The Thousand Year Reign of Christ on Earth: Is it Biblical?

Nice survey. Would be interesting to see an update since 7 years have passed.

And things are just getting better and better each day if you have not noticed.

Frankly, you're obviously not keeping up. The origin of my comment is as a response to #4 :
Well, if you conveniently end your quote in verse 6, you can make that statement, but if you include the next few verses, you cannot:

IOW, my "off topic" response is in direct response to another poster broaching the subject of context. I suggest you request that the comment to which I originally responded be removed by the RM along with all things that have flowed from that original comment.

If you so request, you might possibly have a very minor point in that you would have convinced the RM the comment to which I originally responded was off topic, yet both my point and the point to which I originally responded are very much related to the topic of this thread in that it broaches a topic that cannot be proved or disproved with the typical single, out of context or not, verse tossing some people seem to be enamored of.

Now, if the point you're attempting to make is that you feel the comment to which I responded was in itself off topic, knock yourself out. Tell the RM to quit dawdling and judge each and every comment in a given thread by whether it is sufficiently focused to be permitted to remain in the thread.

If you feel that's how the RF should operate, I suggest you might want to tell the RM you're willing to do the extra work required and provide the RM credentials and a history that would convince the RM of your total impartiality in all religious matters and dedication to the goal of keeping threads tightly focused rather than keeping comments within bounds you find acceptable to your personal point of view.

have a nice day

This is another hint: this earth will be around forever, and generations of people will come and go, forever. Satan knows it. Many Christians do not.

Ah, I begin to see.

Could I suggest, in addition to the M. Kline articles referenced above, you peruse Vos' Pauline Eschatology? Not long, but does take some work to digest. Careful exegete.

This age will end.

Rash, Phil started a prophecy thread. Why you came here to vent only you know. However, as you post here your RCC caucus is woefully taking it on the chin in their own threads.

Your claim of deep concern is appreciated but I prefer to take it for what it really is, drivel.

have a nice day

You changed the subject or at least tried to. It is a usual RC tactic on other threads.

You are a Roman Catholic, why not use this opportunity to defend the creeds and doctrines of your church on the second coming of Jesus Christ and the Resurrection?

For the discussion, here's a survey of Freepers back in 2006, asking them how they think it'll all end.
I doubt there has been much change in the percentage distribution here over the various beliefs.

Prolly not.

"In fire" (Babylon 5, "The Coming of Shadows")

But I think he does allow for a second Second Coming in the future.

But with generations coming and going. "Idiosyncratic" position.

(BTW, I have heard something similar from a dispensationalist teacher, who held that the Jews were an eternal, earthly and reproductive people of God." Don't do the math on that.)

I notice you ignore the fact that verse 21 clearly states "come to the light that their works be made manifest". That's the part you most want to avoid.

That's the only verse you want to focus on to insert your own private interpretation...You ignore the verse where there is no judgment for the believer...You ignore the verse that says as we are reproved with the truth, we will present good works AFTER our belief and reproval...

Talk about blah, blah, blah...

Your attempt at trying to privately interpret those verses to mean something they don't mean will not take away the impact of verse John 3:16 for the person who humbly seeks Jesus...

“So much for “Faith Alone” and “Once Saved Always Saved” both unless you make an exception to your own rule of reading verses in context.”

I have no problem with reading verses in context. However, I don’t see anything in that context which says something other than faith can save you.

It says those who believe will not be judged, but it doesn’t say that those who do good but don’t believe can escape judgement. Instead, they are already judged for their non-belief, and God finds none of their works “good”. It is only through grace obtained by faith that we can be accounted righteous, and then of course we should produce good works as a consequence.

“It is a spiritual war. It is occurring everywhere. Recall this verse:

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Mat 10:28)

I learned that verse the first day I read the Bible nearly four decades ago, and it has played a part in my interpretation, since.”

Okay, then you should know who that verse is speaking of, that we should fear. Who has the power to destroy our bodies and souls in hell?

“This is a hint: Christians everywhere are part of the Church, the new Jerusalem, which is located on mount Sion in heaven. They are also part of the Holy Temple, which is also found on mount Sion in heaven. Satan knows it. Many Christians do not.”

Well, it seems Satan doesn’t know that, since he is marching around the earth in these verses to get to the place where God’s people are. Maybe you can draw him a roadmap.

“This is another hint: this earth will be around forever, and generations of people will come and go, forever. Satan knows it. Many Christians do not.”

The Bible says this earth will pass away and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. I’ll believe the Bible over your words, no matter how insistent you are.

“This is another hint: Israel is no longer God’s chosen people, and has not been for about 2000 years. Satan knows it. Many Christians do not.”

There will always be a rigtheous remnant of Israel, beloved of God, as promised. We are grafted onto them, we do not replace them.

I’ve actually tried this numerous times on Bible students who have not every heard of such eschatological doctrines as Dispensational Pretrib, Amillennialist, Preterist, and Postmillennialist. I live in a part of the world where this is a very valid test (before the internet)

I ask them what they come up with on the tribulation, resurrection, second coming, and millennial. Without fail, they come up with the view known today as “Historic Premillennialism, i.e., all these things have not yet happened, they lie in the future, the 1st resurrection and 2nd coming closes out the great tribulation while ushering in the millennial reign of Jesus Christ on this earth. Which, as you might guess, is also what I believe.

This is the same view we see in the ECF (Early Church Fathers, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc.).
Now why, we might ask, would these students come up with this view?

Because that’s the way Matt. 24, Thess. 1 & 2, and the Revelation naturally reads!

These other doctrines are pure theory read into the word of God. Concocted in the mind of man...a form of humanism. They are not there. Some, especially the Preterists, are the worst at twisting the scripture to make them fit their preconceived theory. Such doctrines had not been invented yet in the time of the ECF.

