Zecheriah 14 is it literal or figurative what proves it

You are of course correct. Take just one verse; Zechariah 12:6 On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among sheaves. They will consume all the surrounding peoples right and left, but Jerusalem will remain intact in her place.

This does not fit with the preterist view that 2nd Temple in Jerusalem (or is it Babylon) was destroyed in AD 70 by the Roman Army.

 

When the term 'Law and the prophets' is used in the NT, it ususally means the whole ofthe OT. Our Lord's teaching was so radical, calling the poor in spirit, the meek and the hungry 'blessed' that people were asking, "Has Jesus of Nazareth done away with the Scriptures? Is His teaching something absolutely new?" He says, "No. I am the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures and I am where the OT was always pointing. These are the Scriptures which testify of Me" (John 5:39). If you are saying that all the OT dietary laws and so forth remained in force until AD 70, you will be in a complete mess when you come to Mark 7:14ff esp. v19, not to mention Acts 10:9ff; Acts 15:28f and Gal 2:11ff. All the OT sacrifices and Temple stuff was ended (as far as God was concerned), not in AD 70, but at our Lord's death when the curtain of the Temple was torn in two.

What remains is the Moral Law and it is this of which our Lord is speaking in v19 in referring to 'Commandments.' He then goes on in v21ff to show how the moral law is to be kept: not according to the letter, as the Pharisees did, but according to the Spirit.

I myself am not looking for another earthly temple in Jerusalem. I am more interested in the heavenly Jerusalem of Gal 4:26 and Rev 21 & 22. I do not see that prophesies concerning that have by any means been fulfilled.

Suppose you read it in a straightforward manner and don't inject into it your presupposition that Christ came in AD 70 for which there is not a shred of evidence. 'Every eye shall see Him' (Rev 1:7). Whose eyes? Not the Christians in Galatia, Philippi, Ephesus, Rome or Corinth who would not have found out about the fall of Jerusalem for months, if at all. No Fox News or BBC in those days. According to you, the world ended, the new heavens and earth was ushered in, and the large majority of Christians living at that time never heard about it. Crackers!

I'm not quite sure what all this has to do with Zech 14, but maybe we'll get back to that.

Steve

 

Isaiah says.....
Strong says....

What part are you not getting? Zero response to what I actually wrote. I needn't have bothered.

This is what happens when forestry is the topic and treeologists show up.

 

Test away. Make sure you have a clean slate, though, a tabula rasa, and not a borrowed slate that has been handed down to you.

Or, you can just regard my comment to KyRedneck as a semi-private aside to a friend. I don't expect you to properly appreciate this point. I don't mean that in a mean way, just stating a fact.

 

Why do I even bother typing out Scripture for you, if you are just going to ignore it.

Once again:

"The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. 2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: "I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against Me;" Isaiah 1:1-2

Now, is God speaking to all of the Earth here? Is He speaking to the heavens? No. He is speaking to Israel; according to context, to "Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah".

Do you really, really think that God is speaking to the physical heavens and earth?

Did all the denizens of the Earth rebel against their divine upbringing and nourishment - or just Israel?

 

I was going back to the original language - the Covenant language of God and His inspired prophet Isaiah.

I like Strong, and he is useful to a point, but he is not inspired. Often the settling of these issues does not reduce to the technical meanings of words, but how those words are used. I had a friend from Kerala India who used to describe his bike as "understanding the tree." Meaning that he stood it up under the tree. Technically, in a slavishly mechanical etymological manner he was correct. Culturally and in all the real senses that counted he was humorously off target.

Your over-reliance on Strong, and your big shovelful of copy-and-paste, leave the root of the matter untouched - what "heavens and earth" meant in the passages discussed.

 

My source was Isaiah. He didn't write a lexicon. I guess that is a strike against him.

Look, revw, I am done with this, as far as you are concerned. This is going nowhere. Nothing personal.

 

Done as in "I can't argue against the plain meaning of Scripture and you have me at a frustration level DEFCON 1" or done as in "I'm putting you on my ignore list?"

