Why didn’t any of the gospels or epistles ever mention the 1000 years?

[Marty fox]

And who was resurrected in 30AD and still alive and reigning in Jerusalem today?

You have to totally change the context, the text, and make it say something totally foreign to what is actually written.

We were all raised spiritually when we believed

Colossians 3:1
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

 

[Marty fox]

No bigger than leaving out the making of the image of the beast and making it come alive and talk, the mark of the beast, the false prophet, the seven seals, seven trumps and seven vials, ascension of the two prophets, the 42 months of the beast, the war in heaven, 600 and 60 and 6 (666), the sealing of the 144k, the bloody winepress, Armageddon, the harlot Babylon, new Jerusalem coming from heaven, a new fruit every month from the tree of life in the eternity etc.

Revelation contains information no other part of the bible does.

Events are different than reigning Paul taught that it is happening now

Romans 5:17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

In 2 Corinthians 12 Paul talks about being taken up to heaven and shown many future things. We read about many of these events in his epistles like the rapture or the man of lawlessness but why didn’t Paul ever mention a literal thousand year reign of Christ on the earth?

The early church seamed to know all that they needed to know about the future or end time events before the book of revelation was written from the gospels or John’s and Paul’s and all of the other epistles but none of them ever mentioned the literal thousand year have you wondered why?

The only really new thing about the millenial kingdom that Jesus establishes when He physically returns to earth is the length of time it endures.

Teh OT is loaded with scores of descriptions of life in that kingdom. The NT reveals nothing new except the time frame.

 

[Marty fox]

ok, nice imo…but how do you define “Church?”

We the saints

 

[Jay Ross]

Why did they never mention the Pilgrims arriving in the America's? Why did they not mention Christopher Columbus? Why not state 2 WWs in the 1900's?

Perhaps, it is best to acknowledge that we will not see what is plainly stated in the Scriptures.

The world wars in the 20th century are mentioned by John in the Book of Revelation but our scholars when it was first translated could not perceive such a time period as this when they transposed the scriptures into the English Language nor did John give a time period that it was associated with. It has only become obvious with hindsight and the confirmation of two prophecies.

The Coalition of the willing lead by the "King of the north," i.e. the president of the USA, is also found in the scriptures in the Book of Jeremiah for those who have an eye to see the events unfolding that have occurred during the time that Israel has been actively seek God. But we need to understand the significance of Jeremiah's words and the consequences of the Coalition of the Willing's actions after they have withdrawn to basically return home to their own country.

The nominal "1,000" year time period can be associated with the largest number that can be counted upon the ten digits on our two hands with practiced dexterity.

In our present lifetime, we have witnessed events that have occurred in one region of the earth live around the whole earth that herald a time of judgement that is coming around 40 years after that particular display of signs and wonders.

References to a 1,000 years period of time can be found in the Gospel accounts, but metaphors describing the "1,000" years in the scriptures hide this time period from us unless we have eyes to see the revelation of when these important time periods will begin. Sadly, what can be seen of this "1000" year time period in the future has been obscured by our lack of understanding of what was being conveyed in the original texts.

Often the words used by the ancient writers of the scriptures provided the best means of describing what they saw. Our problem today is being able to transpose their descriptions into common objects that we can see today that could be used to perceived in the objects that they were familiar with. What we need is the winds of the spirit to be able to fly into the realms of comprehension within todays world.

Shalom

 

[GEN2REV]

No one would actually benefit or live out those thousand years until 2,000 years after Jesus was on earth. The church age is not the 1,000 year reign of Christ. That is why it was not mentioned in the Gospels. Jesus was making disciples for the church age, not a 1,000 year reign where He would physically be present, that would not happen for at least another 1992 years.

So Jesus revealed the very beginning of the story in Matthew 24:29-31, but left out all the rest of it, I guess.

That makes sense.

 

[ewq1938]

Events are different than reigning Paul taught that it is happening now

Paul did not say the rod of iron rule over the nations is now. Rev 2 and 19 and 20 show it is after the second coming.

Rev 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

That is the second coming. Everything we read of next comes after the second coming:

Rev 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

After "the end" comes, there is given power over the nations to those that are overcomers which naturally includes those who "are alive and remain" at the second coming. They will be given power over the nations after Christ has returned not before it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why did they never mention the Pilgrims arriving in the America's? Why did they not mention Christopher Columbus? Why not state 2 WWs in the 1900's?

What are you hoping to accomplish by posting something ridiculous like this? It does nothing but make you look like someone that no one should take seriously.

 

[Taken]

Why didn’t any of the gospels or epistles ever mention the 1000 years?
OP ^

From the beginning, God revealed His Knowledge, bit by bit, little by little...same as we do with our own little children.



John 16:
[12] I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because it was not important to mention in the grand scheme of things. Preaching the gospel and getting people saved was. And salvation was not dependant on understanding the 1000 years

Jesus reigning and His followers reigning with Him is not important to mention? I couldn't disagree more. And it is mentioned a number of times in the New Testament apart from Revelation 20, but never in terms of Him reigning on the earth. That is something important to consider when determining the timing of Revelation 20 and what it is really all about.

 

[ScottA]

In 2 Corinthians 12 Paul talks about being taken up to heaven and shown many future things. We read about many of these events in his epistles like the rapture or the man of lawlessness but why didn’t Paul ever mention a literal thousand year reign of Christ on the earth?

The early church seamed to know all that they needed to know about the future or end time events before the book of revelation was written from the gospels or John’s and Paul’s and all of the other epistles but none of them ever mentioned the literal thousand year have you wondered why?

