The Millennium, the 1000 years of Revelation 20...

[Checkpoint]

This thread stems from the following exchange between myself and Pinseeker:

PinSeeker wrote:

The millennium of Revelation 20 is not a future event. It was when Jeremiah prophesied, obviously, but is not anymore. Or, to be more exacting, it's no longer merely a future event.

Checkpoint asked:

Then why do so many believers think of it as yet future only?

Pinseeker explained:

For at least two reasons, I think:

1. A basic misunderstanding of Revelation as a whole, and the Millennium of chapter 20 included.

2. Many believers (primarily western believers) have bought into the heresy of the "rapture," which came about in the early 19th century. It's not that they are heretics, it's just that that's all they've ever been exposed to.

That's one take from one school of thought.

Your take may be similar or be completely different.

Please share it here, and tell us why you hold that position.

[JehovahsWitness]

However, spirit may refer to the inward man (2 Corinthians 4:16) that is fashioned in Gods image (Genesis 1:26-27)...

Emphasis MINE

GENESIS 1:26-27

Then God said: Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth. And God went on to create the man in his image, in Gods image he created him; male and female he created them.

Are you suggesting there is something in the above passage that suggests a conscious part of man that survives the death of the body? If so what?



JW




RELATED POSTS

What does it mean that man was created in God's image?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 153#957153

Why did God say "Let "us" make man"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 869#903869

[JehovahsWitness]

Therefore, in an earthly perspective without God, when someone dies they no longer exist ...

When you say from and "in an earthly perspective ...when someone dies they no longer exist " are you refering to their physical death ie the individual ceasing to breath and their bodily finctions ceasing, resulting in the decomposittion of their physical body?



JW

Go to other posts related to ...

THE SOUL , DEATH and ...HEAVEN

[JehovahsWitness]

Even another passage in Ecclesiastes disputes annihilationism (4:2"3); Solomon delineates three different states of consciousness and compares the suffering of those who are alive with those who are dead.

Are you here suggesting the passage below refers to the suffering of people after their death? If so based on what?

ECCLESIATES 4:1 -3

Again I turned my attention to all the acts of oppression that go on under the sun. I saw the tears of the oppressed, and there was no one to comfort them. And their oppressors had the power, and there was no one to comfort them. And I congratulated the dead who had already died rather than the living who were still alive. And better off than both of them is the one who has not yet been born, who has not seen the distressing deeds that are done under the sun.

QUESTION: Where does Solomon refer or imply "states of consciousness" to the dead? What exactly in the verses above do you believe implies that the dead continue conscious existence (suffering) after the moment of their death?



JW

[myth-one.com]

What is the punishment?

. . . consignment to hell and eternal judgment by God. Also called the second death.

Judgment is a one time experience for each individual being judged. Judgment does not last forever. You are confusing judgment with punishment.

*************************************************************************************

Death: the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an animal or plant -- Random House College Dictionary

...the wages of sin is death; (Romans 6:23)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

In the two verses above, the words "death" and "Perish" are used. Therefore, these two deaths are referring to the "second death."

Mankind's first physical death is not truly a death as we will all be resurrected to life again. Therefore, the Bible refers to our first "death" as sleep, slumber, or rest.

Christians will be resurrected to everlasting spiritual bodied life at the Second Coming.

Non-believers will be resurrected as humans a thousand years later and face judgment.

Following judgment, those whose name is not written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire and quickly experience their "second" and everlasting death.

They will never live again.

================================================================

If you have any specific serious questions I will gladly respond to them.

[LuciusWrong]

This thread stems from the following exchange between myself and Pinseeker:

PinSeeker wrote:

The millennium of Revelation 20 is not a future event. It was when Jeremiah prophesied, obviously, but is not anymore. Or, to be more exacting, it's no longer merely a future event.

Checkpoint asked:

Then why do so many believers think of it as yet future only?

