Will the Elect reign "on the earth" or "over the earth" for 1,000 years?

[Alive]

My answer to the OP is yes to both--on and over.

[Alive]

Just now, ChickenCoop said:

My post was to @Josheb

Ya--I thought maybe, but I decided to answer as well.

He did answer in the first page of the thread, I believe. Check it out.

Did you read the thread?

[BeauJangles]

55 minutes ago, ChickenCoop said:

You might have noticed how off topic this thread has been except for just a couple of posts.

Yes, I have. Odd how placement for remaining on topic importance topples into obliteration thereof. 

56 minutes ago, ChickenCoop said:

I would like to hear your opinion to the actual question the op asked.

If I go back there now, I'll lose this post. I no longer have the normal function of my system previous format. 

Can you post it back to me? I'll comment on it if you are able to do so. Thanks, brother. 

56 minutes ago, ChickenCoop said:

Is it on the Earth or over the Earth?

Let me just say this. How can a cubular shaped New Jerusalem settle on a spherical and globular shaped Earth? 

 

Revelation 21:1 ¹And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Isaiah 65:17 ¹⁷For, behold, I created heavens new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Isaiah 66:22 ²²For as the new heaven and new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

[RonaldBruno]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Yes, and they do so without any basis in explicit scripture. Appreciate the answer. Now how about my second question? 

 

Do you ever question the premise when you read others teach a "Church age," or is it accepted as a given without any question regarding where scripture explicitly speaks of such a thing? 

Thought I would specify the scriptures that imply the Church Age. And btw, if it is not the Church Age, what age would you call it?

The Greek word, aion, means a period of time: generation, lifetime, epoch, age, where we get the word eon. Aionios would be the plural form, yet it has variable meanings according to whether it is used to describe a temporal physical realm or God’s domain, our salvation, etc.

The “present age” or commonly referred to as the Church Age we see implied in Matthew 12:32, “ Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” ( also see Mark 10:30, 1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6, 8; 2:18; Titus 2:12, these scriptures also imply this specific age we are in, under Jesus.)

“ … in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the deadband seated Him at the His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come.” Ephesians 1;21

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:20

 “now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” Hebrews 9:26

The ages throughout history are distinct from each other and should be acknowledged that way.

The New Testament also speaks of the “age” to come of the Messiah.  “But those who take part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given I marriage and they can no longer die, for they are like the angels.” Luke 20 :25   

[Alive]

4 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I'm simply getting to the point about the importance of properly defining the "elect" or the "Church" because that then informs how we understand the "Church Age," a concept that isn't anywhere explicitly stated in the scriptures and one folks tend to define based on their eschatology, not what the Bible actually exegetically infers (as opposed to eisegtic or inferentially infers). 

Ya--I get it.

And I think that it is a very good discussion and has the potential for ones to move the tent pegs out a bit.

[BeauJangles]

Okay guys, here's the deal. I can clearly see this convo is not going to be friendly and loving. So, I'm splitting. 

[RonaldBruno]

20 hours ago, Josheb said:

A simply question might help some understand the answer to the inquiry this opening post asks: Will Enoch, Abraham, Joshua, Isaiah, Daniel and/or Hosea be standing with you and I and Ronald, vic and JohnD, etc.? Anyone who answers in the affirmative but thinks the Church Age is temporary and finite has some explaining to do, especially since there isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that ever explicitly mentions anything called a "Church Age". 

Yes. No one is arguing against the New Covenant or Old Covenants, but identifying them as ages is not wrong. The Age to come is void of sin, therefore an extreme change has to happen. The Church will be resurrected, given new eternal bodies and so yes, the former temporal/Physical age and the fleshly bodies will pass away, (AS scripture states; "for the former things have passed away" Rev.21:4); not that the spiritual Church won't remain, just that it will be transformed. To identify this as the age to come is not only scriptural, but logical. 

Also addressing another point you made. Christians were grafted into the vine. The OT Jews who lived by faith, expecting the Messiah and died before He came, like Abraham, were washed by the blood of Christ. Their salvation was imputed to them. Yet those Jews who lived during Christ and afterwards needed to believe in Christ to be saved, therefore were cut from the vine if you will. According to Rom. 11, a remnant of Jews will be saved during the Great Tribulation. Their veils will be lifted and they will see and realize that Christ was their Messiah all along. So in turn, they will be grafted back into the fold.

[BeauJangles]

2 hours ago, BeauJangles said:

On 7/26/2020 at 12:56 PM, Fidei Defensor said:

You mentioned 1,000 year (Millenial Reign). So I say “On the earth”: 

Yes. 

By the way brother, I love this beautiful portraiture of the Holy Trinity.

The tuine fullness of the Lord. 

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

Now within me. Forever and ever. Age to age.

The Alpha and Omega. Now and always. Amen. 

We are His children. Let us love one another now. 

As Christ our Messiah loves us, so we must do likewise. 

P.S. I'm sorry. This image is not conducive to my format. I tried to post it. But I cannot. 

Edited 2 hours ago by BeauJangles

Please, is there some techie out there somewhere that can help me to help me get this JPEG formatted pic into my pictures to where I can access and use this beautiful portrait avatar currently used by Fidei-Defensor? I have it but for some reason this format is unaccessible in the present configuration. I've just recently been able to have success in being able to do this. Thanks! 

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

How are your last two posts relevant to the discussion of this op? Is it being insinuated that Jesus is hiding something from someone here or that someone here is deceiving themselves? And if so then how is that in any way answer to this op's inquiry helpful to the discussion thereof?

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Mat. 11:15)

[dhchristian]

8 minutes ago, Josheb said:

The Romans 11 actually specifically and explicitly states something that's very important to the conversation. It states, "...there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice." In other words, the remnant to which Paul was referring was a remnant that existed during his present time, and NOT some future remnant 20 or more centuries later. There's no way around that fatc. It is bluntly, specifically, explicitly stated. That is not an interpretation, that is what is actually factually stated and anyone, regardless of their eschatological pov can objectively read that statement and verify it is what is stated. 

So we should not be saying, "A remnant will be saved in the far distant future." We should instead be saying "A remnant was saved in Paul's present time."

That doesn't preclude God from preserving a remnant of Jews in the second century or the 99th century or the 20th, 21st, or 44th centuries. I just means Romans 11 cannot be used to justify certain aspects of certain eschatologies because they do not read the scripture as written even if and hen they claim to do so. 

 

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1;6-8

Even the apostles Knew The kingdom was to be restored to Israel and Christ would reign as king at some future time.... But first came Pentecost and the church age and the preaching of the Gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth. Simple concept really.... Simplicity is in Christ Jesus (2 cor 11:3)