Thanks for the response. I fail to see how Rev. 20 can be all that difficult for you.
Your assessment of the 1000 year reign can only make any kind of sense if you make it independent from the kingdom of God.
If you say like many that the kingdom of god and the thousand year reign are the same thing then you would have to admit that the 1000 year reign started at the same time as the kingdom of God which came in power at Pentecost.
Jesus plainly said that so I do not see how it could be hard for any one to understand that the kingdom of God came at that time and is not a visible kingdom but is with in you.
Other wise I could be in agreement with you but we can not have it both ways.
Of course we are most likely in disagreement on about every thing else, the first resurrection for instance, you say that it has not happened.
1Cor 15
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. Past tense it has already happened.
Past tense it has already happened.
But there are two harvests. The spring harvest is done, and we await the fall (and greater) harvest.
“I did not say that it was difficult, just your assumption.”
Seeing you had nothing to say about the very obvious chronology of: tribulation, first resurrection, then the millennial kingdom - the first resurrection closing out the tribulation while initiating the millennial kingdom in one event - I must have assumed right.
Instead, you want me to deal with your arguments. I can, I do have answers for them, none of which you are going to like. My answers do not contradict what I have tried to bring out in Revelation, however, yours does.
You do realize, what you see in these other books, and the obvious chronology in Revelation, cannot contradict? The Revelation, being the last word on prophecy, the last book of the Bible, says your interpretation in these other books must not be right.
Now, if you want to turn that around on me, and say your interpretation in these other books is the last word on prophecy, and my interpretation of the chronology of Revelation cannot possibly be right, then at least do me the courtesy of telling me just how the chronology in Revelation is wrong. Please exegete Rev. 20:4 for me.
I can save you the time, it is impossible for it to be any other way than the way the Revelation has it. Unless you can somehow get the tribulation to have already have happened, that is. The preterists claim to do that very thing.