The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Spiritual Israelite]

Perhaps you should copy and paste the verse about Noah and Lot...highlight the portions that speak of what the people are doing...then show me how that highlighted portion correctly reflects the end of the tribulation.

Balls in your court.

Here is how I interpret that passage (Luke 17:26-30) along with the verses which follow it.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. 31 “In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two [b]men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. 36 [c]Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.” 37 And they answered and said to Him, “Where, Lord?” So He said to them, “Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.”

Let's start at the beginning to see what Jesus taught in this passage. First, in verses 26 and 27, He talks about the days leading up to His second coming being similar to the days of Noah that preceded the flood. Then He points out that "the flood came and destroyed them all". All who were left behind outside the ark were destroyed, in other words. Then He points out similar things about the days of Lot in comparison to the days leading up to the second coming of Christ and He again points out that all unbelievers who were not taken out from Sodom like Lot and his family were left behind in the city and were destroyed by fire.

Then Jesus points out that no one should try to save their possessions because it will be too late for anyone to do that and anyone doing that is too attached to the world and their life in this world instead of being focused on eternity and being with Jesus like they should be. Lot's wife is given as an example of how we can't be too attached to this world and our lives in this world. That is unacceptable to God for us to love our lives in this world more than we love Him. Lot's wife paid the price for loving the world and her life in this world more than God and that's a warning for everyone.

Then Jesus, using Lot's wife as an example, said that those who want to keep their life, like Lot's wife did, will lose it (will be killed) and whoever loses their life (is willing to give up their lives for God) will preserve it (will be spared and not killed).

Then we get to verse 34 where Jesus gives examples of two people being together with one being taken and one left. Those verses, in and of themselves, tell us nothing about what happens to those taken and to those left, but we can figure that out from the previous verses that speak of events where some were taken away and escaped God's wrath and some were left behind and did not escape His wrath, like in Noah and Lot's days. From those events, regardless of what it means to be taken and what it means to be left (there is some disagreement about that), we know that it means all people either survive Christ's second coming or they are killed. The ones who are left behind on the earth do not survive to face tribulation as pre-tribs believe. They are killed just as those left behind out of the ark were killed and those left behind in Sodom were killed.

Some people think the question the disciples asked at that point ("Where, Lord?") is related to where those who are taken are taken to, but I disagree with that. I think they are just asking where it will take place that one is taken and one is left and Jesus is saying it will happen wherever the eagles or vultures are gathered around the dead bodies killed by Chirist's wrath on the day He returns. Since His second coming is a global event, His answer to the question is basically "everywhere" since unbelievers all over the world will suffer His wrath and vengeance when He comes (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12).

So, this passage is a problem for pre-tribs who think those left behind survive to live another day and then have to face "the tribulation". No, they do not. They will be killed.

 

[Davidpt]

Perhaps you should copy and paste the verse about Noah and Lot...highlight the portions that speak of what the people are doing...then show me how that highlighted portion correctly reflects the end of the tribulation.

Balls in your court.

I'm not Pretrib myself, I'm post trib, yet, clearly, per Luke 17, no way is the 2nd coming after great tribulation in view. The following proves it.

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.


Let's be logical here. For the sake of argument, let's assume this is meaning during the 2nd coming after great tribulation. Ok then, what is the text informing the person to do when Christ bodily returns per this scenario?

This---he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

Seriously, why would anyone do any of that, in any sense, during the bodily return of Christ? To accomplish exactly what????? That clearly does not fit a bodily 2nd coming of Christ scenario. Anyone already familiar with the gospels, thus have no doctrinal bias' standing in their way, are going to easily make the connection with verse 33 and that of the following.

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?


In verse 24 Jesus is not meaning one is to do that when He bodily returns. He is clearly meaning while He is away. It is clearly connected with discipleship in general while He is away. And what is one thing that happens while He is away? Great tribulation. Not great tribulation allegedly involving 70 AD. Great tribulation involving the church. Can't have great tribulation involving the church if the church is not even here during grate tribulation. Therefore, the rapture is not Pretrib.

