The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Spiritual Israelite]

A coming in the past would be a second coming. Believing in a third coming (or more) would not make the beliefs not full preterism IMO.

It's not fair to group people who believe in a third coming of Christ in the future (which is the same coming that we non-preterists believe is the second coming) in with full preterists who do not believe in a future coming of Christ. Partial preterism is not the same as full preterism.

 

[Davidpt]

You,claimEd that “in that day” from Zechariah 12-14 also speaks of the future, that day is the day of the Lord

Have you already forgotten about the analogy I used earlier on pertaining to the history of the USA? Think outside the box. That analogy doesn't equal your misrepresentation of my view. Quit using me as a scapegoat for someone being unreasonable and not being able to be reasoned with. When in this case, it is clearly you and @Spiritual Israelite and others like you that can't be reasoned with concerning Zechariah 14, plain and simple. For one, you all disregard context throughout Zechariah 14 and have it instead meaning whatever you want it to mean rather than what it actually means in context.

Even if I eventually abandoned at some point that there is a millennium that follows the 2nd coming, I would still never interpret Zechariah 14 in the same absurd out of context manner as some of you do. I would never interpret that chapter in such an absurd manner as that. Get a clue, there are even Amils that don't interpret it the same manner as you all do, but basically interpret in the same manner as me. Except they don't see anything in ch 14 involving a future millennium but I do.

So why is it that some Amils can make Zechariah 14 work for them when they are not remotely interpreting it in the same manner as some of you? They apparently don't see Zechariah 14 being difficult to interpret. Only someone interpreting Zechariah 14 out of context would find it difficult to interpret, obviously. That's usually what happens when someone via their interpretations are all of the place rather that trying to establish a logical cohesive flow of things, that A leads to B, and that B then leads to C. But instead, they have C meaning before A or B. That would be like arguing that the 7 trumpet, for example, precedes the first trumpet.

Take @Truth7t7 , for example. There are several things I agree with him about concerning Zechariah 14. As opposed to some of you where there is zero I agree with you about concerning Zechariah 14. And the same for @PinSeeker since we have discussed Zechariah 14 in the past, that there are a few things I agree with @PinSeeker about concerning Zechariah 14. But unfortunately I don't think @PinSeeker is even participating in this thread. But even so, @PinSeeker is still an Amil that I can agree with about some things in Zechariah 14 as opposed to some of you where I agree zero with concerning Zechariah 14.

 

[Marty fox]

The king in the parable is God the Father. It specifically says the king, representing God the Father, sent His armies to destroy them and their city. He used the Roman armies to do that. All people are His in a certain sense, so the Romans armies were His armies in the sense that He used them for His purposes at that time.

Yes of course it’s God the Father that’s what I was saying as the same as Matthew says in the wicked tenants parable.

My point was that Jesus comes in judgement and fights with the sword of His mouth His word and He speaks judgement and at times uses other to do it like in revelation chapter 2 or as the Lord riding on the clouds to Egypt in Isiah. The Father sent His army through Jesus word like in Revelation 19

 

[Marty fox]

A coming in the past would be a second coming. Believing in a third coming (or more) would not make the beliefs not full preterism IMO.

So then in your understanding of leaving and coming back being a second coming the second coming would actually be when Jesus rose from the dead after His spirit had left His body on the cross

How would you also then explain Revelation 2:16? What number coming was that if He came Then?

 

[Marty fox]

Have you already forgotten about the analogy I used earlier on pertaining to the history of the USA? Think outside the box. That analogy doesn't equal your misrepresentation of my view. Quit using me as a scapegoat for someone being unreasonable and not being able to be reasoned with. When in this case, it is clearly you and @Spiritual Israelite and others like you that can't be reasoned with concerning Zechariah 14, plain and simple. For one, you all disregard context throughout Zechariah 14 and have it instead meaning whatever you want it to mean rather than what it actually means in context.

Even if I eventually abandoned at some point that there is a millennium that follows the 2nd coming, I would still never interpret Zechariah 14 in the same absurd out of context manner as some of you do. I would never interpret that chapter in such an absurd manner as that. Get a clue, there are even Amils that don't interpret it the same manner as you all do, but basically interpret in the same manner as me. Except they don't see anything in ch 14 involving a future millennium but I do.

So why is it that some Amils can make Zechariah 14 work for them when they are not remotely interpreting it in the same manner as some of you? They apparently don't see Zechariah 14 being difficult to interpret. Only someone interpreting Zechariah 14 out of context would find it difficult to interpret, obviously. That's usually what happens when someone via their interpretations are all of the place rather that trying to establish a logical cohesive flow of things, that A leads to B, and that B then leads to C. But instead, they have C meaning before A or B. That would be like arguing that the 7 trumpet, for example, precedes the first trumpet.

Do you not that you have many times ignored what I say in my post and then make a ranting statement? You don’t always address what I say

 

[ewq1938]

So then in your understanding of leaving and coming back being a second coming the second coming would actually be when Jesus rose from the dead after His spirit had left His body on the cross

No, because the first coming was from heaven to Earth, and so is the second coming. If that happened in the past as you believe, it would have been the second coming.

How would you also then explain Revelation 2:16? What number coming was that if He came Then?

Looks conditional plus it could be accomplished after his actual second coming. Jesus has not come again. There has been only one coming.