Amillenialism and Acts 1:11

The NIV is clearer and easier to understand.


Zechariah 14:1-4 New International Version (NIV)
The Lord Comes and Reigns
14 A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. 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.

CNKW3 said:

So there are dozens and you give me one.

Click to expand...

Correct. It is your job to find the rest.

CNKW3 said:

The text never mentions him being on mount olive as a second coming. You made that up. The text never says that.

Click to expand...

Now you are accusing me of deception when I have quoted exactly what it stated in Scripture. The context makes it perfectly clear that this is about (a) the Second Coming, (b) the battle of Armageddon and (c) the Mount of Olives literally splitting apart when He stands on it

Which shows you (a) you yourself are dishonest and (b) you have no interest in the truth.

CoreIssue said:

I repeat, the martyrs are resurrected, not raptured, at the second coming.

The church is resurrected in rapture before the tribulation.

The problem with declaring figurative is it is in the eyes of the holder what the words may. You have no proof for literal interpretation.

Click to expand...

What’s the difference between raptured and resurrected? The “rapture” is not even a biblical term. You brought it in based on...
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
I posted this and you said this is the rapture but the text says the dead in Christ (those in the grave) will RISE first. That is a resurrection. Then those who are still alive will be taken up as well. It happens at the same time.
As far as figurative? The book of revelation is a figurative book declared so by John....
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
This message was SIGNIFIED unto John. This means the message came in the form of signs. So this entire book has to be interpreted in light of this. Everything is considered as figurative or signified unless the context demands otherwise. That is bible study 101.
There’s a dragon in a pit with a chain and you read that as a literal dragon in a literal pit with a literal chain? All of this coming from a book that begins by saying it is figurative.

CNKW3 said:

What’s the difference between raptured and resurrected? The “rapture” is not even a biblical term. You brought it in based on...
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
I posted this and you said this is the rapture but the text says the dead in Christ (those in the grave) will RISE first. That is a resurrection. Then those who are still alive will be taken up as well. It happens at the same time.
As far as figurative? The book of revelation is a figurative book declared so by John....
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
This message was SIGNIFIED unto John. This means the message came in the form of signs. So this entire book has to be interpreted in light of this. Everything is considered as figurative or signified unless the context demands otherwise. That is bible study 101.
There’s a dragon in a pit with a chain and you read that as a literal dragon in a literal pit with a literal chain? All of this coming from a book that begins by saying it is figurative.

Click to expand...

Resurrected means bodies are reconstituted and people are restored to life.

Rapture comes from the Latin word defining the Bible's use of being caught up with the actual phrase meaning snatched away by force.

Rapture also is prophesied for the still living, who will be taken instantly after the resurrected.

You do not seem to understand how to read the Bible. The Bible is literal, even what is given figuratively in one place is defined literally and another, thus by rules of grammar making it literal.

Enoch111 said:

Correct. It is your job to find the rest.

Now you are accusing me of deception when I have quoted exactly what it stated in Scripture. The context makes it perfectly clear that this is about (a) the Second Coming, (b) the battle of Armageddon and (c) the Mount of Olives literally splitting apart when He stands on it

Which shows you (a) you yourself are dishonest and (b) you have no interest in the truth.

Click to expand...

It’s not my job. It’s your position that Christ is coming back to stand on the earth. That is not my position. I am asking for you to verify and you can’t. Either prove it through scripture or admit it and move on. You said dozens and you can’t give me 10? Is that not deceptive? What’s your definition of deceptive?
You mentioned context but provide no contextual proof. The second coming is nowhere. The battle of Armageddon is mentioned nowhere. I already showed you that the entire context from the beginning was the prophesying of the coming servant who would save his people. He did that through the gospel.
I showed through the book of Zechariah that he was prophesying about the first advent of the Lord. The passage you citied NEVER mentions a second coming. It only says that “in that day” , so prove to us all that this is a second coming of the Lord because the text doesn’t say that.

CoreIssue said:

You do not seem to understand how to read the Bible. The Bible is literal, even what is given figuratively in one place is defined literally and another, thus by rules of grammar making it literal.

