The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Truth7t7]

Had to delete this post. I thought I was responding to someone else for some reason.

Lol

 

[Davidpt]

You say that you want to converse better and then you say something stupid like "So don't play games with the texts involved"

Why would you say that which changes my attitude towards you? You characterize me as someone who plays games with scripture

I already quoted the verse that proves it

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.

You act as if no one has ever said to someone else before, for example, you are playing gymnastics with scripture and that you shouldn't do that. Or, maybe you should take your Amil glasses off or your Premil glasses off first, then try looking at these same Scriptures again. I don't recall anyone ever getting bent out of shape just because that was someone's opinion of what they were doing. Most ppl with a sense of humor of any kind tend to laugh things like that off, not get raging mad about it instead. You need to lighten up and not be so thin skinned if you want to participate in these discussions.

 

[Truth7t7]

I just don't understand this guy. It's very hard to believe that he was being sincere when only one day later (or only hours later?) he continued being rude to you.

Sorta sounds like the guy wishing the board wouldnt let children post on the board, sounds like, pot, kettle, black, Lol

 

[Truth7t7]

That is not what I believe. I do not fit this definition of preterism. Not even close. So, if you call me a preterist one more time then you will go on my ignore list permanently. I currently have a grand total of zero people on the list, but I'm not going to deal with a child falsely accusing me of being something I'm not over and over again.


My beliefs do not fit either of those definitions. I'd hardly call seeing Matthew 24:15-21 (and none of the rest of the Olivet Discourse) as being fulfilled in AD 70 "many prophecies".


All full preterists and many partial preterists interpret the entire chapter that way or, at least Matthew 24:4-34. I do not.


For crying out loud, Jesus specifically said the temple would be destroyed. And it was. Whatever. Many non-preterists believe that because it's exactly what happened. Hello?


I don't argue that. I argue strongly against it.


I believe only 7 of those verses and none of the rest of Matthew 24 and 25 relate to that event. That doesn't make me a preterist.


When this says "these prophecies", it's talking about the entire, or at least most of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled. I do not assert that.


Did you even read what you posted here? My view does not fit the definition of preterism as described in what you posted which makes clear that preterists believe that most or all of the Olivet Discourse is fulfilled and I do not. So, I'm not a preterist according to their definition or anyone else's definition except for yours.

1. How do you see fulfillment of Matthew 24:15?

2. How do you see fulfillment of Matthew 24:21?

 

[Davidpt]

Lol

For some reason I thought I was responding to @Spiritual Israelite and a post he had addressed to me. But then turned out I was responding to you instead. One of those days, I guess. The point being, I agree with @Spiritual Israelite reading of Romans 11 but I'm not certain i agree with your reading of it throughout.

 

[Davidpt]

I just don't understand this guy. It's very hard to believe that he was being sincere when only one day later (or only hours later?) he continued being rude to you.


And he implied that you and all Amils, including me, are intellectually dishonest and deceitful.

Where did I ever tell Marty to begin with that I was going to do those things? The context had to do with me not addressing his posts period, per his perspective, and not the manner in which I address something in general. I told him I would try to do better in regards to addressing his arguments as opposed to not addressing them. I never said one thing one way or the other about what you are talking about here.

As to the intellectually honest challenge, that was for all of us including me. That we should agree to be intellectually honest regardless of our doctrines by answering some simple basic questions concerning Rev 3:21. For example, did Jesus say He would grant both non overcomers and overcomers to sit in His throne with Him? Or did He only say He would grant overcomers that privilege? What then does it equal if one is initially saved then falls away at some point? An overcomer or the exact opposite? The idea is to try and determine the intended meaning of Revelation 3:21, especially in regard to when it is meaning. Obviously, nothing else has been working so I came up with this idea, that maybe it might work.

I'm going to concede and admit that the way I approached post # 401 wasn't such a good idea after all. Therefore, I'm going to edit that post and present it differently instead. I'm assuming no one should take offense at the way I redo it, hopefully. I apologize for the way I framed that post per some parts. For some reason I was thinking it was a good idea at the time but now no longer do. Plus I deleted another post altogether that was not in good taste at all.

 

[Truth7t7]

For some reason I thought I was responding to @Spiritual Israelite and a post he had addressed to me. But then turned out I was responding to you instead. One of those days, I guess. The point being, I agree with @Spiritual Israelite reading of Romans 11 but I'm not certain i agree with your reading of it throughout.

By all means respond to my very clear post #430 concerning Romans 11

 

[ewq1938]

Really?​

Yes.

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

Not that I am aware of.

The first coming is when Jesus was born and the next or second coming is the very next time he comes again. There isn't another secret or non-secret coming inbetween those two comings. No pretrib rapture and no AD70 judgement coming. These concepts are unscriptural.

 

[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.

