Futurist Only 2 Different appearances of Christ in the end.

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You are totally skipping over the 1000 year reign on earth between Armageddon and the NHNE.

The saints are taken to heaven - 2 Thess 2, 1 Thess 4:13-18
and the wicked are all destroyed at the same rapture/second coming event (Rev 19)

Wicked all destroyed at second coming/Rapture Yesterday at 9:28 PM #48



So that leaves only "the desolate Earth" for the 1000 years

Desolate Earth during the Millennium

Many Bible speak of the Earth desolate - bodies cover the Earth, no stars, hills move to and fro, cities of earth all destroyed "I looked and there was no man" Jer 4. (non-SDAs have no point in time where Earth can be desolate like that)

Jer 25:33
Those slain by the LORD on that day will be from one end of the earth to the other. They will not be lamented, gathered or buried; they will be like dung on the face of the ground.

Ez 32:4-8
4 ""I will leave you on the land; I will cast you on the open field. And I will cause all the birds of the heavens to dwell on you, And I will satisfy the beasts of the whole earth with you.
5 ""I will lay your flesh on the mountains And fill the valleys with your refuse.
6 ""I will also make the land drink the discharge of your blood As far as the mountains, And the ravines will be full of you.
7 ""And when I extinguish you, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud And the moon will not give its light.
8 ""All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you And will set darkness on your land,'' Declares the Lord GOD.


Jer 4:23
I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, And all the hills moved to and fro.
25 I looked, and behold, there was no man, And all the birds of the heavens had fled.
26 I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness, And all its cities were pulled down Before the LORD, before His fierce anger.

Zeph 1:18 Neither their silver nor their gold Will be able to deliver them On the day of the LORD'S wrath; And all the earth will be devoured In the fire of His jealousy, For He will make a complete end, Indeed a terrifying one, Of all the inhabitants of the earth.
=======================

Rev 19 says all the armies in rebellion against Christ are slain and "the REST" were killed by the sword that comes from His mouth (his Word puts them to death).

That is the second coming / Rapture event and leaves no wicked alive at all.

Rev 19:
12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many crowns; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written: “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in midheaven, “Come, assemble for the great feast of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, both free and slaves, and small and great.

19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse, and against His army.

20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire, which burns with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

========

And other texts tell us that all the saints raptured as we see in Matt 24 and 1 Thess 4:13-18
 
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No, I'm not kidding about that.

It portrays Jesus descending from heaven and destroying His enemies but that isn't the second coming? That is ridiculous. So, you see that as a third coming then, even though scripture does not teach a third coming of Christ?
No, I see it as an unnecessary return because of the 42 months promised in Revelation 13:5-6

"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven."

Notice that he did not blaspheme until after being granted 42 months. Jesus will not co-reign with the FP and Satan.

I cannot help that no one accepts the GT as the final harvest carried out by Jesus Christ and the angels. The final harvest does not happen after Armageddon. It happens during the Trumpets and Thunders. Jesus gave the Jews all those kingdom parables about the end of the age harvest, and no one takes them into consideration.

Most of the so called church today are in this verse:

"So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid."

Luke 20 is about the Jews losing the vineyard to the church. Now the church is about to lose the vineyard to Satan. And most preach that it is given to Satan even before the Second Coming, and the church is supposed to deal with Satan as what? Castaways like the Jews had to when the church took over?

God forbid. The Second Coming is the 6th Seal, and the church should be praying for a golden harvest, not that Satan sets up the AoD, so there has to be an Armageddon to finish off the last of Adam's flesh and blood.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How do you solve the problem of the fact that John said there will be no more death when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in? Your view contradicts that. Why not let the more clear scripture in Revelation 21 dictate your understanding instead of a scripture that, if fulfilled in the future, would suggest that animal sacrifices will be reinstated?

Once again, if none of that would involve animal sacrificing resuming if meant in this age, the same can be true if meant in the next age. And why not? And like I already pointed out in other posts, no matter how one looks at it, Zechariah 14:16-19 is meaning post the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:2, and that Zechariah 14:2 is obviously meaning a time during His ascension. Some argue 70 AD. Though I flat out disagree, it would at least be during His ascension like I'm arguing. Zechariah 14:2 certainly couldn't be meaning a time prior to His ascension no matter how you look at it, and that Zechariah 14:16-19 has to be meaning a time after Zechariah 14:2 has been fulfilled.

