Featured For amillenial brothers....thoughts?

So your "literal" hermeneutic equates the reign of God w/ the person Jesus?

 

he is the King of His Kingdom, correct?

 

later on the same crowd were yelling to crucify him though!

First coming as as suffering servant of God, as messiah, second coming will be as the king over isreal and whole earth!

 

You simply quoted this passage. It doesn't deny the existence of an earthly millennial kingdom that Christ will rule over.

1. When Jesus came the first time, all, including his disciples, were looking for an earthly kingdom. The Jews were disappointed that that earthly kingdom never materialized. The very fact they were looking for one indicates that their understanding of Scripture teaches one.
2. Jerusalem has always been in existence long before David's time. Jesus coming to a city that was there more than a thousand years old was not of historical importance. He was born in Bethlehem. He came to Bethlehem.
When he entered into Jerusalem he knew that the purpose of that coming was to die. One week after "Palm Sunday" he died. One week is not equal to a thousand year reign.
3. He came to reign in an earthly Jerusalem on the throne of David, seated in the earthly Jerusalem, where all the actual nations of the world would come from all over the world and worship him. That hasn't happened yet. It will be a rule for one thousand years, as is mentioned no less than six times in a span of seven verses in Revelation 20:1-7.
4. He will come to Mount Olivet and the mountain will split in two causing a valley between the two resulting mountains (Zech.14:1-4). At that time all the enemies of Israel will be defeated and Israel shall be saved. That has not yet happened.
5. He has never reigned on earth. The earth's kingdom is the kingdom of Satan, the god of this world, as Scripture teaches us very clearly.

Why? Because you cannot read into Scripture things that are not there. There is no indication that he taught anything about the coming kingdom to his disciples. Nothing indicates that. In fact the context indicates that he was teaching them about his impending death, burial, and resurrection. Then after that he was teaching them about the fact that he would depart from them, and he would send them the Comforter, the Holy Spirit in his place. That was what he was teaching them.
In Acts one, when they asked about the kingdom, they were rebuked for asking. It wasn't their business. It was their business was to evangelize. The Kingdom was not of major importance. That was not part of his teaching to them, not at that time. So your exposition of that passage is nothing by eisigesis. You are simply reading into it what you want to.

My statement to you was:

The "bear them now," was quite some time ago, long before the death, burial and resurrection. This is way out of context.
--Your response to this statement does not make sense. How does "you cannot bear them now," have any relevance to Acts chapter one, where they were rebuked for asking about the kingdom. The kingdom never came.

There is not one thing, not one verse here that says he taught them anything about a coming kingdom--absolutely nothing.
He would guide them into all truth--a promise that the Holy Spirit would guide them into the truth that God wanted them to pen while writing the Scriptures. It is not applicable to us today. Not one of us has "all truth."
--You post as if you know what Jesus taught them, as if you know what was in Jesus mind when he said "you cannot bear them now," but you don't.

The Scriptures teach of a coming Kingdom. Revelation teaches of an exact period of time of one thousand years. Zechariah teaches exactly where Jesus will come back. Isaiah teaches what harmony nature will have (the wolf and the lamb will lie down together).
These things have not happened yet. You are connecting the wrong dots.

They asked. Jesus rebuked them, but didn't deny that a kingdom was coming. He never said that the kingdom had come. What had come was the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, not the Kingdom.

"Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done,on earth as it is in heaven."
How can that be when the scripture itself says that Satan is "the god of this earth" (not Jesus), the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience."
It is very evident that Christ is not reigning over this world.
What does Isaiah 2 say:
Isa 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
This is on the earth and it is still future.
Never has there been a time in history where all the nations of the world have come to the Lord's house. When has that ever happened, Icon? When? Does ISIS come to the house of the Lord? Last I heard they are burying Christians alive.

The kingdom was not welcomed. The Holy Spirit was welcomed. The disciples asked about the coming of the kingdom and were rebuked for even suggesting it!

