Zecheriah 14 is it literal or figurative what proves it

[David Lamb]

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.

You may not agree with Steve, myself, and other "non-preterists", but surely there is no need to be sarcastic, pretending that, without your hint, Steve might might never have realised that if a thing cannot be observed by someone, it is invisible to that person.

I would say also that it is wrong for any of us on the BB to say that those who disagree with us on any matter are necessarily putting their "preconceived notions" before the words of Christ. It is possible that they may be doing so, but we cannot see into each other's hearts to know.

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.

But surely if Christ had already returned (whether in AD70 or some other time) that return must have been invisible, or at least, not visible to everyone. Yet it is said not only in the gospels, but also in Revelation 1.7 that the Second Coming will be visible:

"Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen."
​

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.

Knowing Steve as I do, I know that if he ran into a creed or doctrinal statement that contradicted the Word of God, he would avoid that creed like the plague! But he is far better with words than I am, and will probably give a much clearer answer than mine.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

The Kingdom of God was in their midst in the PERSON of Jesus Christ...

Right now we are under His "spritual" aspect of His Kingdom , as he has NOT yet sat down and ALL of His enemies have been put under Him and oblished...

that is yet to occur, at His physical Sec Coming in power /glory with all of His saints coming back with Him to this earth!

 

[Logos1]

I use to be very guilty of preconceived notions

I would say also that it is wrong for any of us on the BB to say that those who disagree with us on any matter are necessarily putting their "preconceived notions" before the words of Christ. It is possible that they may be doing so, but we cannot see into each other's hearts to know.

(Must be brief tonight)

Greetings David,

Always good to read your post whether I agree or disagree with them. In my book you are a fine Christian brother—even when we disagree.

I will allow you to freely believe any wonderful things you will about Steve without questioning your sincerity.

Myself I’ll have to call it the way I see it.

I know a few things about preconceived notions because I use to be very guilty of them myself and only when I started reading the bible and leaving my early teaching and preconceived notions behind me did I realize that the apostles were preterists and thought Christ would return in their generation. Once I started reading the bible from that perspective did the many prophetic contradictions fall away and the bible became coherent from start to finish. I thank the Holy Spirit for opening my eyes and allowing me to get past my preconceived notions. I’m grateful for that every day.

Have a good one.


Oh by the way Jesusfan,

The term “coming with his saints” merely means the presence of the Lord. It doesn’t mean a literal sky full of saints. There are numerous similar passages in the OT (coming with holy ones etc) and no one ever reported seeing a sky full of any actual beings, but I don’t have time now to repeat those verses again.

 

[JesusFan]

(Must be brief tonight)

Greetings David,

Always good to read your post whether I agree or disagree with them. In my book you are a fine Christian brother—even when we disagree.

I will allow you to freely believe any wonderful things you will about Steve without questioning your sincerity.

Myself I’ll have to call it the way I see it.

I know a few things about preconceived notions because I use to be very guilty of them myself and only when I started reading the bible and leaving my early teaching and preconceived notions behind me did I realize that the apostles were preterists and thought Christ would return in their generation. Once I started reading the bible from that perspective did the many prophetic contradictions fall away and the bible became coherent from start to finish. I thank the Holy Spirit for opening my eyes and allowing me to get past my preconceived notions. I’m grateful for that every day.

Have a good one.


Oh by the way Jesusfan,

The term “coming with his saints” merely means the presence of the Lord. It doesn’t mean a literal sky full of saints. There are numerous similar passages in the OT (coming with holy ones etc) and no one ever reported seeing a sky full of any actual beings, but I don’t have time now to repeat those verses again.

except Apostle paul refers also to this coming, and he links it with the Angels/Sainst of the Lord returning with Him at His Second Coming, and they will be involved in executing "Flaming judgement" upon those who refused to heed and obey the Gospel, who brought wrath ogf God down upon themselves...

THAT situation has jesus ohysical coming back with His Angels, Jude mentions jesus coming back with jhis "Holy Ones/Saints"

Again, which Apostle/Historian saw and recorded this event as happening in past?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

I have looked all the way through the thread but I can't see where you show from the word that the return of Christ is invisible. Please post it again for me. If you are referring to Luke 17:20-21, please show why you think that the kingdom of God began in AD 70 when our Lord is clearly speaking in the present tense, and why you equate the kingdom of God with the Second Coming.

many thanks,

Steve

 

[JesusFan]

I have looked all the way through the thread but I can't see where you show from the word that the return of Christ is invisible. Please post it again for me. If you are referring to Luke 17:20-21, please show why you think that the kingdom of God began in AD 70 when our Lord is clearly speaking in the present tense, and why you equate the kingdom of God with the Second Coming.

many thanks,

Steve

So Tom would be saying that when the grave openned up world wide and dead bodies went into air to meet oncoming Lord...

NNE would have seen/noticed that?

And when ALL of those remaining alive of that time "disappeared " out of sight, NO historian in Church Age or secular one ever bothered to write about it?

 

[revmwc]

So Tom would be saying that when the grave openned up world wide and dead bodies went into air to meet oncoming Lord...

NNE would have seen/noticed that?

And when ALL of those remaining alive of that time "disappeared " out of sight, NO historian in Church Age or secular one ever bothered to write about it?

Sorry I need to take up for Tom and the others. They don't believe in a physical ressurection of the saints. It is almost seems as if they are taking the Masonic view of soul sleeping but really they just believe the body rots and is never seen again. No physical resurrection just a spiritual one. We at least need to express their view correctly even if they have it wrong.
Too many verse don't uphold that but that is what they view it as. I think we have posted just about everyone of them to no avail. They are going to believe as they do and we are going to believe the truth of a physical resurrection and that is just how it is.

