The 1000 year Millennium from the Bible

[TMSO]

The thing that is wrong is shoddy interp. A person has to explain why lines are borrowed from Mt 10 about 1st cent. Judea. Why he is so direct? Why the details of instructions are Judesn based.

It may be similar to today or to 1800. A world dictator was trying to seize it all at that time. In the late 1800s the N hemisphere had red sunsets for 2 years from Krakatoa.

But none of that is “that generation” in the normal sense.

But when has the technology existed to fulfill the prophecy of the two witnesses?

 

[EarlyActs]

But when has the technology existed to fulfill the prophecy of the two witnesses?

Remember what the whole world referred to in Acts 2? It was everyone who could get to the Pentecost feast at the time.

Try to find Barnett’s BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE NT . It has a chapter called Patmos, on what the Rev meant at its time. You will have totally different questions when you are done.

 

[TMSO]

Remember what the whole world referred to in Acts 2? It was everyone who could get to the Pentecost feast at the time.

Try to find Barnett’s BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE NT . It has a chapter called Patmos, on what the Rev meant at its time. You will have totally different questions when you are done.

However there is mention of the all nations, tribes and tongues. I would think that that is rather specific to the whole world. Also, Jesus says that when the angels gather up the elect, it is from one end of heaven to the other. Again, that is a rather clear indication that it is the whole world.

Perhaps you should read both of John MacArthur's commentaries on Revelation. A real eye opener. And Rev at its time is 95 AD.

 

[3 Resurrections]

That is not what happened.

It's exactly what happened back in the first century during Jerusalem's siege predicted by Zechariah - and even by the song of Moses all the way back in Deuteronomy 32 for Israel's "latter days" when their power was gone. I have added nothing to Christ's message of warning to His own people who ate and drank with Him and heard Him teach in their streets.

I think you are the only person I have ever heard make an argument that it isn't John seeing the vision of Revelation. That has been the understanding for a VERY long time. And, according to Paul, he also saw the Kingdom.

I never said a person named John did not write Revelation. You just have the wrong John in mind, as well as Irenaeus who was also mistaken as to which John wrote Revelation. And I am not alone in this viewpoint either.

Or... you are wrong, which is the correct fourth choice. Lazarus died again. These saints died again. They came back in their mortal bodies, so of course they died again. Only Jesus had a glorified body. Just like with Elisha, Paul, and others have done. They resurrected people, but they died again.

This is false. I repeat, this is false. I repeat again. This is false and totally contrary to the scripture in Hebrews 9:27. You have NO scripture evidence of your statement other than a personal opinion. No saint resurrected bodily ever dies again - "neither CAN they die anymore". There is no such thing in scripture as being resurrected into the same mortal body that can die again. The resurrection process for the saints renders that mortal body into a changed, immortal and incorruptible form. If you open the door to the saints dying more than once, then you must also open the door to having Christ die more than once. Our resurrection is a duplicate of the same process as His body went through. We are called "joint heirs" with Christ.

If Jesus has no idea when He is returning, how can He say this. He was clear in Matthew 24: "36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of [f]heaven, but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."

However, John had the Revelation, where He saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. It was a vision, so John literally saw it. This has been understood for millennia.

Jesus in His earthly ministry saying He was not aware of the day and hour is not the same as His saying that some of those He ws speaking to would not die before He bodily returned. He knew the season and the time of His return, even if He claimed not to know the day or the hour while still on earth. And that temporary self-limitation of not knowing the day and hour did not last any longer than Christ's final ascenion to the Father in Acts 1.

And now, all of a sudden, you don't have a clue what a parable is. Jesus is speaking to the people. Jesus never spoke to the people without a parable, that seeing they won't see, and hearing they won't hear. Jesus answers the question of "are there so few saved?" He says, strive to enter the narrow gate. If you could show me where this literal narrow gate exists, that would be great. Or, do you understand that Jesus is speaking to the difficulty of salvation? You don't just walk up, open the gate and walk in. You must STRIVE to enter that gate. And you will fail.

