The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[rwb]

LOL! This is beyond belief! When did I ever say that it was? I did NOT! Come on! You cannot be serious! Stop this nonsense! You are completely embarrassing yourself here. For your own sake, just stop doing that.

It so happens that the prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple buildings occurred in 70 AD. I NEVER said that it had a fixed date for being fulfilled. That is what preterists try to say when they falsely say that it was when "this generation" passed away, but I DISAGREE with that. Do you understand that? If you keep talking to me like I'm a preterist then you'll never understand what I believe.

Like I've already told you if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If you defend Preterits by arguing great tribulation is for both Christ's disciples and the apostate nation, then you are endorsing and showing yourself a defender of Preterism, and if not now one, well on your way to becoming a Preterit.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm just saying that you are wrong!

Okay!

Because trying to force fit great tribulation upon the apostate nation forces contradiction, because God promised unbelievers would receive His wrath, while also telling the disciples that in this life we must endure "great tribulation."

That's not what it says. The "great tirbulation" relates to the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem which came about because of God's wrath against the unrepentant, unbelieving Jews.

Believers find great comfort in knowing that we shall not suffer the wrath of God.

Of course. And that's why Jesus told believers to flee before the wrath of God came upon unbelievers in Jerusalem. Do you really think that God would not have wanted to warn them about what was coming? Of course He would. It wasn't directed towards them.

Therefore, we also find comfort in knowing the "great tribulation" we shall suffer now is not to be compared to the WRATH of God He pours upon those who remain in darkness and unbelief.

You are conflating great tribulation that we all go through (Acts 14:22) with the great tribulation/distress and wrath upon the unbelieving Jews in 70 AD. The word "tribulation" is used to describe God's wrath multiple times in scripture. Do you deny that the word can ever be used to describe God's wrath? It's simply a word that describes trouble. It can be trouble of any kind, whether it's for believers or unbelievers, depending on the context.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

When you start of a reply with "How much thought and study have you given this? " as if only you have the knowledge with all the study and thought....No.

You took that completely wrong. It was a sincere question based on what you said, which was only based on what was written in Zechariah 14. So, I didn't know if you studied the topic beyond Zechariah 14 or not. You are apparently new to this forum, so how could I know? That's why I posted the other passages in relation to the day of the Lord to see how you interpret those.

 

[rwb]

That's not what it says. The "great tirbulation" relates to the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem which came about because of God's wrath against the unrepentant, unbelieving Jews.

You're wrong here also! Christ says great tribulation is associated with YE (the disciples) shall see AOD. After saying to the disciples that THEY would see/understand/know AOD stand/appointed/established in the holy place. If the AOD is the Roman Army desecrating the holy temple in 70 AD, they would not have lived to take the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ unto all the nations of the world. After telling His disciples the AOD is something that THEY would see/know/have understanding of, He then gives instruction for "them which be in Judaea flee to the mountains". Again how could the disciples of Christ in Judaea flee to the mountains after the AOD had come, if they had not already fled to the mountains before this they too would have been killed or carried away into captivity.

Matthew 24:15 (KJV) 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:)

Clearly this is instructions for the disciples of Christ, things they must not put off but do immediately when they see/know/have understanding of the AOD in the holy place.

Matthew 24:16-20 (KJV) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Why must the disciples quickly flee to the mountains after they see/know/have knowledge of AOD? Because "then shall be great tribulation" that will be shortened for the sake of the elect or no flesh would be saved through them.

Matthew 24:21-22 (KJV) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Looking at this passage as I have explained here, if you believe it is a reasonable, biblical argument, please explain to me how this discourse applies to the siege of the apostate nation in 70 AD. I truly believe that you, like myself believe the AOD is NOT the Roman Army desecrating the holy temple. And that the only way to rightly understand we must remember how Christ spoke of His body as being the holy temple. And open our mind to spiritual fulfillment. What say you?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're wrong here also!

Look what you do. Did I use any exclamation points in my post? No. You seem to purposely try to escalate things when you use exclamation points like this. Can't you discuss things calmly?

Christ says great tribulation is associated with YE (the disciples) shall see AOD. After saying to the disciples that THEY would see/understand/know AOD stand/appointed/established in the holy place. If the AOD is the Roman Army desecrating the holy temple in 70 AD, they would not have lived to take the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ unto all the nations of the world. After telling His disciples the AOD is something that THEY would see/know/have understanding of, He then gives instruction for "them which be in Judaea flee to the mountains". Again how could the disciples of Christ in Judaea flee to the mountains after the AOD had come, if they had not already fled to the mountains before this they too would have been killed or carried away into captivity.