 

[asterisktom]

Sorry I need to take up for Tom and the others. They don't believe in a physical ressurection of the saints. It is almost seems as if they are taking the Masonic view of soul sleeping but really they just believe the body rots and is never seen again. No physical resurrection just a spiritual one. We at least need to express their view correctly even if they have it wrong.
Too many verse don't uphold that but that is what they view it as. I think we have posted just about everyone of them to no avail. They are going to believe as they do and we are going to believe the truth of a physical resurrection and that is just how it is.

I appreciate this, Rev. If we at least try to understand what the other person says and not consciously misrepresent it it would be a big step. Thanks.

 

[JesusFan]

I appreciate this, Rev. If we at least try to understand what the other person says and not consciously misrepresent it it would be a big step. Thanks.

So you believe than that the resurrection spoken of in NT by jesus/paul etc is at the new birth, raised to a 'spritual resurrection" by having a new nature in Christ?

 

[asterisktom]

So you believe than that the resurrection spoken of in NT by jesus/paul etc is at the new birth, raised to a 'spritual resurrection" by having a new nature in Christ?

I believe more attention should be paid to such resurrection passages as Philippians 3:8-11:

"8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ

9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,

11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."

That last clause is most important:
"τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν" - "the out-resurrection from the dead ones".

Paul was speaking about resurrection that he was looking for to come shortly, hopefully in his lifetime. Combining the above verse with the "We shall not all sleep" passage shows two things:
1. The "dead" are not the physically dead at some future period of time, as some imagined end-time coming.
2. That is would happen very soon.

Paul says as much in Acts 24:15:

"I have hope in God, which they [the Pharisees] themselves also accept, that there will be (μέλλειν - about to be) a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust."

This word "about to be", - "mello" in the lexicons, is often mistranslated, not given the full force it deserves. It speaks of a very soon event. Certainly not one that is still millennia away - and counting.

 

[revmwc]

I believe more attention should be paid to such resurrection passages as Philippians 3:8-11:

"8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ

9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,

11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."

That last clause is most important:
"τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν" - "the out-resurrection from the dead ones".

Paul was speaking about resurrection that he was looking for to come shortly, hopefully in his lifetime. Combining the above verse with the "We shall not all sleep" passage shows two things:
1. The "dead" are not the physically dead at some future period of time, as some imagined end-time coming.
2. That is would happen very soon.

Paul says as much in Acts 24:15:

"I have hope in God, which they [the Pharisees] themselves also accept, that there will be (μέλλειν - about to be) a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust."

This word "about to be", - "mello" in the lexicons, is often mistranslated, not given the full force it deserves. It speaks of a very soon event. Certainly not one that is still millennia away - and counting.

Paul says if He might attain "katanteso" come to the ressurection from the dead. I myself might "katantEsO" to the resurrection from the dead and I might not. Those who are currently believers and alive might come to (katantEsO) the point where we will be resurrected. Paul was saying he might die and come into the resurrection from the dead, he didn't know if he would or wouldn't but if he died physically he would be physically raised. He would come to (katanEsO) the point of having died and then he would come to (attain) resurrection. It wasn't a spiritual resurrection of those who sleep he was looking for it was a physical. We who are in Christ have died to our old way, we have died to the domination of the Old Sin Nature because we now have a new Spiritual (life) nature.

The resurrection that would come shortly, by whose time table man or God's?

Whose time determines what shortly is when we deal with spiritual matters?

God's timetable or ours. Peter said
2 Peter 3:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Peter said one day to the Lord is a thousand years and a Thousand years as one day. By God's time has long has it been?

One and a Half to one and 3/4 days in God's time table?

So would that qualify as shortly?

 

[asterisktom]

Paul says if He might attain "katanteso" come to the ressurection from the dead. I myself might "katantEsO" to the resurrection from the dead and I might not. Those who are currently believers and alive might come to (katantEsO) the point where we will be resurrected. Paul was saying he might die and come into the resurrection from the dead, he didn't know if he would or wouldn't but if he died physically he would be physically raised.

No. Paul does not say this. In the passage he makes no mention that he might die. This is not even the subject. Please read Phil. 3 again.

He would come to (katanEsO) the point of having died and then he would come to (attain) resurrection. It wasn't a spiritual resurrection of those who sleep he was looking for it was a physical. We who are in Christ have died to our old way, we have died to the domination of the Old Sin Nature because we now have a new Spiritual (life) nature.

The last sentence is mostly true, but the two before it are, once again, unwarranted from the context. There is no mention of a physical resurrection.

The resurrection that would come shortly, by whose time table man or God's?

Whose time determines what shortly is when we deal with spiritual matters?

God's timetable or ours. Peter said
2 Peter 3:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Peter said one day to the Lord is a thousand years and a Thousand years as one day. By God's time has long has it been?

One and a Half to one and 3/4 days in God's time table?

So would that qualify as shortly?

It is quite remarkable that, of all the times that this passage is invoked by futurists, it is always only half-used (Misused, actually). The clause "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years" is the one always used. Nobody touches the "thousand years as a day".

Why is that? The passage is partially used because it is wholly misunderstood. The whole phrase - both of the time parts - go together to illustrate a different purpose altogether; that God is not slack, as men count slackness. Ironically, it is used to try to prove that God is slack, or at least seems to be.

At any rate, this one verse cannot be used to negate all 18 of the "soon", "shortly", "about to", verses in the New Testament.