Millenium!

[RCNicholas]

Do you believe there will be a future literal 1,000 year Millenium? Why or why not? What Scripture passages do you believe back up your position?

[spauline]

Well, like what, are you implying there are only two choices: chiliasm or amill? Why not a mixture of the two?

[RCNicholas]

Well, like what, are you implying there are only two choices: chiliasm or amill? Why not a mixture of the two?
Well, either there is a literal future thousand-year Millenium, or there isn't. I don't see how those two mix.

[dizzle]

Do you believe there will be a future literal 1,000 year Millenium?

No.

Why or why not? What Scripture passages do you believe back up your position?

All the ones that demonstrate clearly that the use of "1,000" is symbolic.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

No.



All the ones that demonstrate clearly that the use of "1,000" is symbolic.

:yeahthat:

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Yes. Rev 20. I'm a futurist.

[RCNicholas]

No.



All the ones that demonstrate clearly that the use of "1,000" is symbolic.How do you arrive at that conclusion? What convinces you of that?

[RCNicholas]

Yes. Rev 20. I'm a futurist.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that Rev. 20 is a literal thousand-tear time period?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Glad to see that you ask the same questions of both sides. :thumb:

I have an OP somewhere in here where I give a detailed account of my Millinial views (including why the 1000 years is not literal), I don't have time to dig it up now, but I will try (unless someone beats me to it) to find it and link to it for you.

Edit to add:

Found it (here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=78974&highlight=on+a+thousand+hills) post #7):

First I would like to make a Biblical case for a non-literal understanding of 1000 in Rev. 20. 100 is often used in the OT to denote a large number of unspecific size. Much in the same way we say “If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a million times….” As no one ever says the same thing exactly a million times, or even close to a million times.



Scriptural examples of this include:







15Remember his covenant forever, the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,



A thousand generations? Have there been any where near 1000 generations since Adam and Eve. Matthew tells us that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David 14 from David to the exile, and 14 from the exile to Jesus that is a grand total of 42 we turn to Luke and count the generations from Adam to Abraham and that gives us another 21, for a grand total of 63. No where near 1000. And Chronicles was written well before Christ birth.



Now many scholars (and I agree) say that there are, by design, gaps in Hebraic genealogies. But I am not aware of anyone who allows for enough gaps to stretch 63 to 1000.



Plus, if we take the 1000 as literal, does that mean that the 1001st generation is able to completely ignore the word that God commanded?





3If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times.

Here Job is talking about “contending with God” He says one could not answer Him once in a thousand times. Does that literally mean that a finite man can contend with an infinite God one in every 1000 questions exactly, or does it mean that finite man does not have any hope at all of contending with infinite God?



Psalms 50:10:]



10For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.



Does God really own every beast in the forest but only cattle on a thousand hills? What about the 1001st hill? What about cattle that are not on hills at all? Or is this another instance where 1000 is symbolic of a large and indefinite number?



I say the latter.



Other examples of 1000 being used to describe a large but non-specific number are:



Deut. 7:9, Deut 32:30; Josh. 23:10; 2 Ch. 14:9; Ps. 84:10, Ps. 105:8; Ek. 6:6; and Is. 60:22



So there is no reason why the millennial reign has to be exactly 1000 years. Even the wooden literalism of Dispensational Futurism allows that there is symbolism in Revelation. And since no other mention of the Kingdom in the New Testament mentions any length for the Kingdom, it is reasonable to assume that the 1000 years in Revelation is not meant to be taken as a literal period.

[dizzle]

I will be somewhat repititive of Faramir:

Okay about the “thousand years.” Basically you are asking how do we know that it is not a “literal” one thousand years. Well first of all, in hindsight we know it because it has been more than a thousand years since the “millennium” started and it has not ended yet. That is the pragmatic and admittedly circular answer. But the exegetical answer is quite simple as well. Revelation contains hundreds of allusions to the Old Testament and is thoroughly seeped in Jewish symbolism. In Jewish idiom and poetic thought, numbers were important. Ten was the number of quantitative completeness. (seven by contrast is the number of qualitative completeness. Three is the number of amplification. (for example, God is called “holy, holy, holy”) it stands for manyness. A thousand multiplies and intensifies this (10x10x10), in order to express great values [a perfect cube of ten – quantitative perfection] So,10x10x10 is quantitative completeness amplified. It is the perfect intensely complete period of time. Another example in Revelation demonstrates this:

Rev 5:11 – Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.