Pinseeker explained:

For at least two reasons, I think:

1. A basic misunderstanding of Revelation as a whole, and the Millennium of chapter 20 included.

2. Many believers (primarily western believers) have bought into the heresy of the "rapture," which came about in the early 19th century. It's not that they are heretics, it's just that that's all they've ever been exposed to.

That's one take from one school of thought.

Your take may be similar or be completely different.

Please share it here, and tell us why you hold that position.

I was always skeptical of this 1,000 reign of Christ thing. I would have considered myself in the "pan-millenialist" category, which is the belief that it will all pan out in the end.

However, in recent times I have been challenging myself to read the bible as a story, or rather, as an oral history that has been written down. (That is what it actually is, after all...)

I see a simple story. There is a lie that threatens to do great harm in heaven, literally tearing heaven apart. One third of the angels fell, as Revelation says.

This lie is what the serpent says in the garden: "You can be like God knowing Good and Evil."

Adam and Eve chose Satan's lie, and since then we have been left largely on our own to figure out what is good and what is evil. Our world is quite deterministic, which is important, because the effects of our actions, good or evil, have an effect on the world around us, and ultimately on ourselves. So the world is designed as a place to learn what is good and what is evil. This is where the ethical part of the faith comes in--not only do we believe that actions are known to be good or evil by their consequences, but we also believe that God's law tells us perfectly what is good and what is evil. To challenge God's law is to question God...which is the original problem we are here to solve.

So my hypothesis is that this world was created as a platform on which the disagreement between God and Satan could be settled. Don't worry; I'm not saying that Satan has power to challenge God. Instead, Satan gave birth to an idea (he is the father of lies), and that idea is a fundamental challenge to God's claim to the throne of heaven. And God has to answer that challenge. So he created the earth.

By living and interacting with the world, we participate in proving what is good and what is evil. Mostly we prove that all our best ideas will ultimately fail. And I think that Satan and the fallen angels have been given the ability to influence this world through ideas, so ultimately the ideas expressed by humans are the ideas of Satan and the fallen angels. And it seems to me that God limits his interaction with this world to something similar, planting thoughts, dreams, visions, etc.

The 1,000 year reign can be explained by the fact that the demonstration is not complete just by proving everything is evil. God must also prove that what he claims is good, is actually good; God must also prove that obeying his law actually works. This is the purpose of the 1,000 reign of Christ, to prove that God is right. Proving that all Satan's ideas will end in failure isn't enough; God has to prove that his idea of good stands up in an actual test.


So in conclusion, my literary analysis leads me to conclude that a 1,000 year reign of Christ is a critical component of the story. It is wholly consistent with everything in the Bible, and the story can't be resolved without it.

Whether we believe the story is true, that is an altogether different question.

[Checkpoint]

This thread stems from the following exchange between myself and Pinseeker:

PinSeeker wrote:

The millennium of Revelation 20 is not a future event. It was when Jeremiah prophesied, obviously, but is not anymore. Or, to be more exacting, it's no longer merely a future event.

Checkpoint asked:

Then why do so many believers think of it as yet future only?

Pinseeker explained:

For at least two reasons, I think:

1. A basic misunderstanding of Revelation as a whole, and the Millennium of chapter 20 included.

2. Many believers (primarily western believers) have bought into the heresy of the "rapture," which came about in the early 19th century. It's not that they are heretics, it's just that that's all they've ever been exposed to.

That's one take from one school of thought.

Your take may be similar or be completely different.

Please share it here, and tell us why you hold that position.

I was always skeptical of this 1,000 reign of Christ thing. I would have considered myself in the "pan-millenialist" category, which is the belief that it will all pan out in the end.

However, in recent times I have been challenging myself to read the bible as a story, or rather, as an oral history that has been written down. (That is what it actually is, after all...)

I see a simple story. There is a lie that threatens to do great harm in heaven, literally tearing heaven apart. One third of the angels fell, as Revelation says.

This lie is what the serpent says in the garden: "You can be like God knowing Good and Evil."