You're not understanding my view, which happens fairly often. If you read the parallel passage of Luke 21:20-24 then you can see what Jesus was telling them is that once they saw Jerusalem beginning to be surrounded by armies than those in that area or region of Judea would need to flee to the mountains. They did not immediately destroy the city when they started surrounding it, so when they started doing that, then believers would know it was time to flee. It makes sense that Jesus would have wanted to warn believers to flee the destruction of the city, doesn't it? Surely, He would not have wanted them to be caught up in the destruction that was intended only for Jewish unbelievers.

Matthew 24:15 (KJV) 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:)

Clearly this is instructions for the disciples of Christ, things they must not put off but do immediately when they see/know/have understanding of the AOD in the holy place.

Matthew 24:16-20 (KJV) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Why must the disciples quickly flee to the mountains after they see/know/have knowledge of AOD? Because "then shall be great tribulation" that will be shortened for the sake of the elect or no flesh would be saved through them.

Matthew 24:21-22 (KJV) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Looking at this passage as I have explained here, if you believe it is a reasonable, biblical argument, please explain to me how this discourse applies to the siege of the apostate nation in 70 AD.

See above. Now, can you tell me how all of that can apply to the future? You have no choice but to see the whole things as being figurative or spiritual if you apply it to the future. So, with that being the case, what would Judea represent in a figurative or spiritual sense? How about Jesus saying that it would be particularly difficult for nursing mothers and pregnant women to flee? Why did He say that they should pray that their flight wouldn't happen in winter or on the Sabbath? These are the questions that you need to be able to answer if you want to convince anyone that your interpretation is accurate. I can answer those questions very easily in a literal and physical sense.

I truly believe that you, like myself believe the AOD is NOT the Roman Army desecrating the holy temple.

Why would you believe that when I repeatedly say otherwise? Now, keep something in mind here. This does NOT mean I interpret 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as referring to 70 AD. You understand that, don't you? Preterists do, but not me. I see them as referring to different events.

Edit: I need to clarify something else here. I am NOT saying that the physical temple was still holy in 70 AD. But, at the time Jesus was speaking it was still considered "the holy place" to the disciples, so it was reasonable for Him to still refer to it in that way at that time without implying that it would still be called the holy place once it was destroyed as Jesus said it would be.

And that the only way to rightly understand we must remember how Christ spoke of His body as being the holy temple. And open our mind to spiritual fulfillment. What say you?

I say, as I've said many times, that you are misinterpreting the verse and it has nothing to do with Christ's body. Yes, He did talk about His body as the temple, but that was a totally different context than the Olivet Discourse that was spawned from Him saying that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. Surely, He would not describe His body as "these great buildings". But, I will also say again that I do see 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as referring to the church and not to a physical temple. Same thing with Revelation 11:2. So, you have to remember that I'm not like the preterists that you typically argue with about these things. It's only fair if you actually address what I believe rather than what they believe.

 

[WPM]

I have no desire to rehash your posts, not because I am avoiding them, but because they have become a means for belittling, and engaging in ungodly back and forth that only serves to bring down other Christians!

I also have no idea of what you're talking about when you say "Pick a subject. That is what you do now."

My issue is with the error and heresy you have been promoting lately.

You cannot address any rebuttals of what you espouse because it is all obviously taught to you by TW and TS.

 

[WPM]

I fail to see how Zech 14 was fulfilled....as Jesus hasn't returned and the Mt of Olives hasn't been split.

So, what is it referring to?

 

[CrowCross]

So, what is it referring to?

The return of Christ at the end of the tribulation when the Mt. of Olives splits.

 

[WPM]

The return of Christ at the end of the tribulation when the Mt. of Olives splits.

Then what?

 

[rwb]

You're not understanding my view, which happens fairly often. If you read the parallel passage of Luke 21:20-24 then you can see what Jesus was telling them is that once they saw Jerusalem beginning to be surrounded by armies than those in that area or region of Judea would need to flee to the mountains. They did not immediately destroy the city when they started surrounding it, so when they started doing that, then believers would know it was time to flee. It makes sense that Jesus would have wanted to warn believers to flee the destruction of the city, doesn't it? Surely, He would not have wanted them to be caught up in the destruction that was intended only for Jewish unbelievers.

