The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Spiritual Israelite]

A coming in the past would be a second coming. Believing in a third coming (or more) would not make the beliefs not full preterism IMO.

It's not fair to group people who believe in a third coming of Christ in the future (which is the same coming that we non-preterists believe is the second coming) in with full preterists who do not believe in a future coming of Christ. Partial preterism is not the same as full preterism.

 

[Davidpt]

You,claimEd that “in that day” from Zechariah 12-14 also speaks of the future, that day is the day of the Lord

Have you already forgotten about the analogy I used earlier on pertaining to the history of the USA? Think outside the box. That analogy doesn't equal your misrepresentation of my view. Quit using me as a scapegoat for someone being unreasonable and not being able to be reasoned with. When in this case, it is clearly you and @Spiritual Israelite and others like you that can't be reasoned with concerning Zechariah 14, plain and simple. For one, you all disregard context throughout Zechariah 14 and have it instead meaning whatever you want it to mean rather than what it actually means in context.

Even if I eventually abandoned at some point that there is a millennium that follows the 2nd coming, I would still never interpret Zechariah 14 in the same absurd out of context manner as some of you do. I would never interpret that chapter in such an absurd manner as that. Get a clue, there are even Amils that don't interpret it the same manner as you all do, but basically interpret in the same manner as me. Except they don't see anything in ch 14 involving a future millennium but I do.

So why is it that some Amils can make Zechariah 14 work for them when they are not remotely interpreting it in the same manner as some of you? They apparently don't see Zechariah 14 being difficult to interpret. Only someone interpreting Zechariah 14 out of context would find it difficult to interpret, obviously. That's usually what happens when someone via their interpretations are all of the place rather that trying to establish a logical cohesive flow of things, that A leads to B, and that B then leads to C. But instead, they have C meaning before A or B. That would be like arguing that the 7 trumpet, for example, precedes the first trumpet.

Take @Truth7t7 , for example. There are several things I agree with him about concerning Zechariah 14. As opposed to some of you where there is zero I agree with you about concerning Zechariah 14. And the same for @PinSeeker since we have discussed Zechariah 14 in the past, that there are a few things I agree with @PinSeeker about concerning Zechariah 14. But unfortunately I don't think @PinSeeker is even participating in this thread. But even so, @PinSeeker is still an Amil that I can agree with about some things in Zechariah 14 as opposed to some of you where I agree zero with concerning Zechariah 14.

 

[Marty fox]

The king in the parable is God the Father. It specifically says the king, representing God the Father, sent His armies to destroy them and their city. He used the Roman armies to do that. All people are His in a certain sense, so the Romans armies were His armies in the sense that He used them for His purposes at that time.

Yes of course it’s God the Father that’s what I was saying as the same as Matthew says in the wicked tenants parable.

My point was that Jesus comes in judgement and fights with the sword of His mouth His word and He speaks judgement and at times uses other to do it like in revelation chapter 2 or as the Lord riding on the clouds to Egypt in Isiah. The Father sent His army through Jesus word like in Revelation 19

 

[Marty fox]

A coming in the past would be a second coming. Believing in a third coming (or more) would not make the beliefs not full preterism IMO.

So then in your understanding of leaving and coming back being a second coming the second coming would actually be when Jesus rose from the dead after His spirit had left His body on the cross

How would you also then explain Revelation 2:16? What number coming was that if He came Then?

 

[Marty fox]

Have you already forgotten about the analogy I used earlier on pertaining to the history of the USA? Think outside the box. That analogy doesn't equal your misrepresentation of my view. Quit using me as a scapegoat for someone being unreasonable and not being able to be reasoned with. When in this case, it is clearly you and @Spiritual Israelite and others like you that can't be reasoned with concerning Zechariah 14, plain and simple. For one, you all disregard context throughout Zechariah 14 and have it instead meaning whatever you want it to mean rather than what it actually means in context.

