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

You asked if I "regard the book of Revelation as a symbolic picture of early church conflicts, not a description of what will occur in the end times... [that] Preterism denies the future prophetic quality of most of the book of Revelation?" Yes, the overwhelming majority of it. And do I believe that "all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem and Israel." Not all, but most. I'll ask my questions first: 1. Was the church which Jesus said, "I will build ..." in the eternal purpose of God? That is, was it planned and prophesied? Or was it sort-of a "stop-gap" measure, a spiritual contingent, inaugurated because the Jews unexpectedly rejected Jesus Christ? 2. Is Jesus Christ reigning now as a de facto king on the Throne of David in heaven at the right hand of the Father? 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? My contention is, of course, that the church of Christ was eternally purposed by God. The kingdom of God was prophesied in Dan 2: 30-44 to be "set up" in the "days of those kings" - that is, the kings of the fourth worldwide empire - the Roman empire. That such a worldwide kingdom existed, first inaugerated by Pompeii in about BC 63 and continuing until about AD 476 is, I take it, an historical fact. I do not know if you'll take the position that the kingdom was prophesied, yet post-poned, but my contention is that a prophesy with a time element cannot be post-poned. If such is the assertion, then I submit that the prophesy simply failed, period. 1. Since the main proof-text of all millenialists seems to be Rev 20: 1-6, I will take note of the negative on that passage. I have nearly met or heard of a milleniallist yet who takes the entire passage as literal, yet you take "everything in the bible is literal except for the poetry books." Alright, the passage (1) doesn't mention the 2nd coming of Christ, (2) doesn't mention any reign on earth at all, (3) doesn't mention us at all - it literally mentions the "souls of those who had been beheaded", and that cuts you out - so far, at least, (4) doesn't mention a bodily resurrection at all, (5) doesn't mention Christ on earth nor the nature of His reign, (6) doesn't mention Jerusalem or Palestine, and (7) doesn't mention the Throne of David or any other throne. I'll be a little more emphatic on this point, since you believe "everything in the bible is literal except for the poetry books." We'll let John answer for us. Query: What did you see, John? John: "I saw the souls." Query: Did you say you saw bodies, John? John: "No, I said I saw souls." Query: Which specific souls did you see, John? John: "I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded." Query: Did you mention seeing any other souls, John? John: "No, I only said I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded and worshipped not the Beast - martyrs." Query: What did they do, John? John: "Those souls lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." 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 will not be living and reigning with Christ in any millenium and, interestingly enough, neither will the Apostle John - he died a natural death. If the beheaded can be figurative and mean "suffered greatly", then the a thousand years can be figurative and mean "an indefinate time-frame comprising completion." 2. A proposed 2,000-year gap between (1) the writing of the Apocalypse and (2) the beginning of the millenium contradicts the ordinary and literal "shortly come to pass" in Rev 1: 1, a phrase introduced before a sign or figure was ever utilized. And it likewise contradicts the "omega" verses, "Surely I come quickly ... " in Rev 22: 20-21. One would have to make "shortly" and "quickly" figurative and stretch them into two millenia in order to justify believing there is one millenium. 3. The 1,000-year literal reign implies that the first coming of Christ was a failure at least in the sense that pre-millennialists teach that Christ came the first time to set up an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem, but, because of the Jews' unexpected rejection of Him, He was crucified and returned to heaven - having not accomplished what He set out to do. Well, how do you know the Jews will not simply reject Him again? His rejection and death were not unanticipated: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." (Isa 53: 7). The eunuch was reading this passage as Philip joined this carriage; Philip then applied it to Jesus. ""Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices. My flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave my soul in Sheol (the grave) nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption." (Psalm 16:9). Peter applied this verse to Jesus in Acts 2: 27. The suffering and death of Jesus were not unexpected: both were prophesied, and New Testament writers confirm the application of the prophesies. 3. The pre-millennial theory contradicts certain OT prophesies regarding the church - it "postpones" them - but a prophesy with a stated time element cannot be postponed or else it was just an incorrect prophesy to start with. "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Dan 2: 44) The 1,000-yr reign kinda "puts that off" and thus delays fulfillment of a prophesy, even though a specific time element is involved. 4. The pre-millennial theory teaches, in effect, that God sort-of "pigeon-holed" the orginnal divine plan - an earthly reign in Jerusalem. He put it off and instead established the church until the Jews get ready to accept Christ as their earthly king the next time around. This ignores plain texts stating that the church was "the eternal purpose of God" and makes the Lord's church simply an accident (at worst) and a alteration of the plan (at best) - or more likely both: an alteration based upon an accident. "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph 3: 9-11). 5. The pro argument assigns Jerusalem as the appointed place to worship, but Jesus said the time would come when Jerusalem will not be the place of special worship significance (Jn 4: 21). The pro argument also assigns the kingdom to be "of this world" when Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world." (Jn 18: 36) Furthermore, John said, "they lived and reigned WITH Christ a thousand years." This says nothing about any "thousand-year reign OF Christ." There is a vast difference between the two expressions: "They" ... they who? "Lived and reigned with Christ." Lived where? Reigned how, with whom, and where? These souls not only reigned with Him, the lived with Him. The two verbs "lived" and "reigned" are both limited by the thousand years. If the expression denotes time, then when the reign is over, and they ceased to reign ... the living would be over, and they would cease to live. Thank you, and I am out of space.