Not a Mill anymore

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

As of this afternoon, I'm officially declaring myself to be pre-millennialist, post-trib. I'm not amillinialist anymore.

?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004

Answers

The question mark was just so that it will look like a question.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

I've had to research more than I ever would have liked. But this decision comes as a result of long hours poured over Scriptures, both OT and NT, comparing and analyzing. Then using history to confirm certain events, and the early church writers of course, their views of the coming end.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

Rejecting one belief can be quick if there are enough holes and contradictions (pre-trib comes to mind), but adopting a new one is a longer process. I'm not fickle about faith. But there are too many contradictions and holes in amillinialism that I could no longer hold this view.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

I was going to post this on the What do you Believe thread, but it seems to have disappered. Does anyone know where it went? It'd be good to start a new one, it's helpful to know where everyone's coming from.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 27, 2004.

Luke

as of *tomorrow* afternoon, what do you expect to be?

and the day after next?

this is a very serious question.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 28, 2004.



why did you change?

-- zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 28, 2004.

Luke,

Somehow we lost it this Summer. David never revived it. Maybe because he also changed churches this Summer. He left the Assemblies of God and joined a Baptist Calvinist denomination.

Do you want to startt one yourself Luke or do you want me to start a new one?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.


Ian,

Because it is now 7:30pm, I have to say I'm still premillenialist. As I said, I do not change beliefs quickly. I would have still be amil had I not felt the need to actually look at scriptures for myself. It's a dangerous way of living to take someone else's word.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.


Oh nevermind. You posted that today. Okay, I'll let you know how things look tomorrow evening...

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.

Many reasons, Zarove. But I’ll list some here. Of course, the two places I’ve been looking are historical writings and events, and Scriptures themselves. They work well together. Scripture can prove it. History confirms it. I’ll break my post up into two sections: evidence from Scripture, and evidence from history and writings.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.


btw, my intention never was to change. I was simply trying to disprove the pre-tribulation position. Read some of my earlier posts, and you'll see that I initially thought that pre-trib and pre- millennial meant the same thing.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.

I’ll just list points briefly and if anyone has a question or comment about it we can discuss later. Right now my dinner is cooking.

From Scripture…

Revelation 20 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years… I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)

1) Revelation 19 is the 2nd coming of Christ Jesus. The thousand year reign takes place chronologically after the second coming.

2) Pre-milleniallism means that the 2nd coming occurs before (pre) the thousand (millennium) years.

3) The thousand years cannot describe the Church Age for two reasons. One, as mentioned above, it occurs after the 2nd Coming. Two, the saints who reign during the millennium are those who refused the mark of the beast. If the thousand year reign is the Church Age, who are the saints who were beheaded for their testimony and who overcame the beast by the blood of the lamb? (See Rev. 12:11)

4) Nothing in the surrounding text indicates that we should see the thousand year reign as symbolic. It must be taken literally, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The fact that it is repeated twice makes this point even more clear.

5) Joel 3, Zech. 14 both clearly show earthly kingdoms of God after the second Coming.

From History…

1) It is not being fulfilled now. The previous chapters describe the Great Tribulation (Matt 24), an event yet to occur.

2) The 2nd temple was destroyed in 70AD. But one main focus of the Great Tribulation is the temple. Therefore, in order for the Great Tribulation to have already occurred, it must have happened between the time Jesus spoke of it as a future event (Matt 24) and the temple’s destruction in 70AD. No such event occurred. It has to be a 3 ½ year period.

3) The book of Revelation wasn’t even written until about 95AD. Only chapters 1-3 concern the past and present (John’s period). Everything else concerns future events (from John’s time) This refutes Preterism, and the belief that Revelation concerns the destruction of the 2nd temple.

4) Irenaeus, Justin the Martyr, and Hippolytus all have been quoted expressing the future coming of the antichrist and the Great Tribulation. These men also were watching for signs that Jesus spoke of concerning his coming.

5) Pre-millenialism is the oldest view of the church, with A- millenialism following shortly.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.


Here's why Amillennialsm believes what it does:

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). An earthly kingdom would violate this passage. Christ's kingdom will not be on Earth.

Jeremiah said that no offspring of Jehoiachin would sit upon the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30). Jesus is in the lineage of Jehoiachin.

Satan has already been defeated (Matthew 12:28-29; Luke 10:17-18; Hebrews 2:14; John 12:31-33)

The Kingdom is already established and Christ is reigning now (Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:34-35; 1 Cor. 15:25; Heb. 1:13; Heb. 10:13)

There is only one passage that mentions a thousand year reign and it is found in the midst of other cryptic and symbols ie "mark of the beast, "dragon, that ancient serpent." There is no reason to take this literally.

2 Peter 3:6, 10, 12 shows that the earth is destroyed by fire at Christ's second coming. How can he establish a kingdom on an Earth that doesn't exist anymore?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 28, 2004.


Those arguments don't make sense....

The kingdom of heaven is established on a new earth...