Adam and Eve chose Satan's lie, and since then we have been left largely on our own to figure out what is good and what is evil. Our world is quite deterministic, which is important, because the effects of our actions, good or evil, have an effect on the world around us, and ultimately on ourselves. So the world is designed as a place to learn what is good and what is evil. This is where the ethical part of the faith comes in--not only do we believe that actions are known to be good or evil by their consequences, but we also believe that God's law tells us perfectly what is good and what is evil. To challenge God's law is to question God...which is the original problem we are here to solve.

So my hypothesis is that this world was created as a platform on which the disagreement between God and Satan could be settled. Don't worry; I'm not saying that Satan has power to challenge God. Instead, Satan gave birth to an idea (he is the father of lies), and that idea is a fundamental challenge to God's claim to the throne of heaven. And God has to answer that challenge. So he created the earth.

By living and interacting with the world, we participate in proving what is good and what is evil. Mostly we prove that all our best ideas will ultimately fail. And I think that Satan and the fallen angels have been given the ability to influence this world through ideas, so ultimately the ideas expressed by humans are the ideas of Satan and the fallen angels. And it seems to me that God limits his interaction with this world to something similar, planting thoughts, dreams, visions, etc.

The 1,000 year reign can be explained by the fact that the demonstration is not complete just by proving everything is evil. God must also prove that what he claims is good, is actually good; God must also prove that obeying his law actually works. This is the purpose of the 1,000 reign of Christ, to prove that God is right. Proving that all Satan's ideas will end in failure isn't enough; God has to prove that his idea of good stands up in an actual test.


So in conclusion, my literary analysis leads me to conclude that a 1,000 year reign of Christ is a critical component of the story. It is wholly consistent with everything in the Bible, and the story can't be resolved without it.

Whether we believe the story is true, that is an altogether different question.

Welcome, LuciusWrong, to this debating site and this sub-forum.

I asked for your take and you explained your hypothesis!

And a good one it is at that.

You see, this life is basically for the test you mention.

Today God is proving how good His ideas are and how bad Satan's ideas are.

Today is the day of salvation, the one in which we choose life and love over death and destruction.

That is why your thesis fits so well with the Bible.

With God a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day.

Grace and peace to you.

[onewithhim]

You did indicate that "it makes no sense at all" that I said that if Jesus took back the physical body he died with that he would be annulling his bodily sacrifice for our sins. That was you, and I don't remember if myth said anything like that. What sense does it make to sacrifice a body and then take it back?

Jesus was a man, and it is appointed unto all men once to die:

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27)

Thus, Jesus' first death was appointed as a consequence of His being born a man.

Since the death of His body was appointed, it was not His to offer as a "bodily sacrifice for our sins."

Actually, the first death is not even the wages for our sins.

The wages of our sins is the "second death."

=======================================================================

Our salvation is based on Jesus living a sinless life and thus becoming an heir to everlasting under the Old Testament Covenant.

Jesus then has something to "barter" with!

He then offers His inheritance of everlasting life to those who accept Him as their Savior.

Thus salvation becomes a gift of God through Jesus Christ.

Jesus as a human was not included in the group of humans that were "appointed to die." He was perfect and sinless. It was only because of humans' SINS that they are appointed to die. Jesus did not belong in that category.

If he hadn't been murdered at the insistence of the Jewish leaders, he would've never died at all. He wouldn't even have grown old.

So, with that thought, how do you answer my question?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 55 by Checkpoint]

The meaning of verse 5 focuses on the rest of the dead (other than the co-rulers with Christ) "coming to life" when the thousand years were ended. What does "coming to
life" actually mean? Does it mean that the dead are resurrected AFTER the thousand years? Or does it mean that these dead have passed the test, if you will, of accepting the truth about God and Christ during the Millennial Reign, and then living according to the "new scrolls" that were opened when Armageddon was over (Rev.20:12), then making themselves eligible for everlasting life? The fact that these formerly dead people have now proven their faithfulness to God and Christ makes them approved to live forever---thus "coming to life".....the real life, the life that will never end.

