The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Truth7t7]

Had to delete this post. I thought I was responding to someone else for some reason.

Lol

 

[Davidpt]

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.

You act as if no one has ever said to someone else before, for example, you are playing gymnastics with scripture and that you shouldn't do that. Or, maybe you should take your Amil glasses off or your Premil glasses off first, then try looking at these same Scriptures again. I don't recall anyone ever getting bent out of shape just because that was someone's opinion of what they were doing. Most ppl with a sense of humor of any kind tend to laugh things like that off, not get raging mad about it instead. You need to lighten up and not be so thin skinned if you want to participate in these discussions.

 

[Truth7t7]

I just don't understand this guy. It's very hard to believe that he was being sincere when only one day later (or only hours later?) he continued being rude to you.

Sorta sounds like the guy wishing the board wouldnt let children post on the board, sounds like, pot, kettle, black, Lol

 

[Truth7t7]

That is not what I believe. I do not fit this definition of preterism. Not even close. So, if you call me a preterist one more time then you will go on my ignore list permanently. I currently have a grand total of zero people on the list, but I'm not going to deal with a child falsely accusing me of being something I'm not over and over again.


My beliefs do not fit either of those definitions. I'd hardly call seeing Matthew 24:15-21 (and none of the rest of the Olivet Discourse) as being fulfilled in AD 70 "many prophecies".


All full preterists and many partial preterists interpret the entire chapter that way or, at least Matthew 24:4-34. I do not.


For crying out loud, Jesus specifically said the temple would be destroyed. And it was. Whatever. Many non-preterists believe that because it's exactly what happened. Hello?


I don't argue that. I argue strongly against it.


I believe only 7 of those verses and none of the rest of Matthew 24 and 25 relate to that event. That doesn't make me a preterist.


When this says "these prophecies", it's talking about the entire, or at least most of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled. I do not assert that.


Did you even read what you posted here? My view does not fit the definition of preterism as described in what you posted which makes clear that preterists believe that most or all of the Olivet Discourse is fulfilled and I do not. So, I'm not a preterist according to their definition or anyone else's definition except for yours.

1. How do you see fulfillment of Matthew 24:15?

2. How do you see fulfillment of Matthew 24:21?

 

[Davidpt]

Lol

For some reason I thought I was responding to @Spiritual Israelite and a post he had addressed to me. But then turned out I was responding to you instead. One of those days, I guess. The point being, I agree with @Spiritual Israelite reading of Romans 11 but I'm not certain i agree with your reading of it throughout.

 

[Davidpt]

I just don't understand this guy. It's very hard to believe that he was being sincere when only one day later (or only hours later?) he continued being rude to you.


And he implied that you and all Amils, including me, are intellectually dishonest and deceitful.

Where did I ever tell Marty to begin with that I was going to do those things? The context had to do with me not addressing his posts period, per his perspective, and not the manner in which I address something in general. I told him I would try to do better in regards to addressing his arguments as opposed to not addressing them. I never said one thing one way or the other about what you are talking about here.

As to the intellectually honest challenge, that was for all of us including me. That we should agree to be intellectually honest regardless of our doctrines by answering some simple basic questions concerning Rev 3:21. For example, did Jesus say He would grant both non overcomers and overcomers to sit in His throne with Him? Or did He only say He would grant overcomers that privilege? What then does it equal if one is initially saved then falls away at some point? An overcomer or the exact opposite? The idea is to try and determine the intended meaning of Revelation 3:21, especially in regard to when it is meaning. Obviously, nothing else has been working so I came up with this idea, that maybe it might work.

 

[Truth7t7]

For some reason I thought I was responding to @Spiritual Israelite and a post he had addressed to me. But then turned out I was responding to you instead. One of those days, I guess. The point being, I agree with @Spiritual Israelite reading of Romans 11 but I'm not certain i agree with your reading of it throughout.

By all means respond to my very clear post #430 concerning Romans 11