He then talks about a door being closed (can you show me where this literal door is?), shut by the Master. Jesus is telling the people that it doesn't matter if they are Abraham's children, entrance to the kingdom is not a birthright. Metaphorically, death is the shutting of this door here, and the people are facing Him in final judgement.

This bolded section in your quote about a judgment shows me that you agree with me that this parable IS discussing a resurrection. How else do you have all the patriarchs and the prophets entering the kingdom of heaven simultaneously at this point? It was a bodily resurrection for all of them. This parable most definitely was about a bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven in which this group of living, first-century Israelites could not participate, to their bitter grief.

Why? Is God as forgetful as you or me? Does God not know who is of what tribe? The two tribes of Judah are still around, it is Israel that was scattered to the winds.

There are no extant tribes around today. God intended those tribal genealogical records to be destroyed in the "days of vengeance" back in the AD 66-70 period. Those tribal genealogies are contrary to the New Covenant reality of no Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female demarcations. We are all one in Christ. Any efforts to resurrect the tribal genealogies is the true replacement theology at work that attempts to restore the Old Covenant elements which were called "weak and beggarly". This is to abandon "the glory that excelleth", as Paul termed the New Covenant realities.

Paul scolded those in his days who were arguing about this. "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith." (1 Tim. 1:4). Also in Paul's instructions to Titus: "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the law, because these things are pointless and worthless." (Titus 3:9).

 

[TMSO]

It's exactly what happened back in the first century during Jerusalem's siege predicted by Zechariah - and even by the song of Moses all the way back in Deuteronomy 32 for Israel's "latter days" when their power was gone. I have added nothing to Christ's message of warning to His own people who ate and drank with Him and heard Him teach in their streets.


I never said a person named John did not write Revelation. You just have the wrong John in mind, as well as Irenaeus who was also mistaken as to which John wrote Revelation. And I am not alone in this viewpoint either.

You misunderstood. I said that you are the first person who said that the fulfillment of what Jesus said, was not John seeing the visions of revelation and recording them. This has been the understanding for some time. Consider that John wrote I John around 100 AD, and basically said that not only is the Antichrist not here yet, but Jesus has not come yet.

This is false. I repeat, this is false. I repeat again. This is false and totally contrary to the scripture in Hebrews 9:27. You have NO scripture evidence of your statement other than a personal opinion. No saint resurrected bodily ever dies again - "neither CAN they die anymore". There is no such thing in scripture as being resurrected into the same mortal body that can die again. The resurrection process for the saints renders that mortal body into a changed, immortal and incorruptible form. If you open the door to the saints dying more than once, then you must also open the door to having Christ die more than once. Our resurrection is a duplicate of the same process as His body went through. We are called "joint heirs" with Christ.

What did Jesus say?
"4 When Jesus heard that, He said, “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”"
What did Jesus say about the blind man when the disciples asked him who in his family sinned that he was born blind? And what about Lazarus? In both cases, God prepared it for a purpose.

"43 Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!” 44 And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Loose him, and let him go.”"

Wow. Same mortal body. The one wrapped in cloth. There is absolutely nothing here that says new, glorified body. Was the boy in Elisha's day, the girl Jesus raised from the dead, and Lazarus the one's who were "the first fruits from the dead", or was Paul clear when he said that was only Christ?

Why do you say that Jesus was only human? Wow. Um, before the lightning strikes, I'll move over here. Jesus, as Pauls aid, is the first fruits from the dead. The first. Not the little boy in Elijah's day, not the little girl Jesus raised, and not Lazarus. Not even those seen walking around after Jesus rose again. They all died again. They were still in their mortal bodies. Jesus, on the other hand, being sinless, came back with a glorified body. The first fruits from the dead.

Jesus in His earthly ministry saying He was not aware of the day and hour is not the same as His saying that some of those He ws speaking to would not die before He bodily returned.

Jesus did not say that. All He said was that they would "see" the Son coming in the Kingdom, which is exactly what John saw in the vision of the Revelation. Again, that is the historical understanding of what Jesus said.

He knew the season and the time of His return, even if He claimed not to know the day or the hour while still on earth. And that temporary self-limitation of not knowing the day and hour did not last any longer than Christ's final ascenion to the Father in Acts 1.

