The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Marty fox]

You continue to not understand what he is saying. He is not saying that Jerusalem was still the holy city or that the physical temple was still holy at that time. He is saying that they were destroyed because of foolishly thinking that it was still the holy city and that the temple was still holy despite Jesus telling them that their temple was rendered to them desolate around 40 years prior (Matthew 23:37-38). They foolishly kept themselves under the curse of the old covenant law rather than embracing Jesus Christ and the new covenant established by His blood. So, God took His wrath out on them as a result and even made it so that the ones who survived literally could not continue foolishly performing old covenant sacrifices at the temple any longer since it obviously was destroyed.


Do you actually think that Marty is claiming this? He is not. You're making a strawman argument here. Please try to read what he's saying more carefully.

Yes they are listening with closed ears not even trying to understand what I,m saying it’s a waste of time

 

[Marty fox]

Do you really believe that Marty? The Old Covenant served a specific purpose; the Law was their tutor to drive them to Christ long before He came. Do you really believe the literal city, and temple would have remained standing to be thought the holy city and temple after Christ, the True Temple ushered in Jerusalem from above the True Holy City of God? How would that have worked, since it had never worked before?

It wasn't in keeping the Law that Jews of Old were eternally saved. It was keeping the Law while believing in the promised Messiah who was ordained to come to be the Savior. Keeping the Law apart from faith saved no one.

70 AD is insignificant! It just happens to be when the literal destruction happened. What is significant is that the Old was from the beginning of creation ordained to pass away once Christ came. God does not share His glory with anyone or anything! That's why Scripture tells us that Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Not because the Jews rejected God, choosing to cling to the Old rather than embracing Him. NO, it is because MANKIND rejected God from the beginning of creation. The temporary Old was always destined to be done away, not because there was something wrong with the Law, but because the Law could not take away man's sin, it could only clean them outwardly.

No that’s not what I’m saying or believe at all

I didn’t say any of that

Why did Jesus say the city would be destroyed below?

Luke 19
41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

 

[Marty fox]

Yep, you shall see. :-)



Why not? Jealous for some attention?



Why should I? I can do whatever I want with my post. I decided to use it as a response to RWB to correct your interpretation. Got your attention? Looks like it worked.



Because it is. I can clearly see that Marty and your so-called "40 years probation" as the reason is absurd.



First, nothing in the Scripture that teaches the 70 AD was the wrath of God or anything like that. You got the timing wrong anyway as you shall see.



Ahh, let see...



Ahem...looks like a time to correct your interpretation because you did not listen well in the past.

While the parable in Matthew 22 talks about armies, it's quite obvious that they are NOT literal/physical armies of Earthly kingdom anymore than Revelation talks about physical armies, horsemen, or cities being destroyed. And people who think so follow the same carnal logic to come to those conclusions. Joel 2 talks about the Lord's army that he sent among the children of Zion, and talks about their restoration as through Calvary. This of course all taking place before and at the cross. Not your precious 70A.D.

Joel 2:28

• "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:"

This "afterward" is the aftermath of the destruction caused by the King's army, which of course clearly speaks of the restoration of the congregation of God in the New Testament through the cross of Christ. It has NOTHING to do with your Roman armies of 70 A.D., but of fulfillment in Christ. Selah! As it is written:

Acts 2:16-17

• "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
• And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:"

As we've been saying all along, there is the fulfillment of the destruction of the city, the people fallen, and its restoration in Christ Jesus. The Biblical fact is, the Lord has restored the captivity, not will restore it as many teach. The restoration has already been taken place through Christ once, and for all.

Second, the parable of Matthew 22 says NOT ONE WORD about waiting until 70 A.D. to bring about the destruction of the city and people, or about a Roman army being the Lord's, or about a ruler Titus or any of the other alleged proofs some offer as support for their Physical city destruction supposition, blah, blah, blah. This, when it seems perfectly clear God is not talking about a physical city within Israel, but the whole congregation of Israel, using the holy city as the kingdom representation! They have the kingdom no more, and haven't since it was taken from them at the cross. Hello?!

Matthew 21:43

• "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

(Continue to next post)

Why did Jesus say that the city would be destroyed below?

