Posted on 06/15/2010 3:57:42 PM PDT by Ken4TA
Naw.
You made my point, I said you were an unbeliever. You don’t believe Rev. 20, if so, you are an unbeliever. It says a thousand years, but you say “naw.”
You don’t believe it, nor the resurrection of the righteous at the beginning of the thousand years, with the resurrection of the unrighteous at it’s end. Another “naw.” Instead you believe in a general resurrection - without a thousand years separating the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous.
As to the thousand years being the ONLY inheritance, the new heavens and earth, beyond the thousand years, is also the inheritance of the saints...as the Revelation also plainly says.
Both the millennial and the new heavens and earth are our inheritance, but you deny the first. If you don’t believe the millennial is our inheritance, then won’t get an inheritance you don’t believe in.
I do think you need to to a lot more studying of what the scriptures have to say about the end times and the return of Jesus.
Utter nonsense. I have taught 1st graders in Sunday School who would laugh at this silly statement and then refute it with a simple question, "if we are ruling with Him, why don't the bad people do what we say?" We WILL rule with Him, to be sure. But what we are doing right now isn't "ruling."
LOL! I realize you don't understand what I said, so you're forgiven. Think: Jesus is now King, sitting on his throne. What purpose is that if he is not ruling his subjects? Jesus' subjects, Christians, rule with Christ by spreading the gospel. In spreading the gospel those who don't believe and obey it are already judged; Christians heaping coals of fire on their heads (figuratively) - yet, by repenting and obeying the gospel they can be saved from God's judgement - second death. You may not understand this in my opinion, but it can be backed up with many scriptures which I don't have the time to produce herein. Maybe later..."ruling" may not be the best word here :-)
First Resurrection – just a small part of what Curtis Dickinson has to say.
The faithful saints in the church at Smyrna were told not to fear the devil, for if they were faithful they would “not be hurt of the second death” (Rev. 2:10–11). The reason was that they had experienced the first resurrection by their obedience to the Gospel and the guilt of their sin had been borne by Jesus. Their resurrection would be to eternal life. Partake of the first resurrection and you escape the second death, the destruction by fire. Reject the first resurrection and you must die twice: the temporal death all must suffer because of our mortal nature, and the second and final death because of sin.
The first resurrection take place when the believer obeys the gospel, dies to sin and is raised to a new life. “Or are you ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death that like as Christ was raised from the death through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3–4). When we are raised from the grave at Jesus’ command, it will be our second resurrection, only it will be to immortality. Paul wrote that we who are in Christ are no longer under condemnation (Rom. 8:1), but are “in the spirit” which gives life and we already have the first fruits of the spirit. Still, he said, we are waiting, “waiting for our adoption, to wit the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23).
Eternal and immortal life is assured the righteous in this life because they are “in Christ” and have experienced the first resurrection from a state of deadly sin into a life “hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3). Therefore, “when Christ, who is our life shall be manifested, then shall you also with him be manifested in Glory” (Col. 3:4).
Such is the glory and triumph portrayed in the revelation given to John on the isle of Patmos. It is not given to confuse us nor to stir speculations as to the time of Christ’s coming, but to show us that in spite of all the beastly opposition the world can mount against Christ, the victory is assured to Him and His chosen.
But I absolutely DO believe Rev. 20! I just question why Wescott & Hort have changed the term translated as "a thousand" years from xilioi, a plural adjective, to xilia, a singular noun! The oldest Greek manuscripts have the term as "ho xilioi etos", which translates as "the thousands (of) years". Just how does one go from "thousands" to "thousand" and remain true to the recorded words used by Jesus given to John?
Both the millennial and the new heavens and earth are our inheritance, but you deny the first.
I deny neither! We are living in the thousands of years right now having been seated with Christ, just as Paul says in Ephesians 2:4-7. We Christians have been resurrected to walk in "newness of life" - the first resurrection - just as Paul said in Romans 6 1-10.
There are two deaths for every living being: natural death and spiritual death (so to speak). All men are destined to die once, and then the judgment. Unbelievers die naturally, then will die again in the lake of fire (which is the second death) after the resurrection of the last day. However, believers will die twice while on this earth: once naturally, and once spiritually (dead to sin - which is the first resurrection of what was once dead); then at the resurrection of the last day to be made immortal (our reward) to live forever on the New Earth in the New Heavens. See unbelievers: Two deaths, one resurrection. Believers: Two deaths, two resurrections. Easy to explain, hard to believe!
Again, utter nonsense. Ruling is ruling. Reigning is reigning. Sharing the gospel is neither.
Sharing the gospel is our mandate in this particular period of time so that when the Kingdom IS established on the earth, it will have enough people to administer it properly.
Again, utter nonsense. Ruling is ruling. Reigning is reigning. Sharing the gospel is neither.