Rev 21:1-4

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

And the thousand year reign of Christ takes place before this--on the old earth and is not the establishment of the kingdom of heaven...

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 28, 2004.


Here's why I changed:

"Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). An earthly kingdom would violate this passage. Christ's kingdom will not be on Earth.

The entire passage is, "Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.'"

IT is true that His kingdom is not of this world, however, it will be of the new world, the new heaven and earth. Hence the last sentence, "But now my kingdom is from another place." The "now" suggests that at a later time, the kingdom will be of this world.

"Jeremiah said that no offspring of Jehoiachin would sit upon the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30). Jesus is in the lineage of Jehoiachin. "

The problem is two-fold. One, God had already promised that Jesus will sit on the throne (1 Chronicles 22:10) and it will be that of David (Isaiah 9:7). So the prophecy of Jeremiah needs to be considered with such. The second problem is that Jesus technically is not a son of Jehoiachin. His geneology comes through adoption, not blood. When considering these two points, I cannot make the conclusion that Jeremiah said that Jesus could not sit on an Earthly throne.

"Satan has already been defeated (Matthew 12:28-29; Luke 10:17- 18; Hebrews 2:14; John 12:31-33) "

Actually, Satan has been conquered. Yet his final doom has yet to happen. We know this because Satan is not cast into the lake of fire until long after Christ's 2nd Coming (Revelation 20).

"The Kingdom is already established and Christ is reigning now (Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:34-35; 1 Cor. 15:25; Heb. 1:13; Heb. 10:13) "

Jesus is at the right hand of God, waiting until every enemy has become a footstool to his feet(Psalm 110:1; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Hebrews 1:13). The last enemy is death (1 Corinthians 15:26; Revelation 20:14).

"There is only one passage that mentions a thousand year reign and it is found in the midst of other cryptic and symbols ie "mark of the beast, "dragon, that ancient serpent." There is no reason to take this literally."

While the strange beasts are symbolic, the Bible is specific that the mark is placed on either the hand or the forehead. These are literal, the mark is literal. The "golden rule" of interpretation is that everything must be taken literally unless either the context or another passage reveals it as symbolic. We have neither in this case. But, for those who still insist on thousand years as being symbolic of a long period of time, it still falls chronologically after the second Coming.

"2 Peter 3:6, 10, 12 shows that the earth is destroyed by fire at Christ's second coming. How can he establish a kingdom on an Earth that doesn't exist anymore? "

This passage held me up longer than the others. HOw could Christ establish his kingdom on an Earth that doesn't exist? The answer is simple:

The old (current) heaven and earth are destroyed as in purified by fire. The earth isn't totally blown up as I was led to believe. It occurs at the second coming of Christ, even though the new heavens and earth aren't mentioned until after Satan is cast into the Lake of fire. The point is, when Christ comes, he does bring firey judgement with him, but all it does is create a new heaven and a new earth, on which Christ's kingdom (which was not of the old world) will be established.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 28, 2004.



Incorrect Faith. Every Old Testament passage concerning the new heaven and the new earth clearly shows that Christ's kingdom is established after that event, not on the old world.

Look at Revelation 21 again:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

It didn't just happen at the end of the thousand years. The old heave and old earth had already passed away by this time. John is simply going back to describe it. He does the same thing in chapter 20 concerning the resurrection of the dead:

I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.

Notice they are already on the thrones, but we read nothing about a resurrection. Then John goes back (as he did in chapter 21) and describes who these are...

They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned a thousand years.

It's funny to hear a pre-trib claim that because there is no resurrection in , the biggest 2nd Coming passage, that there IS NO resurrection. But they just don't read. John clearly writes here that yes, those who reject the mark of the beast are resurrected at the coming of Christ Jesus.

All that is to say that the destruction of this present heaven and earth occur right when Jesus returns, not a thousand years later.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 28, 2004.


When did I say that Christ's kingdom was established on the old earth?

I said the exact opposite--that his kingdom was not established during the thousand year reign on the old earth--but after the thousand year reign, and I provided the same Scripture that you are.

We know when the old earth and heaven had passed away--we are told that this occurred after the tribulation when Christ returned to judge:

Rev 20:

7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth–Gog and Magog–to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The Dead Are Judged

11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

The New Jerusalem... Rev 21:

1Then(meaning next) I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away (At the hour of judgement after the Tribulation period was over), and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 28, 2004.


That 1,000 year millenial thing never did make sense to me, in the dispensationalist view. I just can't take that number literally.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2004.

It makes sense to me when you consider what god teaches about creation. He said that on the seventh day He rests. He says that a day is as a thousand years.

So if we look at biblical history--we can see that there were four thousand years before Christ and two thousand years since Christ.

This means that we are coming on the seventh millenium. Give or take a few years due to the fact that our calendar is different today, we could be on the verge of His return.

The thousand year reign is described as a rest. There will be peace, and the Devil will be tied and unable to interfere for that time.

We know that Satan is not tied or bound-up now--unfortunately he has great influence in the world today.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 28, 2004.


