Once again, what are we to make of Zechariah 14:16-19?

[parousia70]

Luke's account is correct and we are now living in the age of the Gentiles.

Again, when we compare scripture with scripture (I know, I'm a stickler for that pesky detail) we see that the "times of Gentile Trampling of the City" was ordained to last exactly 42 monthst after it began:

-COMPARE THIS-
Luke 21:25
And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

-TO THIS-
Revelation 11:1-2
“Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, ‘Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles, and they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.’”

These, again, are parallel texts. They speak of the same event. They do not have polar opposite meanings.

The Time of gentile Trampling of the City was ordained to last 42 Months after it began, not 2000+ years.
The latter is based solely on man made tradition and not on any scriptural teaching, apostolic or otherwise.

 

[parousia70]

I don't think Matthew was an apostle.

Interesting.
What do you believe disqualifies him from the title "apostle"?

 

[3 Resurrections]

The Time of gentile Trampling of the City was ordained to last 42 Months after it began, not 2000+ years.
The latter is based solely on man made tradition and not on any scriptural teaching, apostolic or otherwise.

Agreed, and that "treading underfoot" for 42 months was a literal 42 months from late AD 66 until early AD 70. This was the time when the Zealot factions and their leaders coming from "Galilee of the Gentiles" were competing and battling with one another inside Jerusalem, hoping to establish themselves as Daniel's prophesied "Messiah" of their own people. False messiahs, every one of them. Jesus predicted these false messiahs would arise, each of them claiming "I am Christ", deluding many into following them.

 

[3 Resurrections]

To link this part of the discussion with the original post topic of Zechariah , the very same language in Revelation 11:2 saying "they shall tread the holy city under foot for 42 months" is also spoken of in Zechariah 12:2-3 in the LXX.

"Behold, I will make Jerusalem as trembling door-posts to all the nations round about, and in Judea there shall be a siege against Jerusalem. And it shall come to pass in that day that I will make Jerusalem a trodden stone to all the nations; every one that tramples on it shall utterly mock at it, and all the nations of the earth shall be gathered together against it."

This is the very same theme of the Zealots coming from Galilee of the Gentiles in AD 66 to tread Jerusalem underfoot as the various Zealot leaders competed for a military Messiah role over their own people.

 

[klutedavid]

Interesting.
What do you believe disqualifies him from the title "apostle"?

There is an issue, in that, the author of the Gospel of Matthew is not identified in the text.

The second issue is that the resurrection account given in Matthew, is different to the other three accounts. If he was with the apostles when they found out the tomb was empty. How come his version of the resurrection is so different to the others?

These two resurrection accounts below are certainly not synoptic.

Matthew 28:8-10
And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

Luke 24:5-11
And as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” And they remembered His words, and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.

I know that Luke was using eyewitness accounts and Luke was probably a more accurate account. So why is Matthew's account so very different given that he was actually there?

 

[Biblewriter]

I asked a question and you accuse me of lying?

You did not just ask a question. You said that the promises had been canceled. If THAT were true, God would have been lying when He made these promises.

 

[Biblewriter]

The definition of "Gog" is given to us in the LXX translation for Numbers 24:5-9, and it indicates that "Gog" is the title given to ISRAEL. The Gog battle taking place in Israel was going to be characterized by "every man's hand shall be against his brother" (Ezekiel 38:21). This meant that Israelites would be battling their fellow Israelites. This is what happened with the various Zealot factions that competed with each other for supremacy in the years from AD 66-70, until Titus came and laid siege to the city of Jerusalem.

In numbers 24:7, the Hebrew word mistranslated as GOG in the LXX was מאגג "mem alpha gimmel gimmel," magg in our alphabet. There was no excuse for changing this to the η Γωγ "eta space gamma omicron gamma," e Gog in our alphabet, as found in the LXX.

But since you want to quote the Septuagint, check out the Septuagint reading of Ezekiel 38:2. There,

This question may seem to be off-topic from the discussion of Zechariah, but actually it isn't. Zechariah 12-14:15 writes about the period when the Zealot factions would be doing battle with each other from AD 66 until the spring of AD 70. Zechariah 14:13 with its "great tumult from the Lord" when "his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour" describes the civil war effect that Gog brought to Israel in AD 69 in the person of Simon bar Gioras, one of the main Zealot leaders who had the largest army of all the other Zealot factions. Simon's forces numbered some 40,000 when he came with that army culled from the nations around and within Israel, and demanded admittance to Jerusalem in AD 69.

Simon's very name meant "Simon son of the proselyte", so this Zealot commander came from Gentile origins, as well as a Jewish background.

