Postmillennialism

[sastark]

[quote:844dc9c9f7][i:844dc9c9f7]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:844dc9c9f7]
Millennium began at Jesus' ascension to the right hand of the father. If you note: he reins for the millennium in Rev 20 and Acts tells us that he ascended to begin his Lordship.

And yes, John wrote it in the 60's and so it was shortly to come to pass. [/quote:844dc9c9f7]

I just [b:844dc9c9f7]had[/b:844dc9c9f7] to check one more time.

Ok, then, how is Rev. 20 talking about something that must shortly [b:844dc9c9f7]come to pass[/b:844dc9c9f7], if it had already happened?

Christ's ascension had happened about 30 years prior to John writing, so how could he be talking about a future event?

 

[tcalbrecht]

[quote:8226d88ce7][i:8226d88ce7]Originally posted by sastark[/i:8226d88ce7]
If both of those have been true since since Christ's first advent, then why do we consider Revelation prophecy? I mean, doesn't prophecy mean something that is yet to happen? If John wrote in 90-something AD, (that date ought to catch a few preterists eyes), then this whole binding of Satan would have already occured. How does that figure? [/quote:8226d88ce7]

Is this a trick question? For the same reason we consider Isaiah or Ezekiel prophecy. It foretold, usually in symbolic terms, things which would come to pass in the future [b:8226d88ce7]from the perspective of those to whom it was primarily written.[/b:8226d88ce7]

I think it is possible that the preconception of the AD90 something date has a lot to do with the misunderstanding. Remember, the AD90 date is not infallible. It is a (questionable) tradition.

 

[cupotea]

or w^5 (Which Was What We Wanted). My trig/calculus teacher in high school liked to use that one instead of Q.E.D. Yeah I'm a math geek.

 

[sastark]

Paul,

Hope you had a nice weekend.

Ok, here we go:

Paul said:
[quote:54d77f5dc6]
Doesn't Revelation 1 begin by saying that the things revealed would "SOON take place?" Now, when does "soon" mean 20004?
[/quote:54d77f5dc6]

Paul also said:

[quote:54d77f5dc6]
Millennium began at Jesus' ascension to the right hand of the father
[/quote:54d77f5dc6]

And Paul also said:

[quote:54d77f5dc6]
And yes, John wrote it in the 60's and so it was shortly to come to pass.
[/quote:54d77f5dc6]

Do you see the contradiction in your quotes above? You say that John wrote [b:54d77f5dc6]in the 60s[/b:54d77f5dc6], about things which were to [b:54d77f5dc6]soon take place[/b:54d77f5dc6]. However, you also say that the millennium began at [b:54d77f5dc6]Jesus' ascension[/b:54d77f5dc6], which had happened about 30 years [b:54d77f5dc6]prior to John writing Revelation[/b:54d77f5dc6]. How then, could the millennium be something that would soon come to pass, if it had already begun? Your timeline doesn't make sense. Either, John was not writing about a future event (thus contradicting what John wrote earlier in Rev.), OR the millennium was a future event at the time John wrote. Which is it?

 

[Saiph]

[quote:cd1c9e2b91]
Your timeline doesn't make sense. Either, John was not writing about a future event (thus contradicting what John wrote earlier in Rev.), OR the millennium was a future event at the time John wrote. Which is it?

[/quote:cd1c9e2b91]

John is a prophet writing in time.
The vision reveals or "unveils" events and allegories that are trans-temproal.

 

[sastark]

[quote:049ca0d677][i:049ca0d677]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:049ca0d677]
Seth, I will have to discontinue this discussion if my posts are not read. Do you think that I am a blithering idiot who contradicts myself so easily?

I said "THE MILLENNIUM HAD ALREADY STARTED"!!!!!! I have NEVER said that EVERY event in Rev takes place soon.

[/quote:049ca0d677]

Paul, if this is the case, how do you determine which events were future at the time of John's writings, and which were not? To be honest, it seems quite arbitrary. You seem to be picking and choosing in order to make your preterist system work.

[quote:049ca0d677]
What I asked you, that you have not answered btw, is that you sad you take a litteral aproach to the thousand years. You said you take the time seriously. I asked you how according to that you could deny a preterist approach. If you think orthodox preterist beleives that all the things mentioned in Revelation were about to happen then you need to read some more. So, do you take the timer seriously or not???
[/quote:049ca0d677]

Yes, I take time seriously. The events that John wrote about were soon to [b:049ca0d677]begin[/b:049ca0d677]. That does not mean that they would all be finished by 70AD. I think that you and I agree on this. You believe the millennium has not yet ended. I believe it has not yet begun. Therefore we both believe that all events in Rev. were not fullfilled at or prior to 70AD. Our difference, I believe, is where we make the transition. I believe that John wrote about future events. You don't. That was my whole point of my previous post.



[quote:049ca0d677]
note: John does not say the thousand yrs has not happened yet.
[/quote:049ca0d677]

Revelation 1:1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants -- [b:049ca0d677]things which must shortly take place[/b:049ca0d677]. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,"

Paul, here is my point: The Book of Revelation showed things which must shortly come to pass. John wrote in the 60s. Jesus ascended in the 30s. Therefore the millennium did not begin at the ascension of Jesus, because Christ's ascension was not something that would shortly come to pass.

In order to say that the millennium began at the ascension of Jesus is to say that all the events in the book of Revelation leading up to chapter 20 ALSO took place before Christ's ascension (if you don't agree with that, then on what basis do you determine which events took place prior to John's writings and which do not?). I know you don't believe that. So, how can you believe that the millennium began before the other events of the book of Revelation had happened?

If you cannot address this issue, then the whole of preterism comes undone.

[quote:049ca0d677]
He just says that the devil was thrown in DURING the thousand yrs.
[/quote:049ca0d677]

No, this is not correct. You need to check the text. Satan is bound [b:049ca0d677]for[/b:049ca0d677] a thousand years, not [b:049ca0d677]during[/b:049ca0d677] the thousand years.

 

[wsw201]

A quick question for any postmill. I heard this postmill talk about "asking God to give Christ the nations. If we don't ask Him he won't give them to Christ". Unfortunately, we didn't have enough time so that he could explain what he meant by this.

Do any of postmills know what this is about?