Even if I eventually abandoned at some point that there is a millennium that follows the 2nd coming, I would still never interpret Zechariah 14 in the same absurd out of context manner as some of you do. I would never interpret that chapter in such an absurd manner as that. Get a clue, there are even Amils that don't interpret it the same manner as you all do, but basically interpret in the same manner as me. Except they don't see anything in ch 14 involving a future millennium but I do.

So why is it that some Amils can make Zechariah 14 work for them when they are not remotely interpreting it in the same manner as some of you? They apparently don't see Zechariah 14 being difficult to interpret. Only someone interpreting Zechariah 14 out of context would find it difficult to interpret, obviously. That's usually what happens when someone via their interpretations are all of the place rather that trying to establish a logical cohesive flow of things, that A leads to B, and that B then leads to C. But instead, they have C meaning before A or B. That would be like arguing that the 7 trumpet, for example, precedes the first trumpet.

Do you not that you have many times ignored what I say in my post and then make a ranting statement? You don’t always address what I say

 

[ewq1938]

So then in your understanding of leaving and coming back being a second coming the second coming would actually be when Jesus rose from the dead after His spirit had left His body on the cross

No, because the first coming was from heaven to Earth, and so is the second coming. If that happened in the past as you believe, it would have been the second coming.

How would you also then explain Revelation 2:16? What number coming was that if He came Then?

Looks conditional plus it could be accomplished after his actual second coming. Jesus has not come again. There has been only one coming.

 

[Marty fox]

No, because the first coming was from heaven to Earth, and so is the second coming. If that happened in the past as you believe, it would have been the second coming.




Looks conditional plus it could be accomplished after his actual second coming. Jesus has not come again. There has been only one coming.

Then how would you explain what Jesus said here

John 20
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Now we know the Thomas touched Jesus don’t we? So yes that in your view was the second coming

Revelation 2
12 “To the angel of the church in Pergamum write:

These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword. 13 I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, not even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness,who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives.
14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
17 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.

This letter above was clearly to a literal church at the time Revelation was written

 

[PeterAndroz]

Then how would you explain what Jesus said here

John 20
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Now we know the Thomas touched Jesus don’t we? So yes that in your view was the second coming

Revelation 2
12 “To the angel of the church in Pergamum write:

These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword. 13 I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, not even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness,who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives.
14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
17 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.

This letter above was clearly to a literal church at the time Revelation was written

Do you believe this has already happened ?
If so, when ?
1 Thess 4:17
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.

 

[Marty fox]

Do you believe this has already happened ?
If so, when ?
1 Thess 4:17
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.

No it’s hasn’t happened yet

 

[ewq1938]

Then how would you explain what Jesus said here

John 20
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Now we know the Thomas touched Jesus don’t we? So yes that in your view was the second coming

That is not a coming as the first or the second was/will be.

Revelation 2
12 “To the angel of the church in Pergamum write:

These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword. 13 I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, not even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness,who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives.
14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
17 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.

This letter above was clearly to a literal church at the time Revelation was written

So? No coming took place. It's conditional as I already said.

 

[Davidpt]

Do you not that you have many times ignored what I say in my post and then make a ranting statement? You don’t always address what I say

How am I not adressing what you say by me refuting what you say via what I say? In any situation, assuming someone is right, the one that is right obviously trumps any arguments by the one that is wrong.

For example. 2 people are arguing what 2 + 2 equals. One insists it equals 4 the other insists it equals 5. Obviously then, the former has already won the argument and that it would be in vain to consider any of the arguments of the latter. Even if the latter came up with a million reasons why 2 + 2 can't equal 4, not a single one of them would be legit arguments. Therefore, what the former is arguing already proves their arguments trump any and all arguments submitted per the latter, period.

The way to deal with what we are arguing per Zechariah 14 would be via context, plus what leads to this, which then leads to that. For example. First great tribulation. Which then leads to the wrath of God via the DOTL. Then once those things are settled, it then leads to the beginning of the restoration of all things.

