Do Two Jerusalems kill the Premill doctrine?

mkgal1 said:

It says "the city - figuratively called Sodom and Egypt"......that doesn't mean those are the only descriptions of that city. That doesn't get you past the fact that there's only one city known as where Christ was crucified.

Click to expand...

I know there is only one city where Jesus was crucified! Jerusalem! But it is never figuratively called Babylon.

Saddam Hussein rebuilt Babylon to 1/7th size. He used over 600,000,000 original bricks with Nebuchadnezzars image. He had his image put on the opposite side! Around Babylon has been built up and is one of Iraq's major cities. The US Embassy built the biggest and most expensive embassy ever built there! It iwll become the Antichrists' capitol until He conquers Jerusalem.

mkgal1 said:

The historians I've read state that Babylon fell in 539 BC.....so James was calling Jerusalem Babylon there.

Cite a source that states that Babylon existed during James' day.

Click to expand...

The EMpire fell, not the city. Peter wrote from Babylon when He fled Israel! James never mentioned Babylon!

Paul went to Jerusalem to present the gospel of the Gentiles He preached and to argue against teh Judiazers!

sovereigngrace said:

I relate this passage to AD 70 after the Gentiles killed Christ (in the form of the Roman soldiers); the Gospel then conquered them. Significantly, the instrument of that evil Rome subsequently became the epi-center of the Gospel witness for many years after the Cross. I must qualify; I am not talking about current Roman Catholicism which is pagan, but ancient Christianity that was centered in Rome. God brought His wrath upon the city of Jerusalem because of their disobedience.

The destruction of the city and the raping of the city occurred in AD 70. At that time the Roman Empire enjoyed jurisdiction over the whole known world (Luke 2:1). Jerusalem was destroyed because of their rejection of Christ. The Gentiles came against the city, but the Gospel in turn went out among the Gentiles with great success.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that none of that did not happen, but I am arguing, Zechariah 14:2 certainly isn't referring to any of those events.

I just found the following article, not that I need articles like this to convince me to conclude what I'm aleady concluding before I even read articles like this. This particular article is rather lengthy, and thus far I haven't begun to read through it in it's entirety. I have probably managed to read a 1/4 way through it thus far. And the arguments that I'm already seeing, not that I might be agreeing word for word with every single argument I'm seeing, these arguments are literally blowing arguments like your out of the water, since your arguments concerning these things appear to be spewing nonsense rather than rational sense, when comparing your rationale of these events with that of the texts involved, then comparing the texts involved with that of what has actually happened in history in the past, and that no past events in history appear to be matching the texts recorded in Zechariah 14.

And like I pointed out in another thread, Amil appears to involve one contradiction after another. Yet Amils claim their position is the correct one. Assuming that is true, why can't Amil simply present their position in such a way, to where it doesn't involve contradicting anything? Granted, some contradictions might not be obvious, therefore it is then debatable if those are actually contradictions at all. But when a contradiction is plainly obvious, there is no excuse in that case, that can justify why what proposed still works though it is plainly contradicting something else. To be fair here. This is not just an Amil problem. Premil has this same problem at times. But as to Premil, one can still be Premil without having to agree with every single thing other Premils are concluding.

The following is a small portion from this article.

----------------------------------------


Feinberg - The prophecy has been understood by some of the Church Fathers to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. This cannot be the overthrow of the city by Titus, because he was not at the head of all nations, nor did he leave half of the population. Too, the passage cannot be speaking of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, because the greater part of the people were exiled and later the remnant suffered the same treatment. Compare 2 Kings 25:11. Half of the population will go into captivity, but the other half will constitute the remnant. To the literal interpretation of this prophecy it has been objected that it would be a physical impossibility for all nations to assemble in battle against Jerusalem. Newton correctly states: “It should also be observed that when nations are described as being gathered as nations, it is not meant that every individual comes, but they who are governmentally and executively the constituted representatives of their power.” (The Great Consummation: Israel’s Deliverance and God’s Earthly Kingdom, 14:1-21)

Zechariah 14:3 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle.

Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations Zec 2:8,9 10:4,5 12:2-6,9 Isa 63:1-6 66:15,16 Da 2:34,35,44,45 Joel 3:2,9-17 Zep 3:19 Hag 2:21,22 Rev 6:4-17 8:7-13
as when He fights on a day of battle: Ex 15:1-6 Jos 10:42 2 Ch 20:15

A CRUCIAL TIME PHRASE "THEN"
AT THE END OF THIS AGE

Then (at that time; at the time in question, at that point in time, at that moment, on that occasion) - Always pay close attention to this "time sensitive" conjunction, especially in passages like this which are clearly eschatological (prophetic), for this word will give you a clue as to the sequence of events. Jehovah-Jesus will come when Jerusalem's fate looks to be sealed.

NET Note on the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations - The statement the LORD will go to battle introduces the conflict known elsewhere as the “battle of Armageddon,” (MORE ACCURATELY THE Campaign of Armageddon) a battle in which the LORD delivers his people and establishes his millennial reign (cf. Joel 3:12, 15–16; Ezek 38–39; Rev 16:12–21; 19:19–21).

Zechariah 14 Commentary | Precept Austin

BABerean2 said:

What is "the great city" in the verse below?

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.


Unless the definitions have changed, what is the "the great city" in the verse below?
If the definitions are the same, it is still earthly Jerusalem.

Rev_16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

In the verse above "the great city" is also equal with "great Babylon".


I will ask it again. Can you show us any place in the Book of Revelation where earthly Jerusalem is clearly in a right relationship with God?

Can you show us earthly Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation?

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

.

Click to expand...

So your whole theology on this is based on the fact that Jerusalem is called a great city in Rev. 11 and Babylon also is called a great city 5 chapters later????? That is so thin as to be invisible exegesis.

BABerean2 said:

The passage in context reveals it to be related to the return from the captivity in Babylon.

Jer 30:1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
Jer 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.
Jer 30:3 For, lo, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the LORD: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.
Jer 30:4 And these are the words that the LORD spake concerning Israel and concerning Judah.
Jer 30:5 For thus saith the LORD; We have heard a voice of trembling, of fear, and not of peace.
Jer 30:6 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?
Jer 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.
Jer 30:8 For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him:
Jer 30:9 But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.
Jer 30:10 Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the LORD; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid.
Jer 30:11 For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.

.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should reread the passage and your sentence to see how badly your definition is on this verse!

Jesus nor David reigned upon the return from Babylon.

Teh time of Jacobs trouble is an euphemism of the tribulation period.

Verse 11 should be a clue it is not Babylon. NATIONS not nation. The scattering of verse 11 took place from 70-135 AD!

nolidad said:

Maybe you should talk to me before you decide to write what you think I believe. The stuff you wrote above is not even worthy of being called garbage!

Aquarius? Are you mixing Gods Word with Astrology?

So you have Jesus reigning on earth pre-mil and then have millenial rebels rise up? What does that even mean? That sounds more jumbeld than the Watchtower mess of the millenial kingdom.

Click to expand...

That is classic Premil!

DavidPT said:

And like I pointed out in another thread, Amil appears to involve one contradiction after another. Yet Amils claim their position is the correct one. Assuming that is true, why can't Amil simply present their position in such a way, to where it doesn't involve contradicting anything? Granted, some contradictions might not be obvious, therefore it is then debatable if those are actually contradictions at all. But when a contradiction is plainly obvious, there is no excuse in that case, that can justify why what proposed still works though it is plainly contradicting something else. To be fair here. This is not just an Amil problem. Premil has this same problem at times. But as to Premil, one can still be Premil without having to agree with every single thing other Premils are concluding.

Click to expand...

This is mere theological party-posturing and has no basis in truth.

Where are the problems with Amil? You are yet to show anything. Zechariah 14 is supposed to be your proof-text and it says nothing that Rev 20 does. That is a fact! I have been asking for such a correlation on different Christian forums for 20 years and have yet to see any Premillennialist furnish one little bit of evidence of a link. That is because it does not exist!

The opposite therefore of what you allege is actually the truth, and you know it. The fact that you have failed over a long protracted period of time to present any corroboration for your opinion of Revelation 20 is testimony that it is a private interpretation that is contrary to scriptural truth. Your MO is to avoid question after question, point after point and Scripture after Scripture which forbids your doctrine.

