Revelation 20 literal millennium or figurative?

[Steve_S]

ENOCH2010 wrote:

BB you've got a little explaining to do

1/ Where is it written that the ones wanting to harm the disciples were killed in the manner of the harm they wished?

2/ I haven't read where the disciples turned water to blood or plague the Earth,would you explain?

3/ Were all the disciples martyred in Jerusalem?

Fair question ENOCH.

1. I would direct you to Jeremiah 5:14 where Jeremiah is told that because he preaches the Word the people would be like fire in his mouth and those who oppose him like stubble. The Neronian martyrs faithfully preached the Word and their preaching will serve as fire on the Last Day to burn up those who opposed them.

2. They literally didn't, but the effects of their preaching brought disaster on their opposers. This is an allusion, meant to equate the martyrs' authority with that of the prophets because of their faithfulness.

3. Obviously not, however the orders to kill them came out of Jerusalem, in the sense that the seat of the 2d beast (the Jewish leadership which opposed Jesus) was in Jerusalem. (We often refer today to our leadership as 'Washington' because that is where it is based, and the idea of Jerusalem here is roughly the same.) The literal city was defiled by these evil apostate leaders and those who followed their desires. Later in Revelation, we find this 2d beast is aligned with Rome and doing Nero's bidding (and Nero is in turn doing the dragon's bidding through the authority of Rome).

Number 3 is wrong. Some of them died in rome (most likely both peter and paul were martyred during Nero's reign, along with thousands of others). Jerusalem did not give orders to rome, it's that simple. This is simply a gigantic stretch that has absolutely no historical base.

That's right. Jerusalem TOOK orders from Rome (Nero). Luke tells us that initially, Paul was a part of this persecution. The Jewish leadership was in bed with Rome. Acts 9 specifically states that Saul (Paul's former name) ... "still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem."

Why bring them to Jerusalem? Why not take those people directly to the Roman authorities? Because the whore was riding the Beast. Apostate Judaism was complicit with Rome in the persecution of the early Church. Yes, Believers were martyred in Rome and everywhere in the Empire, and the apostate Jews cheered Rome on.

This isn't what you stated in your prior post though. You stated the reverse, roman complicity with orders from jerusalem. Many Christians were martyred by rome without any knowledge of the apostate leadership in Jerusalem.

Anyway, your current contention is still even a stretch as the Romans held the jews in very little regard. As a matter of fact, Paul got a death sentence by the Jews overturned by a direct appeal to Caesar (though he was later likely martyred by the Romans).

The jews and romans were never in lockstep about what to do with the Christians and both had separate reasons for their persecution of them. The jewish reason is obvious and I won't recount it here. The Romans persecuted christians for monotheism (just as they did the jews) and later because nero blamed them for burning down half of rome (which he likely had done himself in order to have adequate space to build a new palace). The pure fact of the matter is that Christians were largely sacrificial scapegoats for roman leadership while they were wrongfully considered blasphemous and abominatory by the jewish leadership.

The Romans didn't like monotheists, this is true, but Nero's administration played the Jews against the Believers. Notice that in Rev 17, the Scripture states that the Whore's lover later turned against her and burned her flesh with fire (fire being what destroyed the city of Jerusalem.) The apostate Jews co-operated with the Romans to get rid of the upstart Church as a dangerous sect, and quite frankly, get an 'in' with the Romans. That worked for them until 66AD when the rebellion started. It lasted 1260 days, just as John said it would in Revelation.

Actually, Jerusalem wasn't completely destroyed by the romans in 70, that's a misconception, it was the temple that was destroyed. Jerusalem was sacked. There was, in fact, another war from 132 to 135 that pretty much ended all rights the Jews had to jerusalem. Where are you getting your history? It's called the war of Bar Kokhba, you should read about it. It took the romans over 2 years to put it down and finally ended up taking a legitimate roman army with Hadrian leading it. This resulted in almost 600,000 jewish deaths, which is probably more than the rebellion from 66 to 70, which may have resulted in as few as 250 thousand and maybe upwards of a million, probably somewhere in the middle. I'd also like your proof that the rebellion from 66 to 70 lasted exactly 1260 days, please.

[Bold Believer]

Steve S wrote:

"Actually, Jerusalem wasn't completely destroyed by the romans in 70, that's a misconception, it was the temple that was destroyed. Jerusalem was sacked. There was, in fact, another war from 132 to 135 that pretty much ended all rights the Jews had to jerusalem. Where are you getting your history? It's called the war of Bar Kokhba, you should read about it. It took the romans over 2 years to put it down and finally ended up taking a legitimate roman army with Hadrian leading it. This resulted in almost 600,000 jewish deaths, which is probably more than the rebellion from 66 to 70, which may have resulted in as few as 250 thousand and maybe upwards of a million, probably somewhere in the middle. I'd also like your proof that the rebellion from 66 to 70 lasted exactly 1260 days, please."

Correct, the city wasn't destroyed literally. The Temple was however, and the Temple was the seat of apostate Jewish rule and hence the problem. I am aware of the Bar Kochba rebellion, Bar Kochba allowed himself to be thought as Messiah. His name comes from Numbers 24:7 and means Son of the Star.

The destruction of the Temple was a sign to apostate Israel that God had had quite enough of their shenanigans. Josephus states that roughly 1,100,000 were killed and about 97,000 captured and taken into slavery.

Significantly, both First and Second Temples were destroyed on the same exact day, Tisha B' Av. If you find the date of the beginning of the war in 66AD, and trace the time until the fall of the Temple, it's 1260 days.

[Steve_S]

Steve S wrote:

"Actually, Jerusalem wasn't completely destroyed by the romans in 70, that's a misconception, it was the temple that was destroyed. Jerusalem was sacked. There was, in fact, another war from 132 to 135 that pretty much ended all rights the Jews had to jerusalem. Where are you getting your history? It's called the war of Bar Kokhba, you should read about it. It took the romans over 2 years to put it down and finally ended up taking a legitimate roman army with Hadrian leading it. This resulted in almost 600,000 jewish deaths, which is probably more than the rebellion from 66 to 70, which may have resulted in as few as 250 thousand and maybe upwards of a million, probably somewhere in the middle. I'd also like your proof that the rebellion from 66 to 70 lasted exactly 1260 days, please."

Correct, the city wasn't destroyed literally. The Temple was however, and the Temple was the seat of apostate Jewish rule and hence the problem. I am aware of the Bar Kochba rebellion, Bar Kochba allowed himself to be thought as Messiah. His name comes from Numbers 24:7 and means Son of the Star.

The destruction of the Temple was a sign to apostate Israel that God had had quite enough of their shenanigans. Josephus states that roughly 1,100,000 were killed and about 97,000 captured and taken into slavery.

Significantly, both First and Second Temples were destroyed on the same exact day, Tisha B' Av. If you find the date of the beginning of the war in 66AD, and trace the time until the fall of the Temple, it's 1260 days.

I'm not asking you to explain your reasoning for how you got 1260 days, I'm asking you to provide the legitimate historical source from whenst you derive an exact 1260 day period from the beginning of the rebellion until the day of the destruction of the temple.

[GoldenEagle]

There are pre-millenialists and post-millenialists. I submit that it is possible to be pro-millenialist. It's in God's Word. So it's going to happen. God knows the when, how, and why.

That may seem simplistic but this particular detail is not worthing parting hairs over. Just my opinion of course.