Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: fiddler@eng.sun.com (Steve Hix) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Millenium? Message-ID: Date: 14 Dec 90 08:58:02 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 37 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: > Robert Johnson writes: > >The Kingdom is the 1000 year reign of Christ on this earth > >immediately after the end of the current age (age of the Gentiles). The age > > In this article I attempt to show why Millenialism is unscriptural. I do OK > Various millenialists, predicted the millenium to arrive in 1466, 1775,1776, > 1810,1836,1847, 1848, 1879, 1880, 1887, and 1914. You missed a big one in 1844. Two, in fact. > Many of the people who > had been deceived by these false prophets were disillusioned when the > promised event did not occur. In some cases, the false prophet was able > to hang on to at least a portion of his following by re-interpreting > the event. I think this applies in particular to the Adventists (William > Miller) and the Jehovah's Witnesses (Charles Taze Russell). Don't know about Russell, but I don't believe that Miller ever claimed to be a prophet. Went out of his way to disclaim such, actually. After the 1844 events, was quite clear on the point that he had been mistaken in his (and other supporters) interpretation of the applicable parts of Daniel's prophecies. (Also did not accept the doctrine of Millenialism.) Don't believe that the majority of Adventists today accept Millenialism...'cause is ain't scriptural. Reamainder of your article quite interesting. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------