Click to expand...

Ok. Then explain. Give me an example of what you are talking about. Either the dragon is a real dragon or it isn’t. Please explain with biblical examples.

CNKW3 said:

Ok. Then explain. Give me an example of what you are talking about. Either the dragon is a real dragon or it isn’t. Please explain with biblical examples.

Click to expand...

Revelation 12:9 New International Version (NIV)
9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

tzcho2 said:

Who told you that? Does your church preach that? Did you hear this or read it on the internet? Don't try to say just the bible because I don't believe you got this idea all by yourself.

Click to expand...

I will admit that the Bible speaks of many “comings” of the Lord. There is his first coming, second coming, coming in the destruction of Jerusalem, coming to live with the Christian Jn 14:23. So we have to let context determine which one is being spoken of. In 1 thes 3...
13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
This is definitely speaking of his second coming and the language carries over to chapter 4: 15,16
So, through the context that is why I come to the conclusion that this is his second coming. It’s not his first, it’s not dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and it’s not talking about abiding in the Christian.

CNKW3 said:

I will admit that the Bible speaks of many “comings” of the Lord. There is his first coming, second coming, coming in the destruction of Jerusalem, coming to live with the Christian Jn 14:23. So we have to let context determine which one is being spoken of. In 1 thes 3...
13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
This is definitely speaking of his second coming and the language carries over to chapter 4: 15,16
So, through the context that is why I come to the conclusion that this is his second coming. It’s not his first, it’s not dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and it’s not talking about abiding in the Christian.

Click to expand...

Coming to local Christians is on the new earth in the new Jerusalem. Not on this earth.

First coming is done. Rapture coming is next and then seven years later the second coming. Then at the end of time coming for another rapture at the destruction of the earth.

CoreIssue said:

The NIV is clearer and easier to understand.


Zechariah 14:1-4 New International Version (NIV)
The Lord Comes and Reigns
14 A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. 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.

Click to expand...

First or second coming? It doesn’t say second. So if you say second you are adding to the text.

CNKW3 said:

First or second coming? It doesn’t say second. So if you say second you are adding to the text.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to label every event to your satisfaction. The events speak for themselves when harmonize with the rest of the Bible.

CoreIssue said:

Revelation 12:9 New International Version (NIV)
9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Click to expand...

Let’s read on..
Revelation 12:10-11 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Was Satan literally cast down to physical earth or is this actually speaking about influence? The point is, the entire book is presented to John with signs like a dragon who was not a real dragon. There was meaning that meant something to the churches of Asia unto whom this letter was sent. It would provide no comfort if the message was for more then 2000 years later. John bookends this book with this phrase...these things must “shortly come to pass”. 2000+ years is not shortly.

CoreIssue said:

It doesn't have to label every event to your satisfaction. The events speak for themselves when harmonize with the rest of the Bible.

Click to expand...

You sure don’t have the right to label it.
There is nowhere in the NT that speaks of Christ standing back on earth. I have asked people to show me and I’m getting nothing. Maybe you can help. Because in order for it to harmonize we would see future NT evidence. The book of Zechariah? Is it about a future second coming when the lord had not even come the first time.
Let me add this evidence...
Acts 3:17-18,24-25 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
This is Peter stating that ALL the prophets from Samuel after foretold of “these days”. The prophets foretold about the first coming of Christ and what he would do. This proves that what I’m preaching harmonizes with the rest of scripture. Now you show me where they ALL foretold of his second coming.

CNKW3 said:

You sure don’t have the right to label it.
There is nowhere in the NT that speaks of Christ standing back on earth. I have asked people to show me and I’m getting nothing. Maybe you can help. Because in order for it to harmonize we would see future NT evidence. The book of Zechariah? Is it about a future second coming when the lord had not even come the first time.
Let me add this evidence...
Acts 3:17-18,24-25 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
This is Peter stating that ALL the prophets from Samuel after foretold of “these days”. The prophets foretold about the first coming of Christ and what he would do. This proves that what I’m preaching harmonizes with the rest of scripture. Now you show me where they ALL foretold of his second coming.