My bigger problem is, how can any of Zechariah 14 involve both the thousand years and the NHNE at the same time, when during the former it would involve death, if not during the thousand years, for certain after the thousand years, and that Revelation 21 indicates there is no more death in the NHNE? Trust me, I get that.

What do I do then? Conclude that the Jerusalem meant in Zechariah 14:11 is not meaning the new Jerusalem, and since it can't be meaning the Jerusalem in 70 AD, it must mean the Jerusalem that is once again on the map in our day and age? And since Zechariah 14:16-19 obviously involves the same time frame meant in verse 11, I should just conclude that what is recorded in verses 16-19, it will be like that for ever, where one is going to be under the threat of plagues throughout eternity for not complying with what is commanded?


Verse 11 alone already proves some of Zechariah 14 involves the new Jerusalem. How can even you deny that? What else is there to choose from?

Zechariah 14:10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.


One thing seems plainly obvious, a real city has to be meant the fact it says All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. Obviously, something can't be south of something unless that something is literal. The question is, is the new Jerusalem literal, as in a literal city? Apparently so, if new Jerusalem is meant here and that all the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why would it have destruction during the 1000 year reign? It never states Jerusalem is destroyed, not even when fire consumes the rebellious. It will dissolve away and only the GWT will remain. Then the New Jerusalem comes down.


First of all, in order for there to be a new Jerusalem the old one has to be done away with first, otherwise we end up with both an old and new Jerusalem at the same time. My point has been this concerning Zechariah 14:11. That verse involves things that are going to be like that for ever. IOW, for for ever there will be no more utter destruction involving it. For for ever men shall dwell there and it shall be safely inhabited. Which Jerusalem can fulfill this? The old Jerusalem or the new Jerusalem that comes from God out of heaven? Would anyone dare argue that the new Jerusalem won't be eternal?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The saints are taken to heaven - 2 Thess 2, 1 Thess 4:13-18
and the wicked are all destroyed at the same rapture/second coming event (Rev 19)

Wicked all destroyed at second coming/Rapture Yesterday at 9:28 PM #48



So that leaves only "the desolate Earth" for the 1000 years
No, because there is Isaiah 65. There is a resurrection in Revelation 20:4. There is 1000 years to amass an army too large to count as the sand of the seashore.

Unless that is just literal sand marching against the camp of the saints, reigning with Christ for 1000 years, there has to be life going on, on the earth.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DavidPT
Upvote 0

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2020
9,282
568
56
Mount Morris
✟123,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
First of all, in order for there to be a new Jerusalem the old one has to be done away with first, otherwise we end up with both an old and new Jerusalem at the same time. My point has been this concerning Zechariah 14:11. That verse involves things that are going to be like that for ever. IOW, for for ever there will be no more utter destruction involving it. For for ever men shall dwell there and it shall be safely inhabited. Which Jerusalem can fulfill this? The old Jerusalem or the new Jerusalem that comes from God out of heaven? Would anyone dare argue that the new Jerusalem won't be eternal?
1000 years of peace and safety for those living only 60 years at the most is a very long time.

Even the next reality may only be around several hundred thousand years and then an entirely new reality after that. So saying forever, and moving into eternity seems like hyperbole, instead of literally becoming like God, and transcending reality itself.

If this reality only existed for 8000 years, which is even hard to prove, and it seems like an eternity since Adam and Eve, yet some people seem to grasp 13 billion years, unless they don't, then saying forever in the OT, is just as meaningless as saying 13 billion years today.

That we are forever with the Lord, is just a promise that no matter how many realities, unless something changes, we will still exist. And we will exist with the Lord.

Current Jerusalem still has 1000 years left. Then this reality will pass away. Revelation 20:11 goes with Revelation 21:1

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why not let the more clear scripture in Revelation 21 dictate your understanding instead of a scripture that, if fulfilled in the future, would suggest that animal sacrifices will be reinstated?

Unless you can show that Zechariah 14:2 is not meaning during His ascension, this would indicate verse 20 & 21 are also meaning during His ascension per your view since verse 20 & 21 are meaning after the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:2.

Zechariah 14:20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.