The reason is because the times of the gospels primarily pertained to Israel, while the thousand year prophecies primarily pertain to the gentiles.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why didn’t any of the gospels or epistles ever mention the 1000 years?
OP ^

From the beginning, God revealed His Knowledge, bit by bit, little by little...same as we do with our own little children.



John 16:
[12] I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

But Revelation 20 references Jesus reigning, references His followers as being priests of God and of Christ, references fire coming down on unbelievers on earth and references the judgment. That is not the first time those things are referenced in the New Testament, so why would you think that the time period of the thousand years is not referenced anywhere else in the New Testament?

 

[Taken]

But Revelation 20 references Jesus reigning, references His followers as being priests of God and of Christ, references fire coming down on unbelievers on earth and references the judgment.

Yes.

That is not the first time those things are referenced in the New Testament,

The question specific was about a TIME period of Jesus’ Kingdom On Earth.

so why would you think that the time period of the thousand years is not referenced anywhere else in the New Testament?

Well uh, I think that because, no where else in the NT do I find that specific Time period...

If you have.....why are you not sharing?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The question specific was about a TIME period of Jesus’ Kingdom On Earth.

Are you not willing to address my point? Other things referenced in Revelation 20 are referenced in other places in the New Testament, so why not the thousand years as well? I'm not saying that it is specifically referenced as "the thousand years" elsewhere, but that time period is referenced.

Well uh, I think that because, no where else in the NT do I find that specific Time period...

If you have.....why are you not sharing?

Just read the NT. That time period is written about throughout the NT because that time period is the New Testament time period. Or church age or whatever you want to call it. You don't see anywhere else in the NT that speaks of Christ reigning? It's everywhere. He began reigning after His resurrection. Do you deny this?

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Ephesians 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[Taken]

Are you not willing to address my point? Other things referenced in Revelation 20 are referenced in other places in the New Testament, so why not the thousand years as well? I'm not saying that it is specifically referenced as "the thousand years" elsewhere, but that time period is referenced.

So? What about it? If the specific 1,000 year time frame is of no interest to you, what do you want me to do about it?

Just read the NT. That time period is written about throughout the NT because that time period is the New Testament time period. Or church age or whatever you want to call it. You don't see anywhere else in the NT that speaks of Christ reigning? It's everywhere. He began reigning after His resurrection. Do you deny this?

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Did I say I denied that?

Ephesians 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

And? Not news, He is Head of His Church.
Are you amiss? Not all are members of His Church.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

You highlight ....Jesus is “prince of the kings of the earth”....?
Obviously, you are not aware a “prince is an underling of a king”.

During Jesus’ 1,000 year reign, He reigns as KING over kings of the Earth, and LORD over lords of the Earth.

 

[ewq1938]

Are you not willing to address my point? Other things referenced in Revelation 20 are referenced in other places in the New Testament, so why not the thousand years as well? I'm not saying that it is specifically referenced as "the thousand years" elsewhere, but that time period is referenced.

LOL.

So you ask Premills why the thousand years is not mentioned outside of Revelation 20 then admit that it doesn't have to be specifically referenced as long as the time period is? Sounds like hypocrisy.

 

[ewq1938]

Obviously, you are not aware a “prince is an underling of a king”.

Clearly you don't know Greek very well because you are very wrong on that.

 

[Timtofly]

What are you hoping to accomplish by posting something ridiculous like this? It does nothing but make you look like someone that no one should take seriously.

Because you don't accept a future reign on earth with Christ. Jesus did not have to spell out every single detail of the next 3,000 years. He did not even have to say it would be 2,000 years until the Second Coming. Most of you think the Millennium reign is just as carnal as Christopher Columbus, or WWs, so why not list them.

You may think it ridiculous to think at all. Since you seem set in your ways and "having arrived". Some of us are still thinking out loud and reasoning out the Word of God.

So if you think reasoning out the Word of God is just nonsense, it must be torture coming on these furums.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So? What about it? If the specific 1,000 year time frame is of no interest to you, what do you want me to do about it?

When did I say that time period is of no interest to me?

Did I say I denied that?

So, you agree that Jesus reigns now. Doesn't that tell you anything about the timing of Revelation 20? It should.

And? Not news, He is Head of His Church.
Are you amiss? Not all are members of His Church.

Does He not have authority over those who are not in the Church? Of course He does. I quoted Matthew 28:18 where He said He was given all power/authority over heaven and earth and you indicated that you don't deny that.

You highlight ....Jesus is “prince of the kings of the earth”....?
Obviously, you are not aware a “prince is an underling of a king”.

During Jesus’ 1,000 year reign, He reigns as KING over kings of the Earth, and LORD over lords of the Earth.

You are trying to interpret scripture with flawed human logic. Do you actually think He is not the King of kings and Lord of lords of the earth now? Of course He is! He said Himself that all power/authority in heaven and earth was given to Him. And Paul wrote that the Father raised Him from the dead and placed Him at His right hand "far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked...in this age" and "placed all things under His feet". All things includes the kings and lords of the earth. In other translations like the NIV, the word is translated as "ruler" instead of "prince" and I think that is a better translation. Obviously, the fact that the KJV translates it as "prince" has caused confusion for you. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords NOW.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL.

So you ask Premills why the thousand years is not mentioned outside of Revelation 20 then admit that it doesn't have to be specifically referenced as long as the time period is? Sounds like hypocrisy.

What in the world are you talking about? You clearly misunderstood the point I was making. Does that time period need to be referred to specifically as "the thousand years" in order for that time period to be referenced? Of course not. That's my point. No hypocrisy whatsoever. Nice try.