What they understood was how this triumphal entry would relate to his impending death one week later, and then three days after that his glorious resurrection, and then 40 days after that his ascension into heaven.

You are simply quoting scripture here. That doesn't make your point.
They remembered about his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. There is not one reference about his kingdom.
Everything that we read about his kingdom is in Acts one. Jesus rebuked them for even suggesting it. They were to concentrate on evangelism and not be concerned with the kingdom.

 

It is not defeat. It is what the Scriptures say:
"When I come, will I find faith?"
When the Son of Man comes, it will be like the time of Noah; they shall be eating, drinking, giving and being given in marriage.
He shall come in a time when they know not--as a thief in the night.
This know also perilous times shall come.
Then shall that Wicked one be revealed.

Satan is a real person; he is alive and doing well leading many astray. He is as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (1Pet.5:8); the enemy of all unrighteousness; whom resist steadfast in the faith. He is the god of this world, and doesn't rest. He knows he has but a short time.

Have you ever witnessed a hail storm with each hail stone of approximately 100 pounds. That is one of the events to take place in the Great Tribulation. It will make the destruction of Jerusalem seem like a walk in the park.

I am not struggling or frustrated. I never intend to bear false witness. Correct me if I am bearing false witness.
Here is how I understand the Second Coming.
He came a first time--His birth.
When He comes a second time it will be for two reasons and in two phases.
1. The rapture will occur when he comes for his own--the bride of Christ.
2. The Second Advent will occur when he comes at the end of seven years Tribulation to save his elect (Israel) from her enemies and also to set up His Kingdom of one thousand years and to rule on earth at that time.
Now if you deny the rapture and deny the earthly Kingdom, what would you believe in a Second Coming for. What purpose would he come for? There is nothing left for His Coming--no reason.

So help me here. In your view why and when is Christ coming.

Do what? What are you accusing me of?

Yet you cannot deny Scripture. Satan is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Peter said that.
He is the god of this world. Paul said that.
Are you not denying that Satan is a very powerful being present on this earth today, and Paul taught that we have to do battle with him. Read Eph.6:11-18. Our battle is with Satan himself.

Please explain your position more clearly to me.

 

To say that those that worshipped Him upon the triumphal entry into Jerusalem were not the same as those that cried for His crucifixion simply because they were "elect" seems a easy way to dismiss the obvious duality of humankind. Some people worshipped Him from start to finish. Some walked in the faith and then departed. Some started in the wrong and then came into the light. This is the nature of mankind. We have, in essence, two entities at war in ourselves daily: the carnal man and the spiritual man. The flesh is at enmity with the Spirit.

Remember, too, the people crying for Christ's crucifixion were not as educated as we are today. They didn't have the access to religious texts that we have today. They were bound to a priestly system that required the leaders of the Temple to tell them the Word of God. Unfortunately, as we see so often (thanks to that dual nature of man), the Temple priesthood was easily corrupted by the power they wielded. This is still evident today in the people who kowtow to the priesthood of the Catholic church. We know that we have the ability to come boldly before the Throne of Grace, as God rent the veil of the Temple, opening the Holy of Holies to all who would come through the death, burial and resurrection of His son, Jesus Christ.

 

There is NO biblcal support taht the Church, by preaching the Gospel, will take over the earth for Jesus though, as the Bible expressly states to us that in the end, times will be tough and hard, so much in fact, that if jesus did not come back for his elect, even they would perish!

Isis has not yet gotten the memo either that Jeus reigns over them yet...

 

Hey, Icon,

One of the founders of Canada used that verse to give Canada its name: The Dominion of Canada.

[FONT=&quot]Psalms 72:8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.[/FONT]

The Lord gave us this land. It goes from sea to sea. At that time the rivers as far as they could see went to the ends of the earth, and if you took all the rivers of Canada and lined them up in a straight line they probably would go from one end of the earth to the other.