This is all assumption/speculation that Preterits must read INTO the Bible. You simply gloss over the fact that Luke makes no mention of AOD. That gives Preterits reason to believe the AOD was not as the other two gospel accounts portray, rather the AOD for the Preterits is viewed as the actual siege that took place between 67-70 AD. That ignores what the other two gospels tell us. They tell us the AOD the disciples must know or shall see abomination of desolation is that which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place.

In his prayer Daniel indicates the AOD was before the first destruction of the Temple and therefore cannot be the presence of the plundering troops, or of the eagles of the legions in it, that the "abomination" stands in the "Holy Place," and therefore it cannot be identified with the appearance of the Roman eagles in the lines of the legions under Cestius, A.D. 68.

In his prayer after the first destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, Daniel prays for his people and the sanctuary which he believed had become desolate after his people had turned away from G od. Daniel cries out to the Lord to forgive them and that God's fury might be turned away from Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: "because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people have become a reproach to all".

Daniel 9:16 (KJV) O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.

This shows us the AOD that made the city, and temple desolate unto the Lord was not the destruction from the siege itself, but the siege and utter destruction was once more brought upon the nation because they had once more turned away from and forsaken God. That's why Christ said to them "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

So why did Luke speak only of how Jerusalem would become destroyed and not make mention of the AOD according to the words of Daniel?

Quoting a scholarly discussion:

"Some scholars note that Luke’s version omits the “abomination of desolation” and instead emphasizes the immediate military invasion of Jerusalem, which was a real historical event in 69–70 AD during the Roman–Jewish War. This has led to speculation that Luke’s account may reflect a later tradition that was shaped by the actual destruction of Jerusalem, whereas Matthew and Mark preserve an earlier, more generic eschatological framework.

Other scholars suggest that Luke’s omission could be due to his audience’s background — Luke’s Gospel is primarily addressed to a Gentile readership, and he often simplifies or rephrases Jewish eschatological terms. This would mean Luke is not necessarily “changing” the prophecy to fit history but rather rephrasing it in a way that is more accessible to his readers."

Now, can you tell me how all of that can apply to the future?

I've not argued for a far distant future fulfillment, nor have I argued they must be figurative or spiritually discerned. The AOD these first century disciples must know of comes from the great apostacy through spiritual fornication/adultery through the leadership of the Priests, Pharisees and Scribes of old. These things are written as both blessing and warning for the New Covenant church. Just as the people of Old fell spiritually, and because of their fall into spiritual idolatry God brought them to utter complete ruin. So too we of the New Covenant through Christ are prone to the same fall if we do not watch closely those who are allowed to lead in our congregations. We are called to guard the sheep, and not to permit the same evil to have rule over the House of the Lord. Because just as they of old fell into evil ways, so too we shall fall and the Light of Christ will then be removed and there will be only darkness and ruin.

I believe the final abomination of desolation that led the early Christian disciples to flee from the city, and temple was not some thirty years later when they saw the army surrounding them. No, I believe they obeyed the mandate Christ had given them as soon as they received power from on high through the indwelling Spirit of Christ. It was then that the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ began to go out unto all the nations of the world, and it soon became apparent that whosoever among the faithful saints obeyed God, came great tribulation such as has never been before and shall never be again.

Why would you believe that when I repeatedly say otherwise?

I gave you an opportunity to prove you do not reason as a Preterit, instead you prove that you do by invoking 70 AD and the Roman Army as the AOD.

Edit: I need to clarify something else here. I am NOT saying that the physical temple was still holy in 70 AD. But, at the time Jesus was speaking it was still considered "the holy place" to the disciples, so it was reasonable for Him to still refer to it in that way at that time without implying that it would still be called the holy place once it was destroyed as Jesus said it would be.

This too is exactly what Preterit doctrine wants us to believe. The Bible tells us the temple of Old ceased to be holy unto God with the advent of Christ coming to earth with the Kingdom of God. There is only ONE holy place, but you, like Preterits want us to believe the temple of Old was still God's Holy Temple, and the city still the Holy City after the True Temple (Christ) spiritually ushered in the True Holy City called Jerusalem from above. God does not say the city and temple of Old would still be considered the holy place unto Him until it is literally abolished.

