What's the point of the 1000 yr reign?

[Daniel12]

Originally Posted by easter

I don't think your a devil
Maybe we should all step back for a bit and breathe

Thank you...now I can breathe easier.

[easter]

Originally Posted by Daniel12

Thank you...now I can breathe easier.

Hey isn't that what were here for fellowship with one another in Christ?However you got to admit it is a little bit funny,you know you be the devil and all

[easter]

Originally Posted by easter

Hey isn't that what were here for fellowship with one another in Christ?However you got to admit it is a little bit funny,you know you be the devil and all

Hey now you know that was a joke friend

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Daniel12

Are you lifting my words out of context here too? Go back and look at TJJJ's question if the "PLAN OF SALVATION" will be in place during the millennial reign. I said as far as I understood scripture, no it won't. I fully understand we're in the spiritual realm, but we certainly aren't in the New Jerusalem. I suppose in one sense we're in the spiritual kingdom but there's more to come, and it'll be seen in the age to come. This is not all there is.

And I was referring to the NJ of REV 21.

How many NJ's are there?

And what are you implying with these words? I'm the devil?? How does Gal 1 even enter here?

I am saying nothing about YOU, but about claims that the angel in Rev 14 is NOT preaching Acts 2:38.

Once death and hell are swallowed up there's no more redemptive work to be done, therefore Acts 2:38 is only for the church age. That's what our discussion was about.

But you assume that the New Jerusalem is not in existence today.

Now please stop lifting my words out of context, or implying I'm a devil.
Good grief!!
Daniel12

No one implied you were a devil. read context more correctly.

[simplyme]

Precious Time wastes away when imagination(s) run amuck.

[mfblume]

Right.

It is interesting that Paul distinctly said that if an angel from heaven preaches another gospel it is accursed, when Rev 14 states there is an angel in heaven preaching the everlasting GOSPEL.

I think that makes things clear. The angel can only be preaching one Gospel that agreed with Paul!

Galatians 1:8 KJV But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Revelation 14:6 KJV And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

No room for imagination there!

[Daniel12]

Bro. Blume
Look at what you said, You quoted me (out of context IMO) and said:
"Funny that the bible says differently."
You cited Heb 12:22-23 and Gal 4:26, and then you said,
"I am in the Heavenly Jerusalem now, and I enjoy Acts 2:38. Paul said if any man preach any other gospel, let him be accursed."

Now please, what am I supposed to make of this, when you obviously made no attempt at all to even find out what context I may have had in mind. Your very first attempt was not to ask me for clarification, but to go straight for the jugular and imply -while in the context of addressing me- that I should be accursed. You then have the audacity to tell me I misunderstood you?? Please!! I fully understand the limitations of these forums, nor do I know your sense of humor, but I don't think I missed anything when I read that post.

My point remains: Acts 2:38 is exclusively for the church age. In the age to come, when the Messiah is ruling from the city of Jerusalem and the devils are bound, then a totally different "spiritual climate" (if you will) will be in place. Thus it seems reasonable to believe that a different set of requirements for salvation will be in place at that time too. That's what I was trying to explain to TJJJ.

Now to your questions:

Originally Posted by mfblume

How many NJ's are there?

I don't know. I do know we're in the spiritual realm right now -provided we have the Spirit of Christ in us, but I was referring to the New Jerusalem described in Rev 21.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I am saying nothing about YOU, but about claims that the angel in Rev 14 is NOT preaching Acts 2:38.

And how do you know this? Did you even read what that angel was preaching? Here, take a look at this in the NET:

14:6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, and he had an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth – to every nation, tribe, language, and people.
14:7 He declared in a loud voice: “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has arrived, and worship the one who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water!”

The gospel message that angel was proclaiming is highlighted in blue Bro. Blume. Judgment has come. Now how was this fulfilled in AD 70? Please tell us...if you can.

Originally Posted by mfblume

But you assume that the New Jerusalem is not in existence today.

It may or may not be, I don't know. But I was referring to the one in Rev 21 (which if it doesn't exist, then we perceive it by faith).

Originally Posted by mfblume

No one implied you were a devil. read context more correctly.