Luke 19
41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

You keep avoiding this

 

[rwb]

Yes they are listening with closed ears not even trying to understand what I,m saying it’s a waste of time

I hear what you're saying Marty, but I wonder if you hear me? I realize trying to show a Preterit why their doctrine is built upon sand is a waste of time. But, I also see how this unbiblical doctrine is making progress, deceiving many into believing Christ was not consumed with what would become of His spiritual people; i.e. the church, because He was preoccupied with what was to come of His biological seeds of the flesh.

Why don't you explain why ALL that Christ said must come to pass within this generation's natural lifespan? Why are you focused only on the destruction in 70 AD while ignoring the FACT that your doctrine cannot be truth because not ALL that Christ said must come to pass did come to pass by then?

Preterits find literal, physical fulfillment in the destruction, but you cannot prove after the great tribulation against "this generation" the sun was darkened, the stars fell from heaven etc. etc. etc. Why can't you prove the sign of the Son of man has already literally, physically appeared, and all the tribes of the earth already mourned when they saw the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and glory? Thy typical Preterit will argue for spiritual fulfillment of these things rather than to admit their doctrine is built upon the sand. In fact the typical Preterit will continually jump from literal/physical fulfillment of all that Christ spoke when He walked the earth a man, to spiritualizing, arguing whatever cannot be physically proven MUST HAVE BEEN spiritually fulfilled. Very convenient and unbiblical way for discerning Scripture.

Matthew 24:29-34 (KJV) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

 

[rwb]

No that’s not what I’m saying or believe at all

I didn’t say any of that

Why did Jesus say the city would be destroyed below?

Luke 19
41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

Then perhaps you should explain more clearly why you appear to believe Christ was more preoccupied with what would become of the apostate nation of Israel, than He was concerned of what would come against the spiritual Kingdom of God as the Gospel of Christ is proclaimed unto all the nations of the earth?

 

[TribulationSigns]

You keep avoiding this

No, your asked BECAUSE you didn’t read careful what I wrote OR you simple do not like what you read. You need to read my quote again and again and again regard the CITY:

“Second, the parable of Matthew 22 says NOT ONE WORD about waiting until 70 A.D. to bring about the destruction of the city and people, or about a Roman army being the Lord's, or about a ruler Titus or any of the other alleged proofs some offer as support for their Physical city destruction supposition, blah, blah, blah. This, when it seems perfectly clear God is not talking about a physical city within Israel, but the whole congregation of Israel, using the holy city as the kingdom representation! They have the kingdom no more, and haven't since it was taken from them at the cross. Hello?!

Matthew 21:43

• "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

Moreover, as I said before, if the destruction was of a physical city, then obviously, rationally and logically the rebuilding would have to be of thatsame alleged physical city. It didn't! Clearly the parable illustrates the rebuilding is the New Testament congregation. Why? Because the destruction was the Old Testament congregation. (Chuckle) People like you are just not thinking clearly or using a sound hermeneutic when they inconsistently see a "literal/physical place" instead of the Lord's covenanted people represented by Jerusalem.”

That is the city Christ talked about!

Selah!

 

[TribulationSigns]

Yes they are listening with closed ears not even trying to understand what I,m saying it’s a waste of time

Actually it’s you two who are having discernment issue. Blind with carnal interpretation…just like the Jews in Christ’s day. BYE!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Now, third, after the city was destroyed, then God sent out His servants to secure wedding guests, right?

Wrong. This is a parable. You need eyes to see and ears to hear what it's saying. The parable is not giving a fixed timeline of events from beginning to end. Yes, the description of the invitation going out to the highways is given after the description of the destruction of the city, but that does not mean that we have to interpret the parable in a wooden literal sequential fashion like that.

Notice that at the beginning of the parable when the servants are initially inviting people to the wedding and it says they were not willing to come. This can be compared to what is described in Matthew 23:37-38.

Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate;

So, the above passage is what Matthew 22:3 is referring to. It's referring to when the gospel was initially preached to the Jews and they "were not willing" to accept God's offer of salvation (not all of them, of course, but most of them).

The parable progresses in time from there in relation to the Jews with other servants being sent out to invite other Jews.

Matthew 22:4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business.

Notice that at this point Jesus is saying that the wedding was ready. It was some time after this that the servants were treated spitefully and killed and then it describes their city being destroyed. So, Jesus indicated that the wedding was ready some time before His servants were treated spitefully and killed and before their city was destroyed. Notice what it says in verse 8.

Matthew 22:8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ 10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.