There is a reason why Jesus said He didn't know the time of the return, and offered no signs. He didn't know what the signs would be. Only the Father knows the time of His return. All He could say is that it would be like the times of Noah when everyone was living life as it had always been, and then... judgement. No warning, no signs, just rain. A lot of rain. And no, the limitation remains. It follows Jewish marriage tradition. The groom goes to his father's house and builds the place where the groom and bride will live. When it is finished, the father sends the groom to go get the bride and bring her to the house.

This bolded section in your quote about a judgment shows me that you agree with me that this parable IS discussing a resurrection. How else do you have all the patriarchs and the prophets entering the kingdom of heaven simultaneously at this point? It was a bodily resurrection for all of them. This parable most definitely was about a bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven in which this group of living, first-century Israelites could not participate, to their bitter grief.

That is not what it is saying. That is not what it is about. The point is that they aren't saved by who they are. They will see these people, and realize that they missed it. Why? They were disobedient. As such, they are shut out. That is all Jesus is teaching. STOP ADDING TO JESUS WORDS. Jesus actually does talk about the Resurrection, and He clearly states it. Such as when He answers the Saducees.

There are no extant tribes around today. God intended those tribal genealogical records to be destroyed in the "days of vengeance" back in the AD 66-70 period.

You really do need to stop assuming.

Those tribal genealogies are contrary to the New Covenant reality of no Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female demarcations. We are all one in Christ. Any efforts to resurrect the tribal genealogies is the true replacement theology at work that attempts to restore the Old Covenant elements which were called "weak and beggarly". This is to abandon "the glory that excelleth", as Paul termed the New Covenant realities.

Paul scolded those in his days who were arguing about this. "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith." (1 Tim. 1:4). Also in Paul's instructions to Titus: "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the law, because these things are pointless and worthless." (Titus 3:9).

This isn't even worth discussing. Again, your hatred of God's chosen people is rather blatant. I will leave you this from I John, which was written around 100 AD: I John 2 "28 And now, little children, abide in Him, that [h]when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming." So clearly, Jesus had still not returned by 100AD. And John, the longest lived of the apostles, did not see Jesus physically return at 70AD, because, right here, Jesus had not returned by 100AD, and John died shortly thereafter.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Consider that John wrote I John around 100 AD, and basically said that not only is the Antichrist not here yet, but Jesus has not come yet.

That date is seriously off target. This is a total presumption, because John wrote at that point that "this is the LAST HOUR". Paul wrote that the Man of Lawlessness was already in existence in those days when he was writing 2 Thessalonians 2, and was then having his open manifestation being restrained at that moment by another person. Both the Antichrist and the restrainer of that Man of Lawlessness were first-century individuals who were known to all the Thessalonian believers because Paul said he had already told the Thessalonian believers about them when he was personally among them.

You really do need to stop assuming.

I assume nothing. Paul would scold anyone for putting this much importance on the existence of ethnic Jewish tribal lineage today. Why would you want to oppose Paul's statements on this subject of the Jewish genealogies as being "pointless and worthless"? This has absolutely nothing to do with "hatred". I am opposing the obvious attempt at racism going on here. God is not a respecter of persons of natural blood descent under the New Covenant.

Jesus had not returned by 100AD, and John died shortly thereafter.

Jesus returned when He said He would return, before some of those whom He spoke to in that first-century generation had died. To argue with this established fact in Matthew 16:27-28 is to argue with a brick wall. And John the writer of Revelation died back in John 11 and was resurrected in the same chapter, to never die again afterward. John the resurrected writer of Revelation left this planet back in AD 70.

 

[TMSO]

That date is seriously off target. This is a total presumption, because John wrote at that point that "this is the LAST HOUR".

That's all you have?

Paul wrote that the Man of Lawlessness was already in existence in those days when he was writing 2 Thessalonians 2, and was then having his open manifestation being restrained at that moment by another person.

That is Satan. He has been around for a very long time, but is restrained.

Both the Antichrist and the restrainer of that Man of Lawlessness were first-century individuals who were known to all the Thessalonian believers because Paul said he had already told the Thessalonian believers about them when he was personally among them.