Right, but the 1,000 years could just simply be a measure of "heavenly" time; in other words just symbolic.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2004.

Do you think that that particular verse requires a symbolic reading? And if yes, then why?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 29, 2004.

"I'm officially declaring myself to be pre-millennialist, post-trib. I'm not amillinialist anymore." - Luke

Wow, welcome to the club Luke ;) Now we'll just have to work on making you pre-trib Calvinist :-P

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), December 29, 2004.


Also Gail,

Would you agree that there has been a literal 6,000 years of biblical history? Why wouldn't the last 1,000 years be as real?

Of course--this all falls apart if you believe in the human theory of evolution and of an old earth.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 29, 2004.


Yes, I would agree that we 6,000 years of history recorded in scripture, and I'm not an "old-earther" nor do I believe in evolution. I think you may have me mixed up with someone else.

As to your other question concerning the 1,000 years in Revelations, I'll answer that question if you'll this one:

Psalm 50:10 Every animal in the forest belongs to me, and so do the cattle on a thousand hills. (NIV)

Does that mean that God only owns the cattle on a thousand hills, or is that a "figure of speech"?

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 29, 2004.


Gail,

I think the Scriptures are pretty clear as to when we should take something literally or symbolically.

You have to look at the entire context where the word in question is being used.

Clearly the language in Psalms is poetic and symbolic--expressing that God owns everything.

But Revelation 20 seems pretty straight-forward. If the description of a thousand years was symbolic for *everything* like in Psalms..or a better meaning like that of *forever*....then that would mean that the thousand year reign has no end and could be called heaven. Yet we know that this thousand year reign comes to an end.

We know that the book of Revelation., and even the gosple of John are loaded with symbolism. It was John's style. But even behind the symbolism--there are very real messages. Numbers seem quite significant when it comes to prophecy and its fulfillment.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 29, 2004.


Faith, most ALL of Revelations is symbolic, and we have no way of knowing, with certainty, which portions are to be taken literally, and which aren't.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 29, 2004.

I think we need to take all of Revelation literally and very seriously--and I think we need to understand that the symbolism is desribing very real things.

It is a study to understand what things mean. That is why I participate in them through my church. My church has presented all the belief positions to us and has expressed its pre-trib position. We are free to believe what we want in these such matters--as even my church will tell you that there is no definitive answer...

A pre-trib rapture makes the most biblical sense to me.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 29, 2004.


I am really happy to hear that your church gives you the freedom to choose; so many don't.

The book of Revelations, in my opinion, is symbolic of real things, yes I agree. It is our duty to study to find the literal meaning behind the symbols. But that ain't always easy. We have much imagery, don't we, to work through; many Jewish symbols that the average gentile has no knowledge of.

You see, Faith, I have been down this road before; starting in the 70's Jesus Movement when the "rapture" thing was really selling fast and furious. Hal Lindsey's book "The Late Great Planet Earth" was THE book to have. His prophesies have failed. And I could name you countless other "would-be prophets" that have bit the dust over the last 20 years. Suffice it to say, when it comes to end-time prophecy -- don't bank your salvation on it! And I just refuse to get "caught up" in any "move of the day," because they come, and they go.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 29, 2004.


But does that mean we shouldn't try to see what God is revealing?

I mean--it seems God went to some length here to make sure we had His Holy Written Word. Right?

Are we really to conclude that it isn't possible to understand?

Rev 22....

6The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.” 7“Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book.”

8I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9But he said to me, “Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!”

10Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. 11Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy.”

12“Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

14“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

16“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

17The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

20He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 30, 2004.


Delving into scripture is the most rewarding of activities, so I think you misunderstand my point. Seeking truth is the highest adventure that anyone can undertake. We should seek truth with all our might.

My point is that people in each of the different end-time "camps" think they've got it absolutely right; can't be wrong, they're emphatically sure this is the way it's going to happen. Then the fights begin with some groups calling the others "unsaved" or "unenlighted" or "not listening to the spirit," or whatever, and finally, worst of all, churches split over it. It becomes toxic.

So I think when it comes to end-time matters NO ONE knows for sure how things are going to happen and when, and it is pure folly to allow the issue to CONSUME you, as some people most assuredly have, in fact I think I did for a time many years ago. In my immaturity, I ended up turning everyone off who I tried to "persuade" into my way of thinking. The Jesus Movement was in full swing, people were "getting saved," and the Rapture-mania was just beginning to really take hold. Many good good things happened during that time, but many not-so-good. Hopefully, I have learned from past mistakes.

I find that I am a much more content Christian, and hopefully more Christ-like, when I just focus my attention on pleasing Him. When things get hot on this forum, which they have for the two of us on more than one occasion, I pray that God will grace us BOTH to accept each other's differences in the love of Christ; 'cause that's what makes HIM happy!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 30, 2004.


BTW, the best evidence that Christ will remove His people immediately before the final judgment is that He has done that in the past; i.e., The Ark, and Sodom and Gomorrah.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 30, 2004.

