The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[ewq1938]

Please read Genesis chapter 18 and chapter 32:22-32 and you will see two times that Jesus came down to the earth before the first advent

Doesn't mtter if those times were Jesus or not. The first advent is the first, and there is only one more according to the bible.

 

[Marty fox]

Doesn't mtter if those times were Jesus or not. The first advent is the first, and there is only one more according to the bible.

You’re so frustrating every time i show you wrong scripturely you change the rules. You shouldn’t be debating you don’t play by the rules

It was you who said a coming is when Jesus came down from heaven to the earth and I showed twice that He did before He was born and then you say it doesn’t matter and then change from a coming to the first advent? That isn’t fair to any who debates with you and exposes your pride.

Thats okay it’s the scriptures that are the authority.

 

[ewq1938]

You’re so frustrating every time i show you wrong scripturely you change the rules. You shouldn’t be debating you don’t play by the rules

The amount of advents/comings is set by the bible not me. He came when he was born, and scripture speaks of the next one as "the second time". Your frustration is with those.

It was you who said a coming is when Jesus came down from heaven to the earth and I showed twice that He did before He was born and then you say it doesn’t matter and then change from a coming to the first advent? That isn’t fair to any who debates with you and exposes your pride.

Thats okay it’s the scriptures that are the authority.

Doesn't seem to matter as I have referenced how the bible lists Christ's comings/advents as two only. Amill and Pretrib have more than 2.

 

[PeterAndroz]

You’re so frustrating every time i show you wrong scripturely you change the rules. You shouldn’t be debating you don’t play by the rules

It was you who said a coming is when Jesus came down from heaven to the earth and I showed twice that He did before He was born and then you say it doesn’t matter and then change from a coming to the first advent? That isn’t fair to any who debates with you and exposes your pride.

Thats okay it’s the scriptures that are the authority.

Hey MF, I see your point and EQ's
Christophanies for you are the first Christ coming from Heaven to Earth
Where Jesus born of Mary is the first Christ coming from Heaven to Earth event for EQ.
For me, the prophesized Jesus is I believe the first coming.
You probably disagree but that does not mean we don't agree on other topics .

 

[ewq1938]

Hey MF, I see your point and EQ's
Christophanies for you are the first Christ coming from Heaven to Earth

The issue is more that Amill has at least one coming inbetween the first and second coming, as does Pretrib, and the bible does not support this.

 

[PeterAndroz]

The issue is more that Amill has at least one coming inbetween the first and second coming, as does Pretrib, and the bible does not support this.

Currently I'm pretrib, premil yet always willing to politely engage with those who differ.
Taking the mark = go to lake of fire.
Do you believe that also applies to a Eph 4:30 sealed unto redemption believer that takes the 'mark' ?

 

[Marty fox]

The amount of advents/comings is set by the bible not me. He came when he was born, and scripture speaks of the next one as "the second time". Your frustration is with those.




Doesn't seem to matter as I have referenced how the bible lists Christ's comings/advents as two only. Amill and Pretrib have more than 2.

No that’s not true who walked with Adam in the garden?

The bible shows many times that God came to the earth so there can be many comings even in judgements

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hey Si, it's easy to sometime miss points, happens a lot to me too.
>>>>""I believe Matthew 24:15-21 relates to what occurred in 70 AD""

Matt 24:21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Do you believe the 70AD levelling of Jerusalem is a greater tribulation event than :-

View attachment 85677
Or the 1931 China floods :-
View attachment 85678

Jesus was not talking about the greatest tribulation of all-time in terms of one that would kill the most people. Read the text. He said it would be unlike any other great tribulation.

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

What do you think "such as has not been" means? How does that phrase have anything to do with the scope of something in terms of how many people would be killed? It doesn't. That phrase indicates that Jesus was talking about a certain event that would be unlike any other event that had over occurred or would ever occur again afterwards. And that is true about what happened in 70 AD.

Never before or since has a city that was so central to religion, God's people and their place of worship utterly destroyed like Jerusalem was in 70 AD. It even included the destruction of it's most prized religious structure, the second temple, which was the place where God came to meet them and the place where animal sacrifices and offerings were performed. Following the old covenant law of Moses depended on the existence of the second temple. Not only was their city destroyed, but, essentially, so was theri religion. Nothing like that had ever occurred before or since.