Compare verse 25 with verse 33 in Luke 17. It is the exact same concept. Both verses say the exact same thing.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it---vs--- Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.


The problem on sites like this, there are too many thinking they are teachers, thus we should be listening to them rather than interpreting Scripture with Scripture and coming to our own conclusions about the texts in question. We don't need anyone telling us, us meaning anyone in general, how to interpret something if their interpretations are not even agreeing with the texts involved to begin with.

If an interpretation leads to an absurd conclusion, how can that not be a red flag that the interpretation is not correct? How can Luke 17:31 not lead to an absurd conclusion if meaning during the bodily return of Christ, in light of Luke 17:33, in light of Matthew 16:24-26?

No one that I know of would apply the 2nd coming to Matthew 16:24-25, and that Luke 17:33 is saying the exact same thing Matthew 16:25 is.

Not to mention. Per Matthew 24:17-18, which is undeniably echoing Luke 17:31-33, places Luke 17:31-33 during great tribulation, not during the bodily return of Christ in the end of the age. But let's just ignore that. Right? Let's just make Matthew 24:17-18 be about 70 AD instead, despite it is echoed in Luke 17 and that Luke 17 is not meaning 70 AD. Not that anyone might be saying it is. but that is beside the point.

The point is, if Luke 17:31-33 can't fit 70 AD, then neither can Matthew 24:17-18 fit 70 AD. And that @Spiritual Israelite, who you are debating, insists Matthew 24:17-18 involves 70 AD. Then insists Luke 17:31-33 involves the 2nd coming. He is not even being consistent, let alone being logical about Luke 17:31-33 in general.

And BTW, assuming one has read this far, after me reading the last cpl of pages, the only one I see making any sense of some of this is @rwb.

 

[CrowCross]

I haven't seen you specifically exegete those verses, so I can't say exactly how you interpret them. If you have no interest in doing that, that's your choice. But, I'd like to know what your understanding is of those passages. They indicate that sudden destruction by fire will come unexpectedly when Jesus comes as a thief in the night. So, I'm wondering how you can reconcile what those passages indicate with a 7 year time period of tribulation? I don't see how "sudden destruction" by fire upon the earth from which unbelievers "shall not escape" can describe a 7 year time period of God's wrath.

Provide the verse.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not Pretrib myself, I'm post trib, yet, clearly, per Luke 17, no way is the 2nd coming after great tribulation in view. The following proves it.

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.


Let's be logical here. For the sake of argument, let's assume this is meaning during the 2nd coming after great tribulation. Ok then, what is the text informing the person to do when Christ bodily returns per this scenario?

This---he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

Seriously, why would anyone do any of that, in any sense, during the bodily return of Christ? To accomplish exactly what????? That clearly does not fit a bodily 2nd coming of Christ scenario. Anyone already familiar with the gospels, thus have no doctrinal bias' standing in their way, are going to easily make the connection with verse 33 and that of the following.

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?


In verse 24 Jesus is not meaning one is to do that when He bodily returns. He is clearly meaning while He is away. It is clearly connected with discipleship in general while He is away. And what is one thing that happens while He is away? Great tribulation. Not great tribulation allegedly involving 70 AD. Great tribulation involving the church. Can't have great tribulation involving the church if the church is not even here during grate tribulation. Therefore, the rapture is not Pretrib.

Compare verse 25 with verse 33 in Luke 17. It is the exact same concept. Both verses say the exact same thing.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it---vs--- Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.


The problem on sites like this, there are too many thinking they are teachers, thus we should be listening to them rather than interpreting Scripture with Scripture and coming to our own conclusions about the texts in question. We don't need anyone telling us, us meaning anyone in general, how to interpret something if their interpretations are not even agreeing with the texts involved to begin with.