What did you think of the point about in Matt--where there are two in the field and one is removed the other left--and it being compared to the time of Noah? I never really thought about it that much, but remember that it wasn't the believers who were taken in those passages. The believers were left alive., to repopulate the earth.

I wonder if indeed that the ones left, in Matthew 24, are actually the believers--and this isn't at all a picture of the rapture of the church?:

36“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will 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 with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 30, 2004.


Actually, those events further prove that a pre-trib rapture is false. In each of those cases (Noah, Lot), the righteous were removed from the wrath of God the same day that His wrath was poured out. Again, the tribulation is NOT the wrath of God.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 30, 2004.

Yes, Faith, that is a very good point. And I think that in Revelations, the angle puts in his sickled and removes the wicked and throws them in the lake of fire. Plus, there is another reference similar to the one you quoted (I think in Luke) that reads a bit differently, though I can't recall exactly what the difference is. I'll have to look for it, but I think it also says something to the effect of the wicked being taken.

I always thought it was possible that when Christ returns, we could meet Him in the air, the earth is destroyed, and then recreated almost instantaneously, then the heavenly city appears, etc. etc.

I'll have to look for that parallel passage.

Good night!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), December 31, 2004.


When did I say that Christ's kingdom was established on the old earth? I said the exact opposite--that his kingdom was not established during the thousand year reign on the old earth--but after the thousand year reign, and I provided the same Scripture that you are.

We know when the old earth and heaven had passed away--we are told that this occurred after the tribulation when Christ returned to judge: - Faith

The thousand year reign does not take place on the old earth. Do you have any passage that implies Christ's reign ends at the end of 1000 years? The thousand year period is only a period in which Satan is bound and cannot deceive. Scriptures do not suggest that His reign ends after 1000 years. On the contrary, the Kingdom of Heaven (which is Christ ruling over the Earth) is one that shall never pass away.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 31, 2004.


"It makes sense to me when you consider what god teaches about creation. He said that on the seventh day He rests. ." - Faith

The text says, "God rested", not rests. Creation ended after the sixth day.

"He says that a day is as a thousand years... Do you think that that particular verse requires a symbolic reading? And if yes, then why? " - Faith

Yes, for two reasons.

First is the grammar. "As" is a preposition, which here implies that a simile is being made. A simile is a type of figurative language in that a comparison is being made between two objects. Whenever you are seeing figurative language, you know that literal interpretation is going to be inaccurate. For example:

"You're eyes are as bright as the stars."

I'm not saying that if we did a brightness comparison test you're eyes would match that of a star.

"You're face is like a pig pen."

Do I mean that your head is square with wooden fences and pigs, or do I mean that it is messy? Depends on what you look like I guess.

Second reason as to why 2 Peter 3 shouldn't be taken literally is because of the context. Peter begins by addressing a problem that is to come: Scoffers will doubt the coming of our Lord due to the apparent delay of his promise. The reason for this dely is because God does not want anyone to perish but to come to repentance. Thus, it is necessary for the Great Commission to be completed first. But, as it is, the seemingly prolonged promise is only lengthy in man's eyes, because to God, Hey! It's only been a couple of days. So, he really isn't delaying anything considering how little time has passed.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 31, 2004.


You can see the flaw that exists then when some try to interpret a day to mean a literal thousand years. Some believe that God created the Earth in six thousand years. Many try to include the thousand year reign in the "Day of the Lord," passages because a day is a thousand years long. And still, like you, others believe that the six days of creation mean that the time between the creation and the return of Christ will be six thousand years. All three of these postions have no other support from scripture except the lone verse in 2 Peter.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 31, 2004.

Maybe Jesus was really buried for three thousand years before rising again!

Noah spent 40,000 years in a boat!

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 31, 2004.


No Luke--

You have to keep the analogies in the proper perspective.

The reason that Peter says what he does about a day being as a thousand years was to accomplish two things--to answer about God's perception of time and to tell us about the seven thousand years of human history when thought of in perspective with the six days of creation followed by a seventh day of rest..that seventh day of rest being as a the thousand years of rest in endtime prophecy.

You can't twist it around to say that the creation day was really equal to a thousand years. That's not the flow of the Scriptures or the honest interpretation.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 31, 2004.


You can't twist it around to say that the creation day was really equal to a thousand years. - Faith

Faith, how do you know that the Creation story in Genesis is to be taken literally and not figuratively? What parts of it brought you to that decision? Can that same paradigm be used for interpreting other parts of Scripture to help determine if they are meant to be figurative or literal?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 02, 2005.


Luke wrote, "As of this afternoon, I'm officially declaring myself to be pre-millennialist, post-trib. I'm not amillinialist anymore."

If the "pre-millenialist" position is true, then you should have no problem proving this from scripture...

Luke wrote, "I've had to research more than I ever would have liked. But this decision comes as a result of long hours poured over Scriptures, both OT and NT, comparing and analyzing."

Okay, which scriptures are you talking about?

Luke wrote, "Then using history to confirm certain events, and the early church writers of course, their views of the coming end."

Here is your problem... How do you know that the "early church writers" were speaking the truth???

