Physical Kingdom Problems

@reformed said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@C_M_ said:

What are we discussing?

1. How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
2. What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?

If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM

All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.

The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.

They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).

The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism

If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm

I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.

Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....

Jesus was Amillennial.

Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.

Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.

Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.

Name one place where he affirms it.

That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.

How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?

Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.

If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.

Revelation 20

It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.

It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.

Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.

That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?

If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.

Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.

If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?

Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.

Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.

I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.

No direct quotes.

@reformed said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@C_M_ said:

What are we discussing?

1. How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
2. What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?

If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM

All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.

The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.

They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).

The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism

If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm

I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.

Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....

Jesus was Amillennial.

Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.

Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.

Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.

Name one place where he affirms it.

That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.

How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?

Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.

If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.

Revelation 20

It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.

It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.

Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.

That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?

If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.

Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.

If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?

Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.

Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.

I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.

No direct quotes.

I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.

All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"

How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.

@reformed said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@C_M_ said:

What are we discussing?

1. How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
2. What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?

If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM

All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.

The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.

They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).

The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism

If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm

I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.

Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....

Jesus was Amillennial.

Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.

Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.

Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.

Name one place where he affirms it.

That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.

How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?

Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.

If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.

Revelation 20

It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.

It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.

Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.

That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?

If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.

Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.

If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?

Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.

Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.

I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.

No direct quotes.

I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.

All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"

How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.

Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.

I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.

“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)

“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)

“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)

“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)

“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)

“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)

“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)

@reformed said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@C_M_ said:

What are we discussing?

1. How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
2. What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?

If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM

All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.

The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.

They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).

The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism

If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm

I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.

Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....

Jesus was Amillennial.

Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.

Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.

Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.

Name one place where he affirms it.

That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.

How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?

Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.

If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.

Revelation 20

It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.

It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.

Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.

That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?

If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.

Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.

If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?

Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.

Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.

I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.

No direct quotes.

I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.

All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"

How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.

Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.

I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.

“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)

“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)

“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)

“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)

“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)

“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)

“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)

And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.

If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.

@reformed said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@C_M_ said:

What are we discussing?

1. How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
2. What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?

If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM

All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.

The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.

They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).

The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism

If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm

I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.

Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....

Jesus was Amillennial.

Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.

Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.

Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.

Name one place where he affirms it.

That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.

How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?

Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.

If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.

Revelation 20

It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.

It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.

Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.

That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?

If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.

Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.

If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?

Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.

Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.

I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.

No direct quotes.

I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.

All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"

How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.

Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.

I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.

“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)

“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)

“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)

“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)

“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)

“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)

“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)

And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.

If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.

Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.

Where does NT scripture mention another kingdom?

@reformed said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@C_M_ said:

What are we discussing?

1. How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
2. What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?

If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM

All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.

The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.

They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).

The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism

If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm

I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.

Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....

Jesus was Amillennial.

Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.

Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.

Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.

Name one place where he affirms it.

That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.

How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?

Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.

If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.

Revelation 20

It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.

It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.

Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.

That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?

If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.

Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.

If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?

Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.

Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.

I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.

No direct quotes.

I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.

All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"

How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.

Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.

I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.

“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)

“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)

“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)

“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)

“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)

“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)

“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)

And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.

If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.

Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.

Where does NT scripture mention another kingdom?

Have you listened to ANYTHING I have said?

I don't think you can refute may claim that scripture nowhere presents a physical kingdom in this world, in the present (Postmillennialism) or future (Premillennialism/Dispensationalism). If you could, this conversation would not have dragged on as long as it has.

@reformed said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@C_M_ said:

What are we discussing?

1. How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
2. What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?

If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM

All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.

The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.

They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).

The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism

If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm

I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.

Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....

Jesus was Amillennial.

Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.

Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.

Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.

Name one place where he affirms it.

That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.

How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?

Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.

If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.

Revelation 20

It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.

It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.

Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.

That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?

If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.

Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.

If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?

Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.

Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.

I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.

No direct quotes.

I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.

All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"

How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.

Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.

I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.

“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)

“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)

“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)

“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)

“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)

“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)

“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)

And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.

If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.

Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.

Where does NT scripture mention another kingdom?

Have you listened to ANYTHING I have said?

I don't think you can refute may claim that scripture nowhere presents a physical kingdom in this world, in the present (Postmillennialism) or future (Premillennialism/Dispensationalism). If you could, this conversation would not have dragged on as long as it has.

I have. Revelation 20. You refuse to accept it because it isn't Scripture according to Dave and that is all that matters.

You must limit Revelation 20 to what Jesus says about the kingdom being spiritual. And not drag pharisaic physical kingdom concepts into it. If you do, you add to the book.

@reformed said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@reformed said:

@Dave_L said:

@C_M_ said:

What are we discussing?

1. How many forms or levels of Reformed Theology are there?
2. What are some of the key points or pillars of Reformed Theology?

If not here, send it to me in a PM. Thanks. CM

All of the Reformed creeds are Calvinistic in sin and grace as collected in the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession.

The are all Amillennial in their eschatology with the Westminster making room for Postmillennialism.

They err in infant baptism, Church and State, (with some later modifications to the Westminster making it more in line with American thought on separation of church and state).

The 1600s Baptists use a modified version of the Westminster but agree on the main soteriological points and Amillennialism

If they err in some places, how do you know they do not err in others? Hmmmm

I experienced all that Calvinism describes in my conversion to Christ long before I knew what happened. It defined it where Arminianism could not.

