we have several showings of our house so Please leave me a reminder tomorrow and I will try to list all the verses about life in teh millenial including teh millenial temple and sacrificial system.

I don't ask questions for no reason, so of course I'm interested in what scriptures you base your beliefs on. For reference, this is what I had said that you responded to here:

I hope to have teh verses categorized and listed by Friday for you.

That is simply not true. We can't use any grammar rules or anything else to determine whether the thousand years is literal. We need to use spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit and we need to use other scripture to help us so that we don't interpret it in such a way that contradicts other scripture. The idea that whether it is literal or not can be determined from the Revelation 20 text alone is just false. Period.

Well when your spiritual discernment differs from others spiritual discernemnt- who is right? You because you say so? I have read over a dozen "interpretations" of what the 1,000 years mean. They all claim they got them by spiritual discernment from god and they all differ! And all of them say the 1,000 years is not literal. Whose spiritual deiscernment is the right spiritual discernemnt.

And no. god wrote Scripture so the average believer with their limited understanding and education could understand and frow in the word. God did not hide anything so we need to have a man who claims to have gotten the "real interpretation" from god spiritually. That is a cult mentality. Do you believe Jesus literally rose physically from teh dead? What about those who spiritually discerned He didn't? Are they wrong because they simply disagree with you?

I believe He physically rose form teh dead on the third day because it is written in plain simple language with no construct or words to tell anybody it was not to be taken literal.

Spiritual discernment is not taking the word of God and subtly reinterpreting it. Spiritual discernemnt is the Spirit empowering our souls to receive th eworld of God as is written with all the rules of grammar invovled.

Remember Paul says the natural man receive not the things of God! Does that mean they reject the physical resurrection of Jesus for their sins because that needs to be spiritually discerned and "reinterpreted by that supposed discernment?"

when do yo0u tak passages that are writtn in a literal manner literally and when do you take them spiritually to be discerewned and tell us all what they really mean? How do you know? whose authority do you change what is plainly written?