The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your opinions are not Scripture
List the verses and keep your compliments to yourself or p/o :)

You're being completely evasive and not addressing any of my points or asking my questions. You have no idea how bad that makes you look. What verses are you wanting me to list? I'm addressing the inconsistency in the way you interpret scripture and you're not willing to address that.

Do you believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, Matthew 24:30-31 and Revelation 19:11-21 are three entirely separate events? Yes or no?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

and the verses that teach the ELECT in Matt 24:31 are those mentioned in 1 Cor 15:52, 1 Thes 4:17 are ?

The elect are those who belong to God/Christ, which the latter two verses are referring to. Paul wrote about the elect here...

Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

 

[PeterAndroz]

You're being completely evasive and not addressing any of my points or asking my questions. You have no idea how bad that makes you look. What verses are you wanting me to list? I'm addressing the inconsistency in the way you interpret scripture and you're not willing to address that.

Do you believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, Matthew 24:30-31 and Revelation 19:11-21 are three entirely separate events? Yes or no?

You believe that Matt 24:31 is the same event as 1 Cor 15:52, 1 Thess 4:17
Then list the verses that teach THE ELECT in Matt 24:31 are the same believers referenced to in 1 Cor 15:52, 1 Thess 4:17
Take your time :)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You believe that Matt 24:31 is the same event as 1 Cor 15:52, 1 Thess 4:17
Then list the verses that teach THE ELECT in Matt 24:31 are the same believers referenced to in 1 Cor 15:52, 1 Thess 4:17
Take your time :)

Take my time? This is the third time you've made that same request (twice in this thread and once in another thread), so you're not coming across as if you're willing to be patient and wait for an answer to this question. I answered this in post #602.

 

[PeterAndroz]

The elect are those who belong to God/Christ, which the latter two verses are referring to. Paul wrote about the elect here...

Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

 

[PeterAndroz]

Take my time? This is the third time you've made that same request (twice in this thread and once in another thread), so you're not coming across as if you're willing to be patient and wait for an answer to this question. I answered this in post #602.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

View attachment 85877

They are mistaken. Paul indicates that those in the church are the elect.

Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

View attachment 85878

You don't need to post the same thing to me 3 times (twice here and once in the other thread. Please grow up and stop playing games.

 

[PeterAndroz]

You don't need to post the same thing to me 3 times (twice here and once in the other thread. Please grow up and stop playing games.

Let's try basics
Do you believe MARK OF BEAST is in use in Matt 24:31 ?
If so, what happens to a believer who takes the 'mark' ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let's try basics

LOL. That's what we've been doing and you've struggled mightily just to address the basics. You are doing everything you can to avoid what Romans 8:31-34 indicates about who the elect are.

Do you believe MARK OF BEAST is in use in Matt 24:31 ?
If so, what happens to a believer who takes the 'mark' ?

You think the mark of the beast is the basics? There's probably about 1,000 different interpretations of what the mark of the beast is. How about just first addressing what Romans 8:31-34 indicates about who the elect are and then we can go from there and address what the mark of the beast represents and such. I'm not interested in a one way discussion where I answer your questions but you don't answer mine. So, just tell me who you believe the elect refer to in Romans 8:31-34 and then I will answer the questions you asked here.

 

[PeterAndroz]

LOL. That's what we've been doing and you've struggled mightily just to address the basics. You are doing everything you can to avoid what Romans 8:31-34 indicates about who the elect are.


You think the mark of the beast is the basics? There's probably about 1,000 different interpretations of what the mark of the beast is. How about just first addressing what Romans 8:31-34 indicates about who the elect are and then we can go from there and address what the mark of the beast represents and such. I'm not interested in a one way discussion where I answer your questions but you don't answer mine. So, just tell me who you believe the elect refer to in Romans 8:31-34 and then I will answer the questions you asked here.

Do you believe the Mark of the Beast is active in Matt 24:31 ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you believe the Mark of the Beast is active in Matt 24:31 ?

Okay, it looks like you don't want to have an adult discussion, so I'm done with this. I told you that I'm not interested in having a discussion where I answer your questions, but you don't answer mine. This response shows that you are not interested in having an adult discussion where each person answers each other's questions. If you decide to answer my question about Romans 8:31-34 that I asked first, then we can continue the discussion.

 

[PeterAndroz]

Okay, it looks like you don't want to have an adult discussion, so I'm done with this. I told you that I'm not interested in having a discussion where I answer your questions, but you don't answer mine. This response shows that you are not interested in having an adult discussion where each person answers each other's questions.

Is the question too hard for you ?
YES or NO, do you believe the Mark of the Beast is active in the Matt 24:31 period ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Is the question too hard for you ?
YES or NO, do you believe the Mark of the Beast is active in the Matt 24:31 period ?