Also, the kind of atrocities that occurred within Jerusalem was unprecedented to that extent within any city before. Flavius Josephus wrote about famine, civil war, mass executions, and cannibalism during the siege of Jerusalem. Such as has not been since the beginning of the world or will ever be again in any other city. The entire city was affected by all of the destruction and abominable behavior. Most of the people were killed and the rest were taken captive. It was unlike any other event in the history of the world, which matches what Jesus describes in Matthew 24:21.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Some posts I haven't even read yet let alone able to address them. These days I have other things on my mind sometimes. For one, I'm worried about my wife. Then I come here with the stress of that already having to deal with, then trying to focus on everything in here at the same time. I'm not young anymore. I don't have the same kind of focus I did when I was younger. Plus I'm literally dizzy all of time, might be diabetes but I haven't consulted a dr to find out. So I come here to try and get away from a few things only to find this place more stressful that what I'm trying to get away from for a bit every once awhile. Some of us have real problems in life. I don't have a good and easy life like some of you appear to likely have.

I have a ton of stress in my personal life, so this has nothing to do with that. If you don't have time to follow through on these discussions, then just let us know so that we can know not to respond to all of your points while expecting you to do the same. If we know in advance that you are not planning to address most of our points because of not having the time, then we can know it might not be worth our time to address all of yours.

My wife is more important to me than winning or losing any debates. My wife is not sick or anything, but she just turned 84 in April and I don't know how much more time she has left. I'm younger than her. I married a woman 15 years older than me when I was 25. But I don't expect anyone to have any real empathy for someone like me who can't even see some Scriptures the way they tend to see them. That alone apparently already makes me a foe.

This is not some kind of competition to see whose life is the most stressful. You probably would not even believe all of the stressful things I have going on in my life, but this isn't about that.

And as far as @Marty fox goes, he was never complaining about the manner I address posts, he was complaining that I wasn't addressing his posts. And if what I said to him was rude, it should be equally rude to tell someone to be sure to take off their Amil or Premil glasses first. Since that was basically the sense I was applying this in. Don't blame me. I learned stuff like that from you all and others since I observed people saying things like that to each other while they were debating. But when I say things similar, it equals being rude in my case.

Unless one is thick skinned, maybe they shouldn't be posting in here to begin with?

What was all that stuff you were talking to me about earlier then? I thought you were talking about being more respectful towards each other and such? That's not what you were saying? If so, what were you talking about? You'd prefer that we be rude to each other?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I understand. Focus on your wife. That is more important.

It is frustrating that you make big detailed attacks on Amil and then disappear. Why do that? Just watch on. People take good time to respond in detail to you and you just ignore. You are wasting their time.

Right. That is my issue as well. I'm completely fine with it if he doesn't have time to respond to us, because other things are more important, but it would be better for him not to make long, detailed posts if he doesn't have time to follow up to the responses he gets to them.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The issue is more that Amill has at least one coming inbetween the first and second coming, as does Pretrib, and the bible does not support this.

Please don't confuse people who are not aware of what others believe. You are only talking about partial preterist amills here, not all preterists. Many amills, like me, do not believe that Jesus came in 70 AD in any way, shape or form.

 

[Marty fox]

Some posts I haven't even read yet let alone able to address them. These days I have other things on my mind sometimes. For one, I'm worried about my wife. Then I come here with the stress of that already having to deal with, then trying to focus on everything in here at the same time. I'm not young anymore. I don't have the same kind of focus I did when I was younger. Plus I'm literally dizzy all of time, might be diabetes but I haven't consulted a dr to find out. So I come here to try and get away from a few things only to find this place more stressful that what I'm trying to get away from for a bit every once awhile. Some of us have real problems in life. I don't have a good and easy life like some of you appear to likely have.

My wife is more important to me than winning or losing any debates. My wife is not sick or anything, but she just turned 84 in April and I don't know how much more time she has left. I'm younger than her. I married a woman 15 years older than me when I was 25. But I don't expect anyone to have any real empathy for someone like me who can't even see some Scriptures the way they tend to see them. That alone apparently already makes me a foe.

And as far as @Marty fox goes, he was never complaining about the manner I address posts, he was complaining that I wasn't addressing his posts. And if what I said to him was rude, it should be equally rude to tell someone to be sure to take off their Amil or Premil glasses first. Since that was basically the sense I was applying this in. Don't blame me. I learned stuff like that from you all and others since I observed people saying things like that to each other while they were debating. But when I say things similar, it equals being rude in my case.

Unless one is thick skinned, maybe they shouldn't be posting in here to begin with?

I am sorry to hear about your wife and your troubles Dave, I'm in the same boat as you as my wife is going through breast cancer for the second time in three years, for the second time her beautiful hair is gone. Her outlook looks okay but its been a couple of rough roads but through this all God has been good so I know what you mean about coming to escape a stressful life.

So yes we get frustrated and vent at times as we are still human, but I don't recall ever saying "take off their Amil or Premil glasses first.". Was that me?

 

[Marty fox]

Hey MF, I see your point and EQ's
Christophanies for you are the first Christ coming from Heaven to Earth
Where Jesus born of Mary is the first Christ coming from Heaven to Earth event for EQ.
For me, the prophesized Jesus is I believe the first coming.
You probably disagree but that does not mean we don't agree on other topics .

