The 1000 year Millennium from the Bible

[EarlyActs]

I thought it was interesting because it was actually astrology. However, it has nothing to do with what we call astrology, but more to do with astronomy. They added meaning to constellations and star positions due to activites on earth. So basically, all of creation is an incredibly complicated watch.

The alignment meant a king would be born. It doesn't say what king. This alignment had happened before for other kings. This is why the star led them to where they were going, and stopped above the house. They had no idea where the king would be, and had been following His star.

No evidence for that. (Which is not an argument against, but moves this into the realm of conjecture. Just like the person who says they proved the exact date of Jesus birth, and it actually is December 25th.)

I prefer God's interpretation of what the statue is, since he took the time to tell us. It is not polite to add to what God says.

Abraham knew. I mean, he actually talked with Jesus. (The Angel of the Lord is a epiphany, the preincarnate Jesus.) Abraham knew what was to come, and He rejoiced when Jesus day had come.

That is the astrology of today. It meant something different in the past.

Watch the video on the star of bethlehem. I don't remember what it is called. A fun exercise in "you still can't be sure", but informative.

They had no idea where the king would be
This is way, way off of course. They knew they would be going to Israel from Daniel's explanation of Shiloh's star.

 

[EarlyActs]

I thought it was interesting because it was actually astrology. However, it has nothing to do with what we call astrology, but more to do with astronomy. They added meaning to constellations and star positions due to activites on earth. So basically, all of creation is an incredibly complicated watch.

The alignment meant a king would be born. It doesn't say what king. This alignment had happened before for other kings. This is why the star led them to where they were going, and stopped above the house. They had no idea where the king would be, and had been following His star.

No evidence for that. (Which is not an argument against, but moves this into the realm of conjecture. Just like the person who says they proved the exact date of Jesus birth, and it actually is December 25th.)

I prefer God's interpretation of what the statue is, since he took the time to tell us. It is not polite to add to what God says.

Abraham knew. I mean, he actually talked with Jesus. (The Angel of the Lord is a epiphany, the preincarnate Jesus.) Abraham knew what was to come, and He rejoiced when Jesus day had come.

That is the astrology of today. It meant something different in the past.

Watch the video on the star of bethlehem. I don't remember what it is called. A fun exercise in "you still can't be sure", but informative.

"No evidence"
??? What are you talking about. The models of the stars date way back. The understanding was all over the ANE. Ps 19 says everywhere knows what these stars are saying. Then you add Shiloh's star and Daniel's more precise details and friendship with them 4 centuries early. The answer narrows way down.

 

[EarlyActs]

I thought it was interesting because it was actually astrology. However, it has nothing to do with what we call astrology, but more to do with astronomy. They added meaning to constellations and star positions due to activites on earth. So basically, all of creation is an incredibly complicated watch.

The alignment meant a king would be born. It doesn't say what king. This alignment had happened before for other kings. This is why the star led them to where they were going, and stopped above the house. They had no idea where the king would be, and had been following His star.

No evidence for that. (Which is not an argument against, but moves this into the realm of conjecture. Just like the person who says they proved the exact date of Jesus birth, and it actually is December 25th.)

I prefer God's interpretation of what the statue is, since he took the time to tell us. It is not polite to add to what God says.

Abraham knew. I mean, he actually talked with Jesus. (The Angel of the Lord is a epiphany, the preincarnate Jesus.) Abraham knew what was to come, and He rejoiced when Jesus day had come.

That is the astrology of today. It meant something different in the past.

Watch the video on the star of bethlehem. I don't remember what it is called. A fun exercise in "you still can't be sure", but informative.

re I prefer God's interpretation
As if I don't! The interp is given in the chapter. 3 powers arise and the 4th one is the weakest and is smashed by the arrival of the kingdom of God in the 1st century. Do you have some other interp of it (non counting the people who split it off to the future for no reason)?

 

[EarlyActs]

I thought it was interesting because it was actually astrology. However, it has nothing to do with what we call astrology, but more to do with astronomy. They added meaning to constellations and star positions due to activites on earth. So basically, all of creation is an incredibly complicated watch.

The alignment meant a king would be born. It doesn't say what king. This alignment had happened before for other kings. This is why the star led them to where they were going, and stopped above the house. They had no idea where the king would be, and had been following His star.

No evidence for that. (Which is not an argument against, but moves this into the realm of conjecture. Just like the person who says they proved the exact date of Jesus birth, and it actually is December 25th.)