The definition of "Gog" is given to us in the LXX translation for Numbers 24:5-9, and it indicates that "Gog" is the title given to ISRAEL. The Gog battle taking place in Israel was going to be characterized by "every man's hand shall be against his brother" (Ezekiel 38:21). This meant that Israelites would be battling their fellow Israelites. This is what happened with the various Zealot factions that competed with each other for supremacy in the years from AD 66-70, until Titus came and laid siege to the city of Jerusalem.

The whole Zealot ideology was launched from the northern quarter of Israel - the "Galilee of the Gentiles" region - which seemed to be a breeding-ground for nationalistic-minded citizens who wanted to rise up against their Roman overlords (with "Judas the Galilean" as a prime example in Acts 5:37). This is why there were individuals in Gog's army coming from those various nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38:5 - "Persians, Ethiopians, and Libyans...Gomer and all his bands, the house of Togarmah of the north quarters and all his bands..." All these nations were the forebears of the Gentile nations which came from the sons of Noah. Their descendants would be doing battle with each other in the Gog warfare. Noah had predicted that there would be conflict between Canaan's descendants and those of Shem and Japheth, and this finally came to fruition in Israel with its civil war breaking out under the Zealots.

According to Ezekiel 38:15, Gog would "come from his place out of the north parts" - of Israel, in Galilee. Simon bar Gioras had his army headquarters in the village of Nain, between Galilee and the hill of Megiddo, where he stored all of his stolen supplies to sustain his large army.

The Gog battle in Revelation is the same as the prophesied description of it in Ezekiel 38-39. Gog's army (that of Simon bar Gioras, numbering 40,000) finally came to the gates of Jerusalem in AD 69, and demanded admittance by the other Zealot leaders inside. Once they yielded to his threats, Simon became an intolerable dictator that year. His forces in Jerusalem were finally decimated the next year in late AD 70, and fell on the mountains of Israel by Titus's Roman army. Simon bar Gioras was taken captive to be displayed in the Roman triumph as the defeated "king of Israel" which Simon had aspired to be. It literally took seven months to bury the resulting dead in the Jordan plain, as prophesied in Ezekiel 39, and 7 years to burn all the siege warfare material as firewood, since every tree for ten miles around Jerusalem was cut down to use in the war.

There is something seriously wrong with any doctrine that has to rely on aberrant texts for its proof.

 

[Timtofly]

The Time of gentile Trampling of the City was ordained to last 42 Months after it began, not 2000+ years.
The latter is based solely on man made tradition and not on any scriptural teaching, apostolic or otherwise.

Are you saying that after the first century Gentiles could no longer accept the Atonement? It was all over for the church? No one has served God in the last 1900 years?

The time of the Gentiles is the Gospel being preached. If that was over, then no one had the Gospel in the 2nd century until now. It has all been humanism and not the Gospel.

There was no temple to trample. So the Gentiles never trampled the part that was not measured. As for the historical record even Herod's Temple contained the court of the Gentiles in it's entirety, not just for 3.5 years. The symbolic message was that no Temple mount was ever free from the effects of sinful Gentiles. Or that Gentiles were always freely welcome to convert to God's current Revelation. Your pick, or both even. This 42 month period can only refer to After the Second Coming. Because it is an event brought up after the Second Coming has already happened. This 42 months does not prove a Second Coming. Only after the future Second Coming can this 42 months happen. This 42 months may not even happen. The reality of history has yet to be acted out by the participants of that time.

Herod's temple already had a court of the Gentiles, where they literal trampled day after day for decades. It was never a 42 month set period of time.

Why is it not in the historical record that Satan and his angels were walking around free on earth and Satan was in total control? What body of leadership has covered up this important detail to prove preterist have it all figured out? If you think Satan was not nor ever will be in charge, then you have missed all of prophecy that claims all authority was delegated by Satan.

"The Adversary will give him the power to work all kinds of false miracles, signs and wonders."

"They worshipped the dragon, because he had given his authority to the beast."

When humanity is duped with some human calling the shots, all will know who is really calling the shot, because they openly worship Satan at the time. Paul claims Satan was only hiding behind the scenes. Not until Satan was out in the open would Paul's point be realized. Satan will only come out either right before, or right after the church is gone. Satan has not yet appeared to all of humanity, revealing his beast and FP. No one verified Paul's point in the first or second centuries. Only at the Reformation were some pointing out the pope was Paul's AC. And still Satan did not come out of the shadows.

This event cannot happen until the spiritual blindness is taken away by God. That will happen at the Second Coming. If Satan exposes his deception first, all humanity will know it. Even beyond those in power who probably already know, because the Second Coming is closer now, than 1991 years ago. Satan could reveal himself first, but it would not work, because the spiritual blindness is not removed by Satan. It will only be removed at the Second Coming. Then people will have to accept they were decieved, but it will be too late for many to change their minds. God will harden their hearts like He did to Pharoah.

 

[parousia70]

The time of the Gentiles is the Gospel being preached.