I was only posting of the description that EQ used as a coming, he said Jesus coming from heaven to the earth and the bible shows multiple times in the old testament that Jesus came from the heaven to the earth.

I don't understand why people focus on just two coming when the bible shows way more.

Yes there are two main coming when Jesus leaves heaven I'm no disputing that

 

[rwb]

When considering "great tribulation" not since the beginning of the world to that particular time, how can 70 AD qualify, since it did not destroy all but eight human souls as the world wide flood in the days of Noah had? How can it be said "as was not since the beginning of the world to this time" since history shows us the first temple and city were destroyed in similar manner as they were in 70 AD?

Matthew 24:21 (KJV) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

We find evidence of "great tribulation" coming against the church because false prophesy that led away the servants of Christ was allowed to be taught in the church. This is doctrine originating from the depths of Satan and unless the church repents will bring "great tribulation" upon the church.

Revelation 2:21-29 (KJV) And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

John was shown a vision of "all nations, kindreds, people and tongues" calling them a great innumerable multitude no man could number. The angel tells John "these are they which came out of great tribulation" having washed and been made white through the blood of the Lamb. This too suggests the second destruction of the city and temple in 70 AD does NOT fit.

Revelation 7:9-10 (KJV) After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Revelation 7:13-15 (KJV) And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

At the Olivet Discourse Christ, speaking to His disciples, (the first Jewish Christians of "great tribulation" they should expect, as well as all who follow after Christ through them) warns them that they and we will understand that as the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is proclaimed through Jesus Christ in this world, faithful CHRISTIANS should not be surprised by "great tribulation" that is certain to follow.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I was only posting of the description that EQ used as a coming, he said Jesus coming from heaven to the earth and the bible shows multiple times in the old testament that Jesus came from the heaven to the earth.

I don't understand why people focus on just two coming when the bible shows way more.

Because there are only two bodily comings of Christ. The first one is obvious and happened long ago. The second one is "the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13) when He will come in like manner as He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11). In a sense you could say He comes to each of us spiritually when He comes to dwell in us, but, as you know, I highly disagree with the idea that He came in 70 AD and so do many others.

 

[Marty fox]

When considering "great tribulation" not since the beginning of the world to that particular time, how can 70 AD qualify, since it did not destroy all but eight human souls as the world wide flood in the days of Noah had? How can it be said "as was not since the beginning of the world to this time" since history shows us the first temple and city were destroyed in similar manner as they were in 70 AD?

Matthew 24:21 (KJV) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

We find evidence of "great tribulation" coming against the church because false prophesy that led away the servants of Christ was allowed to be taught in the church. This is doctrine originating from the depths of Satan and unless the church repents will bring "great tribulation" upon the church.

Revelation 2:21-29 (KJV) And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

John was shown a vision of "all nations, kindreds, people and tongues" calling them a great innumerable multitude no man could number. The angel tells John "these are they which came out of great tribulation" having washed and been made white through the blood of the Lamb. This too suggests the second destruction of the city and temple in 70 AD does NOT fit.

Revelation 7:9-10 (KJV) After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Revelation 7:13-15 (KJV) And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

At the Olivet Discourse Christ, speaking to His disciples, (the first Jewish Christians of "great tribulation" they should expect, as well as all who follow after Christ through them) warns them that they and we will understand that as the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is proclaimed through Jesus Christ in this world, faithful CHRISTIANS should not be surprised by "great tribulation" that is certain to follow.

Well Jesus was talking about the temple destruction in Mathew 24 and the persecution on the church started before the temple was destroyed as we see in the book of Acts.

I agree that "the great tribulation" is on the church, but Jesus was just talking about "a great tribulation" in Mathew 24. There are many great tribulations but only one "the great tribulation".

We see the great tribulation on the church actually mentioned in verse 9 not verse 21.

The destruction on temple because the greatest tribulation for Jews (who the book of Mathew was written for) was because they lost their temple forever, they were no longer Gods peopel

 

[Marty fox]

Because there are only two bodily comings of Christ. The first one is obvious and happened long ago. The second one is "the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13) when He will come in like manner as He ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11). In a sense you could say He comes to each of us spiritually when He comes to dwell in us, but, as you know, I highly disagree with the idea that He came in 70 AD and so do many others.

Yes and I agree there are two main comings, but I was using EQ's own example of a coming against him. He then changed his own rules without mentioning that he was mistaken.

