The Bible teaches a literal 1,000-yr future earthly reign by Jesus in Jerusalem

Thank you for responding. 1. Was the church which Jesus said, "I will build ..." in the eternal purpose of God ... ? Your answer: "The church of Jesus exists to this day ... also the crucifixion of Christ was not unexpected it was prophesied" I know the church exists. I asked if it was planned and prophesied - or did was it brought about because the Jews rejected Christ? That was the question. Or was it brought about as a "contigent" - a response to the Jews rejection of Christ as an earthly ruler? 2. Is Jesus Christ reigning now as a de facto king on the Throne of David in heaven ...? "Your answer: "Christ is currently reigning as king in the same sense as He has always ruled, but not in the 1000 year rein sense." So the Throne of David always existed, even before David existed? Was Christ ruling as king while here on earth - in the same sense as He has always ruled"? 3. You said, "I also would like to say everything in the bible is literal except for the poetry books." Alright, is "everything" mentioned in Rev 20: 1-7 literal, and, if not, what method do you use to separate the literal from the figurative? You: "That 1,000 year reign is literal because the book of revelation says it is" No, it says the opposite: the very first verse says that God "sent and signified it" - that's sign-i-fied. "Signified" means given in "signs" and "figures." I have another question or two: 1. : "Know ye therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful of God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations." (Deut 7: 9). "Be ye mindful always of the covenant; the word which He commanded to a thousand generations." (I Chron 16: 15). Alright if literal, and if a "generation" is, say, 25 or 30 years, then can we literally plan on the world standing for a literal 25,000 or 30,000 more years (from the date of the prophesies)? 2. Has the kingdom as foretold by both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ (Mark 1: 14-15) yet appeared? It was "at hand", so has it appeared yet? 3. If the Jews rejected Jesus Christ the first time, how do you know they won't reject him again? Alright, your questions: "Could you name for me the first, second and third empire?" The Babylonian, MedoPersian (Darius and Cyrus), and Macedonian (Alexander the Great). Even Joseph of Arimethea, the wise men, and the dying thief knew the time was fulfilled during the days of the Roman government. *First of all, your position is that everything in Rev 20 is literal. Thus, you have the devil being a literal serpent and a literal snake at the same time and, as such, cast into a literal pit with literally no bottom as well as a literal prison. Not only that, but you have Jesus being a literal lion (Rev 5: 5), a literal root (Rev 5: 5), a literal lamb (John 1: 36) - while Herod was a literal fox (Luke 13: 32). Don't you see that such descriptions are figurative? You have a question on the "literalness" of "a thousand generations", and I'd like to see the response. *You said, "all I really need to do with my second contention is give examples that allow us to believe that end times prophecy is still being fulfilled." Why, people have been prognosticaing and speculating on that subject for 2,000 years, and, to date, every last one of them has been wrong. All one has to do is review William Miller's failed predictions in the 1840's and Russell/Rutherford Watchtower nonsense of later date, such as "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" from 1925. The great stock market lie is, "This time it will be different", and I'm inclined to think the same applies to speculative teachings. You say your goal is to give "... examples that allow us to believe that end times prophecy is still being fulfilled." No, you need to give examples that, by logic and reason and study, force one to "conclude", not merely "allow." I am "allowed" to think Joseph Smith was God's prophet and that the pope is Christ's vicar, but my study, powers of logic, and utilization of reason, force me to "conclude" otherwise. *You say, "... your "time element" theory is not so rock solid day's is not so specific." No, "days" might not be specific, but "days of those kings" narrows it down to a certain time frame - and narrows it down quite a bit. Even millenialists know this, and many simply assert that old Pagan Rome will come back into existence so that Dan 2 can be fulfilled. Quite a few swore that Mussolini would be the next caesar in the 1930's - they "speculated" until he was hanged, then changed gears and speculated elsewhere. Even "Ronald Wilson Reagan" was the "666" at one time - pure silliness. *You say, "I will die in days does not mean I will die this week." No, but if a true prophet said, "You will die in the days of the Shahs of Iran, you'd have to have died sometime between (1) the establishment of the Shahs of Persia/Iran and (2) 1979, when the Shah was overthrown and his monarchy dissolved. That's the specificity and the "time element" of it. If someone prophesied that I'd die "during the days of the Shah of Iran", and I was still living in, say, 1985, then that prophesy was simply a failed prophesy - that's all. *Your response to the phrase "shortly come to pass" is "shortly and nearly are not nearly the same, ..." Well, then "shortly" apparently doesn't mean "shortly", either: two thousand years isn't a "shortly" by anyone's stretch, and you must take "shortly" as literal because you said everything is literal. "...There be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9: 1) If it was "at hand" in the 1st century, and some of those standing right there with Christ would not die before it appeared, I'll ask, "Where are they, since your position is that it has not yet appeared?" "Shortly" and "nearly" may not be the same - I never said they were, but they are related. But if you'd like to see "near" used in reference to the kingdom: "... The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." (Lk 10: 9) It was "near" or "nigh" in the 1st century, and you are still looking for it? 1. Joseph of Arimethea was a man "who also himself waited for the kingdom of God." (Luke 23: 51), and you're still waiting like Joseph? 2. It was "at hand" in the 1st century, and you're still looking for it? 3. It was to appear during the lifetime of those hearing the Lord in Mark 9: 1, and you're still waiting on it? 4. John was already in the kingdom, "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos" (Rev 1: 9). 5. Paul and the Colossians were already in the kingdom: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." (Col 1: 13). Yet is hasn't come yet? *I said, "Now, if you take the passage, Rev 20: 4-5 literally as it stands, it cuts you out of the millenium in the first place." You replied: "You are correct (possibly depends on when Christ returns ...") No, it doesn't. You haven't been and aren't likely to be beheaded, so you certainly, not "possibly", aren't going to participate in any "millenium". That's precisely what John saw, nothing more and nothing less - literally. 1. It says, "they lived and reigned." Who? 2. "The souls of them that were beheaded" - martyrs - "lived and reigned." 3. Then, apostles like John and any other faithful Christians who lived in the past - yet were not beheaded, are cut out of it. 4. Also, anyone who is living when Christ returns is cut out of it, simply because he couldn't have been beheaded. 5. That leaves you out, and it leaves out 99%+ of the rest of Christianity, living or dead - even if there were any coming millenium. Out of space, and I await your reply.