The number thousand is commonly used this way in the OT. For example:

Ps 50:10 - For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.

Thus God claims to own the cattle on a thousand hills (Ps. 50:10). This of course does not mean that the cattle on the 1001st hill belongs to someone else. God owns all the cattle on all the hills. But He says, “a thousand” to indicate that there are many hills and much cattle (I think this is a direct quote from DeMar that I neglected to note). See also:

Deut 1:11 – May the LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are, and bless you as He has promised you!

(this passage does not imply that God is too stingy to make him 1001 times more numerous)

Deut 7:9 - Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments.

(the passage does not imply that the 1001st generation is on their own)

Job 9:2-3 – Truly I know it is so, but how can a man be righteous before God? If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out of a thousand.

(this passage does not imply that a man could content with God successfully on the 1001st try)

Psalm 68:17 – The chariots of God are twenty thousand, Even thousands of thousands; The Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place.

(twenty thousand is given as an "exact" figure, then it is thousands of thousands. Last I checked, the math doesn't work)

Psalm 84:10 – For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand.

(the Psalmist isn't implying that 1001 days outside would tip the scale though)

Ps 90:4 – For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past, and like a watch in the night.

(the Psalmist isn't stating that 2000 years are like the day before yesterday in His sight)

Ps 105:8 – He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He commanded, for a thousand generations.

(forever is made equivalent to one thousand)

It was an idiom. We kind of today use the word “million” in the same way, and we must let the Bible tell us how to interpret the Bible.

Similarly the thousand years of Revelation 20 represent a vast, undefined period of time which fits in well with the OT descriptions of the Messianic reign as “everlasting” and “forever” which are Hebrew words designating a very long period of time but not necessarily forever as we understand it (for that would be in contradiction to what Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15). A literal “one thousand” is not even the Hebrew idea of forever and would not fit in with the descriptions of the length of the Messianic reign. Remember that Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15, that the “rapture” ENDS the Messianic reign of Christ, not begins it. So by necessity, the “millennium” precedes the rapture.

In light of all of this, it is interesting that such a crucial doctrine to premillenialism as the thousand year reign, is only supposedly mentioned in Rev 20. If a literal earthly millennium is so prominent in the thoughts of the apostles and such an important era in redemptive history we should it expect to appear multiple times in the NT NOT ONLY in the most figurative book of all Scripture.

[RCNicholas]

I will be somewhat repititive of Faramir:

Okay about the “thousand years.” Basically you are asking how do we know that it is not a “literal” one thousand years. Well first of all, in hindsight we know it because it has been more than a thousand years since the “millennium” started and it has not ended yet. Thanks for your thoughts, you make good points! However, you state that the it has been more than 1,000 years since the Millenium STARTED, and that it has not ended yet...when did the Millenium start, and how do you know? When will it end?

[dizzle]

It would take many passages and a bit more time to explore the proof, but the millennium began in the first century. When will it end? When Jesus returns for the consummation.

[RCNicholas]

It would take many passages and a bit more time to explore the proof, but the millennium began in the first century. When will it end? When Jesus returns for the consummation.Well if you don't mind...I'd love to see the proof. :teeth: That is the point of the thread, after all. Don't worry, I'll keep the Millenialists accountable, too!

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

How do you arrive at the conclusion that Rev. 20 is a literal thousand-tear time period?

I wish I had time to go into it. If I get a sec, I'll explain why. Suffice it to say that most of the uses of the term "thousand" are in the poetic Psalms or in a covenantial Deuteronomy. Is it an exaggerated term? Probably. Will the thousand year reign be exactly 1000 years to the second? I don't think so, but I do believe in a literal millennial (however long that may entail) reign of Jesus where He is physically present on earth, as some OT prophecies clearly state.

I also disagree with Dee Dee on the 1 Cor thing too. :teeth:

[dizzle]

Well if you don't mind...I'd love to see the proof. :teeth: That is the point of the thread, after all. Don't worry, I'll keep the Millenialists accountable, too!

I will try if I get time which is very scarce for me.