I prefer God's interpretation of what the statue is, since he took the time to tell us. It is not polite to add to what God says.

Abraham knew. I mean, he actually talked with Jesus. (The Angel of the Lord is a epiphany, the preincarnate Jesus.) Abraham knew what was to come, and He rejoiced when Jesus day had come.

That is the astrology of today. It meant something different in the past.

Watch the video on the star of bethlehem. I don't remember what it is called. A fun exercise in "you still can't be sure", but informative.

Abraham knew.
Why do you sound like you are contradicting me when you I just said the same thing? "The Gospel was preached to Abraham"--Gal 3, so that would be the Gospel found in Gal 3.
Yes Abraham was told many ways; even the Isaac event told him something. But there is no doubt of the play on words in the Hebrew: one count is the calculation of the stars, the other is the tally.

 

[EarlyActs]

I thought it was interesting because it was actually astrology. However, it has nothing to do with what we call astrology, but more to do with astronomy. They added meaning to constellations and star positions due to activites on earth. So basically, all of creation is an incredibly complicated watch.

The alignment meant a king would be born. It doesn't say what king. This alignment had happened before for other kings. This is why the star led them to where they were going, and stopped above the house. They had no idea where the king would be, and had been following His star.

No evidence for that. (Which is not an argument against, but moves this into the realm of conjecture. Just like the person who says they proved the exact date of Jesus birth, and it actually is December 25th.)

I prefer God's interpretation of what the statue is, since he took the time to tell us. It is not polite to add to what God says.

Abraham knew. I mean, he actually talked with Jesus. (The Angel of the Lord is a epiphany, the preincarnate Jesus.) Abraham knew what was to come, and He rejoiced when Jesus day had come.

That is the astrology of today. It meant something different in the past.

Watch the video on the star of bethlehem. I don't remember what it is called. A fun exercise in "you still can't be sure", but informative.

astrology meant something different in the past
That is what I'm saying all along. It disintegrated into person fortune telling.

 

[EarlyActs]

I thought it was interesting because it was actually astrology. However, it has nothing to do with what we call astrology, but more to do with astronomy. They added meaning to constellations and star positions due to activites on earth. So basically, all of creation is an incredibly complicated watch.

The alignment meant a king would be born. It doesn't say what king. This alignment had happened before for other kings. This is why the star led them to where they were going, and stopped above the house. They had no idea where the king would be, and had been following His star.

No evidence for that. (Which is not an argument against, but moves this into the realm of conjecture. Just like the person who says they proved the exact date of Jesus birth, and it actually is December 25th.)

I prefer God's interpretation of what the statue is, since he took the time to tell us. It is not polite to add to what God says.

Abraham knew. I mean, he actually talked with Jesus. (The Angel of the Lord is a epiphany, the preincarnate Jesus.) Abraham knew what was to come, and He rejoiced when Jesus day had come.

That is the astrology of today. It meant something different in the past.

Watch the video on the star of bethlehem. I don't remember what it is called. A fun exercise in "you still can't be sure", but informative.

the video
That's why I recommended it...

It is easier to remember who said what if there is only one topic per post.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is no indication that it wasn't. However, that is not what I am saying. They turned away, and were destroyed for it. That is all I said.

How does it somehow disprove God working with all nations? Perhaps there was a Christophany?

 

[TMSO]

I see you are flushing the description of Revelation 14's 144,000 First-fruits unto God and the Lamb. These were Firstfruits raised from the dead who stood with the Lamb on Mount Zion after they were raised from the dead. Paul never said that everyone else except Christ is raised from the dead at His coming. Paul himself acknowledged the existence of the First-fruits in Romans 8:23 who the church still had among them at that time.

Revelation doesn't say this. Taken from the world, not taken from the dead. Perhaps if you could give a biblical reference (you know, exegesis) that states that these were the firstfruits from the dead, so we can tell everyone that Jesus was not the first fruits from the dead, that would be great.

No, scripture tells us in no uncertain terms that "Christ the First-fruits" and the 144,000 First-fruits was referring to the "FIRST resurrection" - and this was in AD 33. If you can't identify the critical importance of the pre-eminence of Christ's resurrection at that time, everything else prophetic goes askew. All prophecy either pointed forward in time to that pivotal event, or pointed backward in time to this.

Again, the first resurrection has not happened yet. John says that the first resurrection are those who are raised and reign with Christ for 1000 years. Hmm.. 1000 years.. millennium...

