ECT A Question For the Preterists

Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
When did this happen:

"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. 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. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:1-4).​
 
Last edited:
R

Rivers

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
When did this happen: (Zech.14:1-4).[/INDENT]
Click to expand...

Most Preterists would say that this was fulfilled at the end of the apostolic era. It also depends upon how the Preterist interprets the intent of the language in the prophecy (e.g. literal or figurative).
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
When did this happen:
"Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. 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. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:1-4).​
Click to expand...

The red word alone proves it wasn't 70.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
The red word alone proves it wasn't 70.
Click to expand...



Who says it was 70 AD? Who says it needs to be? It's a pretty dismal victory!


the odd thing is that once again futurist D'ism spends all its time on passages NOT interped by the apostles in the NT. Because they are at such a loss about the ones that it does.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Who says it was 70 AD? Who says it needs to be? It's a pretty dismal victory!


the odd thing is that once again futurist D'ism spends all its time on passages NOT interped by the apostles in the NT. Because they are at such a loss about the ones that it does.
Click to expand...


umm,thats not quite fair... first you say you will not base any of your doctrine on the revelation,then you do.

define it for us,set the perimeters...if we bare in mind the threads where we(D.ist) are accused of "disregarding the words of Jesus" how is it so that the "revelation of Jesus Christ" should now be disregarded?,,,,"I don’t base any doctrine on..."

and then explain how if the Jewish revolt is called "Jewish revolt" how they can revolt(ad66-70) and print their own money(instead of using the so called beast money/Rome) and fulfil Revelation 13:16-17 KJV


Now the very ones who refused to receive Rome’s mark are being put to death (DOJ) and the very ones who are told to take it are not Romans 13:1-6 KJV ,,,,it's exactly opposite of what scripture states,it should ring a bell!
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
the odd thing is that once again futurist D'ism spends all its time on passages NOT interped by the apostles in the NT. Because they are at such a loss about the ones that it does.
Click to expand...

Since you have no reasonable answer about when Zechariah 14:1-4 happened you insist that we should just ignore what Paul said here:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim.3:16-17).​

According to your bankrupt ideas only "some" Scriptures is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Rivers said:
Most Preterists would say that this was fulfilled at the end of the apostolic era. It also depends upon how the Preterist interprets the intent of the language in the prophecy (e.g. literal or figurative).
Click to expand...

Let us look how one of the leading preterists of our day, Gary DeMar, interprets these passages:

"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" (Zech.14:2-4).​

In regard to verse two, DeMar says: "This happened when the Roman armies, made up of soldiers from the nations it conquered, went to war against Jerusalem...Zechariah is describing the events surrounding Jerusalem's destruction in A.D.70" (DeMar, Last Days Madness [American Vision; Fourth Revised Edition, 1999], 438).

He then attempts to explain verse three, saying,"After using Rome as His rod to smite Jerusalem, God turns on Rome in judgment" (Ibid., 439).

Since the Lord did not fight against the nation of Rome during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70 Gary DeMar quotes G.N.M Collins: "It is significant that the decline of the Roman Empire dates from the fall of Jerusalem" [emphasis mine] (Collins, Zechariah, The New Bible Commentary, 761).

Gary DeMar continues: "Thomas Scott concurs: 'It is also observable, that the Romans after having been made the executioners of divine vengence on the Jewish nation, never prospered as they had done before; but the Lord evidently fought against them, and all the nations which composed their overgrown empire; till at last it was subverted, and their fairest cities and provinces were ravaged by barbarous invaders' " [emphasis mine] (DeMar,Last Days Madness, 439).

According to Gary DeMar the battle when the Lord fights against the nations that came against Jerusalem is nothing more than the idea that the Roman Empire "never prospered as they had before." We are supposed to believe that this battle was not really a battle but instead only represents the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire where she "never prospered as they had done before."

However, Zechariah wrote, "Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle."

As when He fought in the day of battle. These words should lead those who read them to think of the following events which describe the Lord as a "Man of War."

"The LORD is a Man of War: the LORD is his name. Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea" (Ex.15:3-4).​

If the Lord is going to fight against those nations "as when He fought in the day of battle" then the battle will not be a matter of a single nation "not prospering" as she did before but instead it will be comparable to when the Lord destroyed Pharaoh's army.

The battle which Zechariah describes is not in regard to a decline of a single nation that lasts for hundreds years until at last she is subverted! That idea is ridiculous!

The preterists never hesitate to pervert the plain meaning of the Scriptures in order to make them fit their preconceived ideas.
 