Luke wrote, "But there are too many contradictions and holes in amillinialism that I could no longer hold this view."

I respectfully disagree with you and wonder how you came to this view concerning amillenialism?

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 02, 2005.


"The reason that Peter says what he does about a day being as a thousand years was to accomplish two things--to answer about God's perception of time and to tell us about the seven thousand years of human history when thought of in perspective with the six days of creation followed by a seventh day of rest..that seventh day of rest being as a the thousand years of rest in endtime prophecy.

How did Peter know that the Earth was going to exist for another 2000 years, Faith? Peter wrote nothing about the "seven thousand years of human history," and he made no reference to the six days of creation. You are pulling this out of thin air.

"You can't twist it around to say that the creation day was really equal to a thousand years. That's not the flow of the Scriptures or the honest interpretation.

Who's twisting? You wrote all that bogus about Peter talking about creation. I was being sarcastic when I implied that the creation lasted six thousand years. You are also the one who implied the six days of creation were symbolic of the six thousand years of the Earth.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 03, 2005.


Luke--Peter wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It doesn't matter if Peter understood what revelation he was making for future generations or not.

That's how God's Word works.

Surely the Jews in Old Testament times never understood about the Christian church. Yet their writings point to it and are a part of our foundation.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 03, 2005.


Woah.,.... 7,000 years of human history?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 03, 2005.

6,000 years of recorded biblical history...the last 1,000 years is due to start.......exactly when we do not know. Ancient calendars were different because they went by lunar rather than solar--and no one knows exactly what year Jesus was born....

I know that there are things we dig up and say--this is one million years old., but I don't trust that science. Really--any recorded human history only goes back a few thousand years as well.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 03, 2005.


"...the last 1,000 years is due to start" - Faith

I'm thinking you mean the 1,000 years mentioned in Revelations 20.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 03, 2005.


Yes David--

The 1,000 year reign/rest prophesied to occur at the close of the church age.

Do you want to add something?

I feel like you are taking me on one of those Calvinistic theological walks I been on so many times.

My friend Brian does the same thing. He bates me and guides me in his direction with questions designed to lead me to his conclusion.

Why don't you tell me what your position is.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 03, 2005.


I'm pre-mil and pre-trib. I just never heard this Paul/7,000 years thing you mentioned.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 03, 2005.

Is there a reference in the N.T. to the "7 year tribulation"? Sorry, I don't have time to look.

Also, Faith, I asked you on one of these threads (though I can't remember which one) where you find the words "Babylonian Empire." Looking in Strong's, there is only one time in the entire bible the word "empire" is used.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 03, 2005.


Hi Gail..,

The woman on the beast is interpreted to be a revived Empire in cahoots with some religious order. The woman represents the religious entity and the beast is the the head of the revived empire.

It sort of reminds me of the Roman Empire (beast) which was controled by the Catholic church (woman).

The wording is an analogy about a beast, with seven heads and ten horns etc....so the word empire would not fit--though it is widely understood that the analogy means empire.

Rev 17:

“This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.

12“The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 03, 2005.


Kevin, as I stated originally, my intent never was to change beliefs but only to disprove the Pre-trib position. Amillenialism has "holes" because it cannot be proven.

What is the concern here? The thousand year period written in Revelation 20. The purpose of this millenial reign is good discussion, so I won't even bother. The issue is the question of timing.

When does the one thousand years of peace occur? Does Christ's second return occur before (Premillenial) or after (Post-millenial) the thousand years is to come? Or is it a symbolic time period for the church age being fufilled now (amillenial)?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 03, 2005.


I will be the first to acknowledge that the chronoligical interpretation of Revelation makes no sense. Events occur repeatedly, and so their unfolding by chapter has little to do with when each will actually take place. Premillenialism isn't the correct intrepretation simply because it (by chapter) occurs after Christ's second coming. However, there are many clues within the text that prove that it cannot happen any other time.

Here is the Passage from Revelation 20

"And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

'I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimonty for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

Look at the first action. Satan is bound by an angel for a thousand years. This is the first clue that this period is not in reference to the church era. There are numerous passages concerning Satan and his work AFTER Christ's resurrection. He has the power to deceive and to posess. He move upon the Earth setting traps for us to fall into. The letters do not suggest in any form that Satan is bound in any form. See 2 Cor. 2:11; 1 Thess. 2:18; Acts 5:3; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8; Revelation 2:10

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 03, 2005.


As David once wrote, the conditions of our world do not suggest that Satan is bound in any fashion.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 03, 2005.

Look at who is resurrected here.

"I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast nor his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Who are these who refused the mark? Even if Revelation described the persecution of the early church, the arising of the beast and enforcement of his mark must take place BEFORE anyone could refuse it. Thus, the event (even if already fulfilled) occured AFTER the resurrection of Christ. It would be impossible for anyone to come to life having refused worship of the Beast at the beginning of the Church. Thus, sequentially, Revelation 20 MUST take place AFTER the portions of Revelation concerning the Beast.

