1948

[Guest]

Paidion, You said once that possibly there may be missionary trips into the lake of fire. Could'nt the millennium be an interchangable term for the lake of fire. Maybe just describing the LOF as a long period of time rather then a literal thousand years.
"Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection ,over these the second death has no power ,but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." Rev 20.6

Here we have the second death (LOF) and the thousand years mentioned together and the disciples , the consecrated believers IMO ruling and reigning with Christ to reconcile the world to Christ.

A nice thought.

[Guest]

To my understanding the preterist does'nt believe in a post second coming millennium because nowhere else in scripture is this confirmed. But nowhere in scripture is the gospel age called the millenium either so why use it now simply because there is no other period to place it. If John meant to say gospel age why did'nt he say something like "this present evil age" . Millennium and lake of fire are only used at the end of Revelation and nowhere else , so would'nt it be logical that the terms are connected. And if the LOF is a place to be severely tested maybe the testing involves Satan for a final testing with the sands of the sea being demons or people or both.

[Guest]

The fact that the millennium is not mentioned anywhere else in scripture is not the only reason for rejecting the doctrine. The main reason for rejecting the doctrine comes from an exegesis of the only passage that mentions it (Revelation 20).

When compared with the teaching of the rest of scripture, one finds that all the things associated with the second coming of Christ—e.g., fire from heaven (2 Thess.1:7-8), the destruction of the "last enemy" (1 Cor.15:22-26), the resurrection of the dead (John 5:28-29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54), the judgment of all people (John 12:48/ 2 Tim.4:1), the end of the world, followed by the new heavens and new earth (2 Pet.3:10-13/ Rom.8:19-23)—are all found at the END of the "thousand years" (Revelation 20:9-15). This strongly indicates that the "thousand years" must run their course before the second coming (ruling out premillennialism, which places the second coming at the BEGINNING of the "thousand years").

This leaves only amillennialism and postmillennialism as possibilities. Amillennialists make the period of "a thousand years" commence at Christ's first coming. Some postmillennialists (e.g., David Chilton) do the same, though others would make the beginning of the millennium still future, but prior to the second coming.

The reason for identifying the binding of Satan (at the beginning of the "thousand years") with the first coming of Christ is, of course, the many statements elsewhere in scripture that speak of just such a victory over Satan having been accomplished at that time (e.g., Matt.12:28/ Luke 10:18; 11:21-22/ Col.2:15/ Heb.2:14/ 1 John 3:8/ Isa.27:1).

The fact that the millennium is not mentioned elsewhere cannot be regarded as determinative. However, when one discovers that the belief in a future millennium is actually at odds with all other passages of biblical eschatology, the fact that it is not affirmed elsewhere is not surprising. What IS surprising is the number of Christians who try to unnaturally disfigure and force the rest of scriptural eschatology into a premillennial mold in order to conform it to one narrow interpretation of a single, symbolic chapter, which has been called "the most controversial chapter in scripture."

[Guest]

Paidion,
I dug this link up for you. It's about the belief that Matthew 24 relates to 70AD and lists historical references to it. You can check out its validity, I'm not making any claims to its accuracy.

Here's the link: http://www.thechristadelphians.org/foru ... topic=2151

[Guest]

Can anyone confirm whether these quotes from Sean's linked website are valid? They certainly seem to be. If so, this is helpful to solving what I have always felt was the biggest objection to preterism. Previously, I had only read Eusebius' works and was still a bit uncertain as to how preterism was regarded in the early church. The way I saw it, how could Iraneus or Justin Martyr look for a future fulfillment of certain prophecies (namely Revelation) if they had so clearly been fulfilled earlier? On the other hand, Eusebius was pretty dogmatic about the fulfillment of the Olivet promises. Now reading these quotes from Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, etc., the case for preterism suddenly seems much stronger. Are these legitimate quotes from these church fathers?

Furthermore, Steve once pointed out to me over the radio that Revelation was not necessarily canonical during Eusebius' time, which could explain why he didn't apply the destruction of Jerusalem to Revelation (though he did apply the Olivet Discourse to it). What are the earliest references in history applying Revelation to 70 AD? As far as I have been told, they come from a Jesuit named Luis De Alcazar in the 16th century. Is this correct?

Anyone's insights on these subjects would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Jonathan

[Guest]

Furthermore, Steve once pointed out to me over the radio that Revelation was not necessarily canonical during Eusebius' time, which could explain why he didn't apply the destruction of Jerusalem to Revelation (though he did apply the Olivet Discourse to it). What are the earliest references in history applying Revelation to 70 AD? As far as I have been told, they come from a Jesuit named Luis De Alcazar in the 16th century. Is this correct?

Anyone's insights on these subjects would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


JJR, I have no insights except i think it is likely Rev was written before 70AD. But that does'nt mean the entire book is about Jerusalem in 70AD , i mean after all it's a christian book and the destruction of Jerusalem was a mostly jewish event and it was not a universal event like the second coming will be.
Would christianity have been dramatically different in the long run if Jerusalem was'nt destroyed in 70AD? I think it may have taken longer but it would have separated from judaism in either case.

[Guest]

Found this in the news today....its so awesome to see it all fitting into place...

"Israel warned Monday that a new "axis of terror" - Iran, Syria and the Hamas-run Palestinian government - is sowing the seeds of the first world war of the 21st century. The Palestinians accused Israel of an escalating military campaign using indiscriminate force to kill civilians and entrench its occupation.

The Israeli and Palestinian envoys traded charges at an open Security Council meeting held in response to the recent upsurge in Israeli attacks in Gaza. It took place on a day that a Palestinian suicide bomber struck a packed fast-food restaurant in Tel Aviv, killing nine people in the deadliest bombing in more than a year."

Crusader

[Guest]

It's kind of disturbing that you see all this carnage as "awesome". People are getting killed Crusader.

[Guest]

Crusader,
I would echo Christopher's concern.
Even if there are biblical prophecies (which I have yet to find) that point toward a world war centered around Israel, this eagerness for such destruction and loss of human life is disturbing.
Jeremiah prophesied the destruction of Israel and Jerusalem, yet he was never eager for it to happen so that he could be vindicated. I would assert that unbelievers dying without Christ is always a terrible thing to be mourned.

[Guest]

Frightening, Crusader, frightening.