[RCNicholas]

I wish I had time to go into it. If I get a sec, I'll explain why. Suffice it to say that most of the uses of the term "thousand" are in the poetic Psalms or in a covenantial Deuteronomy. Is it an exaggerated term? Probably. Will the thousand year reign be exactly 1000 years to the second? I don't think so, but I do believe in a literal millennial (however long that may entail) reign of Jesus where He is physically present on earth, as some OT prophecies clearly state.Which prophecies are you referring to?

[RCNicholas]

I will try if I get time which is very scarce for me.Np...if you could also cite the specific passages in 1 Cor. 15 that you were talking about in your initial explanation, that would be great. Thanks!

[dizzle]

I wish I had time to go into it. If I get a sec, I'll explain why. Suffice it to say that most of the uses of the term "thousand" are in the poetic Psalms or in a covenantial Deuteronomy. Is it an exaggerated term? Probably. Will the thousand year reign be exactly 1000 years to the second? I don't think so, but I do believe in a literal millennial (however long that may entail) reign of Jesus where He is physically present on earth, as some OT prophecies clearly state.

I think then you are going off the point of the OP which seemed to ask if the "thousand" was literal, not whether or not Jesus would literally be physically present on the earth. We seem to agree that the thousand is not literal.

Now as far as some "clear statements" of OT passages - I think I prefer the NT explanation of them - and the fact that many "clear statements" of the OT seem to indicate that God rides around on clouds, repents, remembers, doesn't know what is going on in the present... etc. The Jews were a whacky bunch.

I also disagree with Dee Dee on the 1 Cor thing too. :teeth:

Wouldn't be the first time you were wrong.

[dizzle]

Np...if you could also cite the specific passages in 1 Cor. 15 that you were talking about in your initial explanation, that would be great. Thanks!

I would have to do an argument by weblink if I did since Strawbridge argued it better than I can. PM me and I will give you the link.

[RCNicholas]

[QUOTE=Darth Xena;1987710]I think then you are going off the point of the OP which seemed to ask if the "thousand" was literal, not whether or not Jesus would literally be physically present on the earth. We seem to agree that the thousand is not literal.If you'd like to discuss the literal presence of Christ on Earth as well, I'm perfectly open to that as the thread starter. I think the two go basically hand-in-hand.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I think then you are going off the point of the OP which seemed to ask if the "thousand" was literal, not whether or not Jesus would literally be physically present on the earth. We seem to agree that the thousand is not literal.

Now as far as some "clear statements" of OT passages - I think I prefer the NT explanation of them - and the fact that many "clear statements" of the OT seem to indicate that God rides around on clouds, repents, remembers, doesn't know what is going on in the present... etc. The Jews were a whacky bunch.



Wouldn't be the first time you were wrong.

Maybe I'll get into it later with ya :wink:

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Well if you don't mind...I'd love to see the proof. :teeth: That is the point of the thread, after all. Don't worry, I'll keep the Millenialists accountable, too!

If you check the link I provided in post #9 of this thread (it is in the word "here" , I know it is hard to see links at TWeb sometimes), I give a brief defense of the Millenium starting in the first century, the key word being brief.

[eschaton]

I think the thousand years in Revelation indicates the 6 day 6 thousand year idea prevalent in early Christianity. Note the repeating use of seven in Revelation, as in the week of creation. It is often commented that Revelation is the ending summary of scripture as Genesis is the opening introduction. Some saw the week of creation as allegorical, and some saw it as literal, just like today. To be consistent, those who prefer a literal creation story might prefer a literal end of the world description. Those who believe in allegory might also see Revelation as allegorical. I'm not sure which way Irenaeus saw it, but he seems to reflect both in different places in his writing. I get the idea that this is an argument that's been going on a long time. Here Irenaeus gives a somewhat metaphoric explation to the 6 thousand years and the number 666. From book 5 of Against the Heresies chapter 28.

He says also: "And he will cause a mark [to be put] in the forehead and in the fight hand, that no one may be able to buy or sell, unless he who has the mark of the name of the beast or the number of his name; and the number is six hundred and sixty-six,"246 that is, six times a hundred, six times ten, and six units. [He gives this] as a summing up of the whole of that apostasy which has taken place during six thousand years.