R

Rivers

New member
musterion said:
Nah.

Have you posted here under another name? You sound very familiar.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't used this forum under any other name.

I'm assuming you are just making a baseless assertion about the implications of the word "half" in Zechariah 14, then? You don't seem willing or able to give an answer to my question.
 
R

Rivers

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
The battle which Zechariah describes is not in regard to a decline of a single nation that lasts for hundreds years until at last she is subverted! That idea is ridiculous!

The preterists never hesitate to pervert the plain meaning of the Scriptures in order to make them fit their preconceived ideas.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think it's more likely that the "nations" refer to the tribes of Israel (Genesis 35:10-11). They were the ones accountable to God's Law (Amos 3:1-2).
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Rivers said:
If your opinion has any merit, why are you unable to explain what you mean? Are you just parroting something you heard from someone else but don't really understand?
Click to expand...

No, that's not it either.

Look at the record of events in 70. Contrast it with that prophecy and you may see what I mean.
 
W

whitestone

Well-known member
Rivers said:
If your opinion has any merit, why are you unable to explain what you mean? Are you just parroting something you heard from someone else but don't really understand?
Click to expand...


rivers contemplate what I said in Post #10 and then search the www to see if you find that it is re-parroted(I cannot find it anywhere on the internet)...

Not that I am contending that I am anything smart,but rather that if I pray to God to guide me in a matter then I will be guided to see the deeper meanings of a matter of scripture and so all credit should go where it is due(Holy Spirit)...


but consider what is being said about the different matters surrounding 70ad(I'm not saying "something" did not happen,but rather not what some think),,,

consider Revelation 13:16-17 KJV and compare it to the events of ad70(DOJ)

those who were involved(Jews) did not use Rome’s money(did not receive the mark of the beast,if it is Rome),so did not fulfil that scripture(they minted their own coins).

search the scriptures and find "who" the wrath of God is poured out on and you will find that it is only on those who "receive the mark of the beast",then notice that they(Jews) did not bow down to Rome’s authority, the names wars/Jewish revolt/Jewish wars ect. by Josephus should suffice to the point that they,those involved in the revolt against Rome and it's authority from ad66-70 (did not) "receive" Caesar as God,nor honer his money.

if Gods wrath is poured out on those who receive the mark,number,worship image ect. and Rome is the beast then ask your self "why is Gods wrath being poured out on them(DOJ) when they had refused his money,and were refusing to bow down to Caesar/Rome"? ,,,that would mean that they had "repented of their deeds and had gotten victory over the mark but were still punished by God(Gods wrath).

then flip the whole issue around and examine it from the "Christian" stance on the same matter...

If Rome/Caesar is the beast spoken of in rev.,,,and anyone who receives the mark,number worships the image ect. are going to have the wrath of God poured out on them as said in the Rev. then why would Paul say to us/them in Romans 13:1 KJV to see them(Rome) as ordained by God?

Why would Paul say to them/us to pay tithes Romans 13:6-7 KJV to use their money and pay them their dues? Notice that to do so would mean that they received the mark of the beast(if it's Rome) and bowed to it's authority as from God "notice the wrong marks on the wrong foreheads".

also 1Peter 2:13-14 KJV Peter also states the same thing which if the scriptures about the mark and the wrath of God were being fulfilled at that time (ad70) then both Peter and Paul are saying to them/us that it is correct to receive the mark? Again it doesn’t match prophecy to think so,,,
 
R

Rivers

New member
whitestone said:
If Rome/Caesar is the beast spoken of in rev.,,,and anyone who receives the mark,number worships the image ect. are going to have the wrath of God poured out on them as said in the Rev. then why would Paul say to us/them in Romans 13:1 KJV to see them(Rome) as ordained by God?

Why would Paul say to them/us to pay tithes Romans 13:6-7 KJV to use their money and pay them their dues? Notice that to do so would mean that they received the mark of the beast(if it's Rome) and bowed to it's authority as from God "notice the wrong marks on the wrong foreheads".

also 1Peter 2:13-14 KJV Peter also states the same thing which if the scriptures about the mark and the wrath of God were being fulfilled at that time (ad70) then both Peter and Paul are saying to them/us that it is correct to receive the mark? Again it doesn’t match prophecy to think so,,,
Click to expand...

You're making a couple of assumptions that not all Preterists would make. For example, not all Preterists think that the "beast" was "Rome" or "Caesar." Thus, much of your concern would be irrelevant to their understanding of these texts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top