He told them who the restrainer is... the Holy Spirit. This person doesn't die, the restrainer is removed. Hence some believe this to be connected to the rapture, because if the Holy Spirit is the sign of the church, if He is removed, then the church is removed.

I assume nothing. Paul would scold anyone for putting this much importance on the existence of ethnic Jewish tribal lineage today. Why would you want to oppose Paul's statements on this subject of the Jewish genealogies as being "pointless and worthless"? This has absolutely nothing to do with "hatred". I am opposing the obvious attempt at racism going on here. God is not a respecter of persons of natural blood descent under the New Covenant.

I understand what Paul meant. It goes back to Jesus parable where the sons of the kingdom get shut out. Their genealogies meant nothing.

Jesus returned when He said He would return, before some of those whom He spoke to in that first-century generation had died. To argue with this established fact in Matthew 16:27-28 is to argue with a brick wall. And John the writer of Revelation died back in John 11 and was resurrected in the same chapter, to never die again afterward. John the resurrected writer of Revelation left this planet back in AD 70.

So why are you arguing with the established fact that Matthew 16:27-28 speaks about it being seen, and John SAW visions on Patmos. I John, written (more accurately) between 95-100AD. Consider Jude. Some (many?) in textual criticism give it a date in the second century. This book also speaks as Jesus not having returned yet. Some say it was written in the latter half of the second century, due to ideas and types/style of writing that came about during the second century. They point out some of the same things about the epistles of John.

It shouldn't matter since the high priests are not the kings of the Earth. Remember, God instituted the tax. The high priests, the priests, the Levites, even Moses did not have anything to do with the creation of the tax. They followed God's command to institute it. God was King. Jesus really was talking about the kings of the earth who instituted their own taxes, in comparison to His Father. He said, do the kings of the earth tax their sons or strangers? (Strangers being those not in the family, in this case. Kind of obvious.) Peter says that the kings of the earth don't tax their sons but strangers. Jesus is making the point that He is the Son of the one who instituted the tax, therefore He is not taxed. But to avoid offense, and, I'm sure you realize that this would have become an incredible mess if Jesus said, but I am the Son of God, therefore I don't have to pay. The fact that I have to keep explaining what is going on, because your beliefs hinge upon the high priests being kings of the earth, and this is the only passage found in scripture that you believe allows you to do that, makes one question if you care about context in the face of your beliefs.

 

[EarlyActs]

However there is mention of the all nations, tribes and tongues. I would think that that is rather specific to the whole world. Also, Jesus says that when the angels gather up the elect, it is from one end of heaven to the other. Again, that is a rather clear indication that it is the whole world.

Perhaps you should read both of John MacArthur's commentaries on Revelation. A real eye opener. And Rev at its time is 95 AD.

McA believes there are two distinct programs. I’ve heard plenty of him.

My question would not challenge you on the four corners bc that is 24B. 24A is about things in and near Judea.

I think the apostles would laugh at the literalism you use bc it has to be their frame of mind. That is why ‘did the technology exist’ is a futile question.

As one example of the fumble of literalism in the Rev: Stars cannot get anywhere close to earth without ruin. We cant even survive moving closer or further to the sun, so a “star falling to earth “ ends the whole story right there.

 

[TMSO]

McA believes there are two distinct programs. I’ve heard plenty of him.

My question would not challenge you on the four corners bc that is 24B. 24A is about things in and near Judea.

I think the apostles would laugh at the literalism you use bc it has to be their frame of mind. That is why ‘did the technology exist’ is a futile question.

It is a question that has existed for a very long time. No one considered that it would ever be possible for everyone on the Earth to see what happens to the two witnesses, at the same time. And that is often the point of contention that was raised when speaking of the two witnesses. Wait, there is no way everyone in the world can see what happened at the same time. Well... it is now.

As one example of the fumble of literalism in the Rev: Stars cannot get anywhere close to earth without ruin. We cant even survive moving closer or further to the sun, so a “star falling to earth “ ends the whole story right there.