Great tribulation(verse 2) did not lead to Jesus standing on the mount of Olives in the first century. That is totally backwards. Nor did the DOTL lead to Jesus standing upon the mount of Olives in the first century.

When Christ walked the earth 2000 years ago it did not lead to verse 11 at the time, the fact 70 AD alone contradicts verse 11 if verse 11 is meaning prior to 70 AD rather than post 70 AD. And that verse 8 can't even get fulfilled until verse 11 has been fulfilled first. Therefore, based on these things alone, it is absurd that any of you can be interpreting Zechariah 14 correctly to begin with.

In the first century which came first? The day of Pentecost? Or 70 AD? There you go then, even this proves verse 8 can't be meaning the day of Pentecost because verse 11 can't even be fulfilled until sometime post 70 AD, and that verse 8 can't get fulfilled before verse 11 is fulfilled first.

 

[Marty fox]

That is not a coming as the first or the second was/will be.







So? No coming took place. It's conditional as I already said.

But you just said “No, because the first coming was from heaven to Earth, and so is the second coming. If that happened in the past as you believe, it would have been the second coming.”

I then just quoted scriptures showing that Jesus ascended to the Father and then came back to the earth, so in your own words that was your description of the second coming.

It could of and may have took place

 

[Davidpt]

So your saying that Jesus will return when you say hum. Christians have been wrong for 2000 years now.

In the first century

Jerusalem was attacked
Jewish women were rapped
Jews were exiled
Jews didn't leave the city because they died there
Jesus stood on the mount of Olives
The saints fled Jerusalem
Living water flowed to the world from Jerusalem through the saints

So how is there not one single thing in that entire chapter that is involving the first century? And you are saying that we are blind.

The day of the Lord came upon apostate Isreal who rejected and killed their God and Messiah

Where in the NT does it ever say that what happened in 70 AD it was via the DOTL that comes as a thief in the night(thus 1 Thessalonians 5:3, 2 Peter 3:10)?

 

[ewq1938]

But you just said “No, because the first coming was from heaven to Earth, and so is the second coming. If that happened in the past as you believe, it would have been the second coming.”

I then just quoted scriptures showing that Jesus ascended to the Father and then came back to the earth, so in your own words that was your description of the second coming.

It could of and may have took place

No, that was still part of the first coming else you charge the writer of this next verse as not knowing the second coming already happened because he sure did not think a second had already happened when he wrote this:

Hebrews 9:27-28​

​

27 And just as it is destined for people to die once and after this comes the judgment, 28 so also[a] Christ, having been offered once so as to bear[b] the sins of many, will appear for a second time without reference to sin to the ones eagerly-awaiting Him, for salvation.


Your argument is not sound.

 

[Davidpt]

Do you not that you have many times ignored what I say in my post and then make a ranting statement? You don’t always address what I say

Consider the following, for example.

Psalms 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


What did the NT eventually reveal about this prophecy? Is it not the following?

The NT reveals the 'my Lord' is meaning Christ and the LORD is meaning the Father.


And that it reveals it involves a leaving and coming and a returning, in the following manners.

Initially Christ is in heaven with the Father, even before the beginning of creation and before the beginning of time.

The Father then sends the Son into the world, the earth below, via the Son being born upon the earth.

At this point it involves a leaving, which led to a coming to somewhere else instead, the earth in this case.

Later on it involves yet another leaving, but this time it involves a return. It involves leaving the earth then returning to where He was initially, heaven in this case.

But the prophecy doesn't end there. It still involves yet another leaving and yet another return. The leaving pertaining to leaving heaven yet again. The returning involving Jesus coming back to where He previously was before He ascended into heaven 2000 years ago, the earth in this case.

