The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Spiritual Israelite]

You will not let up with your false accusations. Several of us tried to reach out to you to start a new chapter. You didn't even reply. It is you that is always trying to be provocative and offensive. Until you change you can expect to be challenged on this.

He acts like he sincerely wants us to have respectful discussions while he is not attempting to do so himself. He expects more of us than he does of himself, apparently. I just don't get it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In the event you also read post #401, it is then telling why you didn't engage with that post. The obvious reason being, you do not want to go on record which would have revealed your intellectual dishonesty. There is is only one way to correctly answer that post, and that Jesus only said A) and never B). And that presents a major major problem because anyone that doesn't overcome, yet sits with Jesus in His throne regardless, that equals B) not A) and that Jesus never said B) He said A).

How are we supposed to believe that you truly intend to try to have more respectful discussions with Amils when you talk to Amils like this? Are you being respectful here by accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty just because he disagrees with you about something? I actually disagree with him about this particular thing as well, but I would not accuse him of being intellectually dishonest about it. His view on it is based on his understanding of scripture, not on being intellectually dishonest. It's possible to be mistaken about something without being purposely intellectually dishonest about it.

Everyone needs to keep the following in mind at all times. Maybe we can lie to others, maybe even lie to ourselves, but one thing we can't do is lie to God and think there won't be any consequences for knowingly and willfully doing that. It's real telling about someone that is more worried about how they will be perceived by their peers if they are intellectually honest here, than they are worried about how God perceives them if they knowingly and willfully decide to be intellectually dishonest instead. Image that, fearing man more than fearing God Himself. Wow.

Is it not possible for someone to simply be mistaken in their understanding of something without necessarily being intellectually dishonest about it? Do you think it's not possible that you are mistaken about something in relation to any of your doctrines? If you agree that it's possible, then if you are wrong about something does that mean it's because you're being intellectually dishonest?

With all that said, the person you were talking to purposely tries to stir the pot and get people riled up. It would be best for you to just not talk to him.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let's all agree to be 100% intellectually honest here regardless what doctrines we hold. Agree? And the way we are going to test who keeps their word, thus remains intellectually honest, regardless, is simple.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

What did Jesus say here? A) or B) below? Keeping in mind, it obviously can't be both.

A) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne

B) To him that overcometh NOT, will I grant to sit with me in my throne

Why this matters is simple. I couldn't care less if some insist NOSAS is not Biblical. That does not make it unbiblical just because they say so. NOSAS is 100% Biblical, period. If you disagree then take it up with Jesus when He returns. Be sure to tell Him you disagree with Him as well. That assuming you disagree NOSAS is Biblical. But if you agree it is Biblical, it is then a moot point and not applicable to you.

Amil's position is basically this. When one is initially saved they then begin reigning with Christ a thousand years spiritually from that moment on. Then when they die they continue reigning a thousand years in a disembodied state in heaven. Thus far, there are no real issues here. Not until we factor this in--that not everyone that are initially saved remain saved.

Keeping in mind, the promise to remain intellectually honest, regardless, what does it equal if someone is initially saved but fall fall away before they die? Does it equal A) or B)? If it equals B), and surely it does, well Jesus never said what B) says to begin with. And we all know it, including Amils.

Therefore, there is only one way to resolve this without causing a contradiction in Revelation 3:21. Keeping in mind, anyone that is purposely being intellectually dishonest because of doctrine they hold, couldn't possibly be the one that is interpreting and understanding Revelation 3:21 properly. Plus, to be purposely intellectually dishonest obviously equals being purposely deceitful.

The way to resolve this with there being zero contradictions is that no one is rewarded with sitting with Jesus in His throne until He returns first. The ones that fell away, per this scenario, Jesus never grants them this to begin with. Per Amil, Jesus also grants this to ones that fall away. Which is absurd that Jesus meant both A) and B) in Revelation 3:21 rather than just A).

Obviously then, whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, only Premil does not contradict Revelation 3:21 but Amil does. It is profoundly absurd that a position that blatantly contradicts something vs a position that doesn't, that it the position that blatantly contradicts something being the true position and the one not contradicting anything per this scenario being the false position.

This is not difficult. Either Jesus meant A) or He meant B). There are no other options. One can't have it both ways.

You said this in response to Marty and what you did here is basically accuse him and all Amils of purposely being intellectually dishonest and deceitful. And you said this after previously telling him "Marty, I'm trying to do better via my exchanges with you.". This gives the impression that you were not being sincere.