Verse 20 says in that day. In what day? How can it not be during the time of verses 16-19?

Explain then how you would apply verse 20 & 21 to a time during His ascension, the fact it talks about sacrifices in verse 21 where you take that to mean literal animal sacrificing if meaning after the 2nd coming. What do you take it to mean if meaning before His 2nd coming and during His ascension?

Maybe we are all wrong? Maybe nothing in Zechariah 14 applies to a time post the first coming. Of course though, it's pretty silly to think that nothing in Zechariah 14 applies to a time post the first coming. At least it would solve the alleged animal sacrificing dilemma, though.

Getting back to verse 21 it says this---and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts---Canaanite likely meaning merchant, trafficker.

Revelation 18 has a bit to say about merchants. Maybe we should be looking for a connection with some of that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: keras
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1000 years of peace and safety for those living only 60 years at the most is a very long time.

Even the next reality may only be around several hundred thousand years and then an entirely new reality after that. So saying forever, and moving into eternity seems like hyperbole, instead of literally becoming like God, and transcending reality itself.

If this reality only existed for 8000 years, which is even hard to prove, and it seems like an eternity since Adam and Eve, yet some people seem to grasp 13 billion years, unless they don't, then saying forever in the OT, is just as meaningless as saying 13 billion years today.

That we are forever with the Lord, is just a promise that no matter how many realities, unless something changes, we will still exist. And we will exist with the Lord.

Current Jerusalem still has 1000 years left. Then this reality will pass away. Revelation 20:11 goes with Revelation 21:1

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;"


It does appear that the NHNE follow the GWT. I get that. It also appears, for example, some of Isaiah 60, that that involves the time of the NHNE, yet, in that same context there is verse 12.

Isaiah 60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.


If this is meaning during the NHNE, and that the NHNE has to follow the GWT, how then is it reasonable that Isaiah 60:12 is applicable after the time of the GWT?

The reason I tend to think some of Isaiah 60 involves the time of the NHNE, consider the following below and then let's compare to something in Revelation 21.

Isaiah 60:11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.

Compared with---

Revelation 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought----And the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it---- And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day---- And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why wouldn't He be? in Revelation 19 His clothes are already dipped in blood. In Isaiah 63, He's on the ground and His clothes are also dipped in blood. It's the wrath of God, why wouldn't He be an active participant in it?
Isaiah 63 has nothing to do with Jesus being on the earth taking part in God's wrath. Your interpretation of Isaiah 63 does not line up with anything written in the New Testament.

And His clothes being dipped in blood in Revelation 19 is a symbolic reference to the blood He shed for our sins and has nothing to do with previously getting bloody from taking part in God's wrath. Revelation 19 is a portrayal of His one and only descent from heaven in the future after which He proceeds to take "vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess 1:7-8).

For the saints to join Him.
This is one of the most ridiculous beliefs I've ever seen. It's quite obvious that He, His saints (their souls) and His angels are in heaven in Revelation 19 and then they all descend from heaven after which He takes vengeance on His enemies. That lines up with this passage:

2 Thess 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

There's certainly no indication that Revelation 19 is the first appearance of Jesus in the final days, because His clothes are already dipped in blood. If He's just been in heaven this whole time while angels did all the wrath? Why are His clothes bloody?
It's symbolic for the wrath He will take out on His enemies at that point. It doesn't mean He was bloody from previously doling out His wrath. It's symbolic for what He is about to do at that point (shed the blood of His enemies). It also could represent the blood He shed for our sins. Maybe both. Either way, it has nothing to do with Him getting blood on His clothes from a previous battle.

Why does Isaiah 63 describe Jesus Himself treading the winepress of His wrath on the earth?
He doesn't have to actually be on the earth in order to do that. He's Jesus! King of kings and Lord of lords. He can snap His fingers and kill everyone if He wants.

Timing doesn't match. Jesus gave no signs similar to the trumpets or bowls in Matthew 24.
Why did He need to give every detail in order for the events to match? That's ridiculous. I see this all the time on here where people see passages as different events just because they don't have all the same details.

it also makes the 7th seal be a nothingburger.
What do you mean by this? The reason there is silence in heaven after the opening of the 7th seal is because everyone has left. Jesus, the souls of His saints and the angels will have left heaven at that point. We will be caught up to Him "in the air" and He will take vengeance on His enemies at that point.