He said that its when Jesus came from heaven to the earth, I then showed him from the scriptures that Jesus ascended to His Father after His resurrection and then came back down to the earth before ascended again back up to heaven as mentioned in Acts chapter 1

My point is that Jesus has come multiple times in the OT in EQ's view, so why not also coming in judgement?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

When considering "great tribulation" not since the beginning of the world to that particular time, how can 70 AD qualify, since it did not destroy all but eight human souls as the world wide flood in the days of Noah had?

Read my post #488.

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Do you think "such as has not been" means "of as great of a scope has not been"? That's not what it says. How could any event be greater in scope than the flood in Noah's day that killed all but 8 people on the earth? That's not reasonably possible. So, I don't see how the verse could be understood in that sense.

How can it be said "as was not since the beginning of the world to this time" since history shows us the first temple and city were destroyed in similar manner as they were in 70 AD?

In the case of the city and temple being destroyed the first time, the first temple ended up being rebuilt and the city ended up being restored. In this case, it was permanent destruction in terms of the Jews having a temple in Jerusalem and their former way of life and their religion of Judaism up to that point. That was all destroyed forever with no hope of restoration at that point, so the events differed in that way. Also, the type of things that occurred in the 70 AD event were unique from the other event as they involved mass starvation, mass crucifixions, civil war within the city and cannibalism. It was more extreme in some ways than the event related to the first temple. And, again, it involved the complete ending of the religious way of life of the Jews because of the destruction of the second temple. We know that there was no chance of there being a rebuilt temple after that because the new covenant has already been ushered in by the blood of Christ. So, there were a number of differences between the two events beyond the similarities of the city and the temple being destroyed in each case. That qualifies the 70 AD event as being "such as has not been" before that or after it.

Matthew 24:21 (KJV) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

We find evidence of "great tribulation" coming against the church because false prophesy that led away the servants of Christ was allowed to be taught in the church. This is doctrine originating from the depths of Satan and unless the church repents will bring "great tribulation" upon the church.

So, how are you defining great tribulation in that verse? As persecution against the church or as God's wrath upon the church? Or both? There has been great persecution against the church for a long time already.

Revelation 2:21-29 (KJV) And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

And this passage proves what I just said. This is referring to the people within a church that existed in the first century and Jesus is talking about them experiencing great tribulation if they didn't repent. This has nothing to do with what Matthew 24:21 is talking about.

John was shown a vision of "all nations, kindreds, people and tongues" calling them a great innumerable multitude no man could number. The angel tells John "these are they which came out of great tribulation" having washed and been made white through the blood of the Lamb. This too suggests the second destruction of the city and temple in 70 AD does NOT fit.

That's talking about persecution. You're apparently trying to make Matthew 24:21 about both persecution of believers and God's wrath against unbelievers, but the parallel passage of Luke 21:20-24 describes it as "wrath". So, that verse is talking about God's wrath, not persecution and martyrdom.

 

[ewq1938]

Currently I'm pretrib, premil yet always willing to politely engage with those who differ.
Taking the mark = go to lake of fire.
Do you believe that also applies to a Eph 4:30 sealed unto redemption believer that takes the 'mark' ?

Possibly. I know blasphemy of the HS is unforgiveable, but unsure if the mark is as well. Best to refuse it :)

 

[rwb]

Well Jesus was talking about the temple destruction in Mathew 24 and the persecution on the church started before the temple was destroyed as we see in the book of Acts.

I agree that "the great tribulation" is on the church, but Jesus was just talking about "a great tribulation" in Mathew 24. There are many great tribulations but only one "the great tribulation".

We see the great tribulation on the church actually mentioned in verse 9 not verse 21.

The destruction on temple because the greatest tribulation for Jews (who the book of Mathew was written for) was because they lost their temple forever, they were no longer Gods peopel

The Bible does NOT indicate "A" or "THE" great tribulation. Strong's Concordance confirms this. Nowhere in the Bible can you find (KJV) a or the great tribulation. Why? I believe it's because "great tribulation" is NOT limited to any single event or period throughout history. But is what the church on earth is called to endure throughout all ages, especially as the time of Christ' coming again grows nearer.

The Olivet Discourse was not spoken for ethnic Jews, warning the nation of Israel what shall soon befall them through apostasy. The Discourse is spoken to the first disciples of Christ, who at that time were, Messianic or Christian Jews. Christ is warning Christians, beginning with them, as well as all faithful Christians throughout the ages until the end of the final age about all that shall befall the church as faithful disciples preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ.

The destruction of the Jewish city and temple was not the primary focus of the Discourse. That's why when they ask Christ about the destruction, He only says it will be utterly destroyed, therefore, their focus needs to be on building the spiritual Kingdom of God as they proclaim the Gospel of Christ, understanding that as they remain faithful to Him, they shall be called to endure "great tribulation" such has never before been and shall never be again. Faithful saints are to remain faithful even unto death, for our lot in this life is great tribulation, persecution, trials and much affliction with suffering.