Hard to win a debate when the opposing view has the Word of God on their side.

 

You might want to contemplate the fact that Christ’s return in 70 AD has the same evidence to support it that you have to support the assurance of your salvation.

Suppose someone asked you how do you know you are saved and going to heaven. What literal, physical, visible evidence can you produce for it—none of course. You wouldn’t try to say you have any shred of physical evidence for it you would say you are trusting in what you have been told in the bible by Christ and the apostles that you are saved.

Of course some may say they feel different on the inside—well just supposing you do-no one else can feel what you feel and see a literal change in you. And, we all know that we can’t judge someone else and tell whether he goes to heaven or not—only God really knows his heart and his eternal destiny—it is not for us to say.

The bible also points to the first generation for the return of Christ when Paul tells them 1 Thess 4:15 we who are still alive at the Lord’s coming.

If the bible is a good enough source for you to base your trust in your salvation on then it ought to be good enough to trust as to the timing of the Lord’s return.

 

One more time...

Second Coming will be a VISIBLE EVENT eyes of all shall see Him...

Graves shall be openned up, to rise bodily into air to meet the Lord, who is coming back with an Army of His saints with Him...

Which ancient Historian recorded that happening?

he would come back to fight against enemies of isreal, at Armeggaden...

Again, who recorded this happening?

At His Second Coming, ALL war shall cease, nations gathered to worship and serve Him, curse lifted, paradise restored to earth... Satan bound up

Again, are you saying that we now l;ive in time of His ruling over this "paradise' World? Satan is really bound?

 

I base my assurance of salvation on the word of God that tells me that Christ died for sinners. That word says nothing about an invisible return of Christ, quite the opposite (see below).

Same point; same answer. However, the trustworthiness of the Bible is certainly witnessed by the fact that Josephus, Tacitus and other secular historians refer to our Lord's first coming. Who refers to His coming in AD 70?

'But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only' (Matt 24:36). Therefore Paul didn't know either. The 'We' of 1Thes 4:15 refers to Christians of whatever time Christ returns.

Exactly so. My Bible tells me that no one knows the timing of the Lord's return (Matt 24:26 etc.), but that it will be a visible return (Matt 24:30; Acts 1:11; 1Thes 4:16; Rev 1:7).

Steve

 

Several Preterists have already answered this in recent weeks. I know I have. Take a look at the post#15 and #5 of the "How many of The Church fathers held A partial/Full Pretierist Viewpoint of Theology?" thread. I just bumped it up to the top again.

 

When does without observation--not mean invisible

Just a basic “I can scream louder than you can” knee jerk response with no biblical support.

If Christ said it would be without observation then your demands for a visible event make no sense, question the work and sovereignty and plan of Christ, and demonstrate a basic inability to grasp scriptural meaning. One need only read the answer Christ gave you—the same one he gave the Pharisees.

The Coming of the Kingdom (ESV)

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

Obviously the words of Christ hold no meaning or value to you since he specifically stated it is not coming with signs of observation.

 

Not being observable actually does mean invisible

I could just copy and paste the specific answer (from above) Christ gives you about it not being observable—hint—that means invisible, but I don’t believe the word of Christ is good enough for you. After all why let the words of Christ get in the way of a good preconceived notion. It would simply be a waste of the time learning it now wouldn’t it.

One more thing. You need to learn to let the bible progress through linear time and keep up with current events as they progress. You’re stuck on the statement about no one knows the hour of his return made in Matt 24:36 when Christ was earth bound. When the book of Revelation is written later on Christ is in heaven and clearly seems to know more about the timing of his return. Whether he knows the exact moment of his return then it doesn’t say, but given the details he lays out to John it seems clear his knowledge on the matter has progressed since his return to heaven.

You base your salvation on the word of God—well you have made my point for me—I just hope you don’t run into a creed that contradicts it lest you would have to abandon faith in your salvation to remain consistent with your creeds and preconceived notions.