When I say we must open our mind to spiritual fulfillment, I am speaking of that which is unseen, inward because when Christ came He came with the Kingdom of God from HEAVEN. That is a spiritual reality, not physical or earthly. It is only when we have been born again that we come to understand the spiritual Kingdom of God we have spiritually or through Christ's Spirit entered into is not of this world, and can only be known through the power of God in us. We don't come to spiritually know the Kingdom of God through physical realities.

 

[rwb]

My issue is with the error and heresy you have been promoting lately.

You cannot address any rebuttals of what you espouse because it is all obviously taught to you by TW and TS.

I really don't care what your issue is because you have been dishonest in what you've said regarding me personally.

Therefore, as I said, I've grown weary of hearing your insults and belittling!

 

[rwb]

The return of Christ at the end of the tribulation when the Mt. of Olives splits.

That cannot be what happens after the return of Christ, because Scripture tells us that when the day of the Lord we are waiting for shall come it shall be accompanied by fire and destruction written here:

2 Peter 3:9-12 (KJV) 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. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

The Mount of Olives cannot split at the return of Christ because it like everything else shall pass away with great noise, fervent heat, all the works of man shall be burned up, all things shall be dissolved.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is all assumption/speculation that Preterits must read INTO the Bible. You simply gloss over the fact that Luke makes no mention of AOD.

Are you not able to just reason together about these things instead of trying to make things contentious and bringing preterism into the discussion? I'm not a preterist. Can you please just calm down and have a civil, adult discussion? You think I don't want that, but I do.

It looks like you are trying to claim that Luke 21:20-24 is not a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20. But, Luke was writing to Gentiles. How would it have made any sense for him to say "let the reader understand" in reference to a prophecy in Daniel to Gentiles who would have not been familiar with the prophecy in Daniel? It wouldn't have. That's why He worded it a bit differently to spell things out to the Gentiles as to what Jesus was talking about, but also worded some of it exactly the same when there was no ambiguity (from the Gentile perspective). Let's compare the two passages (I'll leave out the Mark 13 passage to avoid any confusion since it is very similar to the Matthew 24 text).

Matthew 24:15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.

Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

So, what I did here was color code the text in each passage to show where 1) the wording was the same, which I coded in red 2) where the wording was different, but saying the same thing, which I coded in blue and 3) where one passage says something that the other does not, which I just made bold black text.

The similarities between these two passages are very obvious and undeniable. To the point where I don't think it's reasonable at all to claim that Jesus said what is recorded in these two passages at separate times during the Olivet Discourse. That would have caused great confusion, I'm sure. I believe it makes far more sense that Luke simply recorded what Jesus said a bit differently, but very similarly, simply because of having a different audience (Gentiles) than Matthew and Mark had.

So, please address what I'm saying here. Please give a valid reason why these two passages should not be seen as being parallel to each other rather than being two different things that Jesus said during the Olivet Discourse. Would you not expect that Luke would have worded some of it a bit differently because of his audience of Gentiles? Imagine if he said "let the reader understand" by referencing the prophecy in Daniel to them when they had no background of understanding the Old Testament and Daniel's prophecies.

That gives Preterits reason to believe the AOD was not as the other two gospel accounts portray, rather the AOD for the Preterits is viewed as the actual siege that took place between 67-70 AD.

Many non-preterists like myself and WPM see it this way as well, so portraying this as being an exclusive preterist interpretation is not fair at all to the may non-preterists who see the passage as referring to what occurred around 70 AD.

So why did Luke speak only of how Jerusalem would become destroyed and not make mention of the AOD according to the words of Daniel?

Because he was writing to Gentiles, as I said above.

Quoting a scholarly discussion:

"Some scholars note that Luke’s version omits the “abomination of desolation” and instead emphasizes the immediate military invasion of Jerusalem, which was a real historical event in 69–70 AD during the Roman–Jewish War. This has led to speculation that Luke’s account may reflect a later tradition that was shaped by the actual destruction of Jerusalem, whereas Matthew and Mark preserve an earlier, more generic eschatological framework.

Other scholars suggest that Luke’s omission could be due to his audience’s background — Luke’s Gospel is primarily addressed to a Gentile readership, and he often simplifies or rephrases Jewish eschatological terms. This would mean Luke is not necessarily “changing” the prophecy to fit history but rather rephrasing it in a way that is more accessible to his readers."

The latter explanation is how I see it and it's quite reasonable.

I've not argued for a far distant future fulfillment, nor have I argued they must be figurative or spiritually discerned.