Those saints raised with Christ that same day had lived their natural lives at some point during the past millennium which had just expired with the "First resurrection" in AD 33.

Except there was no millennium that had just expired. It has not yet begun.

No, you are inserting words into John's statement. John never wrote that the remnant of the dead came to life and THEN AFTER THAT (your presumption added here) reigned with Christ the thousand years. It only states that these saints performed two activities , and it doesn't give them in any chronological order.

I did not. In fact, I posted the verses more than once, and that it what it says. The resurrection at the end of the millennium is to hell for those who are not in the book of life. What does John say about the first resurrection? The second death cannot touch them. Obviously these two resurrections are NOT the same thing.

I am quoting Paul directly in Acts 24:15 and 25 about the resurrection and the judgment of the just and the unjust that was "about to be" in his days. Argue with Paul if you like, but you will lose.

"10 Then Paul, after the governor had nodded to him to speak, answered: “Inasmuch as I know that you have been for many years a judge of this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself, 11 because you may ascertain that it is no more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the city. 13 Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. 14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. 15 I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection [e]of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. 16 This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men."

You are putting words in God's mouth. Paul is saying nothing about the resurrection "about to be". This has nothing to do with when. He is saying that he believes in this resurrection, just as the Jews do. (Not the saducees, though).

 

[TMSO]

It is really difficult to have 6 topics per post, if you can manage.

Everyone thinks 23:37 is a prediction; it is the opposite. It is a statement that that could have seen him, if they had done what the palm entrance people did! The leaders of Judaism must become like them to "see" him at work in Acts. A prediction about something X000 in the future out of nowhere, is a bit ridiculous.

It is not good to impose modern excitement to see things happen when it is not there.

You missed His point. They accepted Him into the city, believing that He could be the Messiah, but in the end, if you read Matthew 23, they rejected Him. So, they will not see Jesus again until they accept Him. Now, did Paul neglect to say that the Jews had rejected their Messiah? He didn't? So Paul said that the Jews had rejected the Messiah? Is that not perfectly in line with Matthew 23:37 then? Is that not completely in line with all three verses? So, if the Jews are in rejection mode, and Jesus says that Jerusalem will not see Him again until they accept Him as Messiah, would that not be not only a prediction, but a statement of what will happen?

If you read the historical/prophetic background to the triumphal entry, then you will understand just how serious the rejection is. Jesus HAD to go through the triumphal entry, and He had to be rejected afterwards. Who was it who condemned Jesus to crucifixion? The religious leaders? No. While they were part of it, it was the people who cried "crucify Him", and it was the people who ridiculed Him on the cross.

 

[TMSO]

those things which are written in it; for the time is near."
Either the time actually was near, or there has been the delay I keep mentioning. But Lk 23:26 tells us that even a passage like Hos 10 was fulfilled by the time that generation expired. There is no way around the biology-set meaning of that.

Let's revisit a question you asked. When Jesus read the prophecy from Isaiah, why did He stop in the middle of the verse? Why didn't He read the whole thing? Because the rest of the verse was not being fulfilled at that time. Only the part Jesus read. It is the same with Zechariah being brought up by John. Why didn't John keep on going? He was only talking about the part being fulfilled. What was that? Looking upon Him whom they have pierced. How was it fulfilled. Jesus had just literally been pierced. That means that Jesus is the Messiah of the Zechariah prophecy. John's purpose was to show that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the Messiah. Why? Because HE is the Messiah. There is no need to look fruther, He is right here. And... you crucified Him.

Luke 23:26 "26 Now as they led Him away, they laid hold of a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, who was coming from the country, and on him they laid the cross that he might bear it after Jesus." Where does it say that Hosea 10 was fulfilled?

 

[TMSO]

But MacArthur does not understand an imperative kingdom and so he goes literal, and breaks the meaning/grammar of Acts 2:30.

"
29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, [i]according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted [j]to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

34 “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’

36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”"

So, Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father until He makes His enemies His footstool. In other words, the meaning/grammar was not broken. This can very well still be future. The Father didn't get up and tell Jesus to sit down, according to David. You can't take verses in isolation. What does Peter say of the future?

"38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [k]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”"

But wait, the world is supposed to end with the parents.

 

[TMSO]

Do you see that the true meaning of prophecy is its moral, not predictive force? This distinguishes Christian doctrine from sects (which never agree). It is not a prognostication, nor was it meant to be. The kingdom is morally imperative, not a spectator hobby.