Ah, but whatever that symbol of "star" can stand for.. can. You see, this is a problem that some have. Literalism in prophecy understands that there are symbols and figures of speech in use. However, the meaning is perfectly in line with what the prophecy is. There is no "special interpretation" required, once the internal parts of the prophecy are understood. One really good example is Pharaoh's dream, interpreted by Joseph. The dream, and its meaning walk tightly hand in hand. There is no special interpretation required to understand it, once the symbols are broken out. You know it. Seven fat healthy cows, seven sickly cows, seven healthy stalks, seven sickly burned stalks. The cows eating away, the sickly ones come up out of the water and devour the healthy ones, but look exactly the same afterwards. Then, Jospeh said, God repeated the message with different symbols. (The stalks) The symbols, one cow/stalk is seven years, so the seven means seven years. (Hmm, there is a future prophecy that uses this same idea...oh yeah, Daniel's 70 weeks. One day is a year, because one week is seven years. The same idea. Seven.) The seven fat cows and fat, healthy stalks are years of abundance above and beyond other years. The reason is for what comes. The seven sickly cows that come up out of the water, are seven following years of extreme famine. After eating the seven healthy cows they look the same, because, as Joseph says, the famine will be so extreme that no one will remember the years of abundance. (Notice how nothing in the dream is wasted. It fits the interpretation like a glove.) The grain represents the same message. So... literalism works very well, one just has to know what the symbols mean, and any additional figures of speech used. The actual message, the actual prophecy, is literally fulfilled, and goes hand in hand with the actual prophecy. The symbols used will make complete sense. No need for secret messages, or divination to figure out what the prophecy means. Take it, or leave it, it is what you have.

All the dreams of the Old Testament make complete sense next to their interpretations. There is nothing mysterious at all. Yet, for some reason, when one reaches Revelation, all bets are off. Sure, it is prophecy, but there is no way that it is literal, even if symbols are interpreted. This is what makes no sense. If all the prophecy of the Old Testament had literal fulfillment, once one understood the symbols, then why is prophecy in Revelation different? Where did God's nature change? I know, some issues are that there are prophecies in Isaiah that appear to have clearly been fulfilled in 1948. So, now other prophecies have to be said to not be easily understood. (The creation of the nation of Israel in 1948 was prophesied in Isaiah. No one wanted to believe it, and right up to 1948, they were saying it would never happen. They were shocked when it did. Up to that point, it was basically understood that the Arabs were going to get the land.)

Right to the point that Israel started growing again. Plants, trees, etc. When Mark Twain went to Israel before 1948, he clearly stated it was all wilderness. Nothing growing. Nothing to see. That changed very quickly once Israel became a nation again. Fulfilling more prophecy. It has gotten to the point that there are no prophecies left that don't relate to the world's end. [That is, prophecies dealing with the events at the end of the book of Revelation.] That is why the premillennialists say there are no prophecies left. All the cards are in play, save one. Where does Peter's statement about the elect fall into all of this. God is not slack concerning His promise towards us, but is longsuffering, not wishing any to perish, but that all [of us... elect] be saved. So... if things are still moving along, then are there still some elect out there who have yet to be saved? (Those who are saved before Revelation begins in earnest.)

So, what do the stars stand for. If this is real stars falling to earth, such as at the end of the age, then it is how it appears to someone living on earth. The stars are falling out of the sky. God is going to destroy this creation, as it has been corrupted by sin, and will bring in a new heavens and new earth, as well as a new Jerusalem.

 

[TMSO]

McA believes there are two distinct programs. I’ve heard plenty of him.

My question would not challenge you on the four corners bc that is 24B. 24A is about things in and near Judea.

I think the apostles would laugh at the literalism you use bc it has to be their frame of mind. That is why ‘did the technology exist’ is a futile question.

As one example of the fumble of literalism in the Rev: Stars cannot get anywhere close to earth without ruin. We cant even survive moving closer or further to the sun, so a “star falling to earth “ ends the whole story right there.