This makes the most sense to me, and it's not just because someone said that is what verse 5 means.

Thank you for further explaining what makes the most sense to you, onewithhim.

However, that explanation is only possible when what the verse says is directly contradicted.

The verse says "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were over", doesn't it?

What did you say?

"that these dead have passed the test...during the Millennial Reign", didn't you?

They cannot do that while they remain dead until that reign is over.

Why on earth do I have to spell that out to you?

Where are you, onewithhim?

Grace and peace.

The verse says that the rest of the dead (other than the ones who participated in the first resurrection, who will rule with Christ) "did not come to life" until the thousand years were completed (NASB ). The issue is: What does it mean, that they "did not come to life"? Why does it have to mean "they weren't resurrected" until the thousand years were over"? Why can't it mean that they weren't eligible to LIVE FOREVER (really "coming to life") until the end of the thousand years?

"Life" here means the real life---that is, ETERNAL life, not merely life given back to the dead. The rest of the dead truly were able to come to the REAL life---eternal life.

Paul even said that this life---just breathing---is not the real life.

"Instruct them to be good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is LIFE INDEED." (NASB)
(the life that is TRUE life) (NAB)

(the life that is TRULY LIFE) (NIV)


Is that not enough to show you that "life" to a Christian who is looking to live forever is just that---ETERNAL life? That unending life is the REAL life?

I think that is what Revelation 20:5 is speaking of, and I have not added anything to, or contradicted, the verse as it stands.

On reflection, I have tentatively concluded that none of us can be sure of just who "the rest of the dead" are, and why they are mentioned at all.

The passage tells us nothing directly.

What you say about "came to life" seems to be consistent within that context.

So thank you for that; it is never too late to learn more.

Grace and peace to you.

Thank you for responding to my post.

I think that "the rest of the dead" are mentioned because they are a significant part of God's purpose for humans. They are most of mankind who have ever lived!

The ones who take part in the first resurrection are the relatively few that will rule with Christ in heaven. The rest of the dead are everybody else! They will not rule with Christ but will be the recipients of Christ's and his 144,000 co-rulers' loving and kind guidance and protection during the Millennial Reign, right here on Earth. The people who are resurrected (the second resurrection), that is, will be here on Earth, with Christ ruling from heaven with those of the first resurrection.

[onewithhim]

To sum up....the body is part of the soul.

I agree, and that's at least part of the reason the body and the spirit will be reunited after a brief time apart (if the person has died physically prior to Jesus's return). But the physical body and soul/spirit can be separated (by God) for a time; this is what happens at the time of physical death, the first death (those who experience it anyway, because not all will... some will still be alive at the time of Jesus's return and thus their soul/spirits will never be separated from their bodies).

Now, further, you stated that Jesus Christ is God. This contradicts Jesus' own words throughout the Gospels. At John 17:3 Jesus says clearly that his Father (Jehovah) is "the only true God." He even calls the Father "my God" (John 20:17). He does so after his return to heaven as well (Revelation 3:12), so it wasn't just something he said while on Earth.

Yes, there are times that Jesus speaks to God the Father in His human form, His flesh:

• * John 17 is a great example, but that is in contrast to John 10; more on that in a moment.
  
  * John 20 is a great example, too, in the verse you point out (v.17), but... well, more on John 20 in a moment, also.
  
  * And Revelation 3... actually, chapters 1, 2, and 3... belong in this category, too, as He is speaking to John in a vision (not from heaven) and tells John what to write to the seven churches.

In all these cases (John 17:3, John 20:17, and Revelation 1-3), absolutely nothing is done, spoken or otherwise, to diminish or reduce His divinity, deity, his status as the Second Person in the Godhead one iota.

John 1:1 deserves some research. You will find that John did not refer to the Word (Jesus) as the almighty God.