I will be honest. I cannot believe you actually reduced the words of God to that. It is both. The reason why the book of Daniel is a thorn in the side of skeptics is because it proves God exists, because it is predictive, and the predictions came to pass... exactly as written. This had them claiming that Daniel was written at a later date than it claims. However, some 18 year old child made the discovery of a lifetime, that basically nailed Daniel to the early date. (A manuscript copy of part of the Bible from the time skeptics say Daniel was originally written, and Daniel was already an official part of the canon. Therefore, Daniel must have been written much earlier.

This is not a valid argument against the predictive nature of prophecy. The end times prophecies are all about their predictive nature, as they speak of the "complete end" of the time of man. There is no morality fixing involved. Are you saying that Jesus was simply a moral force?

 

[TMSO]

re Even worse:
One of the interferences of what you are saying is that there is a substantial context already built about Israel. I really don't know how people miss this about Luke, but I was fortunate to have master's level training and translating practice in it. If you know what was going on, if you are aware of what to look for in chs 1-20, the statement that that generation would see the total wrath of God on Israel can hardly be missed.

But, if one understood the Bible as a whole, one would understand that that was not the end. That was just God's immediate punishment of non-regenerate Israel that rejected the Messiah. I like how you lean on your expertise. Find the answer within yourself.

It is important that it is that generation because of dozens of claims by Jesus about it. 'The generation of Sodom will rise up against this generation and will have it better because this generation did not see the time of God's coming.' This is because that generation, by all accounts, was to be missionaries to the world. And some did. But there were too many Jews who interfered and that is the drama as the generation unfolds. Hence my book THE COVENANT REVOLT.

Again, it is obvious that something big happened in Israel in 70AD. There is no doubt about it. Why all the prophecies about this? Jesus is saying, if God had done what He did here for these countries He destroyed, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. What have you done. You have rejected. Therefore, since they did not receive what Israel received, but were simply punished, their torment will not be as bad as what awaits those who rejected when Jesus was standing right in front of them. God would punish that generation for its rejection of Christ. (Which I believe you were trying to say isn't the case as given in your response to Matthew 23:37-39) How this means that Revelation is involved, I do not know. It deals with the complete end of the time of man. Sure, Israel plays a part, but that is because of who they are before God.

 

[TMSO]

"exactly in line with Judaism"
You cannot be serious. The gospel of John is fraught with all the differences. You have prob heard that the Jews rejected Jesus; I don't mean the crucifixion itself, I mean the after-rejection, the meta-rejection of the mission of the Gospel (there being no prevention of the sacrifice of Christ). The things the apostles say are time-framed to apply to the after-rejection.

So, since the Jews rejected Jesus, God has utterly rejected Israel in contradiction to prophecies in Jeremiah, and Paul, correct? Judaism contained the beginning and the after show, but completely missed the middle. They did not believe the Messiah would be a suffering servant. They would not believe it. That was Israel, not the Messiah. They went straight to the end where the Messiah comes in strong, leading the cavalry, destroying Israel's enemies, and setting up His kingdom. Jesus tells the disciples straight up, that He has to suffer first. That He has to be betrayed and killed. You will notice by Acts 1, the disciples still have not dropped the part where the Messiah restores the kingdom. They STILL held on to it. Did Jesus tell them they were wrong? No, He just said it wasn't for them to know the times and seasons appointed by God.

 

[TMSO]

"Jerusalem thriving"
This is clearly about the Jerusalem hovering above, our mother. "It's gates are called salvation; and it's walls praise" says Isaiah. Acts 2:30 is the declaration with the end of that message , and ch 3's and ch 4's, that the Davidic (imperative) kingdom had come. It does not come by external signs so that you say here it is or there it is; it is at work among you.

Jesus never gave signs, because He said that even He doesn't know the time or season. And He said that in Matthew 24, where everyone claims that this is all done by 70AD. If Jesus doesn't know, how can that be the claim. Yes, there was the punishment in 70AD of Israel for rejecting Christ, but what Jesus spoke of was future. He spoke of the "complete" end. Not just some temporal punishment of Israel, and then life goes on.

Notice that Jesus never told the disciples that they were wrong when they asked for the signs of Him revealed as the Messiah in all His glory, and He establishes His kingdom. He never told them that they were wrong, or had the wrong idea. He gave them signs.

