The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Davidpt]

At the regeneration of all things this earth and our bodies as we know it will be gone and Matthew 19:28 is the judging throne. The reigning from Revelation 20 will be expired by then.

Revelation 3:21 is just a promise that who overcomes will reign spiritually with Him. The context of the letter to the Laodiceans were that they were lukewarm and about to be rejected by Jesus.

Did you notice verse #14? “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.

Yes, Jesus reigns over all of Gods creation now

The context of Matthew 25:19 is the judgement day at the end of our world and the regeneration, after the reigning of Revelation 20.

Let's all agree to be 100% intellectually honest here regardless what doctrines we hold. Agree? And the way we are going to test who keeps their word, thus remains intellectually honest, regardless, is simple.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

What did Jesus say here? A) or B) below? Keeping in mind, it obviously can't be both.

A) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne

B) To him that overcometh NOT, will I grant to sit with me in my throne

Why this matters is simple. I couldn't care less if some insist NOSAS is not Biblical. That does not make it unbiblical just because they say so. NOSAS is 100% Biblical, period. If you disagree then take it up with Jesus when He returns. Be sure to tell Him you disagree with Him as well. That assuming you disagree NOSAS is Biblical. But if you agree it is Biblical, it is then a moot point and not applicable to you.

Amil's position is basically this. When one is initially saved they then begin reigning with Christ a thousand years spiritually from that moment on. Then when they die they continue reigning a thousand years in a disembodied state in heaven. Thus far, there are no real issues here. Not until we factor this in--that not everyone that are initially saved remain saved.

Keeping in mind, the promise to remain intellectually honest, regardless, what does it equal if someone is initially saved but fall fall away before they die? Does it equal A) or B)? If it equals B), and surely it does, well Jesus never said what B) says to begin with. And we all know it, including Amils.

Therefore, there is only one way to resolve this without causing a contradiction in Revelation 3:21. Keeping in mind, anyone that is purposely being intellectually dishonest because of doctrine they hold, couldn't possibly be the one that is interpreting and understanding Revelation 3:21 properly. Plus, to be purposely intellectually dishonest obviously equals being purposely deceitful.

The way to resolve this with there being zero contradictions is that no one is rewarded with sitting with Jesus in His throne until He returns first. The ones that fell away, per this scenario, Jesus never grants them this to begin with. Per Amil, Jesus also grants this to ones that fall away. Which is absurd that Jesus meant both A) and B) in Revelation 3:21 rather than just A).

Obviously then, whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, only Premil does not contradict Revelation 3:21 but Amil does. It is profoundly absurd that a position that blatantly contradicts something vs a position that doesn't, that it the position that blatantly contradicts something being the true position and the one not contradicting anything per this scenario being the false position.

This is not difficult. Either Jesus meant A) or He meant B). There are no other options. One can't have it both ways.

 

[Davidpt]

Some of this is a repeat of what I said in previous post.

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne

Notice what Jesus doesn’t say--- He does not say---Everyone who initially believes now sits with Me, regardless of what happens afterward. He explicitly conditions the promise on overcoming---persevering to the end.

This is crucial because overcoming is demonstrated over time, obviously, not simply at the moment of initial faith.


Amils often argue---Believers are already reigning spiritually with Christ now. Christ’s throne is being shared in principle with all who are saved.

But here’s the problem---Not everyone perseveres. Scripture (Hebrews 6:4–6; 10:26–31; 2 Peter 2:20–22) shows some fall away.

If Amil is correct, Jesus has already granted those believers sitting with Him, even before overcoming is confirmed. That means some are granted the reward before earning it first, which contradicts Rev 3:21.

Put another way---Revelation 3:21 explicitly links reward---overcoming.

Amil makes the link instead---initial salvation---present reward. Therefore, Amil breaks the sequence. Reward is given without overcoming, which the text does not allow.

Premils read Revelation 3:21 and the related texts as future-oriented. Overcoming is fully demonstrated by perseverance to the end of life. Only those who overcome receive the reward(sitting on the throne, reigning with Christ). Those who fall away never have part in the first resurrection to begin with, therefore never reign with Christ (Revelation 20:4–6). OTOH, Amil has those that fall away having part in the first resurrection initially, then losing part it in because they have fallen away. Granted, Amils that don't agree NOSAS is Biblical to begin with, this likely appears to be a straw man argument. Except there are some Amils, believe it or not, that do agree NOSAS is Biblical. Now what? Per their perspective is this still a straw man?