With MacArthur, I forgot, so this is short, I would say that He believes in a plan of salvation that runs through all time, and that there are various programs, which I called parts, in the plan. If we call all life a program, then it is parts. If it is all one plan, then we have programs. I hope that helps in understanding that the plan is no different for each party, however, the way God deals with each in the plan differs. We have how God handled the people in the Old Testament. We have God planning on the rejection of Jesus by the Jews. We have God planning on the gospel being to all people's not just Israel, because of Israel's rejection. We have jealousy being stirred with Israel by her beloved (God) through the salvation of the Gentiles. And at the end, we have God saving the remnant of Israel left at the end. What is the one common thread through all of that? Christ.

 

[EarlyActs]

As soon as you say Israel is Gods chosen people, you have 2 programs, and break the meaning of Mt 22’s parable of the vineyard and 1 Peters quote of ‘you are a chosen people’ of Deut.

 

[EarlyActs]

With MacArthur, I forgot, so this is short, I would say that He believes in a plan of salvation that runs through all time, and that there are various programs, which I called parts, in the plan. If we call all life a program, then it is parts. If it is all one plan, then we have programs. I hope that helps in understanding that the plan is no different for each party, however, the way God deals with each in the plan differs. We have how God handled the people in the Old Testament. We have God planning on the rejection of Jesus by the Jews. We have God planning on the gospel being to all people's not just Israel, because of Israel's rejection. We have jealousy being stirred with Israel by her beloved (God) through the salvation of the Gentiles. And at the end, we have God saving the remnant of Israel left at the end. What is the one common thread through all of that? Christ.

You are close, but there is no saving the remnant at the end bc the remnant by definition is all through time.

Based on what you have said there is no mystery that Gentiles would become believers, which is correct. But in 2 program D’ism , it is a mystery only revealed after Israel (generally) rejects. Eph 3:6 says the mystery is one people through the Gospel rather than through the Law.

 

[3 Resurrections]

That's all you have?

1 John 2:18 wrote that "it is the LAST HOUR" because those antichrists had already gone out from among them. You are proposing that 1 John was written in AD 100, when there is nothing of this "LAST HOUR" significance that was ending in AD 100. What exactly are you proposing came to an end in AD 100?

That is Satan. He has been around for a very long time, but is restrained.

Satan was not the "MAN of Lawlessness" or the "SON of perdition". Satan was no human entity but a fallen angel.

He told them who the restrainer is... the Holy Spirit.

Paul never calls the "restrainer" the Holy Spirit. That is another assumption of yours. And the Holy Spirit was promised to remain with the believers forever (John 14:16). The Holy Spirit is never withdrawn from this world for any reason whatever.

your beliefs hinge upon the high priests being kings of the earth, and this is the only passage found in scripture that you believe allows you to do that, makes one question if you care about context in the face of your beliefs.

No, Matthew 17 is certainly not the only place in scripture which refers to the high priests as "kings of the earth". This is a title they were given back in the OT as well. But since it really isn't the topic of the millennium in this post, it ought to go in another post.

 

[EarlyActs]

You are close, but there is no saving the remnant at the end bc the remnant by definition is all through time.

Based on what you have said there is no mystery that Gentiles would become believers, which is correct. But in 2 program D’ism , it is a mystery only revealed after Israel (generally) rejects. Eph 3:6 says the mystery is one people through the Gospel rather than through the Law.

The emphasis of Rom 11 is not that the remnant gets saved at the end, but down through time. 'kai houtos' meant that in this partially blinded manner of the race-nation (which has been there since evil arrived), the believers are still saved. The quotes of Isaiah there are about the present time, as the whole chapter is. It even concludes in v30 that God has now finally dealt with all these things by binding all men to sin, and offering mercy to the same in Christ.

 

[TMSO]

As soon as you say Israel is Gods chosen people, you have 2 programs, and break the meaning of Mt 22’s parable of the vineyard and 1 Peters quote of ‘you are a chosen people’ of Deut.

Jeremiah 31
"37 Thus says the Lord:

“If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the Lord."