2nd problem concernes Jesus words of Matthew 24. Many of the things he spoke of concerning the last days occur in Revelation. This causes problems with the Amillenial interpretation. The thousand years cannot occur until after the mark of the Beast. The Mark of the beast does not occur until the "last days." The thousand years cannot begin, nor end, nor even occur before that.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 03, 2005.


But Faith, the woman and the beast can still represent Jerusalem! Jerusalem became apostate when she rejected Christ. The Old Covenant was destroyed by the destruction of the temple (Babylon has falled). Jerusalem (I have read) sits on 7 hills. Jerusalem is TODAY attempting to rebuild it's empire or kingdom. The Sanhedrin has reconvened! (which is chilling). There are cloning attempts underway to produce the perfect spotless lamb (and in fact I think they may have already done that), and THERE ARE PLANS TO REBUILD THE TEMPLE (if only those pesky Muslims would move that Dome of the Rock.)

Let's just say for the sake of argument, that Jerusalem is successful some day in rebuilding the temple and they bring that cloned (man made) "perfect" lamb to the altar and reinstitute the sacrifice. Would that not be the Abomination of all Abominations to the Christian way of thinking?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 03, 2005.


Luke,

You wrote, "Kevin, as I stated originally, my intent never was to change beliefs but only to disprove the Pre-trib position. Amillenialism has "holes" because it cannot be proven."

Sure it can be proven for this is the doctrine that is taught in Scripture concerning the return of Jesus.

You wrote, "What is the concern here? The thousand year period written in Revelation 20. The purpose of this millenial reign is good discussion, so I won't even bother."

There is no mention of Jesus 1,000 year reign on earth...

You wrote, "The issue is the question of timing."

Actually, the issue is whether or not the 1,000 years in the book of Revelation is literal or symbolic.

You wrote, "When does the one thousand years of peace occur?"

There is no such thing as "one thousand years of peace"...

You wrote, "Does Christ's second return occur before (Premillenial) or after (Post-millenial) the thousand years is to come?"

The 1,000 years is symbolic. Christ will not reign on this earth...

You wrote, "Or is it a symbolic time period for the church age being fufilled now (amillenial)?"

Yes, it is symbolic...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 05, 2005.


Luke,

You wrote, "There are numerous passages concerning Satan and his work AFTER Christ's resurrection. He has the power to deceive and to posess. He move upon the Earth setting traps for us to fall into. The letters do not suggest in any form that Satan is bound in any form. See 2 Cor. 2:11; 1 Thess. 2:18; Acts 5:3; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8; Revelation 2:10"

Please look at 2 Corinthians 4:1-6 which states, "1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Everytime someone obeys the gospel of Christ, Satan is bound...

This is also what is taught in 2 Timothy 2:24-26, "24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."

This is also true of what Jesus told Saul before he became the Apostle Paul in Acts 26:16-18, "16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'"

If we put on the whole armor of God, we can withstand the devil and preach and teach others to do the same when they obey the gospel of Christ for Ephesians 6:11-17 states, "11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;"

It is the word of God that is the "sword of the Spirit" and it is the word of God that causes one to have faith. (See Romans 10:17)...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 05, 2005.


Luke,

You wrote, "2nd problem concernes Jesus words of Matthew 24. Many of the things he spoke of concerning the last days occur in Revelation."

I think you are hung up on the words "the last days"... The last days spoken of in Revelation could be symbolic or they could have already come to pass... If you look at what Peter wrote in Acts 2:16- 17 concerning the "last days", this happened on the day of Pentecost for he said, "16 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;"

Also in speaking of the "last days", the writer of the book of Hebrews said in Heb 1:1-3 that "in these last days" God speaks to us through His Son - Jesus Christ, "1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;"

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 05, 2005.


"Sure [amillenialism] can be proven for this is the doctrine that is taught in Scripture concerning the return of Jesus."

Of course, I'm borrowing your own challenge to prove from Scripture where Amillenialism is taught.

"There is no mention of Jesus 1,000 year reign on earth... " - Kevin

True, not directly. But I know you know better than to dogmatically assume something is untrue even if it is not stated word for word. As it happens, there are Old Testament Scriptures (Ezekiel 37:15-28; Zechariah 14) which concern the time after the Second Coming. You will find literal, physical locations on Earth when the Lord speaks of his kingdom. Besides, there is no mention of Jesus reigning in Heaven for 1,000 years either.

"Actually, the issue is whether or not the 1,000 years in the book of Revelation is literal or symbolic. " -Kevin

I disagree. Let's break it down. First, do we take 1,000 years to be an expression meaning "a long period of time," or do we take it as a literal 1,000 years? For argument's sake, let's pretend it means a long time. When does/did this long period of time occur? Can you support your belief with scripture?

Secondly, regardless of whether the actual time is literal or symbolic, is there a possibility that this period is symbolic of something else? I'm asking, "Can the 1,000 year period of Revelation 20 be an interpretation of the 'Church Age' and/or some other age?". I've already shown conclusively that Revelation 20 cannot be speaking of the time after Pentecost until the Lord's return simply by the facts of the Word. Not only does the text not support such a position, logically, it makes no sense to speak about the 2000+years of the "Church Age" on Earth after describing the Lord's return.

