Daniel's 70 Weeks - Future or Fulfilled?
Pastor Dave
Daniel's 70 Weeks - Future or Fulfilled?
By Ralph Woodrow
From "Great Prophecies of the Bible"
Daniel 9:24-27
24) Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people
and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression
and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation
for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness
and to seal up the vision and prophecy and to anoint
the most Holy.
25) Know therefore and understand, that from the
going forth of the commandment to restore and to
build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall
be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks:
the street shall be built again and the wall, even
in troublous times.
26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah
be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for
one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause
the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the
overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,
even until the consummation, and that determined shall
be poured upon the desolate.
This great prophecy pertaining to Daniel's people and
the city of Jerusalem is linked with a time period of
seventy "weeks". Bible students recognize that these
seventy weeks or 490 days are symbolic of years, with
each day representing a year, that is, 490 years.
It was this same year-for-a-day principle that was used
in Numbers 14:34. Because of unbelief, the Israelites
were to wander for 40 years in the wilderness, a year
for each day that the spies were absent searching out
the land. This same scale was used in Ezekiel 4:4-6:
"I have appointed thee a day for a year, a day for a year."
While Christians are generally united in the belief that
the "seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks",
that is, 69 weeks (483 years) measured unto "Messiah",
concerning the final week of the prophecy, the 70th week,
there are two entirely different interpretations that are
held today:
1) The FUTURIST interpretation which usually the
Dispensationalist view, which is very new, from
the early 1800's.
2) The FULFILLED interpretation, otherwise known
as the Preterist view, which says that all of what
Daniel said here has been fulfilled and is supported
by the fact that Jesus quoted Daniel, even Daniel 12
and applied it to His time, thereby unsealing all of
Daniel and making clear that it was being fulfilled
in His time.
The Futurist interpretation is that a huge gap of 2,000 years
or so separates the 70th week from the other 69 weeks that
measured unto Messiah. The Preterist interpretation is that
no gap is to be placed between the 69th week and the 70th
(that the 70th week followed the 69th in logical sequence).
The Futurist interpretation is that the 70th week refers
to the Antichrist who will make a covenant with the Jews.
This covenant will allow them to offer sacrifices in a
"rebuilt" temple at Jerusalem for seven years, but after
three and a half years he will break this covenant and
cause the sacrifices to cease. The Preterist interpretation,
on the other hand, is that the 70th week refers to Christ
and that the causing of the sacrifices to cease was
accomplished at Calvary when Christ became the final
and perfect sacrifice for sin.
What differences exist here! One says the 70th week is
future and the other says it is fulfilled! One says there
is a huge gap between the 69th and the 70th weeks;
the other requires no gap. One says the 70th week
pertains to Antichrist; the other to Jesus Christ! In view
of such glaring differences, both of these interpretations
simply cannot be correct, period!
We believe the Preterist interpretation is the correct view;
that the 69 weeks measured "unto Messiah"; that in the
midst of the 70th week after three and a half years of
ministry, He was cut off in death; that this sacrifice, being
the perfect sacrifice, caused other sacrifices to cease in
God' s plan. Let us now notice, step by step, all of the
basic parts of the 70 weeks prophecy and how these
things were fulfilled.
1) JERUSALEM WAS TO BE RESTORED. We have already
seen the Scriptures that explain this.
2) THE STREET AND WALL WERE TO BE REBUILT IN
TROUBLOUS TIMES. We have seen in the book of Ezra
some of the troubles that confronted the people in those
years of rebuilding.
3) THE MOST HOLY WAS TO BE ANOINTED. We believe
this reference is to Jesus Christ. Gabriel announced to
Mary: "The HOLY thing that shall be born of thee shall
be called the Son of God" (Lk. 1:35). Peter referred to
Him as "the HOLY ONE" (Acts 3:14). John referred to Him
as "the HOLY ONE" (1 John 2:20). Even demons had to
recognize him as "The HOLY ONE of God" (Mk. 1:24).