I refer the reader to your continued avoidance of all the issues on my thread: "17 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine."

The issue is: you are not addressing the core points or answering the questions. When Scripture is presented, you divert to other Scripture, when we address your other Scripture, you move on to other Scripture. That is extremely frustrating. I do not think it is even fair on the objective reader watching on. Everything is left unaddressed. This is a common practice when engaging with Premils online. That is why so many Christians are moving away from it through forums like this. 20 years ago it was far different. Amil was a peripheral doctrine.

BTW, i do not typical engage with outside links. What and who is here can at least be challenged.

BABerean2 said:

Why are you ignoring what the feast of tabernacles is in the New Covenant, and who is the tabernacle in the New Covenant?


Joh_2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.


1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."


This is what is found in the Old Testament passage from Zechariah 14.
What happens to those in the passage who are not a part of the New Covenant?

.

Click to expand...

Look how unreasonable your argument seems, when comparing 1Co_11:25 with that of those in Zechariah 14:16-19. If these are supposed to be saved saints who 1Co_11:25 is being applied to in Zechariah 14:16-19, why are we then seeing things like the following in the texts?

that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


First of all, the texts make it crystal clear as to whom is being referred to here. It is these---that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that verse 2 and 3 have to be fulfilled first, before what is recorded in verses 16-19 can even come to pass. This presents a major problem if what is recorded in verses 2 and 3 are yet to be fulfilled, and that one is arguing that verses 16-19 have already come to pass.


No matter how one looks at it, verses 16-19 have to be meaning a time post the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Assuming verses 16-19 were meaning in this age before the 2nd coming, would anyone be taking the part about the feast of tabernacles, in the literal sense? No, no one would be. But if this is meaning post the 2nd coming, why does that have to mean that it has to be meaning literal in that case, therefore it can't be meaning post the 2nd coming, then? If it's before the 2nd coming, it can't be literal, if it's after the 2nd coming it must be literal---what kind of argument is that?

DavidPT said:

Look how unreasonable your argument seems, when comparing 1Co_11:25 with that of those in Zechariah 14:16-19. If these are supposed to be saved saints who 1Co_11:25 is being applied to in Zechariah 14:16-19, why are we then seeing things like the following in the texts?

that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


First of all, the texts make it crystal clear as to whom is being referred to here. It is these---that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that verse 2 and 3 have to be fulfilled first, before what is recorded in verses 16-19 can even come to pass. This presents a major problem if what is recorded in verses 2 and 3 are yet to be fulfilled, and that one is arguing that verses 16-19 have already come to pass.


No matter how one looks at it, verses 16-19 have to be meaning a time post the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Assuming verses 16-19 were meaning in this age before the 2nd coming, would anyone be taking the part about the feast of tabernacles, in the literal sense? No, no one would be. But if this is meaning post the 2nd coming, why does that have to mean that it has to be meaning literal in that case, therefore it can't be meaning post the 2nd coming, then? If it's before the 2nd coming, it can't be literal, if it's after the 2nd coming it must be literal---what kind of argument is that?

Click to expand...

Premillennialists live in the Old Testament. They need to move into the New Testament era. The rules have changed under the new covenant! There is no longer any ethnic superiority or favoritism. Yahweh divorced wayward Israel. He took the kingdom off them and gave it to the trans-national NT Church. You are always trying to explain away New Testament truth with your opinion of Old Testament truth that has been superseded with the introduction of the new covenant.

That is why we need to employ the New Testament to understand the Old Testament. The New Testament is superior to the Old because it is the fuller revelation. The New Testament is a more informed, complete and vivid picture of the divine program than that which is contained within the Old Testament. The New Testament picture fills in the incomplete picture given by the Old Testament. It shines light on much of the obscurity and murkiness of the Old Testament.

That is why theologians insist: “the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” Steve Lehrer wisely advises: “read the Old Covenant Scriptures through the lens of the New Covenant Scriptures” (New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered).

The New Testament is latent in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is patent in the New Testament.

Whilst the Old Testament mentions end-times and the second coming; it is often written in veiled and incomplete detail, mixed and interspersed with ancient events and other historical detail. It is also presented in types and shadows.

nolidad said:

Lets try this a different way!

