Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship Community Forums

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Solas

A Question for a Preterist. Zech 14:3

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I'm not sure if there are any Preterists here, but if so, could you explain this?

 

Zechariah 14:2-4 KJV
[2] For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. [3] Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. [4] And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

 

How could it be that the Lord goes forth and fights but apparently loses to the Romans in 70 AD?

 

Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. 

 

Edited by Solas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Why do you assume God lost? 

What are the living waters of 14:8 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Just writing to note some of my thoughts on this subject which I'll try and connect later:

 

Zechariah 14:2-4 ESV

2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward.

 

His feet shall stand? A figurative representation?

 

And scrolling down a little further... .

 

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one and his name one.

 

Consider what it means to put the enemy or everything under the Lord's feet.

 

1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

1 Corinthians 15:27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.

 

Interestingly if Jesus hasn't already conquered death then our faith is in vain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Becky said:

Why do you assume God lost? 

What are the living waters of 14:8 

Because Scriptures say,  "Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle".v.3

...but  the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD.

 

v. 14.8 sounds like the restoration going on at the beginning of the Millennium after Jesus Christ returns (But I'm really interested in my question posed to any Preterist here)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, William said:

Just writing to note some of my thoughts on this subject which I'll try and connect later:

 

Zechariah 14:2-4 ESV

2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward.

 

His feet shall stand? A figurative representation?

 

And scrolling down a little further... .

 

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one and his name one.

 

Consider what it means to put the enemy or everything under the Lord's feet.

 

1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

1 Corinthians 15:27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.

 

Interestingly if Jesus hasn't already conquered death then our faith is in vain.

Actually, I was more interested in the answer to this question...

"How could it be that the Lord goes forth and fights but apparently loses to the Romans in 70 AD?"

Since the preterist believes all the prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD, but the Romans sacked Jerusalem then. If that was His 2nd Coming, then He lost to the Romans.

 

Edited by Solas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
14 minutes ago, Solas said:

Actually, I was more interested in the answer to this question...

"How could it be that the Lord goes forth and fights but apparently loses to the Romans in 70 AD?"

Since the preterist believes all the prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD.

 

I think that interesting too but I don't see how you can say the Lord loses. The Lord's objective IS to inflict suffering as you must realize who is instigating all this right?

 

1 Behold, a day is coming for the LORD, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst.
2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

 

Then the Lord intervenes on behalf of the remnant:

 

3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, William said:

I think that interesting too. But I don't see how you can say the Lord loses. The objective IS to inflict suffering as you must realize who is instigating all this right?

 

1 Behold, a day is coming for the LORD, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst.
2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

 

Then the Lord intervenes on behalf of the remnant:

 

3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle.

 

But my understanding, according to the Preterist, all this has taken place by 70 AD including v.3 . But since the Romans remained in control even after 70 AD then the Lord's fight against those nations seemed to be in vain. (Remember to think Preterist on this one).

Edited by Solas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
27 minutes ago, Solas said:

But my understanding, according to the Preterist, all this has taken place by 70 AD including v.3 . But since the Romans remained in control even after 70 AD then the Lord's fight against those nations seemed to be in vain. (Remember to think Preterist on this one).

An interesting statement and I'm not countering you or defending the full Preterist etc., but wouldn't the "historical" position require knowledge of actual historical events which parallels the Scriptures? Which brings me to question historical sources. For example, from The Pulpit Commentary:

 

Zec 14:2  For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

 

How this shall come to pass is now shown. For I will gather all nations. God uses the Gentile nations as his instruments in this trial of his people; they are the fires by which he refines and purifies his elect. (comp. Joe 3:2, Joe 3:9-11) The city shall be taken. The outrages offered to the captive city are such as are indicated in the case of Babylon. (Isa 13:16 Lam 5:11, etc.) Half of the city. The term "half" must not be pressed, as if it contradicted the mention of the two-thirds that were to perish, according to the prediction in Zec 13:8. It is a mere rhetorical expression. Or it may apply to the city alone, while the other referred to the whole land. Shall not be out off. In the former captivity all the people were carried away; in this capture of the city a remnant shall be left therein. It is plain from this statement that the prophecy cannot apply to the destruction of the city by the Romans; for, according to the account of Josephus, ("Bell. Jud:," 6:9) the city itself was razed to the ground, and all the inhabitants were either put to the sword or sold for slaves.