If an interpretation leads to an absurd conclusion, how can that not be a red flag that the interpretation is not correct? How can Luke 17:31 not lead to an absurd conclusion if meaning during the bodily return of Christ, in light of Luke 17:33, in light of Matthew 16:24-26?

No one that I know of would apply the 2nd coming to Matthew 16:24-25, and that Luke 17:33 is saying the exact same thing Matthew 16:25 is.

Not to mention. Per Matthew 24:17-18, which is undeniably echoing Luke 17:31-33, places Luke 17:31-33 during great tribulation, not during the bodily return of Christ in the end of the age. But let's just ignore that. Right? Let's just make Matthew 24:17-18 be about 70 AD instead, despite it is echoed in Luke 17 and that Luke 17 is not meaning 70 AD. Not that anyone might be saying it is. but that is beside the point.

The point is, if Luke 17:31-33 can't fit 70 AD, then neither can Matthew 24:17-18 fit 70 AD. And that @Spiritual Israelite, who you are debating, insists Matthew 24:17-18 involves 70 AD. Then insists Luke 17:31-33 involves the 2nd coming. He is not even being consistent, let alone being logical about Luke 17:31-33 in general.

And BTW, assuming one has read this far, after me reading the last cpl of pages, the only one I see making any sense of some of this is @rwb.

Oh, look, you decided to come back again after leaving without addressing any of the points we were making in our posts directed to you before your latest hiatus. What a shocker. How long will you stay around this time before disappearing again without addressing our arguments?

What a joke this is coming from you. If the type of logic you're using is valid, then that means I can prove you wrong by showing how you deny that Matthew 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24 are parallel passages despite both of them saying "let them who are in Judea flee to the mountains" after seeing something that will indicate that Jerusalem's desolation is near and how both of them say "How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!" and both speak of the event as being "great tribulation" or "great distress". If I'm not consistent, then it can be shown that you also are not consistent by using the same kind of logic you use to draw that conclusion about me. So, once again, you have made a ridiculous argument that can be applied to yourself. Try again.

How about actually addressing what I said in my post #881 instead of your usual drive by nonsense? How about actually putting in the effort to address my arguments without this hypocritical approach you're taking to try to refute them?

 

[CrowCross]

Here is how I interpret that passage (Luke 17:26-30) along with the verses which follow it.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. 31 “In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two [b]men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. 36 [c]Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.” 37 And they answered and said to Him, “Where, Lord?” So He said to them, “Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.”

Let's start at the beginning to see what Jesus taught in this passage. First, in verses 26 and 27, He talks about the days leading up to His second coming being similar to the days of Noah that preceded the flood. Then He points out that "the flood came and destroyed them all". All who were left behind outside the ark were destroyed, in other words. Then He points out similar things about the days of Lot in comparison to the days leading up to the second coming of Christ and He again points out that all unbelievers who were not taken out from Sodom like Lot and his family were left behind in the city and were destroyed by fire.

Then Jesus points out that no one should try to save their possessions because it will be too late for anyone to do that and anyone doing that is too attached to the world and their life in this world instead of being focused on eternity and being with Jesus like they should be. Lot's wife is given as an example of how we can't be too attached to this world and our lives in this world. That is unacceptable to God for us to love our lives in this world more than we love Him. Lot's wife paid the price for loving the world and her life in this world more than God and that's a warning for everyone.

Then Jesus, using Lot's wife as an example, said that those who want to keep their life, like Lot's wife did, will lose it (will be killed) and whoever loses their life (is willing to give up their lives for God) will preserve it (will be spared and not killed).

Then we get to verse 34 where Jesus gives examples of two people being together with one being taken and one left. Those verses, in and of themselves, tell us nothing about what happens to those taken and to those left, but we can figure that out from the previous verses that speak of events where some were taken away and escaped God's wrath and some were left behind and did not escape His wrath, like in Noah and Lot's days. From those events, regardless of what it means to be taken and what it means to be left (there is some disagreement about that), we know that it means all people either survive Christ's second coming or they are killed. The ones who are left behind on the earth do not survive to face tribulation as pre-tribs believe. They are killed just as those left behind out of the ark were killed and those left behind in Sodom were killed.