 

[WPM]

He acts like he sincerely wants us to have respectful discussions while he is not attempting to do so himself. He expects more of us than he does of himself, apparently. I just don't get it.

I agree. There is no taking of the hand. There is no sense to be honest and upright about what we believe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your confused in the definition of the word (Amil) the acronym for the word (Ammillennialism) you continue to expand a false definition of the acronym including multiple doctrines found within "Reformed Eschatology" and other denominations

The Acronym (Amil) covers nothing more than those that "Deny" a future Millennium on this earth at the second coming of Jesus

Many of the poster you are interacting with are promoting the doctrines found in "Reformed Eschatology" please don't intermingle their doctrinal beliefs with the acronym (Amil)

Merriam Webster: Amillennialism

noun​

amil·len·ni·al·ism
¦ā-

plural-s
: the denial that an earthly millennium of universal righteousness and peace will either precede or follow the second advent of Jesus Christ

This is rich coming from you. The person who calls me a preterist just because I agree with their interpretation of one passage in the Olivet Discourse is complaining about being lumped in with Reformed Eschatology because of sharing their understanding of the timing of the thousand years. LOL. Keep the laughs coming, buddy.

 

[Truth7t7]

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

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

The Olivet discourse and its interpretation defines who is a "Futurist" "Partial Preterist" "Full Preterist"

You can deny your a "Partial Preterist" all you want, that's what your beliefs define you as

The "Partial Preterist" believes Matthew 24:15 and Matthew 24:21 have been fulfilled

The "Futurist" believes they are future events unfulfilled

You also deny a future literal human Man as being fulfillment of (Daniels) Little Horn, (Pauls) Man Of Sin, (Johns) The Beast

You also deny that the (Two Witnesses) seen in Revelation chapter 11 will be future literal prophets returned, that have literal physical bodies that die, and lay dead in a literal Jerusalem street, as a literal world watches in celebration of their deaths as scripture clearly teaches

The link below from the very preterist website may help you understand you beliefs

Preterist Archives

 

[Davidpt]

See post #411, there is no contradiction with amil here, if your not truly saved you never reign

IOW, when someone is intitially saved they are never actually given the opportunity to be saved to begin with if they were to fall away later? IOW, believing on and accepting Christ as their Lord does not equal salvation in some cases, say 20 years later this same person falls away for whatever reason. Therefore, when they initially came to Christ on bended knees, Christ never accepted them to begin with if later on they were to fall away? That it is impossible that once saved initally that that one can fall away?

Prove you point per the following then.

Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;


Be very clear so no one misunderstands you---what does this equal-- and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree?

What then does this equal if this were to happen to someone after verse 17 was applied to them---For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee---but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

What does verse 17 mean? Does it mean one is saved? Or does it mean one was never saved?

What does this mean if verse 17 means that one is saved if the following happens to someone after verse 17 was applied to them initially ---if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off?

In light of verse 17 having to precede verse 22, and if one is cut off for whatever reason, does that equal they were initially saved then lost their salvation when they were cut off, thus NOSAS?

Or does it equal they were never saved to begin with? Be careful though, don't contradict what you take verse 17 to mean. Some of us not stupid, you know. We recognize a contradiction when we see one. So don't play games with the texts involved.

Or does it mean they continue to remain to be saved regardless they are cut off, thus OSAS?

 

[Truth7t7]

This is rich coming from you. The person who calls me a preterist just because I agree with their interpretation of one passage in the Olivet Discourse is complaining about being lumped in with Reformed Eschatology because of sharing their understanding of the timing of the thousand years. LOL. Keep the laughs coming, buddy.

Denying a future Millennium on this earth after the second coming represents the word Amillennialism, any belief or teaching "Added" would be a private or denominational interpretation

Many on this site attach these added private/denominational interpretations as defining the Amillennialist "Wrong"

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Olivet discourse and its interpretation defines who is a "Futurist" "Partial Preterist" "Full Preterist"

You can deny your a "Partial Preterist" all you want, that's what your beliefs define you as

No, they do not, buddy. Not any more than your agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons that Jesus died and was resurrected makes you one of them. Grow up already.

The "Partial Preterist" believes Matthew 24:15 and Matthew 24:21 have been fulfilled

The partial preterist believes that Jesus died and rose again and so do you. So, you too are a partial preterist! Congrats!

The "Futurist" believes they are future events unfulfilled

I am neither a preterist nor a futurist. Your attempt to lump everyone into only two groups shows how ignorant you are about what others believe.