Therefore, the Premil reading avoids all the contradictions the Amil reading produces.
|


The Bible presents a reward pattern---overcoming then reward. Christ Himself followed the same pattern to a T. He was not enthroned before overcoming. Premil preserves this pattern perfectly---only those who overcome reign. Amil inverts or collapses the pattern---reward is given before overcoming, creating direct textual tension with Revelation 3:21, Hebrews 6, Luke 19, etc.

Essentially, Premil is consistent with perseverance and conditional rewards. Amil struggles to reconcile initial salvation, perseverance, and reward in a coherent way.

 

[Truth7t7]

I disagree with a lot of his preterist views as well, and I don't hide my disdain for preterism itself, but he's a good example for us of how to have a respectful discussion. I appreciate that about him. Let's you and I try to do better as well. Deal? That's what I would prefer rather than the insults we tend to exchange.

Please correct me if I'm wrong?

You believe that Daniel's AOD seen in Matthew 24:15 below has already been fulfilled?

Matthew 24:15KJV
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

You believe that the great tribulation seen below in Matthew 24:21 has already been fulfilled?

Matthew 24:21KJV
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

 

[Truth7t7]

Some of this is a repeat of what I said in previous post.

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne

Notice what Jesus doesn’t say--- He does not say---Everyone who initially believes now sits with Me, regardless of what happens afterward. He explicitly conditions the promise on overcoming---persevering to the end.

This is crucial because overcoming is demonstrated over time, obviously, not simply at the moment of initial faith.


Amils often argue---Believers are already reigning spiritually with Christ now. Christ’s throne is being shared in principle with all who are saved.

But here’s the problem---Not everyone perseveres. Scripture (Hebrews 6:4–6; 10:26–31; 2 Peter 2:20–22) shows some fall away.

If Amil is correct, Jesus has already granted those believers sitting with Him, even before overcoming is confirmed. That means some are granted the reward before earning it first, which contradicts Rev 3:21.

Put another way---Revelation 3:21 explicitly links reward---overcoming.

Amil makes the link instead---initial salvation---present reward. Therefore, Amil breaks the sequence. Reward is given without overcoming, which the text does not allow.

Premils read Revelation 3:21 and the related texts as future-oriented. Overcoming is fully demonstrated by perseverance to the end of life. Only those who overcome receive the reward(sitting on the throne, reigning with Christ). Those who fall away never have part in the first resurrection to begin with, therefore never reign with Christ (Revelation 20:4–6). OTOH, Amil has those that fall away having part in the first resurrection initially, then losing part it in because they have fallen away. Granted, Amils that don't agree NOSAS is Biblical to begin with, this likely appears to be a straw man argument. Except there are some Amils, believe it or not, that do agree NOSAS is Biblical. Now what? Per their perspective is this still a straw man?

Therefore, the Premil reading avoids all the contradictions the Amil reading produces.
|


The Bible presents a reward pattern---overcoming then reward. Christ Himself followed the same pattern to a T. He was not enthroned before overcoming. Premil preserves this pattern perfectly---only those who overcome reign. Amil inverts or collapses the pattern---reward is given before overcoming, creating direct textual tension with Revelation 3:21, Hebrews 6, Luke 19, etc.

Essentially, Premil is consistent with perseverance and conditional rewards. Amil struggles to reconcile initial salvation, perseverance, and reward in a coherent way.

You fail to recognize the fact of scripture and predestination, God has foreknowledge of all who will be glorified, simple, clear, easy to understand

Foreknowledge, Predestination

Called, Justified, Glorified

Romans 8:28-30KJV
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

[Truth7t7]

I think if you kept more engaged and were fairer with your representation of Amil then we would respect you. We all know you know what Amils believe. No one has had that position explained to them more over the years. But you tend to ignore and distort that. Also, if you start a conversation develop it. Do not run after 2 posts. That is frustrating.

We all have to make a greater effort.

I apologize for any hurts i have caused you. That is not my heart.

We need to understand that the word Amil means nothing more than (No Future Millennium On This Earth)

Many posting here have the Amil belief in common, there are many that try to "Expand" the definition of "Amil" into denominational beliefs and Interpretations with Matthew Chapter 24 and the Olivet Discourse being just one example

Reformed preterism and eschatology holds no monopoly on the word Amil as many try to include their denominational beliefs into the definition of Amil "Wrong"

Amil Definition: No Future Millennial Kingdom On This Earth

 

[Marty fox]

No.