Click to expand...

So you dismiss the Old Testament. What you do at your own risk because not going to understand a whole lot about the Bible if you do.

CoreIssue said:

It doesn't have to label every event to your satisfaction. The events speak for themselves when harmonize with the rest of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Also. If you read my original post you will see I established with many passages in context that Zechariah had Christ first coming in mind. The Bible seems to label it just fine.

CoreIssue said:

So you dismiss the Old Testament. What you do at your own risk because not going to understand a whole lot about the Bible if you do.

Click to expand...

Who’s dismissing the OT? I’m confirming it. I love the OT. Paul said...
What was written aforetime was written for our learning.
You people go to the OT and create all kinds of stories like the USA fighting Russia and then Iran gets involved and all kind of made up stuff like that. You look for OT Bible codes to try and predict the future. The OT leads us to Christ. It does not lead us to an earthly millennial reign sometime in the future. That is OT abuse.

marks said:

OK, color me silly, but . . .

Zechariah 14:1-4 KJV
(1) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
(2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
(3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
(4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

When did God gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle?
Said battle resulting in the city captured, and so on.
The Lord fighting against those nations as in the day of battle.
And He stands on the mount of olives.
And there is a new valley.

?

Click to expand...

Didnt the Romans take over Israel and Jerusalem? Then Christ came to establish his kingdom which took place after he ascended from the mount of olives during the Roman rule.
Jesus said....
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Jesus foretold that his kingdom would come with power and it would be in their lifetime. We see that taking place in acts 2. Jesus told his apostles in acts 1 that they should wait in Jerusalem until they received power. This kingdom will never be destroyed but the Roman kingdom has been gone a long time. Zechariah just like Revelation uses a lot of figurative language. Read the first 6 chapters and it will be one figurative vision after another. You people try to draw all of this stuff out literally and it leads to all kinds of fanciful creations not supported by the rest of scripture.

CNKW3 said:

You people

Click to expand...

I'm just one person.

CNKW3 said:

Didnt the Romans take over Israel and Jerusalem? Then Christ came to establish his kingdom which took place after he ascended from the mount of olives during the Roman rule.
Jesus said....
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Jesus foretold that his kingdom would come with power and it would be in their lifetime. We see that taking place in acts 2. Jesus told his apostles in acts 1 that they should wait in Jerusalem until they received power. This kingdom will never be destroyed but the Roman kingdom has been gone a long time. Zechariah just like Revelation uses a lot of figurative language. Read the first 6 chapters and it will be one figurative vision after another. You people try to draw all of this stuff out literally and it leads to all kinds of fanciful creations not supported by the rest of scripture.

Click to expand...

Hi CNKWS,

The Romans conquered Israel and Jerusalem, but they are not part of an "all nations" confederation. So that being the case, I don't see that one empire, though vast, but not worldwide, fulfills "all nations".

And while there is figurative language I don't simple ascribe all the language to be figurative.

But it does seem to me that when I find I disagree with someone on a passage, at the end of it all it genenerally comes down to how literally we understand a passage.

Much love!

marks said:

Figurative of what, may I ask?

How about these 144,000? Are these not 12,000 men from the physical descendants of Jacob?

Much love!

Click to expand...

So, if it’s a literal 144,000 sealed, then are only virgins sealed? You really think he is talking about a literal 144000 jewish virgins? Could this be a figurative way of describing the church through a sign? The church is called the Israel of God. It is also said to be a holy nation. James refers to them as..
“The twelve tribes scattered abroad”. But we know James was writing to Christians. Peter calls the church strangers scattered abroad. The entire book of Revelation has one theme...Jesus wins. How did he do that? He overcame death and provided all mankind a way to heaven through the church. A humanity that was doomed to torment without a victorious savior and the body of Christ. In Eph 3 we find that the church was a part of the eternal purpose of God. It has been a part of his plan since the beginning. In Eph 5 we see he is the savior of the body which is the church. His kingdom. In acts 20 we see that Christ shed his blood for the church.
This book is not about some future earthly kingdom where Christ will come back and make things right. It’s already just the way he planned it.