The Doctrinal Belief of a Pre-Tribulation Resurrection. Is not spoken of in the Word of God. It was created by a sick and deranged woman

The millennium is a false Pharisee doctrine refuted by Jesus in the Gospels. Paul along with Jesus and Peter taught Amillennialism. The Church condemned Millennialism as heresy in 431. Saying Amillennialism is the biblical doctrine.

This broken record just won't quit.

It will turn out that you will be identified as a Pharisee for disbelieving the Bible and rejecting the eternal reign of Christ on earth.

DANIEL 7: THE ETERNAL KINGDOM OF CHRIST ON EARTH IS A CERTAINTY

13 I [Daniel] saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man [Christ] came with the clouds of Heaven [all the saints and angels], and came to the Ancient of Days [God the Father], and they brought Him [Christ] near before Him [the Father].

14 And there was given Him [Christ] dominion, and glory, and a Kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed...

18 But the saints of the most High shall take the Kingdom, and possess the Kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever...

22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the Kingdom...

27 And the Kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the Kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him [Christ].

Chapter 20 is parable and not prophecy?

What is your definition of parable and what is your definition of prophecy?

Chapter 20 is a parable as prophecy . Prophecy is the word of God. Parables are one of the manners he spoke by .Just like tongues another manner of prophecy.

Right. And this is what Acts 3:21 is making the point to say.


Also...

"And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit down upon His throne of glory, you having followed Me, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judgING the twelve tribes of Israel." - Matthew 19:28 [<---SEE ALSO Matthew 25:31-34 for the (general) TIMING of this]

This is the definition of parable acvording to merriam webster

Did You Know?
Parable comes to us via Anglo-French from the Late Latin word parabola, which in turn comes from Greek parabolē, meaning "comparison." The word parabola may look familiar if you remember your geometry. The mathematical "parabola" refers to a kind of comparison between a fixed point and a straight line, resulting in a parabolic curve; it came to English from New Latin (Latin as used since the end of the medieval period, especially in scientific description and classification). "Parable," however, descends from Late Latin (the Latin language used by writers in the 3rd to 6th centuries). The Late Latin term parabola referred to verbal comparisons: it essentially meant "allegory" or "speech." Other English descendants of Late Latin parabola are "parole" and "palaver."


So parable is comparison

And prophecy is

Definition of prophecy
1 : an inspired utterance of a prophet
2 : the function or vocation of a prophet
specifically : the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose
3 : a prediction of something to come

Let use No 3 a prediction of something to come

And you say rev chapter 20 is both parable and prophecy.

And I Google, john wrote this prophecy in about AD 95

And because prophecy is prediction about future, so the story in rev 20 must happen after AD 95 not AD 70

Am I correct?

No faithful Christian could possibly deny these conise, precise, clear, unequivocal Scriptures.
A willfully rebellious Apostate could though.

That is just your opinion and your opinion has no value when compared to proper research and interpretation of the Word of God. There is no scripture that tells us that we should not interpret the Word of God as anything else except literally.
What proof do you have that the angel in Rev 20:1 is Christ?? There is not a single scripture that tells us that Christ is the angel with the chain in Rev. 20:1 which means that you are making assumptions because you can't back up your assumptions with scriptures. You want to be right so badly that you are willing to make erroneous assumptions which actually show you can't prove your point because it is wrong.

If you can prove the Pharisees right (millennium) and Jesus wrong (no millennium) you can put some teeth in what you say.

You are just simply wrong here. You force it to fit your view. Let's just simply look at what it says-
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away. So will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.

"they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away." okay right here who was "swept away"? That's right the wicked. So in exactly 1 verse "So will it be at the coming of the Son of Man", how does this indicate a switch of who is taken and who is "left behind" so to speak? As a matter of fact the verse does the exact opposite and says it will be just like that, one swept away, the other left behind, again in the example of Noah who is taken, who is left?
This is right when He tells us "Two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left." so again I ask where does this switch take place? Let's be honest here, you have to come to this text thinking "pretrib" in order to see what you're talking about here, not only that in my opinion you completely ignore the fact we are told the coming of the Son of Man will be the same way. Even if you disagree (obviously we do), you have to see how I'm drawing this conclusion from the text.

You are so certain of yourself but please step back a second and look at how much you're bringing to this text, all this is following the verse that records our King looking these men in their eyes and telling them-
"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away."
and yet I'm told that this verse is for us in 2020, and that my view isn't supported at all. Yet a verse that tells us about all the wicked being taken away by the flood, then within 1 sentence that says the exact opposite and that it will be just the same way. It just doesn't jive man. Not in my mind, not once my eyes have been open to these things.

Was this not why the first Christians were slaughtered and killed? They were proclaiming Jesus Christ King of all RIGHT NOW, and had to proclaim this truth to their unbelievably horrible deaths, not to "prove a point", of "make a statement", but it was because they had been changed completely, their hearts changed, their spirits resurrected and reconciled to His Spirit, and the TRUTH of God and His Son, our Savior Jesus the Christ. They could not deny the truth and to do so is not only them denying Him, but it would be hatred for everyone around them to do so. I'm sure this was why He granted them the strength to do so I imagine, for His glory.

Jesus is seated on His throne with all authority in heaven and on earth, King of the kingdom he brought that will know no end, a King that will rule with an iron rod until ALL enemies have been made a footstool for His feet. Our King rules in power, and His word is the power to save men. We are commanded to therefore go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Right?

