Because it was not directly appropo to the conversation.
I find denying the literal 1,000 year reign of the Lord Jesus is to be untenable.<\i>
Since you ascribe to the novel and unbiblical theology of dispensationalism, I’d be surprised if you didn’t. I’m very familiar with it, so please spare me the usual copy and paste haranguing because I can’t be baited and won’t waste my time responding. Have a blessed day.
"Directly?"
"The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus.5.. The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles",572 will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".573was appropo to The End Times "conversation " "That Jesus Now Reigns Over The Nations" which you responded to.
Since you ascribe to the novel and unbiblical theology of dispensationalism,
I do not know what version of dispensationalism you denigrate, but perhaps you see no distinction between Israel and the Church, and hold that Christians are bound by all the Mosaic law, as Adam and Eve were.
In any, as said, I do not hold to the pretrib "rapture," but if you deny the literal 1,000 year reign of the Lord Jesus, which is clearly referred to so many times, and substantively so - just a few which were as linked to and ignored - then you have a problem with Scripture.
Which is consistent with believing a church whose distinctive teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)