David spoke concerning Christ: "neither wilt thou suffer thine
HOLY ONE to see corruption" (Acts 2:27). In Revelation 3:7,
He is called "HOLY" and the Heavenly creatures rest not from
saying: "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY" before this one "which was,
and is, and is to come" (Rev. 4:8).
From the going forth of the commandment to restore and
build Jerusalem unto Messiah was to be 483 years. When
this time was fulfilled, those who knew this prophecy, were
expecting the appearance of the Messiah, that is, the Christ
(Christ is the Greek form of the Hebrew word Messiah).
Thus when John came baptizing, "the people were in
EXPECTATION, and all men mused in their hearts of John,
whether he were the Christ or not" (Lk. 3:15). John plainly
told them that he was not the Christ; that he was only the
forerunner. When Jesus appeared on the scene, John cried:
"Behold the Lamb of God!". The time had now come that
Jesus should be "made manifest to Israel" (John 1:29 31).
He was then baptized and when he had prayed, "the heaven
was opened. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape
like a dove upon him, and a voice from heaven, which said;
"Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."
(Lk. 3:21,22).
He had appeared to Israel right on time! Thus Jesus,
in evident reference to the time prophecy of Daniel, said:
"The TIME is fulfilled" (Mk. 1:15) and as the Messiah,
the Christ, the "anointed one", he preached the Gospel.
When he entered the synagogue of Nazareth, he announced:
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath ANOINTED
me" (Lk. 4:18-22). Acts 4:27 mentioned Jesus as the "holy"
one that the Lord "ANOINTED". And Peter mentioned that
"God ANOINTED Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost...
who went about doing good, healing all who were oppressed
of the devil" (Acts 10:38).
Daniel's prophecy revealed that the time period unto the
Messiah would be 69 weeks (483 years). This measured
to the time when Jesus was baptized and anointed to begin
His ministry as the Messiah, the Christ, the "Anointed One.
4) MESSIAH WAS TO BE CUT OFF. The 69 weeks (7 plus 62)
were to measure unto Messiah "and AFTER" the 69 weeks
"shall Messiah be cut off". Now "AFTER" 69 weeks does not
and cannot mean "in" or "during" the 69 weeks! If Messiah
was to be cut off AFTER the 69 weeks, there is only one week
left in which he could have been "cut off": the 70th week!
And this was after three and a half years of ministry.
The term "cut off" implies that Messiah would not die
a natural death; he would be murdered! So also had
Isaiah prophesied using an equivalent word: "He was
cut off out of the land of the living" (Isaiah 53:8).
The details about how Messiah was "cut off" are given
in the Gospels.
5) "TO FINISH THE TRANSGRESSION", or literally,
"to finish transgression". As Jesus was dying, He cried:
"It is FINISHED". At Calvary, Jesus finished transgression
by becoming sin for us.
Read this one carefully! And yes, the caps are used for
shouting, as well as emphasis! Get this part in your heart
and your head and stop trying to find a way around it,
even as you read it and just open your heart AND LISTEN!
NO FUTURE SACRIFICE CAN EVER FINISH TRANSGRESSION!!!
IT WAS FINISHED AT CALVARY, PERIOD, END OF STORY!!!
THE FUTURIST VIEW ENDS UP TRYING TO PUT THAT END
INTO THE FUTURE!!!
NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE FUTURIST VIEW TRIES TO MAKE IT
THE WORK OF AN EVIL MAN, AS IF SUCH A MAN COULD EVER
HAVE THE POWER TO PUT AN END TO SACRIFICES FOR SIN!!!
ONLY GOD CAN DO THAT, IN CHRIST! SO THE FUTURIST VIEW
ENDS UP ASSIGNING THE POWER OF GOD, TO A MERE MAN
AND SO, FUTURISM ENDS UP ASSIGNING THE POWER OF GOD
TO AN EVIL MAN!!! SHAME ON YOU!!! SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!!