"There is no such thing as "one thousand years of peace"... " -Kevin

During this time period, Satan is bound and unable to deceive a single nation. There will be only one named praised, and He will rebuke those who lift hands against others. This sounds like peace, to me anyway.

"The 1,000 years is symbolic. Christ will not reign on this earth... " -Kevin

True. This Earth is reserved for fire. But a new Earth will be created, on which the Lord will sit on his throne.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.


I agree with everything you wrote in your second post. Satan becomes powerless against one who is in Christ Jesus. I don't believe that this is the binding of Satan written about in Revelation 20 however. While an individual's following of God limits Satan's grasp on a personal level, Satan isn't bound universally from such.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

Also, you're right concerning the "last days," and I will add that John (in the first century) also wrote that these (meaning his time) were the last days. I believe still though, that there are events predicted by the Bible which are to occur during the last few years of the Earth before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 05, 2005.

Luke,

Thanks for your responses, here is more food for thought...

I wrote, "There is no mention of Jesus 1,000 year reign on earth..."

To which you replied, "True, not directly. But I know you know better than to dogmatically assume something is untrue even if it is not stated word for word. As it happens, there are Old Testament Scriptures (Ezekiel 37:15-28; Zechariah 14) which concern the time after the Second Coming."

I disagree with your interpretation of Ezekiel because we are all one in Christ Jesus (see Galatians 3:26-29) which is what this chapter of Ezekiel is speaking of - the return of Israel and Judah to one nation... There will be no new earthly tabernacle raised for the nation of Israel because our bodies are now the temple in which God resides... (See 1 Corinthians 6:9).

As for Zechariah chapter 14, I also disagree that this is speaking of the end times for Zech 14:19 states, "This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles." The Feast of Tabernacles was done away with once the city of Jerusalem was destroyed and will never be observed again...

You wrote, "You will find literal, physical locations on Earth when the Lord speaks of his kingdom."

Yes, the kingdom of Jesus is here on this earth right now... We don't have to wait until He returns, His kingdom has come... The Apostle Paul spoke as if he were in His kingdom when he said in Colossians 1:13, "He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,"

Jesus is reigning now... see 1 Corinthians 15:24-27 and Matthew 28:18. All the dead will be raised and judged according to their works. (John 5:28-29; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:11-15).

You wrote, "Besides, there is no mention of Jesus reigning in Heaven for 1,000 years either."

Good point...

I wrote, "Actually, the issue is whether or not the 1,000 years in the book of Revelation is literal or symbolic."

To which you replied, "I disagree. Let's break it down. First, do we take 1,000 years to be an expression meaning "a long period of time," or do we take it as a literal 1,000 years? For argument's sake, let's pretend it means a long time. When does/did this long period of time occur? Can you support your belief with scripture?"

I believe it is just a long period of time... If you look at verses 4 and 5, those who reign with Jesus for this 1,000 year period are those who have already died...

So will all the nations who are deceived be gathered together by Satan to battle around one camp of the saints in one city??? This is what Revelation 20:7-10 states... Is this also to be taken literally that there is only one city that is faithful on judgment day??? I think not...

You wrote, "Secondly, regardless of whether the actual time is literal or symbolic, is there a possibility that this period is symbolic of something else? I'm asking, "Can the 1,000 year period of Revelation 20 be an interpretation of the 'Church Age' and/or some other age?"."

I don't have the answer that you are looking for... Eventually I plan on doing an in-depth study of the book of Revelation... I don't have all the answers but I do know that the doctrine of pre- millenialism is false and is not supported by the word of God...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 06, 2005.


I believe Zechariah 14 is concerning the end times for many reasons.

1) Verse 2 "I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it..." C

ompare to the sixth and seventh bowl of Revelation 16

2) Verse 5 "and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south."

A great earthquake will occur on the day of the Lord (Revelation 6; Revelation 16)

3) Verse 5 "Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him."

Compare with Jude 14 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14. The Lord brings with him those who have preceeded us in death.

4) Verse 9 "The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD , and his name the only name."

The Church acknowledges this as a current state of salvation, but this verse is in reference to the age after the second coming in which idolatry is abolished.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 06, 2005.


Luke,

You wrote, "I believe Zechariah 14 is concerning the end times for many reasons."

I disagree with you... You wrote, "1) Verse 2 "I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it..."

Why is there an end time need to gather all the nations to fight against Jerusalem??? The Jews are no longer God's chose people, so this is not necessary...

You wrote, "Compare to the sixth and seventh bowl of Revelation 16"

Compare what happened to the city of Jerusalem in AD 70 to what is written in the book of Revelation...

You wrote, "2) Verse 5 "and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south."