I just want to end this comment by saying that I understand where you're coming from and I can't tell you how much I appreciate your engaging me on this subject as you have. You are a well thought out brother who stands on his beliefs and proclaims His name for His glory sake, and I recognize that. I feel the same way about many of you that have too, but these conversations can get passionate and I don';t want the brotherhood aspect of this to get lost in petty squabbles. So just understand that all this is new to me too, I'm on this journey like everyone else in Him, and I just want to learn and draw closer to truth every day. This is where He has led me at this point so I have to share it. I just never want to stop seeking, sharpening each other, and sharing with others the things of our God. So thank you brother.
I pray all is well with you and all your people and that we all grow closer daily. Amen

Force fit "before"?

Let's try "after"
38 For as in the days that were before[nope after] the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,[hmmm,let's say after again here also]....noah entered after the judgement/flood.

39 And knew not until [after]the flood came, and took them all away;[after the judgement] so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.[after the flood]

Hmmmm.
What was that about force fitting again?

I don't know man, but all you keep doing here is jumping like a Mexican bean from topic to topic trying to pick my view apart, I can do the same to your view, but this gets us nowhere I'm finding. We need to just talk back and forth, not just take shots at each other then moving on. If you really want to sit down and discuss exactly how I thing that history matches these prophesies and why I think they've come to pass I would love to, but if this goes like it has I will write out a long response that addresses and explains these things, then I will be met with "so all the stars fell to earth"? I mean no real thought, no response to my answer, just jumping from subject to subject aimlessly. I still don't even understand your answer about the "3rd temple dilemma", I'm not at all satisfied with your answer, you had to add so much to the text that I think it's dangerously close to what Paul said we could not do.

Again I appreciate you and I hope I'm not coming across mean or condescending in any way, in my view we are just two brothers speaking on the things of the Lord.

Wow ...test fit your theories folks.
So crystal clear Jesus used Noah and Lot to showcase his gathering BEFORE the flood...trib

I always appreciate your Christ like spirit.
Even though we mostly disagree on end times matters...good to keep the love and kindness in the forefront
You are a asset to the board

Wow really? the "true believers" That's a bit arrogant and dangerous don't you think? I'm not a true believer? How did you come to this knowledge? Why does this even have to divide us? Why can't we both just be brothers with a disagreement about an issue that doesn't have to do with salvation? I mean your comment here is saying you are a "true believers", and I am deceived and damned to hell, unless I repent and believe like you? Right? Do you not see the flaw in your approach and how you are the one wrong here? I only say this in love and truth. For DC in case he's still around, I do the same things sometimes, and should be called on it when I do, this is why fellowship is so important, we keep each other accountable, so please just take this for what it is and know I realize I'm bad too, I'm not trying to "teach" here, only point out a problem I saw.

QUOTE """they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away." okay right here who was "swept away"? That's right the wicked. So in exactly 1 verse "So will it be at the coming of the Son of Man", how does this indicate a switch of who is taken and who is "left behind" so to speak? As a matter of fact the verse does the exact opposite and says it will be just like that, one swept away, the other left behind, again in the example of Noah who is taken, who is left?""

So now you have all those "wicked".... destroyed BEFORE or at the very beginning of the trib.

Uh....nope

Bro
There is no wicked taken before the righteous.

Even in rev 14,look at the 3 gatherings. Those rotten fruits are gathered last and thrown into the winepress.
The good fruit is first.
Firstfruits.
That word has "first" in it.
The "one left" are the same exact thing as the 5 foolish virgins.
Jesus was crystal clear that he was framing the rapture before the flood /trib
Could not be more clear

Thank you so much brother for these words, I mean it. I honestly wondered after a few back and forth's, if I was out of line. I didn't feel like I was attacking anyone or being ugly, but I just kept getting bad responses, but then Jackson123, and cv5, then Whisper started just speaking with me and showed me there are folks here that are not so offended to the point they won't even comment to me anymore. I don't want that, and I know my view is by FAR the least popular among mainstream "Christianity", so I was very slow to even speak about this here.

The problem I face is that it says that if I don't share the truth then I hate those I don't tell, but I wish people would understand I'm also here to learn because my views have grow too much since my rebirth for me to stop seeking everyday. This is why I ask so many questions, and ask then over and over until I get them to think about it and answer,I love you guys and gals, all my brothers and sisters here and don't want to have problems with any of them. I could go on and on (and usually do), but what I'm trying to say is thank you so much for the encouraging words. They mean a lot and it was just when I needed to hear them praise Jesus name, Thank you brother, very much.

I clearly explained my point, that is what happen, the wicked were swept away, there is no disputing this at all. What Jesus is referencing is the flood, where the wicked are swept away, then Jesus say, "just like this so will be the coming of the Son of man. Two will be in the field, one taken one left...." Now you tell me what justifies the flip of who goes and who stays. This is just what the text says. With all due respect, you have to add to His word to get what you're talking about out of these word. I mean I don't understand how these facts can be argued. I get what you're saying they mean, My question to you is, "what in the text leads you to believe that it's the righteous removed and the wicked that stay?" I know you've always been told that, taught that, shown this from your most respected teachers around, I have too, but it's my position now that's is not what it says, and I'd like to understand "why" you do, please sir.

I am Sorry If my answere not satified you about third temple, but this response is to brother garee and he wasn't talk about third temple

If you want talk about third temple why I am not satified you, I am willing to hear from you for my

I don't know If It Will satified you or not, but I Will try he best from my limitation.