I believe I did that, but if nothing ill was meant, then let's move on.

Sincerely, Daniel12

[easter]

I believe the most significant point of the Thousand Year Reign would be that God has overcome like he said he would.Really it's simple,Jesus comes to Earth and sets up his Kingdom for a Thousand years because he has overcome.Really what we as Christians should be most concerned with at this point is to be counted worthy to leave here as part of the bride of Christ.You can ask Jesus yourselves what's the point of his 1000 year reign.At least then the answer you guys will get, will leave no room for arguing.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Daniel12

Bro. Blume
Look at what you said, You quoted me (out of context IMO) and said:
"Funny that the bible says differently."
You cited Heb 12:22-23 and Gal 4:26, and then you said,
"I am in the Heavenly Jerusalem now, and I enjoy Acts 2:38. Paul said if any man preach any other gospel, let him be accursed."

Now please, what am I supposed to make of this, when you obviously made no attempt at all to even find out what context I may have had in mind. Your very first attempt was not to ask me for clarification, but to go straight for the jugular and imply -while in the context of addressing me- that I should be accursed.

I already said that I was not referring to you being accursed.

I implied the angel in Rev 14 is accursed if that angel was not preaching Acts 2:38 and the gospel as we know it. So we know it was not accursed, meaning the everlasting Gospel is the one we know and love.

You then have the audacity to tell me I misunderstood you?? Please!!

Yes I insist you misunderstood me. If you thouhgjht I meant you were accursed, you flat-out misunderstaood me.

You clearly missed it if you thought I implied you were accursed. I think you are reading my words through angry-tinted glasses, and somehow distorting all I say to be offensive against your person.

My point remains: Acts 2:38 is exclusively for the church age. In the age to come, when the Messiah is ruling from the city of Jerusalem and the devils are bound, then a totally different "spiritual climate" (if you will) will be in place. Thus it seems reasonable to believe that a different set of requirements for salvation will be in place at that time too. That's what I was trying to explain to TJJJ.

And I claim that is entirely wrong. There will never again be any further requirements for salvation or redemption, whether or not the church age ends. When Paul spoke of no other Gospel being acceptable, I propose he was saying there will be no additional age with any other gospel. Your view requires you to add to what Paul said and claim Paul only meant no other gospel for THIS AGE. But he said no other gospel, period.

The New Jerusalem is one and the same as the church in which we now dwell. Heb 2:122 tried telling us that. IOW, Rev 21 through 22 is symbolic of the church we are in and is the Heavenly Jerusalem in picture form that we read about in Heb 12:22. Eph 2 mentions the fact that the church is built on the apostles and prophets with Christ as the chief cornerstone. Since Paul used the BUILDING concept to relate this truth, Rev 21 through 22 shows that building concept for the same reason.

The church is espoused to Christ now, not a set of buildings we read are called the BRIDE in Rev 21. Isaiah foretold that God's people are called a CITY NOT FORSAKEN. Walking on street of Gold is symbolic of a divinely led walk of the Spirit. The steps of a good man are ordered of the Lord, and all agree gold represents deity in the Word. The gates of one solid pearl (where no such thing can exist literally, unless God creates them whereas God could also create a seven-eyed and seven-horned lamb, but we know He did not) speak of the Gospel entrance that Christ purchased with His blood which is the pearl of great price. (Notice we cannot make up these meanings as you accuse we do, but look to the rest of scripture for the interpretation, as with the pearl and the walk on a golden street.) Each element of the city is translated into what the bible said about the church.

My question about how many NJ's there are was rhetorical. I implied it is error to think there are more than one. So the Heavenly Jerusalem that is called the church in Heb 12:22-24, and the NJ that comes from Heaven in rev 21 are one and the same entity. Rev is symbolic of Heb 12:22. The comparisons with what we read in rev 21-22, when considered as symbols, to the facts we read in the rest of the bible are beyond coincidental that the facts would be symbolized as we read in Rev.

Your view that Rev is unfulfilled makes you take all said about the angel in Rev and the city as being yet future, and not descriptive of the church age. You put all of Rev at the end of the church age and I put it at the start. The two views cannot be reconciled.