>>>What Paul speaks of is a resurrection of the dead in Christ, followed immediately by a catching up of the living. The first might go unnoticed, but no one noticed the second? Unlikely. And how does the church continue?<<<

We do know that it occurred during a major war in which over one million Jews were killed or starved to death. All we have to go on is what Christ said to his disciples, and later words from his apostles. This was Christ:

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." (Mat 24:30-31 KJV)

We could pretend it didn't happen because "no one saw it," or worse, "because it doesn't fit my doctrine." But the fact remains, Jesus said it would happen in that generation, in many different ways, and he never wavered.

>>>It makes the same kind of division I have seen from the dispensationalists. Two sets of Christians (first and second resurrection), with different fates, and thus different promises. They may be OK with that. I am not.<<<

If I understand Meredith Kline correctly, he believed the last half-week of the seventy weeks encompasses the entire "church age"? He is a little hard to follow: but if that is what he is saying, I am not buying it. That is little more than a modified dispensational Gap-theory. He does present a rather complex, but seemingly reasonable case for both Daniel's seventy weeks, and the two resurrections: but I simply do not see them being that complicated. For example, Paul indicates the so-called "church age" is forever:

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Eph 3:21 KJV)

And we have these:

"The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." (Rev 11:15 KJV)

"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (2 Pet 1:11 KJV)

So, Christ reigns forever, and the Church is forever. No need to complicate things.

Regarding Daniel's seventy weeks, I see the "seventy weeks" as the proverbial "final nail in the coffin" of the old covenant; and I see it lasting exactly 70 "weeks," or 490 years, as decreed. That may seem overly simplified in these days of wide-scale elaboration; but it all fits. I see Christ confirming the OLD covenant for one week: one-half week in person, and another half-week by his disciples (John 13:20.)

Recall that Christ was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat 15:24,) as were his disciples (Mat 10:6) until much later in Acts 10. Also recall the apostles' conversations in first part of the Acts: in particular, there was the case where Peter confirmed that Christ was the fulfillment of the covenant, and through him all nations would be blessed, beginning with the believers in Jerusalem. Until Christ, there was no way Abraham's covenant could be fulfilled because of the "isolationist" nature of the Jews. This was Peter:

"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." (Acts 3:25-26 KJV)

Later, the tents of David were raised, and the Gentiles were brought in (Acts 10, 15:14-17,) which I believe marked the end of the old covenant. All that remained was the clean up, which was finalized in 70 AD. The first resurrection was a part of that "cleanup," if you will. Daniel wrote about the first resurrection in this manner:

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)

Note the first resurrection was only for Daniel's people (Israel); and not for all of them, but "many." That implies a partial resurrection of the children of Israel, which is confirmed by our knowledge that some were "left behind" (as odd as that seems.)

I really don't know what to think about the second resurrection. There is not a lot written about it. When I put everything on the table, including a critical analysis of "external" factors, such as the statement in Ecclesiastes 1:4 and Psalms 104:5, I am drawn toward the belief of many old-timers that when they died they were going to stand before the judgement seat, and hopefully go to heaven, and maybe to hell. LOL! One thing I refuse to do is exclude plain-language in the scripture just because I don't happen to like it. This much we know:

"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." (Ecc 1:4 KJV)

Which is confirmed, in a sense, in Revelation 22:

"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev 22:2 KJV)

And we know this:

"I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." (Isa 45:23 KJV)

"… for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom 14:10-12 KJV)

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev 20:11-15 KJV)

I have not written this before, because I am still unsure; but the most logical path seems to be as follows:

1) after the defeat of Satan, the dead (only those who actually died and are asleep in their graves) are resurrected and judged (see Rev 20:11-15, above.)

2) afterward, as each person dies, they are judged individually.

That is the only way I can think of, at this time, where all the scripture fits.

Philip

Very interesting. You stay out of a lot of trouble by taking that literal-grammatical approach.

>>>Well, it seems Satan doesn’t know that, since he is marching around the earth in these verses to get to the place where God’s people are. Maybe you can draw him a roadmap.<<<

I'll tell him to follow you. That should keep him away from the Church, shouldn't it?

>>>The Bible says this earth will pass away and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. I’ll believe the Bible over your words, no matter how insistent you are.<<<

Well, I guess you don't consider Ecclesiastes and the Psalms as part of the bible. I don't believe I have ever met a "Christian" quite like you.

>>>There will always be a rigtheous remnant of Israel, beloved of God, as promised. We are grafted onto them, we do not replace them.<<<

You are right, but not for the reasons you think. The righteous remnant were resurrected in 70 AD and serve as foundations, gates and/or as priests in the holy temple and city. I am going to go out a limb and guess that statement will go right over your head.

Philip

>>>Sure, show the disciples who believed the second coming as a past event.<<<

As I said earlier, prove me wrong.

Is this Drive-by Dispy role you are playing self-appointed?

Philip

>>>Rash, Phil started a prophecy thread. Why you came here to vent only you know. However, as you post here your RCC caucus is woefully taking it on the chin in their own threads.<<<

Are you the gate keeper, as well?

>>>Now why, we might ask, would these students come up with this view? Because that’s the way Matt. 24, Thess. 1 & 2, and the Revelation naturally reads!<<<

I wouldn’t recommend anyone believe that for a second. The reason some people believe that way is because that is either: all they have ever heard (church, friends, etc.); or their concordance or “study guide” points them in that direction. An entire generation believing “this generation” means “that generation” cannot be explained away by a “natural reading of the Bible.” That kind of violence against the plain reading of the scriptures has to be learned from others.

Philip