Compare your verse above to what is written in Matthew 27:51, "Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,"

You wrote, "A great earthquake will occur on the day of the Lord (Revelation 6; Revelation 16)"

A great earthquake happened when Jesus died for it is written in Matthew 27:54, "So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

You wrote, "3) Verse 5 "Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him."

This could be talking about what is written in Matthew 27:52-53 that states, "52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

You wrote, "Compare with Jude 14 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14. The Lord brings with him those who have preceeded us in death.

I do believe that you are hung up on the word "saints" in Jude 14... Actually Jesus will be returning with the angels... not the saints... for it is written in 2 Thesssalonians 1:7-8, "7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The dead will rise first and then those who are alive and remain will rise and meet Jesus in the air... It is the angels that will be coming with Jesus...

You wrote, "4) Verse 9 "The LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD , and his name the only name."

Jesus is already "king over the whole earth"... Have you not read Matthew 28:18 that states, "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 07, 2005.


"Why is there an end time need to gather all the nations to fight against Jerusalem??? The Jews are no longer God's chose people, so this is not necessary..." - Kevin

Jerusalem has been and always will be the capital city of God's people.

"Compare what happened to the city of Jerusalem in AD 70 to what is written in the book of Revelation... " - Kevin

It's interesting because the book of Revelation does not mention the temple being destroyed, or anything about Jerusalem being ransacked. It is odd that the book concerning these events does not speak of them. On the other hand, if we recognize that John was not given this revelation until almost 30 years after the destruction of the temple, it makes perfect sense. Revelation has nothing to do with Jerusalem in 70 AD.

"Compare your verse above [Zechariah 14:4] to what is written in , 'Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,'

A great earthquake happened when Jesus died for it is written in Matthew 27:54, 'So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!'"

True that an earthquake occured at Jesus death, but this (nor the splitting of the veil) had anything to do with Zechariah 14:4. Here is the verse again:

Zechariah 14:4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.

Question 1) On what day?

Answer: Vs 1-3 Say that it's a day of the Lord when the city is ransacked, and the Lord himself comes out to fight against the nations as on a day of Battle.

Question 2) On the day Jesus was crucified, was Jerusalem under seige?

Answer: No

Question 3) Was Jesus standing on the Mount of Olives when he was murdered, and did the Mountain split into two?

Answer: No. Jesus stood on the Mount of Olives when he gave the Olivet Discourse, that is, the text from Matthew 24. But there was no earthquake then, nor was there one on that mountain the day Jesus went to the cross.

In conclusion, Zechariah 14 has nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It was not fulfilled during Jesus' lifetime, nor his time on earth after his resurrection. It remains an unfufilled prophecy.

"[Zechariah 14:5] could be talking about what is written in Matthew 27:52-53 that states, '52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.'"

But Zechariah prophecied the "holy ones" as coming with the Lord. The resurrected saints of Matthew 27 were already on the earth.

"I do believe that you are hung up on the word 'saints' in Jude 14... Actually Jesus will be returning with the angels... not the saints... for it is written in 2 Thesssalonians 1:7-8, '7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

The dead will rise first and then those who are alive and remain will rise and meet Jesus in the air... It is the angels that will be coming with Jesus..."

I agree that Angels will accompany our Lord at his return, however they are never refered to as "saints." Paul spoke of believers being glorified with Christ at his appearing (which doesn't prove my point, I know), and no passage says, "Saints do not return with Jesus" or even suggest such. Both the angels of heaven and the believers will return with Christ, as Jude 14 and 1 Thes. 4 indicate.

As Faith said on another thread, "Context is everything--Huh?" Though, I do find this hypocritical of her considering the context concerning the "thief in the night" passages prove Jesus (and the Apostles) were refering to the second coming at the end of the tribulation.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), January 09, 2005.


"Jerusalem has been and always will be the capital city of God's people."

This has not been true since the destruction of Jerusalem...

"It's interesting because the book of Revelation does not mention the temple being destroyed, or anything about Jerusalem being ransacked. It is odd that the book concerning these events does not speak of them."

This passage in the book of Revelation talks about the city of Jerusalem for it is written in Revelation 18:23-24, "23 The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore. For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery all the nations were deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth."

Compare that passage above with the following in Luke 11:49-51 which states, "49 Therefore the wisdom of God also said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,' 50 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation."

The city of Jerusalem in AD 70 was that generation and God destroyed this city just as Jesus prophesied above...

"On the other hand, if we recognize that John was not given this revelation until almost 30 years after the destruction of the temple, it makes perfect sense. Revelation has nothing to do with Jerusalem in 70 AD."

I disagree... That is your opinion that the revelation to John was not given "until almost 30 years after the destruction of the temple"...

"True that an earthquake occured at Jesus death, but this (nor the splitting of the veil) had anything to do with Zechariah 14:4. Here is the verse again:"

Again this is your opinion and I do not agree with it... If you continue to read in Zechariah 14:17 it states, "And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain."

According to what is written in the New Testament, this no longer applies for Jesus said in John 4:21-25, "21 Jesus said to her, Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Worship in Jerusalem is no longer required of the church...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 09, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