And in Zechariah 14 that is precisely where we are in the prophecy concerning Psalms 110:1, as of Zechariah 14:4-5. We are in the returning to the earth phase as of verses 4 and 5. But some of you would have us believe that verse 4 somehow involves a time when Jesus walked the earth before He died, rose, then eventually ascended back into heaven. IOW, who cares about context, right? Who cares that if true of verse 4 it then has zero connection with verses 1-3, 5. Right? Not to mention, where is the connection to this in Psalms 110:1--until I make thine enemies thy footstool-- when interpreting verse 4 in the manner some of you are?

 

[Davidpt]

You,claimEd that “in that day” from Zechariah 12-14 also speaks of the future, that day is the day of the Lord

So? What does the DOTL in the future have to do with the past 2000 years ago? I'm saying that when it comes to the phrase 'in that day', that we can identify the era of time meant via the context and verses surrounding it. For example, the DOTL. There is only one DOTL in the future and it hasn't arrived yet. Therefore, the DOTL meant in Zechariah 14 is future still, not past instead. Only someone desperate and needing to defend doctrine would invent an entirely different DOTL in Zechariah 14 the NT knows nothing about.

And it's not like Zechariah 14:1 is not involving any of the past 2000 years the NT is involving. Therefore, one can't argue that anything in Zechariah 14 is meaning prior to the NT era that began 2000 years ago. Nor can one argue that the NT knows of multiple days of the Lord that come as a thief in the night in the future and at different times. There is not one verse in all of the NT that supports that. Therefore, the DOTL meant in Zechariah 14 is the same DOTL meant in the NT. And guess what is missing in Zechariah 14? The entire earth literally engulfed in flames at the time. Therefore, telling us that it is absurd to take 2 Peter 3:10-12 in the literal sense where the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames at the time.

It really makes sense, doesn't it? That first the entire planet is engulfed in flames, thus destroying all lifeforms on the planet, and then following that verses 16-19 begin to come to pass. Now one has to explain where these in verses 16-19 magically came from all of a sudden like if there are no survivors remaining on the earth because everyone was literally burned to ashes instead.

 

[Marty fox]

No, that was still part of the first coming else you charge the writer of this next verse as not knowing the second coming already happened because he sure did not think a second had already happened when he wrote this:

Hebrews 9:27-28​

​

27 And just as it is destined for people to die once and after this comes the judgment, 28 so also[a] Christ, having been offered once so as to bear[b] the sins of many, will appear for a second time without reference to sin to the ones eagerly-awaiting Him, for salvation.


Your argument is not sound.

It’s not my argument it’s yours because you said “No, because the first coming was from heaven to Earth, and so is the second coming. If that happened in the past as you believe, it would have been the second coming.” and Jesus did go to heaven and then com back before He ascended

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes of course it’s God the Father that’s what I was saying as the same as Matthew says in the wicked tenants parable.

My point was that Jesus comes in judgement and fights with the sword of His mouth His word and He speaks judgement and at times uses other to do it like in revelation chapter 2 or as the Lord riding on the clouds to Egypt in Isiah. The Father sent His army through Jesus word like in Revelation 19

I disagree that there's any direct connection between the parable that Jesus told in Matthew 22:1-13 and Revelation 19:11-21. The armies referenced in Matthew 22:7 refer to the actual armies who destroyed Jerusalem, which were the Roman armies. Revelation 19 does not refer to the Roman armies and it does not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. I don't believe the reference to Armageddon is meant to be taken literally, but even it was, most agree that it refers to Mount Megiddo which is located 55-60 miles north of Jerusalem.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How am I not adressing what you say by me refuting what you say via what I say? In any situation, assuming someone is right, the one that is right obviously trumps any arguments by the one that is wrong.

For example. 2 people are arguing what 2 + 2 equals. One insists it equals 4 the other insists it equals 5. Obviously then, the former has already won the argument and that it would be in vain to consider any of the arguments of the latter. Even if the latter came up with a million reasons why 2 + 2 can't equal 4, not a single one of them would be legit arguments. Therefore, what the former is arguing already proves their arguments trump any and all arguments submitted per the latter, period.

