patrick jane forums

I do believe it, but the information is scant.  Do we develop complete doctrines from 2 references in a totally symbolic book that have no reference at all anywhere else in the NT?  I don't.  The NHNE was already mentioned in Isaiah, as far as solid background goes.

There is also nothing Judaic about the 1000.

It also ends in failure.

There is also a way to read the '1st resurrection -- 2nd death' so that the 1st is Christ's and the 2nd death is the condemnation to punishment at the final judgement, meaning, the 1000 is going on right now. 

You must understand that 200 years ago a couple poorly-informed and probably poorly-thinking gentlemen said 'the Bible doesn't make sense; here is how to make sense of the Bible.'  They did this inspite of 200 years of Reformation teaching.  The answer?  that the Bible had two incoherent, unresolvable plans in it.  NOTHING in the NT hints of this but they were quite sure that this 'made sense' of it and believed they had finally made sense of it (no one ever, before them).  Darby and Scofield. 

The worst thing you can do is follow their circus.  Please see my essay at TF on the legacy of rationality in the Reformation. 

https://theologyforums.com/index.php?threads/the-reformation.3228/

Anyone who thinks the Reformation is limited to clearing up an issue about works and purgatory should be considered as ignorant as Hilary about the Constitution.  It was an amazing, divine, social and cultural correction.