You also deny a future literal human Man as being fulfillment of (Daniels) Little Horn, (Pauls) Man Of Sin, (Johns) The Beast

So do historicists. So, am I historicist or am I a preterist? Also, not all who see the man of sin and the beast as a future entity believe that it refers to an individual Antichrist. Your attempts to lump everyone who believes in a certain thing into the same group is embarrassing. Your level of ignorance is stunning.

You also deny that the (Two Witnesses) seen in Revelation chapter 11 will be future literal prophets returned, that have literal physical bodies that die, and lay dead in a literal Jerusalem street as a literal world watches in celebration of their deaths as scripture clearly teaches

So do many futurists. So, that doesn't make me a preterist, either.

The link below from the very preterist website may help you understand you beliefs

I'm not reading that. I have no interest in it since I'm not a preterist. Did you look at it? If so, does it say that everyone who interprets that denies a future Antichrist is a preterist? Does it say that everyone who denies that the two witnesses are two future literal prophets is a preterist? Does it say that everyone who believes that Matthew 24:15-21 is fulfilled is a preterist? I highly doubt it.

 

[Truth7t7]

IOW, when someone is intitially saved they are never actually given the opportunity to be saved to begin with if they were to fall away later? IOW, believing on and accepting Christ as their Lord does not equal salvation in some cases, say 20 years later this same person falls away for whatever reason. Therefore, when they initially came to Christ on bended knees, Christ never accepted them to begin with if later on they were to fall away? That it is impossible that once saved initally that that one can fall away?

Prove you point per the following then.

Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;


Be very clear so no one misunderstands you---what does this equal-- and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree?

What then does this equal if this were to happen to someone after verse 17 was applied to them---For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee---but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

What does verse 17 mean? Does it mean one is saved? Or does it mean one was never saved?

What does this mean if verse 17 means that one is saved if the following happens to someone after verse 17 was applied to them initially ---if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off?

In light of verse 17 having to precede verse 22, and if one is cut off for whatever reason, does that equal they were initially saved then lost their salvation when they were cut off, thus NOSAS?

Or does it equal they were never saved to begin with? Be careful though, don't contradict what you take verse 17 to mean. Some of us not stupid, you know. We recognize a contradiction when we see one. So don't play games with the texts involved.

Or does it mean they continue to remain to be saved regardless they are cut off, thus OSAS?

You disregard reading the context of the chapter "Why"?

God is speaking of the "Elect" Jew who will be saved and added to the church on this earth, those whom he "Foreknew", as you have disregarded the very clear scripture presented to you regarding "Predestination"

Ro.ans 11:1-8KJV
1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Denying a future Millennium on this earth after the second coming represents the word Amillennialism, any belief or teaching "Added" would be a private or denominational interpretation

Many on this site attach these added private/denominational interpretations as defining the Amillennialist "Wrong"

You create a definition of preterism that no one else shares with you, so why should I care about a definition of the word that you alone have in your own imagination and personal dictionary? I don't, that's for sure. How about getting back on topic instead of trying to derail the thread, buddy? Are you mature enough to do that or not? This thread is not about preterism.

 

[Truth7t7]

No, they do not, buddy. Not any more than your agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons that Jesus died and was resurrected makes you one of them. Grow up already.


The partial preterist believes that Jesus died and rose again and so do you. So, you too are a partial preterist! Congrats!


I am neither a preterist nor a futurist. Your attempt to lump everyone into only two groups shows how ignorant you are about what others believe.


So do historicists. So, am I historicist or am I a preterist? Also, not all who see the man of sin and the beast as a future entity believe that it refers to an individual Antichrist. Your attempts to lump everyone who believes in a certain thing into the same group is embarrassing. Your level of ignorance is stunning.


So do many futurists. So, that doesn't make me a preterist, either.


I'm not reading that. I have no interest in it since I'm not a preterist. Did you look at it? If so, does it say that everyone who interprets that denies a future Antichrist is a preterist? Does it say that everyone who denies that the two witnesses are two future literal prophets is a preterist? Does it say that everyone who believes that Matthew 24:15-21 is fulfilled is a preterist? I highly doubt it.