Okay, so can you tell me exactly how you interpret Matthew 24:15-22 so that we can be on the same page and not misrepresent each other's views? What is your understanding of Jesus saying that those in Judea would need to flee to the mountains? What did He mean that it would be particularly difficult for nursing mothers and pregnant women to flee? Why did He say to pray that their flight wouldn't be during the winter or on the Sabbath?

I gave you an opportunity to prove you do not reason as a Preterit, instead you prove that you do by invoking 70 AD and the Roman Army as the AOD.

I reason as an objective Christian who does not make any assumptions one way or another about what the text should be saying. I don't try to interpret Matthew 24:1-2 in anything but a straightforward, literal way because I see no basis for interpreting it any other way. Therefore, that means Jesus said the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed. And, it makes sense that the disciples would have asked Him about the timing of that. So, they did. And He answered their question. But, what they likely did not expect is that He would also talk about His future coming at the end of the age, which they likely assumed would have occurred in conjunction with the destruction of the temple buildings, but it did not.

This too is exactly what Preterit doctrine wants us to believe. The Bible tells us the temple of Old ceased to be holy unto God with the advent of Christ coming to earth with the Kingdom of God. There is only ONE holy place, but you, like Preterits want us to believe the temple of Old was still God's Holy Temple, and the city still the Holy City after the True Temple (Christ) spiritually ushered in the True Holy City called Jerusalem from above. God does not say the city and temple of Old would still be considered the holy place unto Him until it is literally abolished.

You are misrepresenting my view despite me clarifying it to you many times. Are you doing that on purpose? I would hope not, but why are you doing it? I have clarified many times that I do not believe that the physical temple was still holy in 70 AD. But, at the time Jesus was speaking, it was still considered the holy place by the disciples, so it was a legitimate way for Jesus to refer to the temple at that time. That does not imply that it would still be considered the holy place when it was destroyed. God destroyed it because the Jews were still foolishly performing old covenant animal sacrifices there instead of accepting the sacrifice of Christ and the new covenant that He established with His blood.

When I say we must open our mind to spiritual fulfillment, I am speaking of that which is unseen, inward because when Christ came He came with the Kingdom of God from HEAVEN. That is a spiritual reality, not physical or earthly.

Of course, but this is not related at all to Matthew 24:15-22.

It is only when we have been born again that we come to understand the spiritual Kingdom of God we have spiritually or through Christ's Spirit entered into is not of this world, and can only be known through the power of God in us. We don't come to spiritually know the Kingdom of God through physical realities.

Of course, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[CrowCross]

Then what?

What's the next verse say?

 

[CrowCross]

That cannot be what happens after the return of Christ, because Scripture tells us that when the day of the Lord we are waiting for shall come it shall be accompanied by fire and destruction written here:

2 Peter 3:9-12 (KJV) 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. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

The Mount of Olives cannot split at the return of Christ because it like everything else shall pass away with great noise, fervent heat, all the works of man shall be burned up, all things shall be dissolved.

The day of the Lord is a period of time. Right???

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The return of Christ at the end of the tribulation when the Mt. of Olives splits.

Can you explain how that can be reconciled with what is written in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12? How can any mortal survive His return, in light of what passages like those indicate?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The day of the Lord is a period of time. Right???

Where is that taught in scripture? Is that what is indicated in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12?

 

[CrowCross]

Can you explain how that can be reconciled with what is written in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12? How can any mortal survive His return, in light of what passages like those indicate?

Jesus returns twice.
Jesus returns in the clouds at the resurrecton/rapture. Then returns to heaven with His Bride
Then Jesus returns physically at the end of the tribulation.

 

[CrowCross]

Where is that taught in scripture? Is that what is indicated in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12?

The phrase “day of the Lord” usually identifies events that take place at the end of history (Isaiah 7:18-25) and is often closely associated with the phrase “that day.” One key to understanding these phrases is to note that they always identify a span of time during which God personally intervenes in history, directly or indirectly, to accomplish some specific aspect of His plan....ref Got Questions.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus returns twice.
Jesus returns in the clouds at the resurrecton/rapture. Then returns to heaven with His Bride
Then Jesus returns physically at the end of the tribulation.

No, what I'm asking is how you can reconcile your understanding of Zechariah 14 with what is written in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. Those passages indicate that sudden, unexpected global destruction will occur when Jesus returns to the extent that unbelievers "shall not escape" it. Do you have any unbelievers escaping that global destruction that Paul and Peter said will come upon the earth when Jesus returns?