3. For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works."247 This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years;248 and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.

[spauline]

Here's what i'm suggesting, RCNik:

It would seem common sense that since Satan has been active continously since the Fall, and will be until the end of time, the collective scenes of the dragon should be an allegorical summary of the totality of salvation history.

this is my approach, which is in between chiliasts and amillers.

I also see it as a type of the saint, which has three stages, just as the dragon is defeated three primary times in Rev (

I. defeat of dragon in heaven where he is cast to earth
II. Chaining of dragon in abyss
III. Ultimate defeat, casting of dragon into eternal fire


), so the saint passes through three stages:

I. the Purgative
II. the Illuminitave
III. the Unitive

I will attempt to be brief. Prior to baptism, the application of Christ's death and resurrection, a person is a child of the devil and the flesh rules him.

similiarly, before Christ's first coming, the dragon holds dominion over humanity (is in heaven) because most humans are in near total darkness.

Once baptized, the saint is now in covenant, but the flesh still deals concupiscence. hence, the saint shall have to make "war" with his flesh through the PURGATIVE PHASE so as to root out his primary sinful tendencies. Hence, the war in heaven, which symbolizes the purgation of pagan Rome's persecutions.

But the dragon is cast out of heaven, eg., pagan persecution and resistance to conversion does not last, and gives way to conquering of Christianity over paganism. In the same way, the darkness of the purgation does not last indefinitely for the saint. Eventually, the primary sinful tendencies are defeated and the saint enters the ILLUMINATIVE PHASE, where he will progressively grow in understanding of the Divine Truths, even though the outside world will progressively resist his deepening immersement in the divine intellect.

In a similar fashion, the dragon was cast out of heaven, defeated in purgation, and hence, with Constantine, the great illuminative phase of Church history ensues, in which the Church develops the Divine Truths. But, again, there is resistance to the development by the sinful world, hence, the dragon causes many problems for the Church. Constantly he spews “floods” of heresy at the Church, “in order that she might be carried away” by error, but the “earth”, or Magisterium, which is the pillar and “ground” of the truth (1 Tim 3: 15) always swallows the lies and protects the faithful from being led astray.

So the dragon finally architects the DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL, the climax of the saint’s illuminitave way, in which everything God has revealed seems a lie. Hence also the deception of the dragon and beast and false prophet. Similarly, the history of the church’s illumination has indeed culminated with a dark night, our modern minor apostasy. The lies of the dragon then of course lead to figurative “armageddon” (the Catholic mystic’s minor chastisement), which vindicates the Revelation of the Church, which paves the way for the UNITIVE PHASE, where the saint emerges from the dark night of the soul fully illuminated and purged, subsequently leading to will of the saint becoming one with the will of God.

Similarly, the dragon is chained and cast into the abyss, so that he may not “deceive” until the thousand years are over, that is, Christendom will be reestablished in the coming age of peace prophesied by the mystics, in which the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and Jesus will reign in almost all mens’ hearts.

Finally, the saint must go through the final trial, martyrdom, after which comes eternity of heaven. Similarly, at the end of the “thousand years”, Satan shall deceive humanity a final time in the great apostasy and Antichrist, in which the Church shall truly pass through the ultimate martyrdom and persecution she has ever seen, after which shall occur the Second Coming and eternal New Creation. (final casting of the devil into hell for good)

So, in other words, RCNich, the Millennium is sort of crisscross of amill and premill, in my view anyway.

:)

[Ted]

What a wonderful example of allegorization!

John saw war in heaven (Rev 12). There's nothing in the text that suggests it represents anything other than ... war in heaven!

Spauline, you really need to learn proper exegetical methods. Allegorization has no rules whatever, and can be used to make any case whatever.

Ted

[spauline]

What a wonderful example of allegorization!

John saw war in heaven (Rev 12). There's nothing in the text that suggests it represents anything other than ... war in heaven!

Spauline, you really need to learn proper exegetical methods. Allegorization has no rules whatever, and can be used to make any case whatever.

Ted

hate to be saracastic, but, so then, what, the dragon is LITERALLY a dragon, and the devil and his angels were LITERALLY in heaven after Jesus ascended? Last I knew, the demonic court has resided in eternal flames since the moment of their fall. Or exactly where would you say the dragon is right now? On "earth", in "heaven", or in the "abyss"?

