• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Questions for Amillennialism

The time of the messianic Age though would require a world worship, as in all nations, Yahweh and His King the messiah, and that has yet to happen
Who is Jesus King over now?

Why does the fulfillment of Jesus as King require him to be present on earth ruling from Jerusalem in order to fulfill the promise of a descendant of David on a physical throne? Show me from Scripture that is exegeted within the consistency of all of Scripture. Something that doesn't fracture the historical account of redemption. The historical account of redemption is the story line that runs through the entire book.
 
Who is Jesus King over now?

Why does the fulfillment of Jesus as King require him to be present on earth ruling from Jerusalem in order to fulfill the promise of a descendant of David on a physical throne? Show me from Scripture that is exegeted within the consistency of all of Scripture. Something that doesn't fracture the historical account of redemption. The historical account of redemption is the story line that runs through the entire book.
Jesus is in His role of our High priest, and will transition to being the messianic King once his Kingdom is established over entire earth at Second Coming event
 
Jesus is in His role of our High priest, and will transition to being the messianic King once his Kingdom is established over entire earth at Second Coming event
So you have said. You have never shown that Scripture says that.
 
The time of the messianic Age though would require a world worship, as in all nations, Yahweh and His King the messiah, and that has yet to happen
Prove it.
 
The time of the messianic Age though would require a world worship, as in all nations, Yahweh and His King the messiah, and that has yet to happen
I'll be happy to discuss that with you as soon as I read an answer explaining how it is Jesus' reign proves unsuccessful and ends with a rebellion involving "the nations in the four corners of the earth." You said the messianic age would be no more wars but Rev. 20:7-10 reports many nations assemble for battler and get consumed by fire falling down from heaven.

That sounds like a war to me.

How do you reconcile these things?
 
I'll be happy to discuss that with you as soon as I read an answer explaining how it is Jesus' reign proves unsuccessful and ends with a rebellion involving "the nations in the four corners of the earth." You said the messianic age would be no more wars but Rev. 20:7-10 reports many nations assemble for battler and get consumed by fire falling down from heaven.

That sounds like a war to me.

How do you reconcile these things?
Its the end of the Messianic Age upon the earth, as that final rebellion shows to us that even while mankind is being ruled over in paradise, still wish to follow Satan in rebellion against its Creator
 
Its the end of the Messianic Age upon the earth, as that final rebellion shows to us that even while mankind is being ruled over in paradise, still wish to follow Satan in rebellion against its Creator
How do you reconcile the assertion there will be no more wars with the scriptural fact a war ensues immediately after the thousand years? You said the messianic age (a phrase not found anywhere in the Bible) would be no more wars. Maybe there is a typo in the original post and what you meant to said was there will be no more wars in the messianic age. If that is the case, then please clarify that for everyone AND then explain the function and purpose of a temporary cessation of war. Everyone gets ten centuries off from war. So what? There have been times when there were no wars were rumored in various locales, at least one of them lasted more than a century. A lack of war and no rumors of war is not a particularly new thing for some locales. The chief remarkable aspect of Rev. 20's prospective lack of war would be the length of time.

But the hiatus still ends with war.

Jesus' reign still ends with rebellion.

Jesus' reign is temporary and it could be argued to be a failed reign given the fact it ends with war.

Is this what you hope for?
.....that final rebellion shows to us that even while mankind is being ruled over in paradise, still wish to follow Satan in rebellion against its Creator
So, the reign of Christ had absolutely no positive effect on the character of those over whom he ruled? 🤨

How do you reconcile the fact the promise to seat a descendant of Davids on the throne was said by God to be everlasting, but by definition a thousand years is a fixed and finite period of time?
 
How do you reconcile the assertion there will be no more wars with the scriptural fact a war ensues immediately after the thousand years? You said the messianic age (a phrase not found anywhere in the Bible) would be no more wars. Maybe there is a typo in the original post and what you meant to said was there will be no more wars in the messianic age. If that is the case, then please clarify that for everyone AND then explain the function and purpose of a temporary cessation of war. Everyone gets ten centuries off from war. So what? There have been times when there were no wars were rumored in various locales, at least one of them lasted more than a century. A lack of war and no rumors of war is not a particularly new thing for some locales. The chief remarkable aspect of Rev. 20's prospective lack of war would be the length of time.

But the hiatus still ends with war.

Jesus' reign still ends with rebellion.

Jesus' reign is temporary and it could be argued to be a failed reign given the fact it ends with war.

Is this what you hope for?