 

[TMSO]

God is clear that it speaks only to a season.
That is a good thing to remember about the OT when it says 'forever' but only means a season. If the torah's rules for the rest of the land were being followed, notice the many pogroms and holocausts; it sound like it's a bit late to speak of blessing, but that's just me. Strictly speaking something amazing should have happened 70 years after 70 AD. Obviously these categories don't matter any more.

Leviticus 26. God is rather clear.
"27 ‘And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me,
28 then I also will walk contrary to you in fury;
and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.
29 You[g] shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.
30 I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars, and cast your carcasses on the lifeless forms of your idols;
and My soul shall abhor you.
31 I will lay your cities waste and bring your sanctuaries to desolation, and I will not smell the fragrance of your [h]sweet aromas.
32 I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it.
33 I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you;
your land shall be desolate and your cities waste.
34 Then the land shall enjoy its sabbaths as long as it lies desolate and you are in your enemies’ land;
then the land shall rest and enjoy its sabbaths.
35 As long as it lies desolate it shall rest—
for the time it did not rest on your sabbaths when you dwelt in it."

"40 ‘But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also have walked contrary to Me,
41 and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies;
if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt—
42 then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember;
I will remember the land.
43 The land also shall be left empty by them, and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them;
they will accept their guilt, because they despised My judgments and because their soul abhorred My statutes.
44 Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly destroy them and break My covenant with them;
for I am the Lord their God.
45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God:
I am the Lord.’ ”

That sounds like a season to me, and not forever. It also doesn't appear that He said forever.

 

[TMSO]

But, but, but, I thought the Olivet discourse
You missed badly. He just announced the authority of the kingdom (and its clothes) would arrive on Pentecost through the Spirit. Being the witnesses was the means not an evasion. It was the kingdom coming. Your understanding is very darkened by D'ism's literalism. That's why it it is sometimes called a badly-done-rehash of Judaism. Jn 12:34 established that, calling one view light and the other darkness. We are to walk in the light while we have it.

Really. Hmm, I just posted that somewhere, and it didn't say that.
"4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be [c]witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”"

So, it isn't for them to know times or seasons, but it is to them to know times and seasons? He is basically telling them that He is not restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time, but He is not denying that He will restore the kingdom to Israel. "It is not for you to know times or seasons..." In other words, this restoring the kingdom of Israel is a time/season, but it isn't at this time. What was the Holy Spirit coming for? So the disciples will "be witnesses to Christ in Jerusaelm, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." It wasn't an evasion. It also was not the Kingdom coming, for His Kingdom is not of this world. (Well, not yet...)

As for d'ism literalism, I like to think I take God at His word. There is a reason why premillennialism was the original belief of eschatology.

 

[TMSO]

The recapitulation seems to have been after; I'm not sure of anyone ever nailing that. But it remains that at the conference he was thought to be the Gentile pioneer, and in Gal 2 he was pressured back, and Paul does not have very nice language about people like that. Acts 9-15 frequently mentions this problem.

I'm not sure. I always beleived Paul was upbraiding Peter, but there is a tradition that believes this did not occur, and it was a morality lesson. (I think they believed Peter was perfect, so this couldn't have happened, or something like that.)

 

[TMSO]

They had no idea where the king would be
This is way, way off of course. They knew they would be going to Israel from Daniel's explanation of Shiloh's star.

I don't know of any scripture that backs that up. Considering there are no records from that particular school of magi, (the amount of knowledge they say was lost is vast) and scripture says they saw the star to the East and followed it, this doesn't measure up. I mean, there are prophecies that state EXACTLY where Jesus would be, and the magi did not know it. They just knew they were following a star to where a king was born, so stopped at King Herod's place. (Usually what such dignitaries would do.) The burden is on you to provide scripture that shows the magi knew, how they knew, and/or when they knew.

 

[TMSO]

"No evidence"
??? What are you talking about. The models of the stars date way back. The understanding was all over the ANE. Ps 19 says everywhere knows what these stars are saying. Then you add Shiloh's star and Daniel's more precise details and friendship with them 4 centuries early. The answer narrows way down.

Unfortunately star charts aren't so accurate. They did not find a day missing when travelling back to account for Joshua's 48 hour day. That is because it isn't so accurate. We also aren't sure what it was. People see king's star, and thing about a specific group of stars in specific positions and movement. However, it may have very well been a supernatural occurrence, since the star shown down on the house, showing them where the child was.