Some people think the question the disciples asked at that point ("Where, Lord?") is related to where those who are taken are taken to, but I disagree with that. I think they are just asking where it will take place that one is taken and one is left and Jesus is saying it will happen wherever the eagles or vultures are gathered around the dead bodies killed by Chirist's wrath on the day He returns. Since His second coming is a global event, His answer to the question is basically "everywhere" since unbelievers all over the world will suffer His wrath and vengeance when He comes (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-12).

So, this passage is a problem for pre-tribs who think those left behind survive to live another day and then have to face "the tribulation". No, they do not. They will be killed.

You didn't seem to recognize this portion.....They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage then...They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built.

Why not?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Provide the verse.

I've already done so multiple times. I'll try again one more time. How do you interpret these passages...

1 Thessalonians 5:2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.

2 Peter 3:10 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be [a]burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You didn't seem to recognize this portion.....They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage then...They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built.

Why not?

Because that portion isn't related to the points I was making. Why else? I'm not purposely leaving anything out. Can you see how much detail I put in my posts? But, it's not enough to satisfy you? You can't bring yourself to address what I did say in my post? This is all you can say in response?

That portion you're talking about relates to the fact that unbelievers will be caught completely off guard when Jesus comes, which is the same thing that is indicated in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-4 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. People will be saying "peace and safety" and going on about their normal lives with no clue as to what is about to happen to them, just like was the case in the days of Noah and the days of Lot, and then "sudden destruction" will come upon them when Jesus comes unexpectedly (no one knows the day or hour - Matthew 24:36) like a thief in the night and "they shall not escape" (1 Thess 5:2-3).

 

[CrowCross]

I'm not Pretrib myself, I'm post trib, yet, clearly, per Luke 17, no way is the 2nd coming after great tribulation in view. The following proves it.

Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.


Let's be logical here. For the sake of argument, let's assume this is meaning during the 2nd coming after great tribulation. Ok then, what is the text informing the person to do when Christ bodily returns per this scenario?

This---he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

Seriously, why would anyone do any of that, in any sense, during the bodily return of Christ? To accomplish exactly what????? That clearly does not fit a bodily 2nd coming of Christ scenario. Anyone already familiar with the gospels, thus have no doctrinal bias' standing in their way, are going to easily make the connection with verse 33 and that of the following.

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?


In verse 24 Jesus is not meaning one is to do that when He bodily returns. He is clearly meaning while He is away. It is clearly connected with discipleship in general while He is away. And what is one thing that happens while He is away? Great tribulation. Not great tribulation allegedly involving 70 AD. Great tribulation involving the church. Can't have great tribulation involving the church if the church is not even here during grate tribulation. Therefore, the rapture is not Pretrib.

Compare verse 25 with verse 33 in Luke 17. It is the exact same concept. Both verses say the exact same thing.

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it---vs--- Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.


The problem on sites like this, there are too many thinking they are teachers, thus we should be listening to them rather than interpreting Scripture with Scripture and coming to our own conclusions about the texts in question. We don't need anyone telling us, us meaning anyone in general, how to interpret something if their interpretations are not even agreeing with the texts involved to begin with.

If an interpretation leads to an absurd conclusion, how can that not be a red flag that the interpretation is not correct? How can Luke 17:31 not lead to an absurd conclusion if meaning during the bodily return of Christ, in light of Luke 17:33, in light of Matthew 16:24-26?

No one that I know of would apply the 2nd coming to Matthew 16:24-25, and that Luke 17:33 is saying the exact same thing Matthew 16:25 is.

Not to mention. Per Matthew 24:17-18, which is undeniably echoing Luke 17:31-33, places Luke 17:31-33 during great tribulation, not during the bodily return of Christ in the end of the age. But let's just ignore that. Right? Let's just make Matthew 24:17-18 be about 70 AD instead, despite it is echoed in Luke 17 and that Luke 17 is not meaning 70 AD. Not that anyone might be saying it is. but that is beside the point.