The way to deal with what we are arguing per Zechariah 14 would be via context, plus what leads to this, which then leads to that. For example. First great tribulation. Which then leads to the wrath of God via the DOTL. Then once those things are settled, it then leads to the beginning of the restoration of all things.

Great tribulation(verse 2) did not lead to Jesus standing on the mount of Olives in the first century. That is totally backwards. Nor did the DOTL lead to Jesus standing upon the mount of Olives in the first century.

When Christ walked the earth 2000 years ago it did not lead to verse 11 at the time, the fact 70 AD alone contradicts verse 11 if verse 11 is meaning prior to 70 AD rather than post 70 AD. And that verse 8 can't even get fulfilled until verse 11 has been fulfilled first. Therefore, based on these things alone, it is absurd that any of you can be interpreting Zechariah 14 correctly to begin with.

In the first century which came first? The day of Pentecost? Or 70 AD? There you go then, even this proves verse 8 can't be meaning the day of Pentecost because verse 11 can't even be fulfilled until sometime post 70 AD, and that verse 8 can't get fulfilled before verse 11 is fulfilled first.

The day of the Lord is a global event involving global destruction (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, 2 Peter 3:10-12). It will affect the entire earth. Zechariah 14 describes things only related to the area in and around Jerusalem. What is described in Zechariah 14 does not match what is described in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 in relation to the day of the Lord. The only way that could be the case is if it's all or mostly symbolic and if Jerusalem refers to the heavenly Jerusalem. Otherwise, it can't possibly be talking about the same day of the Lord that is described in the New Testament.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Have you already forgotten about the analogy I used earlier on pertaining to the history of the USA? Think outside the box. That analogy doesn't equal your misrepresentation of my view. Quit using me as a scapegoat for someone being unreasonable and not being able to be reasoned with. When in this case, it is clearly you and @Spiritual Israelite and others like you that can't be reasoned with concerning Zechariah 14, plain and simple.

Even if I eventually abandoned at some point that there is a millennium that follows the 2nd coming, I would still never interpret Zechariah 14 in the same absurd out of context manner as some of you do. I would never interpret that chapter in such an absurd manner as that.

You don't even know how I interpret it. You foolishly try to accuse me of interpreting it the way preterists do. I don't. I'm not a preterist. So, your comments about me are trash and misrepresent my view.

Get a clue, there are even Amils that don't interpret it the same manner as you all do, but basically interpret in the same manner as me. Except they don't see anything in ch 14 involving a future millennium but I do.

I think there is exactly one Amil that I've seen who interprets it in a literal, futurist way (Truth7t7). So, how do you come up with "Amils" (plural) who interpret it in the same manner as you? Like you, he has no explanation for Zechariah 14:16-21. But, that doesn't matter to him just like it doesn't matter to you.

So why is it that some Amils can make Zechariah 14 work for them when they are not remotely interpreting it in the same manner as some of you? They apparently don't see Zechariah 14 being difficult to interpret.

Just because they have an interpretation doesn't mean they don't find it difficult to interpret. Again, there's only one Amil I know of who interprets it at all similarly as you do and he would probably claim it's not difficult, too. Yet, you both have no explanation at all for what Zechariah 14:16-21 means. Your comments are laughable.

Only someone interpreting Zechariah 14 out of context would find it difficult to interpret, obviously.

Says the guy who can't even venture a guess as to how Zechariah 14:16-21 should be interpreted. Clearly, Zechariah 14:16-21 is VERY DIFFICULT for you to interpret since you can't even bring yourself to speculate on how it should be interpreted.

That's usually what happens when someone via their interpretations are all of the place rather that trying to establish a logical cohesive flow of things, that A leads to B, and that B then leads to C. But instead, they have C meaning before A or B. That would be like arguing that the 7 trumpet, for example, precedes the first trumpet.

Take @Truth7t7 , for example. There are several things I agree with him about concerning Zechariah 14.

So, there it is. The one Amil who interprets Zechariah 14 similarly to you in a very literal way. How does he equate to Amils (plural)?