Um, I was talking about the possibility of them erring on end times theology....

Jesus was Amillennial.

Pretty sure he never actually spoke of the 1000-year reign while on earth, that doesn't make him millennial or amillennial. However, Revelation does speak of it. There is no reason not to interpret that passage literally. You have no proof of Jesus being Amillennial other than the way you read the text and your only way to reconcile it with Revelation is to say that passage is figurative. That's not really solid evidence there.

Jesus limits the interpretation of Rev 20 by his many descriptions of the kingdom. But most today reject his kingdom and hold out waiting for the Pharisees kingdom that will never arrive.

Name one place, just one, where Jesus eliminates the idea of a 1000-year reign in the future. You will not find one.

Name one place where he affirms it.

That's not how this works Dave. You can't prove a negative. You say Jesus never affirmed it, therefore, it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, for you, the Bible affirms it elsewhere so the burden of proof is on you here.

How can I prove Jesus didn't teach a millennium other than by saying the concept is missing from his vocabulary?

Jesus also didn't teach about the Armor of God, does that mean that part of the Bible isn't true? Jesus didn't speak about lots of things that are elsewhere in the Bible. That is not a valid argument Dave. If it is missing from his vocabulary that means in the writings about Jesus he didn't actually take a position and you are lying if you say that he was Amillenial because the truth is you don't know based on what Jesus said in the Gospels.

If you can find one instance where Jesus depicts a physical kingdom instead of a spiritual kingdom, you will liberate yourself from identifying with the pharisees in this matter.

Revelation 20

It says nothing about a 1000 year physical reign of Christ on earth.

It talks about Satan being banished from the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years Christ is reigning with those who were raised. Then after the 1,000 years Satan is loosed and goes about the earth and is then defeated. Yes, it does talk about a 1,000 year physical reign on earth.

Read it more carefully without all your assumptions. Go only by what it says.

That's actually what I am doing Dave. You realize you also bring a lot of assumptions to the text right?

If we add anything to the passage, we incur the wrath appointed to those who do so. How do we avoid doing this? By having Jesus redefine the OT terms for us.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Unless you are Amillennial, you add to Revelation.

Only based on your presuppositions. But then again, I forgot, if it isn't in Dave L's "bible" it must not be true.

If you cannot produce scripture for most of what you believe, where does that leave you?

Um, I can provide Scripture (and have) for everything I believe. But you say Jesus was amillenial and haven't provided one reference to prove such. So yeah, where DOES that leave you? Answer? In Dave's world. It's not real, it's not biblical, it's out in left field.

Direct scripture quotes for a 7 year tribulation? A pre-trib rapture? A physical Millennium? For starters.

I already have Dave. It's time for you to actually use some Scripture. Something you rarely seem to do, and when you do, you come up with some crazy left-field interpretation of Scripture. Of course this probably stems from the fact that you don't sit under solid biblical preaching because you don't go to church. You are left to your own ways and are arrogant enough to have actually said that if it isn't your way it is wrong.

No direct quotes.

I know you don't have any. Tell me something I don't know. I've given you Scripture, you refuse to accept it but it is still more than you have provided.

All that you have provided is "Jesus held the ammillenial position because I say so"

How do you prove there isn't a millennium? By its absence in Jesus' teaching. That's how.

Jesus didn't teach anything for or against a millennium. So I don't know why you keep appealing to the Gospels and ignoring other parts of Scripture. Well, actually I do. You are doing it because that's the only way you can support your claim is by ignoring other parts of Scripture.

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe Jesus is God? If you do, then you must believe in the millennium because Jesus did speak about it in Revelation 20.

I might have posted this before, but it shows the kingdom is purely spiritual.

“And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2) (KJV 1900)

“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) (KJV 1900)

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28) (KJV 1900)

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) (KJV 1900)

“Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36) (KJV 1900)

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) (KJV 1900)

“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) (KJV 1900)

“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20)

“because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

“Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.” (John 6:14–15)

“He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves,” (Colossians 1:13)

And notice not one, not a single one, of those precludes a physical reign at some point in the future.

If Jesus says his kingdom comes without observation. That it is not of this world, and only the born again can see it, and flesh and blood cannot enter it, etc. It certainly refutes all you believe in the matter.

Again, that does not preclude a future physical reign by any stretch of the imagination. And you are also talking about two different things. There is the spiritual kingdom, that is going on right now, but there will be a physical reign in the future. That is shown explicitly in Revelation. Nothing you have said proves your point or even attack my point. What you have shown is actually irrelevant to the conversation.

Where does NT scripture mention another kingdom?

Have you listened to ANYTHING I have said?

I don't think you can refute may claim that scripture nowhere presents a physical kingdom in this world, in the present (Postmillennialism) or future (Premillennialism/Dispensationalism). If you could, this conversation would not have dragged on as long as it has.

I have. Revelation 20. You refuse to accept it because it isn't Scripture according to Dave and that is all that matters.

You must limit Revelation 20 to what Jesus says about the kingdom being spiritual. And not drag pharisaic physical kingdom concepts into it. If you do, you add to the book.

Nothing Jesus said precludes a physical 1,000 year reign in the future. Seriously, like talking to a brick. Unless you want to bring some real evidence against the 1,000 year reign there is no point in discussing this further. It is just wasting drive space on Jan's server.

except, he doesn't mention one.