So, the reign of Christ had absolutely no positive effect on the character of those over whom he ruled? 🤨

How do you reconcile the fact the promise to seat a descendant of Davids on the throne was said by God to be everlasting, but by definition a thousand years is a fixed and finite period of time?
there is the Earthly Messianic Reign, but then eternal state ruling
 
show me the verses, please.
After a literal 1000-year reign (the Millennium) following his return, Jesus hands over the perfected kingdom to God the Father, fulfilling 1 Corinthians 15:24
 
After a literal 1000-year reign (the Millennium) following his return, Jesus hands over the perfected kingdom to God the Father, fulfilling 1 Corinthians 15:24
That is mishmash copy-and-paste eisegesis. The fact of scripture is that there is a rebellion, a war after the thousand years of Rev. 20. The millennial "kingdom" isn't perfected. It ceases to exist. 1 Corinthians 15:24 is NOT fulfilled. 1 Corinthians 15 is about the Lord handing over the kingdoms to the LORD, but that does not reconcile with your interpretation of Revelation 20. 1 Cor. 15 happens after all rule, authority, and power has been abolished. The Greek word there for abolished or annulled is "katargese," which means to make it cease to exist (not keep it around in a tortured stated in perpetuity). They are all gone. Such an interpretation self-evidently contradicts what is explicitly stated in Rev. 20.

  • a thousand-year period of time exists,
  • Jesus reigns in heaven with the beheaded believers during those thousand years,
  • after the thousand years Satan gathers armies to surround the saints,
  • Those armies are devoured by fire coming down from heaven,
  • there is a sentencing ceremony (the judgment has already been rendered - John 3:19) where all the bad guys, hell, and death get tossed into a fiery lake,
  • the old heaven and earth pass away and is replaced by a newer version (all of the old rules, authorities, and powers are gone),
  • Jesus comes to earth


That is what Rev. 20-21 states. No added interpretation needed, wanted, or existent.


Do you not see the contradictions within your own posts (one post contradicts another) and how the sequences in your posts do not reconcile with plainly read scripture?
 
According to Bible Hub, What does amillennialism mean?

Amillennialism is an interpretive position that understands the “thousand years” mentioned in Revelation 20 not as a future literal reign of Christ on earth lasting exactly one thousand years, but as a symbolic representation of Christ’s current spiritual reign
Amillennialists read Revelation 20:1-6 as depicting the spiritual reality of Christ’s reign, with “a thousand years” representing completeness or a long, unspecified period. As Revelation’s language is often apocalyptic, the focus lies on Christ’s reigning authority rather than the precise duration of a future earthly kingdom.​

This might sound a little nasty, but that makes me think of a Docetic form eschatology. Instead of jumping to conclusions, it's better to ask the question: What do you mean by "spiritual" (Christ's current spiritual reign or spiritual reality of Christ's reign)? Just, so my fellow believers in Christ knows, I am a Historical Premillennialism, and we believe Christ is reigning 'right now' is physical and not spiritual according to his human nature. For instance, the 3rd Council of Constantinople (A.D. 681), states:

For in the same manner that his all-holy and spotless ensouled flesh, though divinised, was not destroyed, but remained in its own law and principle also his human will, divinised, was not destroyed, but rather preserved, as Gregory the divine says: “His will, as conceived of in his character as the Savior, is not contrary to God, being wholly divinised."​

According to the Council of Constantinople that Christ’s glorified humanity is not destroyed, which is basically assert that the resurrection does not dissolve, absorb, or override the human nature but instead confirms its full ontological integrity. Nothing human is lost, replaced, or swallowed by the divine; the human nature assumed in the incarnation is the selfsame human nature raised in glory. The resurrection introduces no fusion of essences, no mixture of properties, no blurring of natures. Instead, the human nature remains genuinely human in every respective way. This condition safeguards the continuity of Christ’s human nature from Bethlehem to Calvary to resurrected from the empty tomb to the exalted at right hand of the Father and reigning with all power and authority. The risen Christ is not a divine apparition, not a symbolic presence, not a spiritualized projection. He is the same Jesus, now glorified, whose humanity remains real, intact, and fully operative.
Maybe this is all over my head (Eschatology ain't my thang), but I've never heard an Adherent of Amillenialism say Christ is only a Spirit now...

Is that what the OP is claiming Amillenialism teaches? If it does, I'll have to depart from Amillenialism right now...
 
Maybe this is all over my head (Eschatology ain't my thang), but I've never heard an Adherent of Amillenialism say Christ is only a Spirit now...