Chapter and Verse that supports this claim?

Are you claiming the Gospel wasn't preached before AD70?

OR, are you saying the Time of the Gentiles began as early as the Preaching of the Gospel in Acts 2, before ANY gentile was included?

 

[Timtofly]

I know that Luke was using eyewitness accounts and Luke was probably a more accurate account. So why is Matthew's account so very different given that he was actually there?

I think the question would be, "Why did Luke leave out Matthew's detail?" If Luke is viewed as being "more accurate", it would have all the detail from all 11 disciples. Why did Luke edit out detail, not that Matthew was unique.

 

[Timtofly]

Chapter and Verse that supports this claim?

Are you claiming the Gospel wasn't preached before AD70?

OR, are you saying the Time of the Gentiles began as early as the Preaching of the Gospel in Acts 2, before ANY gentile was included?

Why do you need proof the Gospel went out to the whole world and was no longer trapped in the Law of Moses given solely to the house of Jacob?

Are you trying to put God into a dispensational time period?

The final act of Revelation will only happen at a future Second Coming.

You are the one claiming it was all over in the first century, ie everything, even a second coming.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There is something seriously wrong with any doctrine that has to rely on aberrant texts for its proof.

Hi Biblewriter,

It is strange that you would dismiss the LXX, since it was the version of the scriptures that Christ and the disciples and Paul had available for their use, and that they quoted from. Actually, I don't even need the LXX to prove that Gog is referring to Israel. It just adds to the existing proof. All I need to do is read Ezekiel 38:18-21.

"And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, saith the Lord God, that my fury shall come up in my face. For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoke, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel; So that the fishes of the saea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground. And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord God: every man's sword shall be against his brother."

If we have Gog fighting against Israel in the mountains of Jerusalem, and that conflict is described as having "every man's sword shall be against his brother", then this is a CIVIL WAR being described in Israel. Jesus announced that the seeds of this fraternal warfare had already been planted in His own days, when He said "For FROM HENCEFORTH there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three...." (Luke 12:52). Jesus knew all about the simmering Zealot rivalries under the surface in His days. These would continue to grow stronger in the days after His ascension, and would finally break out in full revolt in AD 66. The Zealots were the ones operating under that "strong delusion, that they should believe a lie". They wrongfully thought God was on their side, and that God wanted a Jewish military victory over Rome.

 

[Andrewn]

the civil war effect that Gog brought to Israel in AD 69 in the person of Simon bar Gioras, one of the main Zealot leaders who had the largest army of all the other Zealot factions. Simon's forces numbered some 40,000 when he came with that army culled from the nations around and within Israel, and demanded admittance to Jerusalem in AD 69.

If Gog and Magog took place in the Jewish wars then when did the Millennium take place?

 

[3 Resurrections]

If Gog and Magog took place in the Jewish wars then when did the Millennium take place?

Well, we are told in Revelation 20:5 that the millennium had ended when the "First resurrection" took place; when that "remnant of the dead" came to life again at the millennium's finishing date. And we know that Christ and those Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised with him composed that "First resurrection", and were called "the First-fruits" of them that slept.

This means that AD 33 and that year's "First resurrection" were the terminating point of the millennium. Count backward in time a literal thousand years from AD 33, and you come to 968 / 967 BC, when Solomon's temple foundation stone was laid. The millennium was composed of a literal thousand years of a physical temple worship system in Old Jerusalem, which gave way for the Spiritual Temple in the New Jerusalem made of "living stones", and with Christ as the "chief cornerstone" and the "foundation stone" - elect, and precious.

So the millennium's inclusive dates are 968/967 BC until AD 33. Satan's deception of the nations was shut down during that time, (not that humanity's own ability to deceive itself was shut down), but he was released on earth from that chain when he was cast out of heaven at Christ's ascension. This is what John said in Revelation 12:12; that Satan had already at that time come down to the earth in great wrath, knowing he had only a "short time" left to operate on earth after AD 33 and the end of that millennium.

This Rev. 20 millennium was never described in scripture as being an idyllic utopia on earth, with Jesus reigning on a physical throne in Jerusalem. Those ideas have been added by people's assumptions about this period that really have no scriptural backing to support them.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The time of the Gentiles is the Gospel being preached.

The word "TIME" is NOT the word used here in scripture, Timtofly. It uses the word "TIMES" PLURAL. As in "time, times, and half a time" (meaning a total of 42 months) that it would take to shatter the power of the holy people, while the holy city Jerualem was being trampled underfoot. These "TIMES of the Gentiles" (PLURAL) were the literal 42 months from late AD 66 until early AD 70 when the Zealot factions coming from Galilee of the Gentiles were engaged in civil strife in the city of Jerusalem; battling it out with each other to see who could rise to the top and become the military-type Messiah who would be the King of Israel and save their people from the Romans.