No, he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Yes, John's very next sentence is, "He was in the beginning with God." John speaks two truths here (obviously), a. that God the Father and God the Son are both part of the Godhead, and b. that God the Father and God the Son are two distinct persons.

There is the issue of the definite and indefinite articles that should be studied by any student of the Bible, and it is possible to learn the difference and how Greek should be translated into English, even if we don't know Greek.

Much agreed; absolutely correct.

When Jesus said "I and the Father are one," he certainly did not mean that they were the same Person. He meant it exactly the same way that he referred to his disciples in the 17th chapter of John. He said:

• "I make request [concerning his disciples] so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one."

So... the disciples can be "one" with Jesus and the Father. Does that mean that the disciples are also God? (I think that being "one" simply means being in agreement; in union with....don't you?)

I don't completely disagree with you here, but you said it yourself ("simply"); it is not "simple" at all. I'm sure you're not intentionally doing this, but you're "cherry-picking," or at least unintentionally failing to take into account other parts of Scripture and/or even other things that Christ Himself said. This is a magnificent example of what I just said. In John 17, Jesus, in His state as a man, is praying to God the Father in his humanity. As I said, His being in this state did not diminish or reduce his divinity, deity, his status as the Second Person in the Godhead one iota.

• As an aside, we can see this plainly in what Paul says later: "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:5-8). But I digress.

So again, Jesus is speaking as a man in John 17.

Now. Back to John 20. As I said, in verse 17, Jesus speaks to Mary as a man, in His human form. But we cannot discount what Thomas says later in the same chapter, when, after seeing (and feeling) the reality of Jesus's resurrection, answers Jesus and says, "My Lord and my God!" Now, as a Jehovah's Witness, you may discount this as a simple exclamation of sorts or a display of amazement, but consider at least two things:

• 1. Jesus doesn't correct Thomas by saying, "No, I'm not God..."
  
  2. Jesus actually confirms what Thomas just said by saying "Because you have seen Me, have you believed?" So unlike 20:17 where He speaks to Mary as a man, In verse 29 He speaks to Thomas as God.
  
  3. Yes, Thomas is the one who actually calls Jesus God, but this is the Word of God, and every bit of it is true.

And now finally back to John 10. John 10, onewithhim, is a very different story. There, He affirms His deity and speaks very clearly (well of course, He always speaks clearly... ) as part of the Godhead, saying, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Fathers hand. I and the Father are one."

How you can get around Jesus' subservience to the Father is astonishing. I see a twisting and contorting of the verses. You say that even Revelation 3:12 was spoken to John, not from heaven(!) but in a vision! The point was all this was said to John when Jesus was in heaven, so he had returned to heavenly life and the position he had with the Father before he came to Earth. He was not on Earth any more, therefore one cannot say that he was in subjection to the Father only while on Earth.

You dismiss the clear meaning of "I and the Father are one," and insist that Jesus was confirming the (far-fetched) notion that he was part of a "God-head." That is NOT "clear," as you believe. What is clear and, yes, SIMPLE, is that Jesus is not God but God's SON, and he was WITH God in the beginning, not God. You don't seem to have scrutinized John 1:1 in the light of the rules of translating Greek into English. You basically just want to argue rather than have a meaningful discussion.

I have had hopeful sentiments throughout discussing all this with you, but, unfortunately, it is becoming evident that we will never have a meeting of the minds, so I will refrain from responding to any more of your posts.

I wish you the best.

[onewithhim]

Like many you seem tomthinkmthe souls and spirit are the same thing and that the terms can be used interchangeably, why is that?

JW

LOL! Maybe it would be more productive and expedient for you to tell me why you don't, JW. I might even agree with you; who knows?

I see that no one thinks I have anything to say that matters.

I differentiated between the soul and the spirit in my post #117. Why was that considered nothing to pay attention to?

JehovahsWitness and I believe the same thing. I had already answered that.