Just curious?

BTW, is the whore a literal whore? Will there LITERALLY be a seven headed beast that will come up out of the ocean? Will there be a literal land beast with two horns? Seems to me that if you can associate the mark of the beast with wrong sabbath worship and the beast with the pope, which nowhere says this straight out, why can't I see things allegorically too?

[furay]

Just ignore him, bro. Personally, I wouldn't take anyone seriously who has this in his signature: "The Bible Only. If the Bible doesn't teach it, neither will we." :lol: Suuuuure. :lol:

[maudman]

Do you believe there will be a future literal 1,000 year Millenium? Why or why not? What Scripture passages do you believe back up your position?

Hello RCNICHOLAS

The Beginning of the millennial reign begins when the church received the kingdom of the Fourth Beast of the vision of Daniel Chapter 7. The scripture tells us plainly there needn’t be any interpretation.

Verse 17,18 will receive the kingdom of the four beasts of Daniel and the saints that receive that kingdom will strengthen it. The fourth beast is the Roman Empire and is the last of the four beast of Daniel: Babylonian, Medo/Persian, Greek. The saints are then overcome by the little horn. So when does history record that the Church received the Roman Empire as a kingdom.
When did Rome make Christianity the religion of the Empire? That is the beginning of the Millennial Reign. When Christ’s Church (saints) strengthens the kingdoms of the beast of Daniel not weaken it.

Daniel 7
17`These great beasts, that [are] four, [are] four kings, they rise up from the earth;
18and receive the kingdom do the saints of the Most High, and they strengthen the kingdom unto the age, even unto the age of the ages.
19`Then I wished for certainty concerning the fourth beast, that was diverse from them all, fearful exceedingly; its teeth of iron, and its nails of brass, it hath devoured, it doth break small, and the remnant with its feet it hath trampled;

The millennial reign couldn’t have been in the first century because the saint’s hadn’t received the kingdom of the fourth beast until Rome gives the Christian the Kingdom. And the Church strengthens that Kingdom. Vs 18. When Rome saw its strength (Faith) in those that it persecuted, it then turned and gave the power of the kingdom to them because it would be strengthen by it.

That is why so many stand to criticize the Popes because they stood and strengthened the Kingdom against the heresies that would later tear the kingdom apart through the rebellion of the little horn/man of sin. The Millennial Reign is Christ ruling the Fourth beast, the Roman Empire through his Church.

A separate kingdom will come out of the fourth beast and gain power over the Church and This is toward the end of the Millennial reign, Christ will crush that kingdom with his second coming. It is a kingdom that was set up through the rebellion of the man of Sin.

[RCNicholas]

Here's what i'm suggesting, RCNik:

It would seem common sense that since Satan has been active continously since the Fall, and will be until the end of time, the collective scenes of the dragon should be an allegorical summary of the totality of salvation history.

this is my approach, which is in between chiliasts and amillers.

I also see it as a type of the saint, which has three stages, just as the dragon is defeated three primary times in Rev (

I. defeat of dragon in heaven where he is cast to earth
II. Chaining of dragon in abyss
III. Ultimate defeat, casting of dragon into eternal fire


), so the saint passes through three stages:

I. the Purgative
II. the Illuminitave
III. the Unitive

I will attempt to be brief. Prior to baptism, the application of Christ's death and resurrection, a person is a child of the devil and the flesh rules him.

similiarly, before Christ's first coming, the dragon holds dominion over humanity (is in heaven) because most humans are in near total darkness.

Once baptized, the saint is now in covenant, but the flesh still deals concupiscence. hence, the saint shall have to make "war" with his flesh through the PURGATIVE PHASE so as to root out his primary sinful tendencies. Hence, the war in heaven, which symbolizes the purgation of pagan Rome's persecutions.

But the dragon is cast out of heaven, eg., pagan persecution and resistance to conversion does not last, and gives way to conquering of Christianity over paganism. In the same way, the darkness of the purgation does not last indefinitely for the saint. Eventually, the primary sinful tendencies are defeated and the saint enters the ILLUMINATIVE PHASE, where he will progressively grow in understanding of the Divine Truths, even though the outside world will progressively resist his deepening immersement in the divine intellect.