Look at what the following verse says and don't try to dance
around it, Futurists/Dispensational/Egoists!
"He was wounded for our TRANSGRESSIONS" (Isaiah 53:5).
Hello?!? "Finish the transgression", "wounded for our
transgressions" ??? Are you getting this?! Seriously!
6) "TO MAKE AN END OF SINS". Here the basic thought
is repeated. If we understand the glorious significance
of what was accomplished at Calvary, we know that here
there was truly an end made of sins.
Jesus, who came "to save his people from their sins",
accomplished this when he "put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself" (Mt. 1:21; Heb. 9:26). "It is not possible that
the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins...
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins
forever... hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified...
And their sins... remember no more" (Heb. 10:4-11).
The old system of sacrifices could never make an end of sins,
but Christ, by the sacrifice of Himself, did make an end of
sins, even as the prophecy had said!
John announced him as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away
the sins of the world" (John 1:29). "Christ died for our sins"
(1 Cor. 15:3). He "bare our sins in his own body on the tree"
(l Peter 2:24) and "hath once suffered for sins" (3:18).
"He was manifested to take away our sins" (l John 3:5).
This "end of sins" was accomplished at Calvary, not at
some point in the future, people!
All of this does not mean, of course, that right at this point
men quit sinning. This was not the case. But what the
Scripture does mean is that at Calvary the eternal sacrifice
for sin was made, so that any and all, past, present, or
future, who will be forgiven of sins will be forgiven because
our Lord' s death almost 2,000 years ago clearly made an
"end of sins"!
7) "TO MAKE RECONCILIATION FOR INIQUITY." The word
reconciliation used here is the same word that is used so
frequently in the book of Leviticus where it is rendered
"to make atonement". This, too, was part of our Lord's
redemptive work. Surely "reconciliation" is a present reality
because of Calvary!
Jesus, "our merciful and faithful high priest" made
"RECONCILIATION for the sins of the people" (Heb. 2:17).
"Having made peace through the blood... to RECONCILE
all things unto Himself... and you, that were sometimes
alienated... hath he RECONCILED... through death"
(Col. 1:20-22; Eph. 2:16).
"God was in Christ, RECONCILING the world unto Himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed
unto us the word of RECONCILIATION" (2 Cor. 5:19).
Plainly, "reconciliation for iniquity" was accomplished by
Jesus, for He "gave Himself for us, that he might redeem
us from all INIQUITY" (Titus 2:14) and "the Lord hath
laid on him the INIQUITY of us all" (Isaiah 53:6).
8. ''TO BRING IN EVER LASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS." This too was
accomplished by the redemptive work of Christ! The great
redemption chapter of Isaiah 53 had prophesied: "My righteous
servant shall make many RIGHTEOUS." Paul put it this way: "By the
righteousness of one...shall many be made RIGHTEOUS... unto
eternal life by Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:17-21). He who came "to
fulfill all righteousness'' (Mt. 3:15) and who "loved
righteousness, and hated iniquity", was "anointed" of God (Heb.
1:9) and made unto us wisdom, and RIGHTEOUSNESS, and
sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). "Who his own self
bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to
sins, should live unto RIGHTEOUSNESS" (1 Peter 2:24). "Even the
RIGHTEOUSNESS of God...through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith
in his blood to declare his RIGHTEOUSNESS for the remission of
sins" (Rom. 3:21-26). "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin; that we might be made the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God in
him" (2 Cor. 5:21). "Everyone that doeth RIGHTEOUSNESS is born of
him" (1 John 2:29).
Taking all of these verses into consideration, we ask: Did Christ
in his coming to earth provide righteousness through his
redemptive work? All Christians acknowledge that he did. We ask
then: Was not this righteousness that he brought in everlasting?
Of course. Surely no Christians would deny that the righteousness
of Christ is "everlasting righteousness."