I'm pretty certain that I don't understand those things in the manner you do. I'm probably more aligned with @Spiritual Israelite on this matter. And if you are already familiar with his stance on it, his stance would basically be my stance as well. And if you disagree with his stance on it, you are certainty going to disagree with my stance on it as well. But this is a subject that @Spiritual Israelite can express more clearly than I can since he has had perhaps decades of experience debating this subject, I haven't.

 

[PeterAndroz]

Stop trying to sidetrack this thread, buddy. As if believing that one thing occurred in the past is all it takes to be a preterist? In that case, you are a preterist, too, because you believe that the prophecies about Christ's first coming were fulfilled in the past. So, we're both preterists! And futurists! And historicists! Isn't that awesome, buddy? Woohoo!

Oh, but you know what, buddy? I have bad news. We're also Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons because we believe that Jesus died and rose again from the dead just like they do.

If a JW, Mormon, Catho, Luth, Metho or anyone only believes that Christ was crucified, died, rose 3 days later for their sins to be forgiven so they can be saved & sealed unto the day of redemption (1 Cor 15:1-4, Eph 1:13, Eph 4:30) then what is it about their other beliefs/understanding that would disqualify them from being sealed ?

 

[Marty fox]

Yes.



Not that I am aware of.

The first coming is when Jesus was born and the next or second coming is the very next time he comes again. There isn't another secret or non-secret coming inbetween those two comings. No pretrib rapture and no AD70 judgement coming. These concepts are unscriptural.

So who went into Sodom and Gomorrah with Abraham?

 

[Truth7t7]

I'm pretty certain that I don't understand those things in the manner you do. I'm probably more aligned with @Spiritual Israelite on this matter. And if you are already familiar with his stance on it, his stance would basically be my stance as well. And if you disagree with his stance on it, you are certainty going to disagree with my stance on it as well. But this is a subject that @Spiritual Israelite can express more clearly than I can since he has had perhaps decades of experience debating this subject, I haven't.

No need to defer to Israelite, you can't defend your position because the scripture is very clear, all the saved are chosen, called, elected, glorified, and predestinated by God's foreknowledge, its that simple

 

[Davidpt]

No need to defer to Israelite, you can't defend your position because the scripture is very clear, all the saved are chosen, called, elected, glorified, and predestinated by God's foreknowledge, its that simple

It's simply a subject I don't have a whole lot of interest in. I couldn't care less about the Calvinist vs whatever debate. That kind of stuff bores me. There are other things that bore me as well, such as ancient history and what took place during this era of time, during that era of time, so on and so on. I leave that up to the pros to sort out.

And speaking of ancient history, probably what bores me the most is this extreme obsession with 70 AD by some members in these forums. I grew up in the 60s and 70s, literally some of the best years of my life. But I'm not obsessed with those decades where I feel I have to bring them up every chance I get. I have moved on. And so has the church, yet some have the church still stuck in limbo in the first century since everything to them is first century events, including Zechariah 14.

Some views simply don't allow the church to progress past the first century per these prophecies. Once again, and I know you at least agree, nothing in Zechariah 14 is meaning during the first century nor before Christ ascended back into heaven. All of it is end times and what lies beyond end times once Christ returns, verses 6-11, 16-19, for example. You just don't see a millennium being involved after Christ returns. I get it and can accept that, I just don't agree though, since you are not being unreasonable like some others are in here, that Zechariah 14 is focusing on first century events throughout, not end time events.

 

[Marty fox]

You act as if no one has ever said to someone else before, for example, you are playing gymnastics with scripture and that you shouldn't do that. Or, maybe you should take your Amil glasses off or your Premil glasses off first, then try looking at these same Scriptures again. I don't recall anyone ever getting bent out of shape just because that was someone's opinion of what they were doing. Most ppl with a sense of humor of any kind tend to laugh things like that off, not get raging mad about it instead. You need to lighten up and not be so thin skinned if you want to participate in these discussions.

I’m not raging mad at you and I can take criticism, my point was that you made a very nice statement to me which I appreciate and then your very next reply started with unneeded criticism and accusations.

If you ever want to converse with someone and start off like that the other persons back will get up right away and the conversation ends

Then your next reply to me ignores the verse that I provided to prove my view that you asked for

 

[PeterAndroz]

No need to defer to Israelite, you can't defend your position because the scripture is very clear, all the saved are chosen, called, elected, glorified, and predestinated by God's foreknowledge, its that simple

"""all the saved are chosen
Do you believe GOD randomly picks numbers out of a hat as to who will be saved or knows based on foreknowledge ?
1 Tim 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sorta sounds like the guy wishing the board wouldnt let children post on the board, sounds like, pot, kettle, black, Lol

What I was talking about is something completely different than someone trying to completely change the subject of a thread for no good reason, as you did. You are so ignorant that you posted something describing what preterism is and you couldn't even see that it doesn't describe me at all. It describes preterists as being those who interpret all of most of the Olivet Discourse as relating to what happened in 70 AD, which I do not. Only a child would purposely try to derail a thread for no good reason at all and that's what you're trying to do.