Huh? Who can "reign" without "ruling"? BTW, haven't you read that we Christians (right now) are "reigning with Christ" who is seated on the throne of David?
The right hand of the Father is not the throne of David. Messiah is sitting there UNTIL His enemies are made a footstool for His feet. THEN he returns and rebuilds the fallen throne of David, on which he will sit and from which he will judge the nations.
Actually, you are saying that the David's throne is empty? Right? But I say that Jesus is sitting on the throne of David right now. I admit that takes some study to find. Anyway, David's throne is God's throne, and Jesus is the one that was raised from the dead to sit on that throne. Scriptures say that Jesus is now sitting on that throne - in heaven. I don't have the time at present to show you all the scriptures that back my statement up - maybe later. But I'll stand firm on what I said.
It is true that Jesus was raised from the dead so that he could sit on David's throne. Just not right away.
David's throne is not God's throne. David's throne is David's throne. Jesus as the son of David will sit on David's throne. Jesus now sits at the right hand of God, the Father. When He returns, He will sit on His glorious throne and will judge the nations. And THEN you can rule with Him. :)
Explain this: "Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father,..." (I Chr. 29:23). When God ruled the Hebrews there was no King but Him, and the only throne was the one God sat upon in Heaven. But when the people complained about having no King as the other nations do, God let them have a King and he sat upon the Lord's (Jehovah no less!) throne! Thusly we find that David's throne is actually God's throne. Jesus now sits with the Father on His throne, reigning over His subjects. That's as short as I can make it :-)
So you are saying that David sat at God’s right hand?
Absolutely not. David sat on God's throne as King over God's chosen people.
You replied: Absolutely not. David sat on God's throne as King over God's chosen people.
Ok, the throne David sat on was not at the right hand of God the Father. And yet, Jesus, who sits at the right hand of God, the Father is sitting on David's throne. Do you realize how convoluted that is. In order to make your theology coherent, you are going to have to get your thrones straight.
Before there was a "King" in Israel, God reigned from His throne and the people knew it. But they wanted a "King" just like the other nations wanted - so, God's throne became available to "man" to sit on it and reign over the nations people. That throne became "David's Throne" on earth even though it is God's Throne. God revealed that one of David's seeds will one day reign on that "throne"; and it happened when Jesus assended up to heaven to sit on it with the Father. You've seen the strong verses that indicate that conclusion - how do you understand them?
Those verses only indicate the conclusion if the conclusion is first assumed. You asked me how I understand certain verses. It is better to inquire about my understanding of the Davidic Covenant, which can ONLY be understood in the light of the Son of David ruling on the earth. The book of the Revelation affixes a time-period to the length of his earthly rule, a millennium. Attempts of amillennialists to disregard that time period fall flat.
Read Acts 2:22-36. Understand that David's throne is promised to Jesus - and that David saw ahead that the one to sit on his throne was the Christ Jesus. Jesus ascended into heaven to sit on that throne. Jesus is immortal and can die no more, so he now reigns instead of anyone else; at the approval of God the Father, for the Father has given all power to Jesus to rule over heaven and earth.
Explain how you get that Jesus is to reign only during the so-called "one thousand years" mentioned in Rev. 20? Why would He need to do that? Who is He going to reign over, expecially with a "rod of iron"?
The Nations... as the King of Kings.
The Acts passage does not explicitly state that the right hand of God is the throne of David... you read it into the passage.
I feel your pain.
The Nations... as the King of Kings.
Hmmm....If all the saints are already resurrected and given immortality, then I take it that all the nations of the world are unsaved people, right? And that Jesus is going to rule them with a rod of iron? Interesting thought!
The Acts passage does not explicitly state that the right hand of God is the throne of David... you read it into the passage.
True, that I have to admit. But then when one considers that the OT tells us that David sat on the throne of God on earth, and that when Jesus returns it is not to result in forgiveness of sin but instead judgment, it is easy to see that Davids prodigy is Jesus as Acts tells us. One must take into consideration that Jesus was emphatic in saying that His return was to raise all the dead, some for everlasting life and others for judgment. Going by your thoughts, the dead ones raised for judgment will be ruled for 1,000 years by Jesus with a rod of iron - no saved people around.
Don't know if I got that correct, but Peter tells us that at Jesus' coming this earth will be destroyed along with all unrighteous men; and there will be a "new earth in new heavens" for the righteous to live on. Does that passage from Peter's second letter fit in with your schedule?
I would say that I don't have the same viewpoint as you about the time period of Revelation 20. I don't take it as a mere 1,000 years; mainly because the word translated as 1,000 actually is a plural term meaning "thousands". I have done a preliminary study on this issue, and it's available on my website for anyone to read and respond to if they wish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.