Of course that verse speaks of Christ's millennial reign when his land will be even greater than Canada. It will encompass the entire world. Israel does not go from sea to sea. And its rivers do not go from one end of the earth to the other. But in the Millennial Kingdom they will.

 

Thank you for the greeting. I've been lurking for a while. I did the customary thread on the Welcome forum.

I'm speaking of those who walked in the faith, like Demas, but departed because they loved the world more. Such things happen. Unless we believe Paul to be such a poor judge of character that he willing brought along someone who never sought to believe nor ever showed signs of the faith, then Demas surrendered to the lusts of the flesh, which we are warned against, and returned to a life of sin in the world.

I mean that we struggle daily with sin. Unless you want to contend that a saved person never again sins nor has to deal with sin in this life, which is not a position I'm willing to take. Otherwise a means of repentance after salvation would not have been given.

I happen to believe that a saved person is tempted by the devil and the world all the more, so that that person can be used by the world as an exalted example should they fall. Look how the media went after someone like Tim Tebow, who professed faith in Christ. They wanted him to fall, because it would justify sinful living.

 

Our brother icon does not see that after salvation we still have that sin nature still remaining, so his take on this will be a nit different then yours!

 

There is nothing in Galatians 4 about a kingdom, much less a Millennial Kingdom. In chapter 4 Paul gives an appeal not to turn to legalism, but rather to remember their relationship with Christ. He asks them to consider his relationship to them, and then ends with a Biblical illustration. There is nothing there about a kingdom.

The twelve apostles--after having grown up in traditional synagogue teaching and Temple worship, and then being taught personally by the Lord Jesus Christ for three and a half years, and then witnessing the resurrection, and receiving his instructions just before he ascends into heaven which they also witness--you say they had a wrong understanding and you have a right one.
--I would rather believe the disciples on this one, not you. Their words also became inscripurated as the inspired words of God. Yours are not.

You can make the Bible say anything you want.
Actually the allegory fits just as well this way:
Jesus was 30 years old when he began his ministry, and he was tempted by the devil for 40 days and 40 nights. The numbers fit don't they. But Christ was certainly not reigning.

You really have to string these scriptures together to make them say anything. Why not concentrate on the first seven verses of chapter 14 of Zechariah, and faithfully expound, verse by verse that chapter. Then the Word would make some sense.
It tells one how Jesus will come, where he will come, even when he will come (last part of the tribulation when the enemies of Israel are come up against her), and how those enemies will be defeated. 500 years before the birth of Christ all these questions were already answered. There will be a definite physical earthly kingdom of a thousand years when all of Israel's enemies will be subdued. Never in history has all of Israel's enemies been subdued.

The only covenant he makes with believers is the personal relationship he has with each of us.
Otherwise his covenants are with Israel, as Paul said they were.
Words have meanings. The very fact that the Lord mentions "thousand" six times in seven verses disproves any idea of this being symbolic "the thousand years" is not symbolic. "Blessed is he who has part in the first resurrection....and they shall reign with him a thousand years." There is no symbolism there. That is exactly what is going to happen.

This is what I said:

3. He came to reign in an earthly Jerusalem on the throne of David,

To which you respond with a passage about the crucifixion of Christ. The two are not related. Why not look in a concordance and find relevant passages of "the throne of David"? This passage isn't even relevant to the Kingdom.

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.

The thrones are on heaven.
One does not see souls. The word means "persons." They are real people sitting on real thrones on a real earth. He was told that they "were beheaded..." That was their past. This is after the first resurrection. They have their resurrected bodies; received them at the rapture, and now are reigning with Christ for a thousand years on earth.
Compare with Zech.14:1-5.
Also compare with Rev.19, and the coming of Christ to earth with his saints with him.

 

Strange, the prophets all foresaw an earthly Kingdom of Messiah reigning, bring peace upon this earth, why don't you?