The point is, if Luke 17:31-33 can't fit 70 AD, then neither can Matthew 24:17-18 fit 70 AD. And that @Spiritual Israelite, who you are debating, insists Matthew 24:17-18 involves 70 AD. Then insists Luke 17:31-33 involves the 2nd coming. He is not even being consistent, let alone being logical about Luke 17:31-33 in general.

And BTW, assuming one has read this far, after me reading the last cpl of pages, the only one I see making any sense of some of this is @rwb.

I posted....Perhaps you should copy and paste the verse about Noah and Lot...highlight the portions that speak of what the people are doing...then show me how that highlighted portion correctly reflects the end of the tribulation.

Your reply didn't address that issue.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I posted....Perhaps you should copy and paste the verse about Noah and Lot...highlight the portions that speak of what the people are doing...then show me how that highlighted portion correctly reflects the end of the tribulation.

Your reply didn't address that issue.

What are you intending to say in relation to that portion of the text exactly?

 

[CrowCross]

I've already done so multiple times. I'll try again one more time. How do you interpret these passages...

1 Thessalonians 5:2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.

Do you think people will be saying...peace and safety...at the end of the tribulation? I don't.

2 Peter 3:10 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be [a]burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

You don't seem to leave any room for the 1000 year reign.

Jesus returns in Rev 19...Zech 14 Mount of Olives is splits an all that follows that....Satan is locked up....the 1000 year reign begins.

Obviously the bon fire won't happen on the day Jesus returns like a thief in the night.

Can you explain it?

 

[CrowCross]

What are you intending to say in relation to that portion of the text exactly?

They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage then...They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built......does that sound like the end of the tribulation? If so, how????

 

[Davidpt]

I posted....Perhaps you should copy and paste the verse about Noah and Lot...highlight the portions that speak of what the people are doing...then show me how that highlighted portion correctly reflects the end of the tribulation.

Your reply didn't address that issue.

Did you not read my post in it's entirety then? Did I not paste Luke 17:31-33 in my reply? And did I not say that Luke 17:31-33 does not support a 2nd coming scenario, then submitted reasons why? I might be post trib, but I'm not arguing that Luke 17:31-33 supports a 2nd coming. I'm arguing that Luke 17:31-33 is meaning during great tribulation. But in my case, it is not meaning in a literal sense, it is meaning in a spiritual sense. IOW, no one is literally fleeing their houses and physically going somewhere else instead. But even so, that does not mean Pretrib is true then.

If we apply Luke 17:31-33 to the 2nd coming, that means we can't take those verses in a spiritual sense, That we have to apply them in the literal sense, since the 2nd coming of Christ is meaning in the literal sense. As if it makes sense, Christ returns, and when He does, one is to literally do at that moment what Luke 17:31 says to do.

 

[CrowCross]

Because that portion isn't related to the points I was making.

Exactly....you didn't address my point.

Noah...They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage then...Lot...They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built.

Does this sound like the end of the tribulation will be filled with these good times? Read Revelations....how does it present the earth at the end of the tribulations?

 

[CrowCross]

Did you not read my post in it's entirety then? Did I not paste Luke 17:31-33 in my reply? And did I not say that Luke 17:31-33 does not support a 2nd coming scenario, then submitted reasons why? I might be post trib, but I'm not arguing that Luke 17:31-33 supports a 2nd coming. I'm arguing that Luke 17:31-33 is meaning during great tribulation. But in my case, it is not meaning in a literal sense, it is meaning in a spiritual sense. IOW, no one is literally fleeing their houses and physically going somewhere else instead. But even so, that does not mean Pretrib is true then.

If we apply Luke 17:31-33 to the 2nd coming, that means we can't take those verses in a spiritual sense, That we have to apply them in the literal sense, since the 2nd coming of Christ is meaning in the literal sense. As if it makes sense, Christ returns, and when He does, one is to literally do what Luke 17:31 says to do.