 

[ewq1938]

So who went into Sodom and Gomorrah with Abraham?

Sarah.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Where did I ever tell Marty to begin with that I was going to do those things? The context had to do with me not addressing his posts period, per his perspective, and not the manner in which I address something in general. I told him I would try to do better in regards to addressing his arguments as opposed to not addressing them. I never said one thing one way or the other about what you are talking about here.

So, you're only wanting to be more respectful with me and not with him? Why not try to be more respectful with everyone?

As to the intellectually honest challenge, that was for all of us including me. That we should agree to be intellectually honest regardless of our doctrines by answering some simple basic questions concerning Rev 3:21.

I addressed a post you made about Matthew 19:28, Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 3:21 and all I hear is crickets in response. That's what frustrates WPM and I about you. We take the time to address all of your points and you don't do the same in kind. You usually discuss things for a day or two and then you never address our latest posts and then you come back some time later (weeks or months) and start another topic.

For example, did Jesus say He would grant both non overcomers and overcomers to sit in His throne with Him? Or did He only say He would grant overcomers that privilege? What then does it equal if one is initially saved then falls away at some point? An overcomer or the exact opposite? The idea is to try and determine the intended meaning of Revelation 3:21, especially in regard to when it is meaning. Obviously, nothing else has been working so I came up with this idea, that maybe it might work.

When you make these types of arguments you should make it clear that you're addressing the view of certain Amils and not all Amils. You should not lump all Amils together as if they all believe everything the same just as we Amils should not try to lump all Premils in together as if they all believe everything the same.

I'm going to concede and admit that the way I approached post # 401 wasn't such a good idea after all. Therefore, I'm going to edit that post and present it differently instead. I'm assuming no one should take offense at the way I redo it, hopefully. I apologize for the way I framed that post per some parts. For some reason I was thinking it was a good idea at the time but now no longer do. Plus I deleted another post altogether that was not in good taste at all.

I appreciate that. We can discuss these things respectfully without the name calling and accusations. It may not be easy at times, but we can do it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's simply a subject I don't have a whole lot of interest in. I couldn't care less about the Calvinist vs whatever debate. That kind of stuff bores me.

Then why do you so often try to turn the Amil vs. Premil debate into a OSAS vs. NOSAS debate? A lot of the Calvinist vs. Whatever debates center around that.

There are other things that bore me as well, such as ancient history and what took place during this era of time, during that era of time, so on and so on. I leave that up to the pros to sort out.

And speaking of ancient history, probably what bores me the most is this extreme obsession with 70 AD by some members in these forums. I grew up in the 60s and 70s, literally some of the best years of my life. But I'm not obsessed with those decades where I feel I have to bring them up every chance I get. I have moved on. And so has the church, yet some have the church still stuck in limbo in the first century since everything to them is first century events, including Zechariah 14.

Some views simply don't allow the church to progress past the first century per these prophecies. Once again, and I know you at least agree, nothing in Zechariah 14 is meaning during the first century nor before Christ ascended back into heaven. All of it is end times and what lies beyond end times once Christ returns, verses 6-11, 16-19, for example. You just don't see a millennium being involved after Christ returns. I get it and can accept that, I just don't agree though, since you are not being unreasonable like some others are in here, that Zechariah 14 is focusing on first century events throughout, not end time events.

You accept his Amil view of Zechariah 14 as being viable? If so, then why do you argue so much against Amil? Zechariah 14 seems to be your main go to argument against Amil, but here you are acknowledging that it can work for Amil. I don't understand this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If a JW, Mormon, Catho, Luth, Metho or anyone only believes that Christ was crucified, died, rose 3 days later for their sins to be forgiven so they can be saved & sealed unto the day of redemption (1 Cor 15:1-4, Eph 1:13, Eph 4:30) then what is it about their other beliefs/understanding that would disqualify them from being sealed ?

How did you just completely miss the point of my post? Did you not read what was being discussed? My point is that agreeing with a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon that Jesus died and was resurrected from the dead does not make you a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon. I was saying that in response to someone foolishly trying to claim that I'm a preterist just because I believe Matthew 24:15-21 relates to what occurred in 70 AD. That's the only passage in all of Matthew 24 and 25 that I believe relates to what happened in 70 AD. That doesn't make me a preterist. Otherwise, everyone who believes that anything was fulfilled in the past is a preterist. Preterists believe that all or most of Matthew 24 and 25 was fulfilled by 70 AD. I don't believe that.