In a similar fashion, the dragon was cast out of heaven, defeated in purgation, and hence, with Constantine, the great illuminative phase of Church history ensues, in which the Church develops the Divine Truths. But, again, there is resistance to the development by the sinful world, hence, the dragon causes many problems for the Church. Constantly he spews “floods” of heresy at the Church, “in order that she might be carried away” by error, but the “earth”, or Magisterium, which is the pillar and “ground” of the truth (1 Tim 3: 15) always swallows the lies and protects the faithful from being led astray.

So the dragon finally architects the DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL, the climax of the saint’s illuminitave way, in which everything God has revealed seems a lie. Hence also the deception of the dragon and beast and false prophet. Similarly, the history of the church’s illumination has indeed culminated with a dark night, our modern minor apostasy. The lies of the dragon then of course lead to figurative “armageddon” (the Catholic mystic’s minor chastisement), which vindicates the Revelation of the Church, which paves the way for the UNITIVE PHASE, where the saint emerges from the dark night of the soul fully illuminated and purged, subsequently leading to will of the saint becoming one with the will of God.

Similarly, the dragon is chained and cast into the abyss, so that he may not “deceive” until the thousand years are over, that is, Christendom will be reestablished in the coming age of peace prophesied by the mystics, in which the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and Jesus will reign in almost all mens’ hearts.

Finally, the saint must go through the final trial, martyrdom, after which comes eternity of heaven. Similarly, at the end of the “thousand years”, Satan shall deceive humanity a final time in the great apostasy and Antichrist, in which the Church shall truly pass through the ultimate martyrdom and persecution she has ever seen, after which shall occur the Second Coming and eternal New Creation. (final casting of the devil into hell for good)

So, in other words, RCNich, the Millennium is sort of crisscross of amill and premill, in my view anyway.

:)Actually you sound more or less Amill, with just a few tweaks for your personal take on the specifics. Your view is essentially boiled down to the fact that the Millenium is going on now, in the Church Age (which Amils believe), and that the Millenium is not a future literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth (which Amils also deny). Thanks for the insight though, your interpretations are interesting.

[spauline]

Actually you sound more or less Amill, with just a few tweaks for your personal take on the specifics. Your view is essentially boiled down to the fact that the Millenium is going on now, in the Church Age (which Amils believe), and that the Millenium is not a future literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth (which Amils also deny). Thanks for the insight though, your interpretations are interesting.


Well, no, not quite amill. I'd say that Jesus is reigning now, but not on earth. He's reigning in heaven. But the devil is NOT in the abyss right now. The devil is deceiving mankind with the "beast and false prophet". No, the Millenium is yet future in my view. The Millennium is the UNITIVE phase of the age of peace. We're not in the UNITIVE phase yet. WE're in the dark night of the soul. At least, on this layer of meaning. Although I concede that in another sense, the dragon is chained. Scripture is multilayered.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

[RCNicholas]

I'd say that Jesus is reigning now, but not on earth. He's reigning in heaven. But the devil is NOT in the abyss right now. The devil is deceiving mankind with the "beast and false prophet". No, the Millenium is yet future in my view. The Millennium is the UNITIVE phase of the age of peace. Will the Unitive phase involve Jesus' physical return to Earth to reign for 1,000 literal years?

[spauline]

Will the Unitive phase involve Jesus' physical return to Earth to reign for 1,000 literal years?
Of course not! Jesus returns at the end of the great apostasy which follows the Millennium. At least as I see it.

[RCNicholas]

Of course not! Jesus returns at the end of the great apostasy which follows the Millennium. At least as I see it.Good...so your answer to my OP is No. See, told you so, this is an either/or question. :teeth:

[spauline]

Good...so your answer to my OP is No. See, told you so, this is an either/or question. :teeth:


yes, you're right. For that matter, Catholicism condemns taking it absolutely literally. that is the one option that cannot be right.

[RCNicholas]

yes, you're right. For that matter, Catholicism condemns taking it absolutely literally. that is the one option that cannot be right.Really? Can you give me the details? Is it in the Catechism?

[spauline]

Really? Can you give me the details? Is it in the Catechism?