God WILL NOT reject Israel, as you see above. And the key term is there... I will also cast off all the seed of Israel. Israel is the chosen people of God, and will always be, however, when the plan of redemption comes to a close, it will be the church, made up of Jews and Gentiles. All will be one. God will finally have shown mercy to all, as Paul says. Why do you hate the idea of the remnant of Israel being shown mercy? You do understand Paul wrote those chapters of Rome to stop those in the church from adopting that kind of thinking, right?
Romans 9

"25 As He says also in Hosea:

“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.
28 For [b]He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.”
29 And as Isaiah said before:

“Unless the Lord of [c]Sabaoth had left us a seed,
We would have become like Sodom,
And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”"

Romans 11
"11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their [b]fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their [c]fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

" 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" Even Paul supports the two different programs. However, even he seems to understand that in the end all are one, as there is only one olive tree. But again, even Paul treats them separate. One foreign, one natural, one from an olive tree that is wild by nature, and one from a cultivated olive tree. Paul gives no quarter for a gentile who manages to get cut off the tree after being grafted in. Full quarter is given to Jews who turn back to God, and come to faith.

Why? Two different groups of people. Jews and Gentiles, enemies from birth until Jesus put to death the emnity in His body. Yet, still two groups, just one in the body of Christ. In the church, brothers and sisters. Outside of the church, our enemies in the gospel, though brothers and sisters in life. You see this handling throughout all of scripture... except at the end. In the end, all are one. All have reached the end of their journey and reached the goal. The unsaved remnant of Israel will finally be saved and enter in their rest in Him. Or,what you say is true, and they are shut out of God's presence forever.

 

[TMSO]

1 John 2:18 wrote that "it is the LAST HOUR" because those antichrists had already gone out from among them. You are proposing that 1 John was written in AD 100, when there is nothing of this "LAST HOUR" significance that was ending in AD 100. What exactly are you proposing came to an end in AD 100?

Apparently you don't understand where all of this is coming from. The moment Jesus left, we entered the end times. There is no waiting for when the end times started, it started the moment He left. And it is still going on.

Satan was not the "MAN of Lawlessness" or the "SON of perdition". Satan was no human entity but a fallen angel.

Oh, so you can be literal if it suits your belief. Wow.

Paul never calls the "restrainer" the Holy Spirit. That is another assumption of yours. And the Holy Spirit was promised to remain with the believers forever (John 14:16). The Holy Spirit is never withdrawn from this world for any reason whatever.

And you assume who that restrainer is as well. What PAUL had said is that he had already told him who/what it was. He doesn't write down who it is, so we do not know. Unless we are named 3 Resurrections, apparently. It has been assumed that the one who restrains lawlessness is the Holy Spirit. It is actually more likely then what you said. A lot more likely.

No, Matthew 17 is certainly not the only place in scripture which refers to the high priests as "kings of the earth". This is a title they were given back in the OT as well. But since it really isn't the topic of the millennium in this post, it ought to go in another post.

I read another comment you wrote elsewhere that said you scoured the Old Testament for such a reference, and could only find reference in Matthew 17. Except, it isn't. The high priest did not institute the tax, God did. The people had been commanded by God to collect the tax. So Jesus asks Peter if the kings of the earth, who instituted taxes themselves, do they collect from sons, or from strangers. Basically, how dare they demand the tax of the Son of God. It's not like God told them to collect the tax from His Son, is it? Jesus speaks to the failure of these collectors to recognize just who He is. The Son of God.

 

[EarlyActs]

Jeremiah 31
"37 Thus says the Lord:

“If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the Lord."

God WILL NOT reject Israel, as you see above. And the key term is there... I will also cast off all the seed of Israel. Israel is the chosen people of God, and will always be, however, when the plan of redemption comes to a close, it will be the church, made up of Jews and Gentiles. All will be one. God will finally have shown mercy to all, as Paul says. Why do you hate the idea of the remnant of Israel being shown mercy? You do understand Paul wrote those chapters of Rome to stop those in the church from adopting that kind of thinking, right?
Romans 9

"25 As He says also in Hosea:

“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.
28 For [b]He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.”
29 And as Isaiah said before:

“Unless the Lord of [c]Sabaoth had left us a seed,
We would have become like Sodom,
And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”"

Romans 11
"11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their [b]fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their [c]fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

" 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" Even Paul supports the two different programs. However, even he seems to understand that in the end all are one, as there is only one olive tree. But again, even Paul treats them separate. One foreign, one natural, one from an olive tree that is wild by nature, and one from a cultivated olive tree. Paul gives no quarter for a gentile who manages to get cut off the tree after being grafted in. Full quarter is given to Jews who turn back to God, and come to faith.