Notice that the time when the invitation started going out to the Gentiles is after the wedding was ready. Jesus said the wedding was ready already in verse 4. That was before the spiteful treatment of the servants and before the destruction of the city, not after. So, the gospel invitation started going to the highways before the destruction of the city, not after. Which can be seen when you actually take the time to carefully see what Jesus said in the parable instead of just making assumptions by reading it in a wooden literal sequential fashion.

Are we to then suppose that the church waited over 30 years until 70 A.D. when a "physical destruction of Jerusalem" took place before God (this King) sent His servants out to find guests? HUH?! The whole idea is inconsistent because when something is not true it generally is always inconsistent. For example, it won't fit because there is no real harmony as with God inspired truth. The biblical fact is, God sent his servants out to secure guests to the wedding WHEN He poured out His holy Spirit at Pentecost, not over 30 years after Pentecost after your precious doctrine of physical destruction in 70 A.D.

Yes, that is true in relation to the Jews and then a few years later after the gospel first went to the Jews, then it started going to the Gentiles, as is described in the book of Acts. But, the point is, that the gospel started being preached to both Jews and Gentiles after the wedding was ready and not after Jerusalem was destroyed. And that is what Jesus indicated in the parable if you actually look at what He said in the parable carefully.

Fourth, for a thousandth times, there is NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE in God's inerrant word about all stones falling being an exaggeration or a physical army knocking down physical bricks in 70 A.D., because it's speculation.

LOL! Speculation? Hardly! It's undeniable that the disciples were marveling at the temple buildings and asking Jesus to look at them, expecting Him to join them in marveling at them. Instead, He said this about those very temple buildings that they were marveling at...

Mark 13:2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

There is no indication here whatsoever that Jesus was talking about anything except for the very temple buildings and stones that the disciples were marveling at and telling Him to look at while foolishly expecting Him to also marvel at them (imagine the Creator of the heavens and the earth marveling at a building made by men - hilarious).

That's not even taking into account that the physical city Jerusalem "in 70 A.D." was no longer the Lord's Holy City that it would even qualify.

No one is claiming that. Don't waste your time on strawman arguments. You can't get that time back.

It hadn't been God's Holy City since the time of the cross when the veil was torn inside the temple.

Of course. I have said the same thing on this forum MANY times. Try to not forget who you're talking to here, buddy. You have these ready made answers for preterists who think that Jerusalem was still the holy city until 70 AD and that the old covenant ended in 70 AD and nonsense like that. That's not what I believe.

The armies that destroyed the holy city were the "people themselves" who Scripture says compassed Christ about, and who pierced his hands and feet. They stumbled over the stone and destroyed both city and sanctuary. Hello?! They are the very people, HIS OWN PEOPLE, the JEWS, who came against Jerusalem by being against Christ. They were the children of their father, the messengers who were ruled by their Spirit Satan WITHIN the congregation! The kingdom of God at that time suffered violence and was taken by force, until Satan was cast out of the kingdom, and his messengers with him, and their kingdom given to another. Christ spoiled the Kingdom by conquest and set its captives free. Not 70AD! In Revelation, it's not even a physical Kingdom in physical heaven with an army of supernatural angels around a pregnant woman floating in space with physical stars on her head. No, listen... it is the representation of the Holy city, the kingdom of heaven represented on earth, and symbolized with cryptic imagery you see in books like the book of Revelation. Get this through your thick skull first! Yes, the city was destroyed by an army alright, but not a Roman one in 70 A.D., but by Satan's messengers, the people of the Prince (Jews) who had turned against Him and had taken it by force!! This is the battle where Israel FELL, and it was realized at the cross, not after 70 A.D. PERIOD!

Revelation 12:7-10

• "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
• And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
• And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
• And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night."

Despite your lack of understanding what angels really are

LOL!!!!!!! The guy with the extremely thick skull has the gall to tell me I have a thick skull and then he precedes to once again make a fool of himself by denying the existence of spirit beings called angels. How do you imagine that anyone should take you seriously when you believe such nonsense? It's virtually impossible!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes they are listening with closed ears not even trying to understand what I,m saying it’s a waste of time

Agree. If I thought that only they were reading what we're saying, then it would definitely be a complete waste of time. They put very little effort into trying to understand what others believe, so they end up constantly misrepresenting what others believe. Then they congratulate themselves on winning debates against their strawmen. What makes it worth the time is that others who might be reading the discussion can learn something from the discussion (not anything from them, though, of course).