Is the question THAT I ASKED YOU FIRST too hard for you? Do you not know how to have a discussion like an adult?

 

[PeterAndroz]

Is the question THAT I ASKED YOU FIRST too hard for you? Do you not know how to have a discussion like an adult?

You are trying to prove that the Matt 24:31 ELECT are the Body of Christ - Church as taught by Paul
I disagree,
Now prove me wrong so I can learn.
..
Is the Mark of the Beast active in Matt 24:31 ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are trying to prove that the Matt 24:31 ELECT are the Body of Christ - Church as taught by Paul
I disagree,
Now prove me wrong so I can learn.

Just answer my question about who the elect are in Romans 8:31-34 and then I will answer your question. This is how adult discussions work. By answering the question it doesn't mean you are necessarily agreeing with me about what Matthew 24:31 means, so don't be afraid to answer the question.

 

[PeterAndroz]

Just answer my question about who the elect are in Romans 8:31-34 and then I will answer your question. This is how adult discussions work. By answering the question it doesn't mean you are necessarily agreeing with me about what Matthew 24:31 means, so don't be afraid to answer the question.

I do not believe Rom 8:31-34 ELECT are the ELECT in Matt 24:31
Now teach me why I'm wrong :)
..
Do you believe the Mark of the Beast is active in Matt 24:31 ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I do not believe Rom 8:31-34 ELECT are the ELECT in Matt 24:31
Now teach me why I'm wrong :)

So, I will assume this response means that you acknowledge that Romans 8:31-34 describes the elect in relation to the church, but somehow the elect in Matthew 24:31 are not the same elect as in Romans 8:31-34. I don't know why you would think that scripture would not be consistent whenever referring to the elect. Does God have two separate elect people groups? Where is that taught in scripture?

..
Do you believe the Mark of the Beast is active in Matt 24:31 ?

That question is kind of vague, so if you mean do I believe it will be in existence when Matthew 24:31 occurs, then my answer would be yes. But, Matthew 24:31 relates to the day that Jesus Christ returns, so it will no longer be active after that day. Why are you asking this question?

 

[PeterAndroz]

So, I will assume this response means that you acknowledge that Romans 8:31-34 describes the elect in relation to the church, but somehow the elect in Matthew 24:31 are not the same elect as in Romans 8:31-34. I don't know why you would think that scripture would not be consistent whenever referring to the elect. Does God have two separate elect people groups? Where is that taught in scripture?


That question is kind of vague, so if you mean do I believe it will be in existence when Matthew 24:31 occurs, then my answer would be yes. But, Matthew 24:31 relates to the day that Jesus Christ returns, so it will no longer be active after that day. Why are you asking this question?

Prior to Mat 24:31 what happens to the ELECT who took the mark ?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Yes thanks it’s really that easy I can’t explain it anymore to them and I can’t understand why they can’t grasp what I’m saying

It’s not really “that easy,” though. Saying people simply “can’t grasp it” assumes the interpretation is already settled and self-evident, when in reality that’s exactly what’s being debated.

The issue isn’t comprehension—it’s whether your conclusion actually follows from the text. I understand what you’re trying to argue, but understanding the claim isn’t the same as accepting it as biblically correct. I knew the doctrine of preterism very well that I have determined it is unbiblical!

As for Si's another false assumption. You need to ask SI where in Scripture is it stated that God gave “40 years of probation” specifically to the Jews regarding temple sacrifices before judging them in AD 70? LOL!!!

That’s not exegesis—that’s a timeline being read into the text after the fact. The New Testament NEVER frames the destruction of the temple as a countdown of delayed tolerance for continued sacrifices, nor does it define a fixed “grace period” tied to the calendar between the cross and AD 70. No where do we read that in Scripture! That is his wishful thinking to support your false doctrine. Both of you.

By the same logic, are we supposed to conclude that if enough Jews had stopped sacrifices earlier—or if they had repented differently—the temple would have remained standing, humm? That would make the destruction contingent on human response rather than on God’s sovereign prophetic plan, which undermines the very argument being made.

And that’s the core issue: You and SI are assuming AD 70 is the fulfillment of Matthew 24:1–2, then building a moral explanation around it, and then using that explanation as proof of the interpretation. That’s circular reasoning, not biblical proof. Sad!

Continuing to offer sacrifices AFTER the cross may seems like a theologically significant to both of you, but it does not automatically establish the claim that Matthew 24 is primarily about AD 70, nor that the temple’s destruction was simply God “running out of patience.” That is an assumption layered onto the text—not drawn from it. Do better, SI.

@rwb