Did ya miss me then?
Wadaya mean like a hole inda head? No need to be grumpy with me as well ya know.
So, greetings from sunny Cyprus, and yes, piggybacking on a friendly naybor's (I know how much Uncle Sam loves phonetic spelling) network before I hit the haystack. I mean sack. Radio silence? OK, so I lied. Sue me.
Now then, what's all this about the 1,000 year reign not being real? Who ever said that, except our doctrinal oppononents? You believe Satan is real enough, but you have a hard time conceiving of a Messiah who now reigns at God's right hand? Why is that then? Does He not now sit on David's throne? Is not His name above all names, and does He not reign until all His enemies have been made into His footstool? Is He not the stone that the builders rejected, but now the cornerstone of God's holy temple? Have we not already been rescued from the kingdom of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of His beloved Son? Are we not now reigning with Him? So I ask again, on what grounds do you claim His present reign is unreal? Is it by any chance because His kingdom is not of this world, does not consist of meat or drink, does not consist of talk, cannot be inherited by flesh and blood, does not come with observation, is found wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in His name and therefore finds expression in power, peace, righteousness, and joy in the Holy Spirit? Is that why it's so unreal to you?
Coz if that's the case, then the most obvious question that is going begging here is, 'exactly what kinda messiah will you accept as the real deal?' One you can see with your own eyes? One who reigns for a literal 1,000 years, but only on Earth, and preferably with Jerusalem as His HQ while supervising a restored Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices? One who, under such circumstances, allows life (and sin, sickness, death, decay, corruption - suppressed and even open rebellion) to continue pretty much as they do now? Is that what would then define Him as real?
How on earth (pun intended) is that in any way more real (or superior) to what we have now? On the contrary, I would argue that it is several orders of magnitude much worse than His present Kingdom, and I for one want no part of it.
Sorry to disappoint, but no frowns here. However, jet lag (all 2 hrs of it) finally catching up with me, so time for Bedfordshire.
But prepare yourself for a reply in due course that will skilfully reduce the edifice you have just constructed to a pile of rubble that will also double up as a work of art worthy of Damien Hirst.
You see, nothing goes to waste around here.
Well, don't try too hard. Wouldn't wanna build those expectations too high. And glad you saw the joke. Except that brick walls, unmade beds, lights going on & off, floors covered with bits of plastic, and piles of rubble have all been exhibited as works of art - by serious artists. Or so they claim. My taste in art, if I have any, is somewhat less avant garde than all of that.
We're not heading back home quite yet. Another 10 days to go, but thanks for your concern.
Right then, where were we? Oh yeah - I remember now.
Now this business about Jesus reigning at God's right hand. Why are you limiting our Lord and Savior's ability? You think that He can't handle more than one task at one time? Did He not come back and visit the disciples in His glorified body? Did they not see Him with their own eyes and touch Him? Did He abandon His heavenly throne to do such a thing? Oh my...no! Our God is perfectly able.
Well, it won't come as a huge surprise to you that I beg to differ. There are many different lines of approach I could adopt in answering your questions, but this time I'd like to try something a little more personal. Namely, have you ever wondered why Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to touch him, while 'doubting Thomas' was invited to fully examine all His wounds? (Jn 20:11-18, 24-29) No? Well, maybe you should, coz therein lies the answer, I believe, to your 'dual-nature Kingdom' argument. I would suggest those post-resurrection appearances by which you put so much store have very little to say directly about the nature of God's Kingdom. For all practical purposes, they are in reality an extension of Jesus' earthly ministry, for they all predate Jesus' ascension and enthronement. Furthermore, in every instance apart from Mary's encounter with her Lord, they were necessary to convince His dispirited and incredulous followers that they were not hallucinating or seeing a ghost (Lk. 24:36-43). The miraculous nature of the resurrection demanded a certain level of evidence to establish its historical veracity, and it's no accident that Paul appeals to a summary of most of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances (1 Cor. 15:3-8) to prove his point - that Jesus' resurrection from the dead is a well-attested historical fact that is also the basis of our own guarantee of a future resurrection.