Can you guys stick with the issue I'm presenting????

With Noah...They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage then...With Lot...They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built......does that sound like the end of the tribulation? If so, how????

 

[rwb]

You left out the pre-tribulation resurrection/rapture.

What pre-tribulation resurrection/rapture?

 

[Davidpt]

Can you guys stick with the issue I'm presenting????

With Noah...They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage then...With Lot...They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built......does that sound like the end of the tribulation? If so, how????

Only Luke 17 records both Noah and Lot as examples. Matthew 24 only uses Noah as an example. And that you said both Noah and Lot. And that I'm saying that the Lot example is not meaning at the end of great tribulation. It is meaning at the beginning of great tribulation. What then is the issue you are having with me in this regard? Am I not being clear enough? How many times do I have to say that the Lot example is not meaning after great tribulation, it is meaning at the beginning of great tribulation, before in sinks in?. Even Matthew 24:17-18 proves it, since it has Luke 17:31-33 being applicable during great tribulation. No one would argue that Matthew 24/:17-18 is not meaning during great tribulation. Why would anyone then argue that Luke 17:31-33 is not meaning during great tribulation, that it is meaning after great tribulation when Matthew 24 does not agree?

We can resolve some of this like such. What did Noah's flood lead to at the time? THe end of the world, basically. What did the events involving Lot lead to at the time? The end of a city, not the end of the world. That is why, in Matthew 24, that the Lot example is placed during great tribulation, and that the Noah example is placed at the end of this age involving the 2nd coming. The Noah example per Luke 17 can't be found within the great tribulation context per Matthew 24, nor can the Lot example per Luke 17 be found within the end of this age context in Matthew 24.

IOW--Lot example = great tribulation
The Noah example equals the end of the world and 2nd coming.

Though, I argue that the Lot example is not meaning the 2nd coming, I don't argue likewise about the Noah example. Clearly, since Matthew 24 is obviously chronologically correct, thus the template, so to speak, the Lot example fits during great tribulation, the Noah example fits the end of the age and the 2nd coming. Pretty much mirroring the OT examples--In Lot's day it did not lead to the end of the world. But Noah's flood did, since Noah's flood required a new beginning afterwards and Lot's didn't. In Lot's day not everyone on the planet were wiped out, as opposed to Noah's flood where everyone on the planet were wiped out, meaning the ungodly.

On second thought then, so that I'm contradicting myself above, Matthew 24 indeed uses both examples of Noah and Lot in that chapter. Except the Lot example fits great tribulation context. The Noah example fits the end of this age and the 2nd coming context.

 

[rwb]

If you don't disagree with what I'm saying, then why are you trying to start an argument with me? Does it really matter if we disagree on semantics if we agree on the things that happen up until what you call "the final day of the Lord"? I call it what scripture calls it, which is "the day of the Lord" and you call it "the final day of the Lord". What you call "the day of the Lord" and "the last days", I only call it "the last days". Whatever. Does this really matter? No, right?

How am I trying to start an argument with you? You call lacking understanding of the day of the Lord the prophets foretell semantics? I certainly do not! It's lack of understanding the day of the Lord the prophets foretell came when Christ came to earth a man that many believe there will be one thousand more years to come after Christ comes again that they believe shall be the day of the Lord.

 

[rwb]

But, Joel described the day of the Lord itself like this...

Joel 2:11 The Lord thunders at the head of his army; his forces are beyond number, and mighty is the army that obeys his command. The day of the Lord is great; it is dreadful. Who can endure it?

I would say that what Paul described in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and what Peter described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 lines up with how this verse describes the day of the Lord, wouldn't you? This is why I see the last days as being what lead up to the day of the Lord rather than the last days and day of the Lord being the same thing.

So, this is how I see it. Maybe now you have a better understanding of why I see it that way instead of maybe thinking I'm ignoring Joel 2 or anything like that. If you disagree, fine. It's not something to have a major debate about.