Sometimes all it takes is a single letter that can cause confusion in our interpretations. Paul knew this, which is why he based his entire argument on the word "Seed" (singular, which one Seed was Christ) versus "seeds" (plural, which would have been the many of Abraham's physical descendants).

 

[Timtofly]

The word "TIME" is NOT the word used here in scripture, Timtofly. It uses the word "TIMES" PLURAL. As in "time, times, and half a time" (meaning a total of 42 months) that it would take to shatter the power of the holy people, while the holy city Jerualem was being trampled underfoot. These "TIMES of the Gentiles" (PLURAL) were the literal 42 months from late AD 66 until early AD 70 when the Zealot factions coming from Galilee of the Gentiles were engaged in civil strife in the city of Jerusalem; battling it out with each other to see who could rise to the top and become the military-type Messiah who would be the King of Israel and save their people from the Romans.

Sometimes all it takes is a single letter that can cause confusion in our interpretations. Paul knew this, which is why he based his entire argument on the word "Seed" (singular, which one Seed was Christ) versus "seeds" (plural, which would have been the many of Abraham's physical descendants).

Half a time was between Daniel and the Cross. Times is between the Cross and the Second Coming. Time is the Millennial reign of Christ.

 

[keras]

So the millennium's inclusive dates are 968/967 BC until AD 33

Your both dates are wrong.
Jesus was acclaimed as King, then Crucified in 30 AD

Solomon started building the Temple in 1013 BC.
There is proof of both of these dates from the time periods as given in the Bible and from the historical record.
But if I posted these proofs, would you accept the truth and change your beliefs?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Half a time was between Daniel and the Cross. Times is between the Cross and the Second Coming. Time is the Millennial reign of Christ.

Scripture does its own interpretation on how long a period it was for a "time, times, and half a time". Daniel 7:25 tells us that the little horn on the 4th beast would "wear out the saints of the Most High...and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time".

Fast forward to Revelation 13:7, and that Sea Beast had the power given to it to "make war forty and two months...And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them:" Same period of time under consideration when the saints would be "worn out" for a total of 42 months, which in Daniel was the equivalent of that "time and times and the dividing of time" for the saints to be "worn out".

Let scripture do its own definitions, and it will save you a lot of trouble.

(Oh, and by the way, this 42 months when the saints were being "worn out" by the Sea Beast making war against them - by Nero, from late AD 64 until early AD 68 - was NOT the same 42 months when the Zealot factions were treading down the holy city from late AD 66 until early AD 70.)

 

[3 Resurrections]

Your both dates are wrong.
Jesus was acclaimed as King, then Crucified in 30 AD

Solomon started building the Temple in 1013 BC.
There is proof of both of these dates from the time periods as given in the Bible and from the historical record.
But if I posted these proofs, would you accept the truth and change your beliefs?

I am relying on the record of the Tyrian kings list (with King Hiram's regnal dates as the main focus), by Menander of Ephesus, which was included in Josephus's "Against Apion".

Also on the record given in "Theophilus To Autolycus", chapter XXII, titled "Antiquity of the Temple" that also refers to the Tyrian kings list by Menander and King Hiram's regnal dates. Since King Hiram of Tyre aided Solomon from the beginning of his temple construction, this helps to date the year when the foundation stone was first laid for Solomon's temple, which scripture puts heavy emphasis upon by giving the day, month and year of that occasion.

As for the AD 30 date for Christ's crucifixion, there is a way from scripture to prove that is the wrong date. When you look at Christ's FIRST Passover attendance in John 2:20, the Pharisees told Him at that time, "Forty-six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" Herod's massive Temple renovation began in 17 BC. Christ's crucifixion some 3 years after that 46th year would have been in AD 33, when He was 36-1/2 years old.

 

[Andrewn]

This Rev. 20 millennium was never described in scripture as being an idyllic utopia on earth, with Jesus reigning on a physical throne in Jerusalem. Those ideas have been added by people's assumptions about this period that really have no scriptural backing to support them.

I'm not a pre-Millennialist and do not believe the Dispensationalism.

So the millennium's inclusive dates are 968/967 BC until AD 33. Satan's deception of the nations was shut down during that time, (not that humanity's own ability to deceive itself was shut down),

I heard this interpretation before and makes no sense to me. Unfortunately, all we have to go by regarding the Millennium is Rev 20. The Millennium started with the coming of Christ and the war in heaven.

How does the release of Satan fit with this? Most ancient saints believed that an antichrist will come near the end of time. I think it's also possible to think of the many antichrists who persecute the Church from time to time as a recurring theme of Satan's release. Either way, the Nicene Creed did not mention a future anti-Christ or a future Millennium. It only proclaims that Christ's return is in the future:

"He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father; And He will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His kingdom shall have no end. . . . I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come."