In Mary Magda's case, however, there were no doubts about who He was once He identified Himself to her. Once again, and not for the first time, a woman was ahead of the curve. But .......but - she still had to learn an important lesson. Henceforth, her relationship with her Lord could no longer be based on her physical senses or perceptions. Jesus 'had not yet ascended to the Father,'* and even though He was at that point still within her physical reach, she had to get used to a different way of knowing her Saviour - and quickly. After His ascension to His throne at His Father's right hand, the Comforter is sent to fill the need we have for communion with our risen Lord. In effect, and among other things, He fills the void we feel because of the lack of the physical presence of our Lord. BTW, that's also one in the eye for ppl like trapezoid, who deny the Spirit's personality and deity. A mere force could never fill the role Jesus gives Him in Jn. 14-16, let alone be considered an adequate means for a profound relationship with a Saviour who is otherwise 'absent'.
But that's not all. In direct answer to your other question:
Did He not come back and visit the disciples in His glorified body?
I must answer: 'No, He did not', for again, Jesus had not yet entered into His glory. Risen body, yes. Transformed body, yes. Glorified body, no - not quite, and not yet. The full panoply of God's glory was not on display during those post-resurrection appearances. Indeed, it cannot be seen by mere mortals without severe risk, for 'no man has ever seen God and lived (Ex. 33:20; Jn.1:18; 1Tim. 6:16). You wanna see what happens to ppl who catch a small glimpse of that glory? Just take another look at Is. 6:1-5, Acts 9:1-9 and Rev. 1:12-18. The merest hint of that glory gave the Israelites a severe case of the heebiejeebies (a well-known condition in the ancient Near East) when they saw its reflection in Moses' face (Ex. 34:30), and reduced Peter to a gibbering wreck that earned him a rebuke from the Almighty Himself (Mt. 17:4-5). And yet, despite the clearest Biblical proofs that attest to the fact that our God dwells in unapproachable light (1Tim. 6:16), it is the serious contention of your 'school' that degenerate humanity will either witness such a display of divine glory with complete impunity, or else that it will once again be veiled so that they do not suffer the consequences. Except that there is just one minor problem with the latter scenario - namely, when Jesus returns, He will do so in an unhindered display of His glory, and that act alone is sufficient to seal the destruction of His enemies in and of itself (Mt. 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:7-12; Titus 2:13 and Rev. 6:12-17).
All of which prompts the obvious question: on what basis do you presume that Jesus' return on that epochal day will be anything less than an occasion for the fullest display of the divine glory? Is it seriously suggested that He will once again impose on Himself - at least in part - the voluntary humiliation set out in Phil. 2:5-8? Coz if so, then I must say to you in all candour, you are gravely mistaken. This is yet another reason why an earthly millennial kingdom is impossible. There is no longer a valid reason for Jesus to make any concessions to fallen humanity, no further need for another appearance with His glory veiled - ever again. The idea that there can be any communion between fallen man and a glorified Messiah during an earthly reign must be rejected as a flat contradiction in terms, mainly because it fails to give full weight to the ineffable glory that is now His.
The upshot of all this is that if I limit His 'ability' because I reject a carnal aspect to the Kingdom of God, you limit His glory because you think it possible that these 'millennials', who have somehow miraculously managed to escape the judgment that is a concomitant of Messiah's return, are still able to witness His unspeakable glory for a 1,000 years. Not only are they able to do this with impunity, but worst still, the overwhelming majority remain degenerate to the very end, even to the point of mounting a mass revolt against a beleaguered camp of the saints!
Such a scenario begs the question whether you have ever seriously considered or given full weight to the Shekinah glory of God and its effect on His enemies. That, I would suggest, is an infinitely greater offence against the Almighty than any underestimation of His ability to operate in two different spheres simultaneously.
* I believe this also answers your 'abandoned throne' argument. There was no throne at the time, since Jesus' enthronement takes place at or after His ascension.