Your living in denial and creating distraction in running away from presented truth, your a "Partial Preterist" and hold to their beliefs and teachings

Yes Matthew Chapter 24 and the Olivet discourse is the defining test, as you believe in 70AD Jerusalem as fulfillment, simple, clear, as my observation over the years of posting with you

Spiritual Israelite, "Partial Preterist"

Truth7t7, "Futurist"

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your living in denial and creating distraction in running away from presented truth, your a "Partial Preterist" and hold to their beliefs and teachings

Yes Matthew Chapter 24 and the Olivet discourse is the defining test, as you believe in 70AD Jerusalem as fulfillment, simple, clear, as my observation over the years of posting with you

Spiritual Israelite, "Partial Preterist"

Truth7t7, "Futurist"

I wish this forum had a policy of not allowing children to post on it.

 

[Truth7t7]

You create a definition of preterism that no one else shares with you, so why should I care about a definition of the word that you alone have in your own imagination and personal dictionary? I don't, that's for sure. How about getting back on topic instead of trying to derail the thread, buddy? Are you mature enough to do that or not? This thread is not about preterism.

Your claims are false as you run away in distraction

The definition of a preterist/futurist is found in the Interpretation of Matthew Chapter 24 in the Olivet Discourse, this is a established fact in theological biblical studies

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your claims are false as you run away in distraction

The definition of a preterist/futurist is found in the Interpretation of Matthew Chapter 24 in the Olivet Discourse, this is a established fact in theological biblical studies

Show me even one source that defines preterism as you do. Just one. Any person, website, whatever. Anything. Good luck.

 

[Truth7t7]

Show me even one source that defines preterism as you do. Just one. Any person, website, whatever. Anything. Good luck.

Preterism teaches that many prophecies in Matthew 24 were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including the coming of Christ in judgment and the end of the Jewish age. Partial preterism holds that some events (like the Second Coming) remain future, while full preterism claims all prophecy, including the Second Coming, was fulfilled by AD 70.
The Gospel Coalition experimentaltheology.blogspot.com

Overview of Preterism​

Preterism is an interpretive approach to biblical prophecy that asserts many prophecies, particularly those in the New Testament, were fulfilled in the first century AD. This view is primarily based on the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Types of Preterism​

Type	Description
Partial Preterism	Believes that many prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70, but some, like the Second Coming, are still future.
Full Preterism	Claims that all biblical prophecies, including the Second Coming and the resurrection, were fulfilled by AD 70.

Matthew 24 and Its Fulfillment​

Matthew 24 contains Jesus' Olivet Discourse, where He predicts the destruction of the temple and the coming judgment on Jerusalem. Preterists interpret this chapter as a prophecy that was fulfilled in AD 70.

Key Fulfilled Prophecies in Matthew 24​

• Destruction of the Temple: Jesus foretold that not one stone would be left on another, which occurred during the Roman siege of Jerusalem.
• Coming in Judgment: Preterists argue that Jesus' coming in judgment refers to His presence in the events of AD 70, marking the end of the Jewish age.
• Signs of the End: The signs described in Matthew 24:4-35 are seen as events that occurred leading up to the fall of Jerusalem.

Interpretative Challenges​

While preterists assert that these prophecies were fulfilled, many evangelical Christians maintain that some aspects, particularly the Second Coming, remain unfulfilled. They argue that the language used by Jesus indicates a future event rather than a past occurrence.
In summary, preterism posits that significant prophecies in Matthew 24 were realized with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, with partial preterism allowing for some future fulfillments.
The Gospel Coalition learn.ligonier.org

 

[Marty fox]

IOW, when someone is intitially saved they are never actually given the opportunity to be saved to begin with if they were to fall away later? IOW, believing on and accepting Christ as their Lord does not equal salvation in some cases, say 20 years later this same person falls away for whatever reason. Therefore, when they initially came to Christ on bended knees, Christ never accepted them to begin with if later on they were to fall away? That it is impossible that once saved initally that that one can fall away?

Prove you point per the following then.

Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;


Be very clear so no one misunderstands you---what does this equal-- and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree?

What then does this equal if this were to happen to someone after verse 17 was applied to them---For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee---but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

What does verse 17 mean? Does it mean one is saved? Or does it mean one was never saved?

What does this mean if verse 17 means that one is saved if the following happens to someone after verse 17 was applied to them initially ---if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off?

In light of verse 17 having to precede verse 22, and if one is cut off for whatever reason, does that equal they were initially saved then lost their salvation when they were cut off, thus NOSAS?

Or does it equal they were never saved to begin with? Be careful though, don't contradict what you take verse 17 to mean. Some of us not stupid, you know. We recognize a contradiction when we see one. So don't play games with the texts involved.

Or does it mean they continue to remain to be saved regardless they are cut off, thus OSAS?

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

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

I already quoted the verse that proves it

1 John 2
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.