 

How can the historicity of an event be proven if by historians the event doesn't match the events in Scripture? Seems to me that one needs to know history in order to prove or disprove the theological position? Correct or incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, William said:

An interesting statement and I'm not countering you or defending the full Preterist etc., but wouldn't the "historical" position require actual historical events which parallels the Scriptures? For example, from The Pulpit Commentary:

 

Zec 14:2  For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

 

How this shall come to pass is now shown. For I will gather all nations. God uses the Gentile nations as his instruments in this trial of his people; they are the fires by which he refines and purifies his elect. (comp. Joe 3:2, Joe 3:9-11) The city shall be taken. The outrages offered to the captive city are such as are indicated in the case of Babylon. (Isa 13:16 Lam 5:11, etc.) Half of the city. The term "half" must not be pressed, as if it contradicted the mention of the two-thirds that were to perish, according to the prediction in Zec 13:8. It is a mere rhetorical expression. Or it may apply to the city alone, while the other referred to the whole land. Shall not be out off. In the former captivity all the people were carried away; in this capture of the city a remnant shall be left therein. It is plain from this statement that the prophecy cannot apply to the destruction of the city by the Romans; for, according to the account of Josephus, ("Bell. Jud:," 6:9) the city itself was razed to the ground, and all the inhabitants were either put to the sword or sold for slaves.

 

How can the historicity of an event be proven if by historians the event doesn't match the events in Scripture? Seems to me that one needs to know history in order to prove or disprove the theological position? Correct or incorrect?

Being a futurist myself, I would basically agree. So are you saying the Preterist doesn't have a leg to stand on since the historical accounts of that period do not match the events in Zech 14?

Edited by Solas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
1 hour ago, Solas said:

Being a futurist myself, I would basically agree. So are you saying the Preterist doesn't have a leg to stand on since the historical accounts of that period do not match the events in Zech 14?

That's what makes sense to me. I can only say they don't have a leg to stand on as far as I trust my historical source.

 

I'm asking how much can be verified by historical sources outside of Scripture? I mean, sincerely curious as to how strong the theological position of a full Preterist position which requires extra biblical sources to make its case? I just think it curious to require the bible under one arm and a history book under the other. Then again, some have a bible under one arm and a newspaper for current events under the other.

I don't want to come across as one that discounts extra-biblical historical knowledge so I'm kinda treading carefully here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, William said:

Then again, some have a bible under one arm and a newspaper for current events under the other.

I could  make a comeback to this but I'll be nice. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
1 hour ago, Solas said:

I could  make a comeback to this but I'll be nice. 🙂

funny face lol GIF

 

Resistance was futile lol.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
9 hours ago, Solas said:

Since the preterist believes all the prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD, but the Romans sacked Jerusalem then. If that was His 2nd Coming, then He lost to the Romans.

I know a few preterist not one of them believes all the prophecies were fulfilled by 70 ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Becky said:

I know a few preterist not one of them believes all the prophecies were fulfilled by 70 ad

Right, those would be called 'Partial Preterists'. I'm wondering about full preterists. 

Edited by Solas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
19 minutes ago, Solas said:

Right, those would be called 'Partial Preterists'. I'm wondering about full preterists. 

Some use the term orthodox preterist.. as for full preterists my opinion i they are heretics .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Becky said:

Some use the term orthodox preterist.. as for full preterists my opinion i they are heretics .

So the orthodox preterists (never heard the term) are partial preterists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
16 minutes ago, Solas said:

So the orthodox preterists (never heard the term) are partial preterists?

That has been my understanding.  I have no idea who makes up the labels .  🙂

  • ouch 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
37 minutes ago, Becky said:

That has been my understanding.  I have no idea who makes up the labels .  🙂

Orthodox = true and correct

Preterist = historical fulfillment of prophecy

Full Preterist = all prophecy fulfilled historically

 

Partial Preterist = Only some of what full preterist claim is orthodox therefore, only partial preterist are orthodox.

 

Who makes up the labels = William [and at any moment without warning I may tag you].

 

slam dunk basketball GIF

 

Slam, William has left the building.

  • Haha 2
  • Wow 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...