Yeah, it's there, here's the direct quote, taken from the section on the Creed, dealing with the article: "from thence he shall come to judge the Living and the Dead":



The Church's ultimate trial
675 (javascript:openWindow('cr/675.htm');) Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576

676 (javascript:openWindow('cr/676.htm');) The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.578

677 (javascript:openWindow('cr/677.htm');) The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.581


from what I understand, the term millenarainism is to be understood in the sense of an earthly reign of Christ in this OLd Creation prior to the end of time. In other words, it is condemning chiliasm. But several persons, including Father Echert of ETWN Q n A Scripture expert has said it does not condemn the notion of a temporary spiritual reign of Christ prior to the end where most of humanity practices the Gospel. Indeed, this cannot be considered impossible in the Church teaching as of yet, seeing as, from EWTN's words, "countless fully approved mystics" have prophesied a great age of peace to precede the times of antichrist.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Well then, I'll chalk up YET ANOTHER thing I disagree with the Catholics on...

[Ted]

hate to be saracastic, but, so then, what, the dragon is LITERALLY a dragon, and the devil and his angels were LITERALLY in heaven after Jesus ascended? Last I knew, the demonic court has resided in eternal flames since the moment of their fall. Or exactly where would you say the dragon is right now? On "earth", in "heaven", or in the "abyss"?

Just curious?

BTW, is the whore a literal whore? Will there LITERALLY be a seven headed beast that will come up out of the ocean? Will there be a literal land beast with two horns? Seems to me that if you can associate the mark of the beast with wrong sabbath worship and the beast with the pope, which nowhere says this straight out, why can't I see things allegorically too?

Let's get real. The dragon is a SYMBOL. It represents Satan, as Rev 12:9 specifically says. As for the whore of Rev 17, harlotry is the most common single symbol in the OT. It represents idolatry. The name "Babylon" literally means "confusion," which is in many ways functionally synonymous with apostasy and idolatry.

Now, if we consider what the symbols mean in practical application, then we are performing proper exegesis. The symbols have been defined by divine usage through scripture, so we have no need to invent meanings.

On the other hand, allegorization is a process of inventing meanings for parts of scenes. If the Harlot is "drunk with the blood of the saints," (Rev 17:6), then we may reasonably see her as a symbol for those who have persecuted God's people. It's a direct identification. But if we find some other identification, we have gone away from scripture.

That's what I was pointing out in showing your allegorization. You were inventing personal identifications for scriptural elements. Those identifications had no relationship to the way the text is presented or to any other scriptural identification. Thus, they are complete nonsense.

If you read Augustine, Aquinas, or others of that era interpreting the parable of the Good Samaritan, you will find egregious examples of allegorization, where the donkey, the hotel, the coins, the oil, and so on are all identified as specific characters. But each author has his own pet approach which disagrees with all the others. And none of them has any scriptural controls.

This is the problem with your approach. It has no scriptural controls, and any conclusion whatever can be reached using it. It's wrong, leads to error, and is to be condemned.

Furay,

You are welcome to challenge my teachings. But be prepared for vigorous defenses, based on scripture.

Ted

[Hitch]

The Whore is literally and allegoricly a whore.

It is summed up in a short passage;

'We have no king but Caesar'

Playing the slut with a pagan king in order to better persecute Christ through his church is the greatest crime of history after the regicide.

The sentance for a priest's daughter fallen into prostitution is death by burning, the only death by burning in the OT I know of, mirrored in the firey destruction of Jerusalem.

Take care

H

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

The Whore is literally and allegoricly a whore.

It is summed up in a short passage;

'We have no king but Caesar'

Playing the slut with a pagan king in order to better persecute Christ through his church is the greatest crime of history after the regicide.

The sentance for a priest's daughter fallen into prostitution is death by burning, the only death by burning in the OT I know of, mirrored in the firey destruction of Jerusalem.

Take care

H

Cool, so Jerusalem and the ethnic Jews were still important enough to God to consider adulterers after Paul explained that there was no Jew or Greek? Wow, that's news to me!

[spauline]

...
That's what I was pointing out in showing your allegorization. You were inventing personal identifications for scriptural elements. Those identifications had no relationship to the way the text is presented or to any other scriptural identification. Thus, they are complete nonsense.
...
This is the problem with your approach. It has no scriptural controls, and any conclusion whatever can be reached using it. It's wrong, leads to error, and is to be condemned.