Really?​

​

Yes, the name Israel is traditionally understood to mean "he who wrestles with God" or "God prevails," originating from Jacob's encounter with God in Genesis.​

Biblical Origin​

The name Israel was given to Jacob after a dramatic encounter described in Genesis 32:22–32, where Jacob wrestles with a mysterious figure through the night. This figure is referred to as a "man," an "angel," and ultimately identified with God (Elohim) in the biblical text. After the struggle, Jacob is renamed Israel, which signifies his perseverance and transformation through this divine encounter (Genesis 32:28) Bible Hub+2.

Meaning and Etymology​

In Hebrew, Yisrael (יִשְׂרָאֵל) combines the root yisra (to struggle, strive, or prevail) with El (God). The name can be interpreted as "he who struggles with God" or "God prevails" learnhebrewforchristians.com. This etymology reflects both the act of wrestling and the spiritual outcome: Jacob’s encounter leaves him changed, symbolizing a personal and intimate relationship with God My Jewish Learning+1.

Symbolic Significance​

The story and the name carry deep spiritual meaning:

• Persistence in faith: Wrestling with God is not seen as disrespect but as an honest engagement with the divine, reflecting the human struggle to understand and connect with God learnhebrewforchristians.com+1.
• Transformation: Jacob’s new name marks a shift from his earlier life as a deceiver to a person who has confronted God and prevailed, foreshadowing the nation of Israel Bible Hub+1.
• Enduring reminder: Jacob’s dislocated hip, a result of the struggle, symbolizes that encounters with God leave lasting marks, shaping character and destiny learnhebrewforchristians.com+1.

Broader Interpretation​

In Jewish thought, the name Israel represents the ongoing human journey of questioning, wrestling, and seeking understanding of God. It emphasizes that faith involves inquiry and struggle, and that spiritual growth often comes through challenge and perseverance My Jewish Learning+1. The name defines not just an individual but a people characterized by their enduring relationship with God.
In summary, Israel literally and symbolically means "he who wrestles with God," capturing both the struggle and the blessing inherent in Jacob’s encounter and the spiritual identity of the nation that descends from him.



Another question then, did Jesus come down to observe Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

[Davidpt]

You fail to recognize the fact of scripture and predestination, God has foreknowledge of all who will be glorified, simple, clear, easy to understand

Foreknowledge, Predestination

Called, Justified, Glorified

Romans 8:28-30KJV
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

In the event you also read post #401, it is then telling why you didn't engage with that post. The obvious reason being, you do not want to go on record which would have revealed your intellectual dishonesty. There is is only one way to correctly answer that post, and that Jesus only said A) and never B). And that presents a major major problem because anyone that doesn't overcome, yet sits with Jesus in His throne regardless, that equals B) not A) and that Jesus never said B) He said A).

You might think you can get around this because you deny that NOSAS is Biblical, but how is one going to get around this that doesn't deny that NOSAS is Biblical? How can they be being intellectually honest if they insist that those that fall away, they too sit with Jesus in His throne when they clearly know Jesus never said any such thing in that verse?

How can anyone being knowingly, thus willfully intellectually dishonest be the one that is understanding that verse properly? Why would any intellectually honest person rather put their doctrine above the truth? It might be different if this subject were difficult or something. Except it isn't. Either Jesus said and meant A) or He said and meant B), and that He said both is not an option.

Amil says He said both A) and B) the fact Amil has those that fall away being granted the same thing overcomers are granted.

This problem goes away entirely, as in 100% goes away when we accept, thus are being intellectually honest, that no one sits with Jesus in His throne until He returns first. Therefore, 100% impossible per this scenario that anyone that falls away, thus fails to overcome, is granted with sitting with Jesus in His throne, period.

Everyone needs to keep the following in mind at all times. Maybe we can lie to others, maybe even lie to ourselves, but one thing we can't do is lie to God and think there won't be any consequences for knowingly and willfully doing that. It's real telling about someone that is more worried about how they will be perceived by their peers if they are intellectually honest here, than they are worried about how God perceives them if they knowingly and willfully decide to be intellectually dishonest instead. Image that, fearing man more than fearing God Himself. Wow.

 

[Truth7t7]

Amil says He said both A) and B) the fact Amil has those that fall away being granted the same thing overcomers are granted.

