Joh 4:21 KJV Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Jesus said the time was coming when the Father will not be worshipped at Jesusalem!
sort by best latest
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
Could you list the prophecies that proclaim the Messiah will reign from earthly Jerusalem for 1000 years?
The OT prophecies do not specify the length of His reign. Revelation 20:4,6 are the only verses that specify its duration as one thousand years. Verses 2-3, 5, 7 support them. He will reign on Earth for that period, but His kingdom will last forever
Therefore, the millennium doctrine is based on one verse!
No. Actually six verses. All six verses in Revelation 20 refer to a period of one thousand years during which Messiah reigns on the Earth. Six verses specifying a thousand-year period is good enough for me. Who are we to dispute them? God wrote them.
Earthly Jerusalem is not mentioned in Revelation 20:1-7.
Verse 9 says that Satan and the other rebels "surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city." Scripture always refers to Jerusalem as the "beloved city." Besides, the OT specifies that Messiah will reign from the earthly Jerusalem.
Revelation 20:9 takes place after the 1000 years.
So? What is your point?
Revelation 20:1-7 does not mention Christ reigning for 1000 years from earthly Jerusalem.
Revelation 20:8-9 describes the gathering of Gog and Magog to battle after the 1000 years. Dispensationalism teaches the battle is at the beginning!
Readers knew Messiah's headquarters from OT (Is. 2)--no need to mention Jerusalem. Two different judgments: one is premillennial (Ezek 38-39); the other is postmillennial (Rev. 20). Ezek. invaders come from north; Rev. from four quarters of Earth.
John said Ezekiel was fulfilled at the end of the 1000 years, not the beginning and the end.
Ezek and Rev describe two different events separated by over one thousand years. Ezek describes the invasion of Palestine by the king of the North-Russia (Dan. 11:40); Rev relates the postmillennial attack of all nations. Magog is just one of them.
Could you provide me with your source for interpreting Daniel 11:40?
Leon Wood, with help from John Walvoord and Dwight Pentecost.
These men taught that Gog & Magog is prior to the millennium, how can that be if John wrote it was after the millennium?
Walvoord suggests that "the expression 'Gog and Magog' is used much as we use the term 'Waterloo' to express a disastrous battle, but one not related to the historic origination of the term."
Should we accept what man teaches if it is contrary to the Scriptures? Quote 'Who are we to dispute them? God wrote them' These men taught Heaven and Earth is destroyed after the millennium, Peter wrote it as at the return of Christ...2Pet 3:10
What they teach is not contrary to Scripture; your preterism is what does not fit the whole of Scripture. I have presented a few times now what I believe best interprets the facts. Neither of us will convince the other, so let's leave it at that.
Thank you for answering my question and for taking the time to respond to my comments. GB