God bless!

[Daniel12]

Okay, well here we go again...my apologies to the rest of you who don't want to hear about preterism...

Concerning the angel in Rev 14:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I implied the angel in Rev 14 is accursed if that angel was not preaching Acts 2:38 and the gospel as we know it. So we know it was not accursed, meaning the everlasting Gospel is the one we know and love.

If you do a little research you'll find that in the first century "gospel" was applied to any message concerning Jesus and his teachings. In our time "gospel" has come to mean exclusively the four gospels. This is a place where the historical-grammatical approach is helpful. As I pointed out, the eternal gospel in Rev 14 -the news humanity has been crying out for since the fall- is that judgment has arrived.

Concerning my understanding that Acts 2 will be the salvation message in the age to come:

Originally Posted by mfblume

And I claim that is entirely wrong. There will never again be any further requirements for salvation or redemption, whether or not the church age ends. When Paul spoke of no other Gospel being acceptable, I propose he was saying there will be no additional age with any other gospel. Your view requires you to add to what Paul said and claim Paul only meant no other gospel for THIS AGE. But he said no other gospel, period.

And I claim you're reading into Paul's words, because he never taught or implied there were no other ages to come. See e.g. Eph 2:7.

Concerning the New Jerusalem:

Originally Posted by mfblume

The New Jerusalem is one and the same as the church in which we now dwell. Heb 2:122 tried telling us that.

No it didn't, nor is the church ever called the NJ. That expression appears twice in REV, see 3:12 and 21:2. The author of Heb could have been indicating that even if we don't have the city of Jerusalem to come to, we still have a heavenly, or yes, spiritual one to come to. I don't see any reference calling the church either the heavenly Jerusalem, nor the New Jerusalem.

BTW, check how many times the name Jerusalem even appears in REV, exactly three. (Besides the two I just gave, see 21:10.) This harks back to questions I've put to preterists many times, which not only go unanswered, but preterists never even acknowledge I've asked them.
1.) If REV is concerned with the AD 70 siege, then why isn't it ever mentioned explicitly in REV? It's not even one of the cities in the greetings...does that make any sense at all?
2.) There are numerous references to the temple in REV, but none of them concern the destruction of the earthly temple. Why is this?

To continue:

Originally Posted by mfblume

The church is espoused to Christ now, not a set of buildings we read are called the BRIDE in Rev 21. Isaiah foretold that God's people are called a CITY NOT FORSAKEN.

We could do a study on Isa 62 alone, but if one reads the chapter it should be clear the city of Jerusalem is being referenced there, and many of the promises there will be fulfilled in the age to come, the Messianic Age.

Here's Isa 62:11-12 NET:
62:11 Look, the Lord announces to the entire earth: “Say to Daughter Zion, ‘Look, your deliverer comes! Look, his reward is with him and his reward goes before him!’” [See Rev 22:12]
62:12 They will be called, “The Holy People, the Ones Protected by the Lord.” You will be called, “Sought After, City Not Abandoned.”

The context shows us they (the people of Jerusalem) will never be abandoned when their deliverer comes. (Amen.) There's no indication throughout Isa 62 that this is anything other than the city Jerusalem.

Originally Posted by mfblume

(Notice we cannot make up these meanings as you accuse we do, but look to the rest of scripture for the interpretation, as with the pearl and the walk on a golden street.) Each element of the city is translated into what the bible said about the church.

And I don't agree with your understanding of the heavenly Jerusalem, nor the NJ. The heavenly one is the spiritual realm we're in now, and the NJ descends from heaven, Here's Rev 21:2 NET:

21:2 And I saw the holy city – the new Jerusalem – descending out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband.

(I put "like" in orange to show a metaphor is intended.)

Concerning our views:

Originally Posted by mfblume

The two views cannot be reconciled.

I agree, because yours turns the promises of God into carnal foolishness IMO, and leaves us in a prophetic vacuum. Yes, REV involves things that will be seen at the end of the age, and His glorious coming with great power and the heavenly host...which we still await patiently. Amen.

Take care, Daniel12