Yes, Joel not only prophesies about the day of the Lord coming, but his prophesy also includes the final day of the Lord. The last day of the Lord shall be the end of the day of the Lord the prophets of Old foretell would come.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you think people will be saying...peace and safety...at the end of the tribulation? I don't.

In order to answer that question I need to know what exactly you are talking about when you refer to "the tribulation". You're talking about your understanding of a 7 year tribulation of God's wrath? I thought you believed that Jesus will come as a thief in the night before the tribulation, not after?

Also, what is the context of them saying "peace and safety" in 1 Thessalonians 5:2? Paul is talking about people who are in spiritual darkness saying that, right? And he says that those who are not in spiritual darkness will not be overtaken and caught by complete surprise when Jesus comes as a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:4). So, the context of them saying peace and safety is not in relation to world peace and safety, but rather in relation to thinking that they are spiritually at peace and safe from God's wrath. But, then they suddenly find out otherwise and are destroyed. How does your understanding of things fit with what is written in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-4?

You don't seem to leave any room for the 1000 year reign.

Do you have any knowledge of the eschatological view called amillennialism? That's my view that I share with many Christians and that many Christians have believed in for the past almost 2,000 years. If you're not aware of it, then look it up and get some understanding of it and then you can ask me any questions about it that you might have.

Let me just ask you this. Do you believe that Jesus has been reigning since His resurrection from the dead? Scripture indicates that He has been.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Ephesians 1:19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. 22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,

Jesus returns in Rev 19...Zech 14 Mount of Olives is splits an all that follows that....Satan is locked up....the 1000 year reign begins.

Obviously the bon fire won't happen on the day Jesus returns like a thief in the night.

Yet, that is exactly what Peter indicates. Just look at the text with an open mind...

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be [a]burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

So, in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, Paul talks about the same event of the day of the Lord and, like Peter, he says it will come as a thief in the night and that it will bring "sudden destruction" upon unbelievers in spiritual darkness from which "they shall not escape". Paul did not specificy what exactly would cause that "sudden destruction", but he indicated it would occur once the day of the Lord came unexpectedly as a thief in the night. Now, take this understanding and look at 2 Peter 3:10-12. Peter specifies what will cause the "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape" when Jesus comes as a thief in the night. It will be fire coming down upon the earth. Obviously, no one can escape that without their bodies being supernaturally changed to be immortal, right? Which is what will happen to us at that time.

Notice in verse 11 that Peter says in relation to this future event, "Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God". Why would He say that to his readers if it wasn't something that would actually happen until 1,000+ years after Jesus returns? That would not make any sense. Peter indicates that the destruction he described is something that could happen in their lifetimes and he relates it directly to when Jesus comes as a thief in the night. The reason he tells them to consider "what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming" of that day when Jesus comes as a thief in the night is because he is warning his readers to be ready for that day when it comes so that God's wrath doesn't come down upon them. As Paul explains in 1 Thessalonians 5:8, the way to be ready for that day is by "putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How am I trying to start an argument with you? You call lacking understanding of the day of the Lord the prophets foretell semantics? I certainly do not!

Look at how you're talking to me. Using unnecessary exclamation points instead of just trying to have a calm, civil discussion. You're clearly trying to escalate things and start an argument with me. Yet, you complain when things escalate between us. Is that all just an act?

It's lack of understanding the day of the Lord the prophets foretell came when Christ came to earth a man that many believe there will be one thousand more years to come after Christ comes again that they believe shall be the day of the Lord.

No, it's a lack of understanding of what will happen when the day of the Lord comes unexpectedly as a thief in the night bringing "sudden destruction" upon all unbelievers by fire from which "they shall not escape" (1 Thess 5:2-3, 2 Peter 3:10-12) that causes people to believe that there will be one thousand more years to come after Christ comes again. If people don't understand that all mortals will be killed on that day, then that allows for mortals to populate the earth after Jesus returns.