Is that what the OP is claiming Amillenialism teaches? If it does, I'll have to depart from Amillenialism right now...
No Amillennialism does not say that but the OP made another critical mistake in defining Amillennialism.
Amillennialism is an interpretive position that understands the “thousand years” mentioned in Revelation 20 not as a future literal reign of Christ on earth lasting exactly one thousand years, but as a symbolic representation of Christ’s current spiritual reign
Amillennialism considers this present age (that is the time period between the advents of Christ) as the millennial period. That is a whole other category than the one confused into it (as a definition), of the future reign of Christ. Amillennialism itself defines the thousand years. The current reign of Christ is a theological topic within Amillennialism. Amillennialism does not consider its interpretation of the thousand years as a symbolic representation of Christ's current spiritual reign.
 
No Amillennialism does not say that but the OP made another critical mistake in defining Amillennialism.

Amillennialism considers this present age (that is the time period between the advents of Christ) as the millennial period. That is a whole other category than the one confused into it (as a definition), of the future reign of Christ. Amillennialism itself defines the thousand years. The current reign of Christ is a theological topic within Amillennialism. Amillennialism does not consider its interpretation of the thousand years as a symbolic representation of Christ's current spiritual reign.
A Sound Doctrine or Theology can show good reasons to believe it, even without a Verbatim Verse which plainly states it. I probably will always be Amill; the Thousand Years are as Symbolic as a Thousand Cattle, symbolizing Fullness not Numbering. But if he has a "Good reason" Amillenialism is Docetic, I'd like to hear it...
 
A Sound Doctrine or Theology can show good reasons to believe it, even without a Verbatim Verse which plainly states it. I probably will always be Amill; the Thousand Years are as Symbolic as a Thousand Cattle, symbolizing Fullness not Numbering. But if he has a "Good reason" Amillenialism is Docetic, I'd like to hear it...
Reminds me of "The Gods Must Be Crazy", in which the Kalahari native says he thinks it will take him 20 days to reach the end of the earth (to throw the "evil thing" off the edge). I didn't find out til long after watching the movie that their biggest number was 20. It just meant a long time.
 
A Sound Doctrine or Theology can show good reasons to believe it, even without a Verbatim Verse which plainly states it. I probably will always be Amill; the Thousand Years are as Symbolic as a Thousand Cattle, symbolizing Fullness not Numbering. But if he has a "Good reason" Amillenialism is Docetic, I'd like to hear it...
I have a hard time seeing this state before the second coming event as being what the OT Prophets described as being the messianic Age
 
A Sound Doctrine or Theology can show good reasons to believe it, even without a Verbatim Verse which plainly states it. I probably will always be Amill; the Thousand Years are as Symbolic as a Thousand Cattle, symbolizing Fullness not Numbering. But if he has a "Good reason" Amillenialism is Docetic, I'd like to hear it...
I agree as does amillennialism. But that is not the definition of amillennialism it is a component of it. And it does not teach as suggested by @Binyawmene, that Christ's reign is only spiritual and not bodily. That is how he began though he backtracked somewhat as time went on but he never left the category mistake of the opening paragraph. His intent of discussion was the current reign of Christ in amillennialism.

He has a reason for considering Amillennialism as Docetic, but it is not a good one. It is based on his original fallacious assumption that Christ is reigning only spiritually and not in body in Amillennialism. Which was based on the presupposition that if his body isn't present on earth he is not bodily reigning. A way of supporting something that can't truly be supported by Scripture. The Dispensational view of a literal thousand-year reign on earth in Jerusalem. It is what the Historic Premillennialist and the Dispensational Premillennialist have in common.
 
Last edited:
I have a hard time seeing this state before the second coming event as being what the OT Prophets described as being the messianic Age
I'm sorry; I'm real slow when it comes to Eschatology. I call myself a Fundamentalist; meaning my thoghts are elementary and BASIC. I need to go slow; I don't know what that means..

I'm not messing with you...
 
Reminds me of "The Gods Must Be Crazy", in which the Kalahari native says he thinks it will take him 20 days to reach the end of the earth (to throw the "evil thing" off the edge). I didn't find out til long after watching the movie that their biggest number was 20. It just meant a long time.
When I saw that movie back in the late eighties, early nineties, I never laughed so hard in my life. I wonder if I would think it that funny now?
 
When I saw that movie back in the late eighties, early nineties, I never laughed so hard in my life. I wonder if I would think it that funny now?
I wouldn't be surprised to find out I've watched it twenty times.

The sequel is just about as good, better done technically. Same sort of idea, though, with all these cultures colliding.
 
Back
Top