...
Ted

Catholics believe Divine Truth is a like a living human being organism, in which it is all interconnected. Meaning and beauty in one place can relate to others, all tied by a coherent whole, which is Love. "God is Love". This occurs twice in St. John's first Catholic Scriptural Epistle. Love is fruitful, its depth and riches overflow into Creation, all through Scripture and Tradition, through Salvation History itself.

Example: before they drove the nails into Jesus' hands and feet, they offered him a drug that would contracept some of the pain. But he refused! He did not wish to hold back part of the pain. He wished to give all, to fully empty Himself. In a similar vein, when Ananias and his wife held back part of the gift, God killed them.

So then, from a cursory analysis, one can say, this has nothing to do with sex. No relationship whatsoever. But a Catholic who is immersed in JPII's wondrous theology of the body would say, You are wrong sir. Dead wrong! For in this is veiled a marvelous lesson why arrtificial birth control is seriously sinful. For just as we are called to give all and hold nothing back, like Christ, so then it must be when man and woman come together in the marital embrace: one must give all and receive all. To go through the motions of relations but to place a barrier between each other, or to frustrate the beautiful way you are made by God is to lie with the body, to say, I give a part of myself but not all. I hold back. For in the garden, the serpent lied to Eve and said that God withholds part of the Creation in malice, in tyranny. For then, by the cunning of the ancient dragon, the gift of God was questioned. But in reality, God holds back nothing. God, in His whole Trinitiarian being wishes to offer the totality of Himself to us forever. It is for this reason that we were made.

And to refuse to accept even part of what God wishes to give us, such as the spiritual contraception of non-Catholics who reject one or more of the dogmatic sources of DIvine Truth, is objectively part of the essence of what it means to be heretic: a heresy means "to take", just as Eve "took" the fruit. So then the schismatics "take" the Apostolic Tradition from Peter and interpret it apart from him. The heretics "take" the Scriptures and interpret them apart not only from Peter but from the remainder of the Apostles' Successsors. The rationalist "takes" Reason and presumes that it alone can show him all he needs to know the Divine. And finally, the atheists and the relativists "take" the material creation and divorce it from all of God's truth, and use it as an end in and of itself, as though without any religion whatsoever, one can be fulfilled. And, of course, the atheists and relativists then finally see no wrong in LITERALLY contracepting, for the unchaste husband "takes" the pleasure of his wife, who is reduced to a whore, and leaves her fertility in the garbage can, as though human beings are not priceless creatures called to receive and give love forever, but simply animals whose purpose is to achieve and consume materialisitcally and then die forever.

So then there is meaning all over Scripture and Tradition. It is spiritual contraceptors who choose to see only what they consider evident, and to leave what is not pleasing to them, again, as the husband "takes" his wife's body even if it means to desecrate her sacred fertility, which does indeed possess the possiblity of bringing forth eternal life.

added by Crow per request of poster--

I need this disclaimer: I did not intend to say that schismatics, heretics, etc, are always willfully and ill-willed spiritually contracepting in their subjective circumstances. I only meant to express an objective reality that exists. For they are many holy non-Catholics who seek God as best they will and do not realize they are missing things, or they are aware of Catholicism but cannot accept certain things through no fault of their own. For all men arrive at different questions and seeking in a unique way and cannot be judged subjectively for what they believe. I think many non-Catholics will be in heaven before many Catholics.

I wish to apologize from my heart. For I neglected to mention that the reason that one or another sources of Divine Truth are rejected by a non-Catholic is because of Catholic scandal, in that there have been men in the Church, especially in leadership, who have sinned against Christ and His faithful, like the lazy and pompous bishops of the late Middle Ages, and the pope of the time when Constantinople was unjustifiably massacred.



And so I beg the forgiveness of persons I may have offended. Jesus deals with scandal in many places in the Gospels. So it is very understandable that persons can be wounded in their heart by men who do not practice what they preach, and, as a consequence, by that woundedness, become unable to accept all that God offers to us. Really, I believe that increase or restoration of Catholic faithful holiness will be absolutely necessary before any significant strides towards reunion are attained.



Once again, begging forgiveness,



Scott