It's less in connection to you and more in connection to other posters that ONLY see Jesus coming back in Revelation 19. They miss Revelation 6, Revelation 14, Revelation 11, Revelation 16.
To your credit you recognize Jesus in those passages where other people miss Him completely.
But you see them all as the same event when it describes different timings.
It doesn't describe different timings. Tell me, if He is descending from heaven more than once in the future, as you believe then wouldn't you expect that to be mentioned in the Olivet Discourse? But, it's not. The Olivet Discourse only portrays Him as descending from heaven once in the future.

If Jesus only returns at the end of the wrath of God, at the end of the 3.5 years, then the day the Abomination of Desolation happens, you can mark off 1260 days and know the exact day that Jesus returns.
That only if you believe that the Abomination of Desolation is future and the 1260 days are literal. I don't believe that, as I've already told you. So, what you're saying doesn't apply to me. Do you understand? I believe that no one knows the day or hour now and no one will until the day of His return arrives.

is that consistent with what the bible teaches?
are we just going to lose the ability to count? Satan apparently doesn't.
How do you mass up an army and be prepared for battle at Armageddon if you don't know what day He comes back?
Because it's symbolic language regarding Christ's enemies opposing Him and His church. You're taking it all too literally.

Really?

It points out that the resurrection happens before the indignation.
The indignation starts at Revelation 6:17, it is the trumpets and bowls.
That's where we disagree. I believe it's talking about the final wrath of God that comes down on the day Christ returns, as referenced in passages like 2 Thess 1:7-10, 1 Thess 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12.

Possibly, but you did come into this thread hopefully knowing that the views were irreconcilably different.

it's why I don't bother with postmillennial preterist or amillennial threads.
I came into this thread to point out that neither the Olivet Discourse nor the book of Revelation portray Jesus as descending from heaven more than once in the future. So, I believe that's strong evidence against people like yourself who believe He will descend from heaven more than once in the future.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are totally skipping over the 1000 year reign on earth between Armageddon and the NHNE. There is literally no NHNE verse in Scripture prior to Revelation 21. No OT prophet saw the NHNE. Only John witnessed it after Armageddon, or more precisely after the 7th Trumpet stopped sounding. And then only after the Day of the Lord, the Millennial reign with Christ.
Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

What were you saying again?
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, I see it as an unnecessary return because of the 42 months promised in Revelation 13:5-6
You see Revelation 19 as an unnecessary return? I truly cannot even believe some of the things that you say. Are you for real?
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Once again, if none of that would involve animal sacrificing resuming if meant in this age, the same can be true if meant in the next age. And why not? And like I already pointed out in other posts, no matter how one looks at it, Zechariah 14:16-19 is meaning post the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:2, and that Zechariah 14:2 is obviously meaning a time during His ascension. Some argue 70 AD. Though I flat out disagree, it would at least be during His ascension like I'm arguing. Zechariah 14:2 certainly couldn't be meaning a time prior to His ascension no matter how you look at it, and that Zechariah 14:16-19 has to be meaning a time after Zechariah 14:2 has been fulfilled.

My bigger problem is, how can any of Zechariah 14 involve both the thousand years and the NHNE at the same time, when during the former it would involve death, if not during the thousand years, for certain after the thousand years, and that Revelation 21 indicates there is no more death in the NHNE? Trust me, I get that.

What do I do then? Conclude that the Jerusalem meant in Zechariah 14:11 is not meaning the new Jerusalem, and since it can't be meaning the Jerusalem in 70 AD, it must mean the Jerusalem that is once again on the map in our day and age? And since Zechariah 14:16-19 obviously involves the same time frame meant in verse 11, I should just conclude that what is recorded in verses 16-19, it will be like that for ever, where one is going to be under the threat of plagues throughout eternity for not complying with what is commanded?


Verse 11 alone already proves some of Zechariah 14 involves the new Jerusalem. How can even you deny that? What else is there to choose from?

Zechariah 14:10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.