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem not Babylon. Teh city Jerusalem is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt- not Babylon.

Click to expand...

How do you reconcile that with the fact that the passage states "the city where their Lord was crucified" (which you admit is Jerusalem)?

The text also informs us that Jerusalem had been called by the names of other cities in a figurative way.

Perhaps the figurative use of Babylon was to bring to mind that, although Babylon had once held them captive, the Lord freed them from their captivity and destroyed Babylon.

The same thing happened to Jerusalem (and the prophets and Jesus made the same proclamation).

Babylon, Babylonians Definition <---That the World May Know/Ray Vander Laan article

nolidad said:

I know there is only one city where Jesus was crucified! Jerusalem! But it is never figuratively called Babylon.

Click to expand...

We are discussing one instance of that....and BABerean2 has provided others.

How does this theology allow for the main indicator as to which city is being referred to (even with the admitted knowledge that it's Jerusalem) to be totally dismissed? That seems like cognitive dissonance to me. The word "but" should not negate the knowledge that the only possibility is Jerusalem for the city of reference.

The Temple Mount at Jerusalem <---Ray Vander Laan article

The message I see from Jerusalem being called Babylon is that God (through the writing of John) was calling the once Holy City....the city of man (an idolatrous harlot like Babylon had been). Void of His presence.

mkgal1 said:

We are discussing one instance of that....and BABerean2 has provided others.

How does this theology allow for the main indicator as to which city is being referred to (even with the admitted knowledge that it's Jerusalem) to be totally dismissed? That seems like cognitive dissonance to me. The word "but" should not negate the knowledge that the only possibility is Jerusalem for the city of reference.

Click to expand...

2 Kings 24:10 At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.

Do you understand this to mean Jerusalem came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged?

2 Kings 24:15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king's mother, and the king's wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon.


Do you understand this to mean those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Jerusalem?

Ezra 6:5 And also let the golden and silver vessels of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be restored, and brought again unto the temple which is at Jerusalem, every one to his place, and place them in the house of God.

Do you understand this to mean which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Jerusalem?

Jeremiah 29:20 Hear ye therefore the word of the LORD, all ye of the captivity, whom I have sent from Jerusalem to Babylon:

Do you understand this to mean whom I have sent from Jerusalem to Jerusalem?

If the answer is no to all of those questions, and I assume it is, that you wouldn't take Babylon to mean Jerusalem in the OT, why would you do the exact opposite in the NT, thus not remain consistent, and then take Babylon to mean Jerusalem?

DavidPT said:

Do you understand this to mean Jerusalem came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged?

2 Kings 24:10 At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged

Click to expand...

No. I'm not suggesting that every instance of reference to Babylon is meaning Jerusalem. The verse itself - in Revelation - explains it's making reference to a *figurative * use of a name.

Babylon was long destroyed by the time of the writing of Revelation and at the time of Jesus. Jerusalem had a long history with Babylon, though, because of being taken into captivity by them (what this passage you're quoting is in reference to). The Babylonian siege of Jerusalem was in 586 BC and the first Temple was destroyed. I do believe Revelation was meant to bring this to their mind as a warning - history was repeating...Jerusalem had become idolatrous....and their Temple was going to be destroyed just as it was in 586 BC.

BABerean2 said:

Once again, you have completely ignored the New Covenant "tabernacle", who is Jesus Christ, and described by Peter in the passage below.

You cannot understand the Second Coming feast of tabernacles, if you do not understand who is the New Covenant tabernacle, and the New Covenant feast He instituted at the Last Supper.


1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

.

Click to expand...

Yet you are ignoring who this is supposed to be applying to, assuming you are correct to connect this with the New Covenant tabernacle, and the New Covenant feast He instituted at the Last Supper.


So, you have proof that Zechariah 14:2-3 has already been fulfilled? But until it is fulfilled Zechariah 14:16-19 is a moot point in the meantime, thus no one to yet apply any of these things to. All nations have to come against Jerusalem first, followed by the LORD then fighting on their behalf, IOW, saving them from annihilation, which He certainly didn't do in 70 AD if the Romans killed millions of them, or how ever many it was.