1000 years of Revelation 20.

[JesusFan]

Where is what you call the Messianic kingdom discussed in the other epistles? Where does Jesus mention a Messianic kingdom? Where does Revelation mention a Messianic kingdom?

1000 year reigning and ruling of Jesus after Second Coming event

 

[JesusFan]

That is not what the text states. That may be what you were taught it means, but that is not what is states. Stick first with what is stated. Rev. 22:18. I gotta go but let me recommend you get out your Bible and read the first 20 verses of the book and read it as literally as you can, as objectively as you can. Take it exactly as written without all the biases all the many teachers have preached. Start with the text itself exactly as written, apart from all the Historicist, Amillennial, Postmillennial, Dispensationalist, and Idealist viewpoints you've heard over your Christian life. Stop yourself each time you hear your mind say, "It refers to....."

It does not "refer" to anything other than what it states.

Where it does refer to something other than what is stated the text explains itself. Once all the millennia of speculation is discarded the book of Revelation is not particularly difficult to understand.

The Second and physical resurrection still yet to come , as is an Antichrist figure

 

[Arial]

1000 year reigning and ruling of Jesus after Second Coming event

That isn't where it says that. That is how you interpret what it says. Could you be wrong? A literal thousand-year reign in Jerusalem is never explicitly stated. And if that were the case, that would be (according to premils) the glorious promised second coming of Christ, wouldn't you think explicit mention would be front and center? Mentioned again and again. But it was not. Not by Jesus and not by the apostles. A single passage in Revelation is presumed to mean that. That passage was a vision, in the genre of apocalyptic prophecy, in a book that sends its message through symbolic images and numbers. And the reason it is presumed to mean that is because the reader has set a hermeneutical focus on the nation Israel and the Jewish people when interpreting the OT, instead of where it belongs from Gen forward---on the Redeemer.

Consider that.

 

[JesusFan]

That isn't where it says that. That is how you interpret what it says. Could you be wrong? A literal thousand-year reign in Jerusalem is never explicitly stated. And if that were the case, that would be (according to premils) the glorious promised second coming of Christ, wouldn't you think explicit mention would be front and center? Mentioned again and again. But it was not. Not by Jesus and not by the apostles. A single passage in Revelation is presumed to mean that. That passage was a vision, in the genre of apocalyptic prophecy, in a book that sends its message through symbolic images and numbers. And the reason it is presumed to mean that is because the reader has set a hermeneutical focus on the nation Israel and the Jewish people when interpreting the OT, instead of where it belongs from Gen forward---on the Redeemer.

Consider that.

I understand why you view it as that, and just think that Covenant premil is a viable option one can hold from biblical Eschatology perspective