One thing seems plainly obvious, a real city has to be meant the fact it says All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. Obviously, something can't be south of something unless that something is literal. The question is, is the new Jerusalem literal, as in a literal city? Apparently so, if new Jerusalem is meant here and that all the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of it.
I had asked you this question: How do you solve the problem of the fact that John said there will be no more death when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in? How does anything you said here answer that question? I'll need you to spell that out for me because I can't make any sense of anything you said in your post.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Unless you can show that Zechariah 14:2 is not meaning during His ascension, this would indicate verse 20 & 21 are also meaning during His ascension per your view since verse 20 & 21 are meaning after the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:2.

Zechariah 14:20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.


Verse 20 says in that day. In what day? How can it not be during the time of verses 16-19?
Of course. Did I say otherwise? I don't recall saying otherwise.

Explain then how you would apply verse 20 & 21 to a time during His ascension, the fact it talks about sacrifices in verse 21 where you take that to mean literal animal sacrificing if meaning after the 2nd coming. What do you take it to mean if meaning before His 2nd coming and during His ascension?
The same if it was meant to be taken literally rather than figuratively and spiritually. Observing the feast of tabernacles undeniably involves performing animal sacrifices. You understand that right? So, if you're going to insist on interpreting Zechariah 14 literally as referring to something that will happen in the future at some point then that means you believe in the future reinstating of animal sacrifices. I can't interpret it that way because scripture like Hebrews 8-10 makes it quite clear that animal sacrifices already served their purpose and were meant to foreshadow Christ's sacrifice.

Maybe we are all wrong? Maybe nothing in Zechariah 14 applies to a time post the first coming. Of course though, it's pretty silly to think that nothing in Zechariah 14 applies to a time post the first coming. At least it would solve the alleged animal sacrificing dilemma, though.

Getting back to verse 21 it says this---and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts---Canaanite likely meaning merchant, trafficker.

Revelation 18 has a bit to say about merchants. Maybe we should be looking for a connection with some of that?
You know, it's quite clear that Zechariah 14 is a very difficult passage to interpret. Some people think they have it figured out but their interpretations contradict other scripture, which they stubbornly deny. I simply think that it's a bad idea to use a passage like that as part of the foundation of your doctrine. Why would anyone want to do that? Trying to understand it is fine and we can talk about it (don't feel like it right now), but our doctrine should be founded on more clear scripture than that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Everything I don't agree with is a symbol"
yeah you can just go now.
You're obviously talking to me. Grow up. That is a false representation of how I interpret scripture. Unlike yourself, I am careful not to interpret a passage in such a way that contradicts other scripture. That's what your hyper-literal method of interpreting scripture leads to.

I tried being polite to you by asking for permission to post in this thread and this is how I get treated. You are the one who brought up other things besides what I was intending to talk about. So, if you don't like what I have to say, that's on you. I was only intending to talk about the fact that Jesus is only portrayed as descending from heaven once in the Olivet Discourse and in the book of Revelation. But, go ahead and keep believing He'll descend from heaven more than once in the future despite having no biblical support for that.
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,371
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,984.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
You're obviously talking to me. Grow up. That is a false representation of how I interpret scripture. Unlike yourself, I am careful not to interpret a passage in such a way that contradicts other scripture. That's what your hyper-literal method of interpreting scripture leads to.

I tried being polite to you by asking for permission to post in this thread and this is how I get treated. You are the one who brought up other things besides what I was intending to talk about. So, if you don't like what I have to say, that's on you. I was only intending to talk about the fact that Jesus is only portrayed as descending from heaven once in the Olivet Discourse and in the book of Revelation. But, go ahead and keep believing He'll descend from heaven more than once in the future despite having no biblical support for that.

I do have biblical support for it and posted it.
You have chosen to disregard all old testament.
and interpret everything as symbols
so even when specific details are given that differ, you disregard them
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I do have biblical support for it and posted it.
You have chosen to disregard all old testament.
and interpret everything as symbols
so even when specific details are given that differ, you disregard them
That's nonsense. Just because I interpret things differently than you doesn't mean I'm disregarding it. And I don't interpret everything with symbols. I don't appreciate your false allegations.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
So you do not accept a single part of Revelation 13? I think it should not happen, but it is there in black and white.

on the contrary I accept that Rev 11, 12 and 13 all speak of the 1260 years of dark ages. (time time and half a time, 42 months, 1260 days) is all the same period of time and uses the same Dan 7,8,9 apocalyptic time rule of "day for year"
 
Upvote 0