Why? Two different groups of people. Jews and Gentiles, enemies from birth until Jesus put to death the emnity in His body. Yet, still two groups, just one in the body of Christ. In the church, brothers and sisters. Outside of the church, our enemies in the gospel, though brothers and sisters in life. You see this handling throughout all of scripture... except at the end. In the end, all are one. All have reached the end of their journey and reached the goal. The unsaved remnant of Israel will finally be saved and enter in their rest in Him. Or,what you say is true, and they are shut out of God's presence forever.

Yes Acts 3 declares that those who did not follow the new Moses would be degrading Lu disinherited.

 

[EarlyActs]

Re Dan 8
V12 the destructive act of rebellion NET or the rebellion that desolates

V23 after Greece there would be 4 Jewish kings and last is a horrible wicked one. He will even “battle” against Christ. If you know what the mission of Christ was this is true. Other than John of Gischala, I don’t know who qualifies.

 

[EarlyActs]

I will post my usual article on the antecedents of Dan 9 in a couple hours

 

[ChristB4us]

So what happens in the events that are shown to us here. We see that there is a good resurrection which is called the first resurrection at the beginning of the 1000 years in verses 4-6, whereas the rest of the dead are resurrected at the end of the 1000 years. Satan is bound during the 1000 years as we see in verse 3, but is loosed when the thousand years are done as we see in verse 7, and notice this is also when the rest of the dead are raised, see verse 5. Now with these dead which are not from the first resurrection, so they are the lost going to damnation, Satan gathers them for a final battle against God's City as we see in verse 8. A final judgment occurs, and then the lost are punished in the lake of fire, So who are the ones that will not see the first resurrection but come up after the 1000 years at the second one.

Christ clearly spoke of two resurrections when He said, "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation" John 5:29.

The apostle Paul also spoke of these two resurrections when he said, "there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust" in Acts 24:15. So both Jesus Christ and Paul spoke of two resurrections, the first being the resurrection of life for the just, and the second being the resurrection of damnation for the unjust. Now Christ comes in the second coming to take the saints to heaven , but Christ does not step on earth, the saints are lifted into to the air from their graves.
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Both the Old and New Testaments are very clear on this issue.

@EarlyActs @3 Resurrections @turbomaniac @TMSO @TrevorL

It is not clear on this issue because there are three measures of meals that make up the whole of the kingdom of Heaven before the Son gives the completed kingdom back to the Father.

Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

There is an order to when men shall be made alive; there is the firstfruits of the resurrection at the pre great tribulation rapture event and then they that be Christ at His coming as the King of kings at the end of the great tribulation. And then at the end of Satan's last rebellion after that 1000 year reign of Christ at the Great White Throne Judgment before Christ gives the completed kingdom of Heaven to the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Zechariah 14:1-5 has Christ coming ack with the saints to do battle with the world's armies marching against Jerusalem which ties in with Revelation 19:11-21 whereby this happens before Satan is in the pit for a thousand years per your reference in Revelation 20:1-6.

That means this first resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 is happening when Jesus is already on earth having defeated the world's armies marching against Jerusalem for why Satan is in the pit for a thousand years BEFORE that resurrection takes place. Jesus is not meeting those saints in the air that gets resurrected after the great tribulation is over with when He is already on earth !!!
So the confusion lies on what the apostle John meant by "first resurrection" and John did explain that in Revelation 20:5.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

All John meant to convey that the resurrection after the great tribulation was to happen "first" before the rest of the dead are raised at the Great White Throne Judgment. john was not meaning to say that this is THE first resurrection but that resurrection was to occur "first".

Otherwise, you have to contend with the fact that the Marriage Supper happened in Revelation 19:1-10 BEFORE OPENING again in Revelation 19:11-21 for Him to return with those pre great tribulation raptured saints that participated in the Marriage Supper in Heaven to do battle with the world's armies marching against Jerusalem as He is not meeting those saints in the air that gets resurrected after the great tribulation in Revelation 20:1-6.