Your confused in the definition of the word (Amil) the acronym for the word (Ammillennialism) you continue to expand a false definition of the acronym including multiple doctrines found within "Reformed Eschatology" and other denominations

The Acronym (Amil) covers nothing more than those that "Deny" a future Millennium on this earth at the second coming of Jesus

Many of the poster you are interacting with are promoting the doctrines found in "Reformed Eschatology" please don't intermingle their doctrinal beliefs with the acronym (Amil)

Merriam Webster: Amillennialism

noun​

amil·len·ni·al·ism
¦ā-

plural-s
: the denial that an earthly millennium of universal righteousness and peace will either precede or follow the second advent of Jesus Christ

 

[WPM]

In the event you also read post #401, it is then telling why you didn't engage with that post. The obvious reason being, you do not want to go on record which would have revealed your intellectual dishonesty. There is is only one way to correctly answer that post, and that Jesus only said A) and never B). And that presents a major major problem because anyone that doesn't overcome, yet sits with Jesus in His throne regardless, that equals B) not A) and that Jesus never said B) He said A).

You might think you can get around this because you deny that NOSAS is Biblical, but how is one going to get around this that doesn't deny that NOSAS is Biblical? How can they be being intellectually honest if they insist that those that fall away, they too sit with Jesus in His throne when they clearly know Jesus never said any such thing in that verse?

How can anyone being knowingly, thus willfully intellectually dishonest be the one that is understanding that verse properly? Why would any intellectually honest person rather put their doctrine above the truth? It might be different if this subject were difficult or something. Except it isn't. Either Jesus said and meant A) or He said and meant B), and that He said both is not an option.

Amil says He said both A) and B) the fact Amil has those that fall away being granted the same thing overcomers are granted.

This problem goes away entirely, as in 100% goes away when we accept, thus are being intellectually honest, that no one sits with Jesus in His throne until He returns first. Therefore, 100% impossible per this scenario that anyone that falls away, thus fails to overcome, is granted with sitting with Jesus in His throne, period.

Everyone needs to keep the following in mind at all times. Maybe we can lie to others, maybe even lie to ourselves, but one thing we can't do is lie to God and think there won't be any consequences for knowingly and willfully doing that. It's real telling about someone that is more worried about how they will be perceived by their peers if they are intellectually honest here, than they are worried about how God perceives them if they knowingly and willfully decide to be intellectually dishonest instead. Image that, fearing man more than fearing God Himself. Wow.

You will not let up with your false accusations. Several of us tried to reach out to you to start a new chapter. You didn't even reply. It is you that is always trying to be provocative and offensive. Until you change you can expect to be challenged on this.

 

[Truth7t7]

In the event you also read post #401, it is then telling why you didn't engage with that post. The obvious reason being, you do not want to go on record which would have revealed your intellectual dishonesty. There is is only one way to correctly answer that post, and that Jesus only said A) and never B). And that presents a major major problem because anyone that doesn't overcome, yet sits with Jesus in His throne regardless, that equals B) not A) and that Jesus never said B) He said A).

You might think you can get around this because you deny that NOSAS is Biblical, but how is one going to get around this that doesn't deny that NOSAS is Biblical? How can they be being intellectually honest if they insist that those that fall away, they too sit with Jesus in His throne when they clearly know Jesus never said any such thing in that verse?

How can anyone being knowingly, thus willfully intellectually dishonest be the one that is understanding that verse properly? Why would any intellectually honest person rather put their doctrine above the truth? It might be different if this subject were difficult or something. Except it isn't. Either Jesus said and meant A) or He said and meant B), and that He said both is not an option.

Amil says He said both A) and B) the fact Amil has those that fall away being granted the same thing overcomers are granted.

This problem goes away entirely, as in 100% goes away when we accept, thus are being intellectually honest, that no one sits with Jesus in His throne until He returns first. Therefore, 100% impossible per this scenario that anyone that falls away, thus fails to overcome, is granted with sitting with Jesus in His throne, period.

Everyone needs to keep the following in mind at all times. Maybe we can lie to others, maybe even lie to ourselves, but one thing we can't do is lie to God and think there won't be any consequences for knowingly and willfully doing that. It's real telling about someone that is more worried about how they will be perceived by their peers if they are intellectually honest here, than they are worried about how God perceives them if they knowingly and willfully decide to be intellectually dishonest instead. Image that, fearing man more than fearing God Himself. Wow.

You failed to respond to the clear and simple scripture presented below "Why"?

You fail to recognize the fact of scripture and predestination, God has foreknowledge of all who will be glorified, simple, clear, easy to understand

Foreknowledge, Predestination

Called, Justified, Glorified

Romans 8:28-30KJV
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

[Marty fox]

Let's all agree to be 100% intellectually honest here regardless what doctrines we hold. Agree? And the way we are going to test who keeps their word, thus remains intellectually honest, regardless, is simple.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

What did Jesus say here? A) or B) below? Keeping in mind, it obviously can't be both.

A) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne

B) To him that overcometh NOT, will I grant to sit with me in my throne

Why this matters is simple. I couldn't care less if some insist NOSAS is not Biblical. That does not make it unbiblical just because they say so. NOSAS is 100% Biblical, period. If you disagree then take it up with Jesus when He returns. Be sure to tell Him you disagree with Him as well. That assuming you disagree NOSAS is Biblical. But if you agree it is Biblical, it is then a moot point and not applicable to you.

Amil's position is basically this. When one is initially saved they then begin reigning with Christ a thousand years spiritually from that moment on. Then when they die they continue reigning a thousand years in a disembodied state in heaven. Thus far, there are no real issues here. Not until we factor this in--that not everyone that are initially saved remain saved.

Keeping in mind, the promise to remain intellectually honest, regardless, what does it equal if someone is initially saved but fall fall away before they die? Does it equal A) or B)? If it equals B), and surely it does, well Jesus never said what B) says to begin with. And we all know it, including Amils.

Therefore, there is only one way to resolve this without causing a contradiction in Revelation 3:21. Keeping in mind, anyone that is purposely being intellectually dishonest because of doctrine they hold, couldn't possibly be the one that is interpreting and understanding Revelation 3:21 properly. Plus, to be purposely intellectually dishonest obviously equals being purposely deceitful.

The way to resolve this with there being zero contradictions is that no one is rewarded with sitting with Jesus in His throne until He returns first. The ones that fell away, per this scenario, Jesus never grants them this to begin with. Per Amil, Jesus also grants this to ones that fall away. Which is absurd that Jesus meant both A) and B) in Revelation 3:21 rather than just A).

Obviously then, whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, only Premil does not contradict Revelation 3:21 but Amil does. It is profoundly absurd that a position that blatantly contradicts something vs a position that doesn't, that it the position that blatantly contradicts something being the true position and the one not contradicting anything per this scenario being the false position.

This is not difficult. Either Jesus meant A) or He meant B). There are no other options. One can't have it both ways.

I'm once saved always saved but your fruits prove if your are saved.

That being said, amil doesn't contradict anything, you only reign if you are truly saved God knows if you are truly saved or not

1 John 2
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

 

[Marty fox]

Some of this is a repeat of what I said in previous post.

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne

Notice what Jesus doesn’t say--- He does not say---Everyone who initially believes now sits with Me, regardless of what happens afterward. He explicitly conditions the promise on overcoming---persevering to the end.

This is crucial because overcoming is demonstrated over time, obviously, not simply at the moment of initial faith.


Amils often argue---Believers are already reigning spiritually with Christ now. Christ’s throne is being shared in principle with all who are saved.

But here’s the problem---Not everyone perseveres. Scripture (Hebrews 6:4–6; 10:26–31; 2 Peter 2:20–22) shows some fall away.

If Amil is correct, Jesus has already granted those believers sitting with Him, even before overcoming is confirmed. That means some are granted the reward before earning it first, which contradicts Rev 3:21.

Put another way---Revelation 3:21 explicitly links reward---overcoming.

Amil makes the link instead---initial salvation---present reward. Therefore, Amil breaks the sequence. Reward is given without overcoming, which the text does not allow.

Premils read Revelation 3:21 and the related texts as future-oriented. Overcoming is fully demonstrated by perseverance to the end of life. Only those who overcome receive the reward(sitting on the throne, reigning with Christ). Those who fall away never have part in the first resurrection to begin with, therefore never reign with Christ (Revelation 20:4–6). OTOH, Amil has those that fall away having part in the first resurrection initially, then losing part it in because they have fallen away. Granted, Amils that don't agree NOSAS is Biblical to begin with, this likely appears to be a straw man argument. Except there are some Amils, believe it or not, that do agree NOSAS is Biblical. Now what? Per their perspective is this still a straw man?

Therefore, the Premil reading avoids all the contradictions the Amil reading produces.
|


The Bible presents a reward pattern---overcoming then reward. Christ Himself followed the same pattern to a T. He was not enthroned before overcoming. Premil preserves this pattern perfectly---only those who overcome reign. Amil inverts or collapses the pattern---reward is given before overcoming, creating direct textual tension with Revelation 3:21, Hebrews 6, Luke 19, etc.

Essentially, Premil is consistent with perseverance and conditional rewards. Amil struggles to reconcile initial salvation, perseverance, and reward in a coherent way.

See post #411, there is no contradiction with amil here, if your not truly saved you never reign