"By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having
obtained ETERNAL REDEMPTION "�everlasting righteousness�" for us"
(Heb. 9:12). This eternal or everlasting righteousness is
contrasted to the old sacrifices under the law which were only of
a temporary nature. But Christ, once for all time, offered
himself�thus providing, as the prophecy of Daniel had said,
"everlasting righteousness."
One only has to read the great redemption passages of Romans,
Corinthians, Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews to see how an
"end" of transgressions and sins, "reconciliation for iniquity",
and "everlasting righteousness" were all accomplished at Calvary
by our Lord Jesus Christ!
In view of this, we see no basis for the Futurist teaching that
none of these things have yet been fulfilled, but are to be
linked with a supposed seventieth week at the end of the age! To
teach such is contradictory and tends to take away from the glory
of that great redemption of Calvary which so beautifully and
completely fulfilled these prophecies!
9. "TO SEAL UP VISION AND PROPHECY", or literally, "to seal up
vision and prophet." The use of the metaphor "to seal" is derived
from the ancient custom of attaching a seal to a document to show
that it was genuine (See 1 Kings 21:8; Jer. 32:10, 11; cf. John
6:27; 1 Cor. 9:2). Christ "sealed" Old Testament prophecy by
fulfilling what was written of him.
Repeatedly we read concerning him: "...that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophets." Acts 3:18 says: "Those things
which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets,
that Christ should suffer he hath so fulfilled:" Truly Jesus
fulfilled what was written in the visions and prophecies of the
Old Testament concerning him, and thus he "sealed" them�showed
that they were genuine. 'They are they", he said, "which testify
of me" (John 5:39). "All the prophets and the law prophesied
until John" (Mt. 11:13), then John presented Jesus as he that was
to be "made manifest to Israel." Jesus was the one that was to
come�and we look for none other. He is the fulfillment of vision
and prophecy.
10. "HE SHALL CONFIRM THE COVENANT." When Jesus instituted the
Lord' s supper, representative of his shed blood for the
remission of sins, he said: 'This is my blood of the new
testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of
sins" (Mt. 26:28). The word "testament" here and the word
"covenant" are translated from exactly the same word in the New
Testament. "How much more shall the blood of Christ...purge your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this
cause he is the mediator of the new testament [covenant]"
(Heb.9:14,15).
Jesus is called the "mediator of the new covenant" (Heb. 8:6),
the "messenger of the covenant" (Mal. 3:1), and his shed blood is
called "the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 12:24). Our
Lord Jesus is the one who confirmed the covenant through his
redemptive sacrifice at Calvary. And how beautifully this
harmonizes with what we have already seen.
11. "HE SHALL CAUSE THE SACRIFICE AND THE OBLATION TO CEASE."
This too was fulfilled in the death of Jesus Christ. In the Old
Testament, as we have mentioned, sacrifices were repeatedly made.
Each of these was but a mere type looking forward to the time
when the perfect sacrifice, the Lamb of God, would be offered.
Once this would be accomplished, God would no longer require or
accept any other sacrifice.
The perfect sacrifice was Jesus Christ. The old system of
repeated sacrifices (types) could only end at Calvary�when Christ
became the perfect, eternal, and final sacrifice (See Heb. 9 and
10). In addition to Calvary's sacrifice, "there remaineth no more
sacrifice for sins" (Heb. 10: 18, 26).
For a few more years, the Jews continued their sacrifices, but
these were not recognized by God. Such cannot be termed
sacrifices in the true scriptural sense of the word, for the
death of Christ provided the perfect, and therefore, the final
sacrifice for sins forever.
Further proof that this was fulfilled in Christ is seen in the
time element, for the prophecy said that sacrifice would cease in
the middle of the week�the 70th week. This was when Christ died,
for the 69 weeks measured unto Messiah and his death came after a
ministry of three and a half years.
That this was the length of our Lord's ministry may be seen by a
study of the gospel according to John in which mention is made of
four passovers that occurred during our Lord's ministry: John
2:13, 5:1 (see Footnote 1), 6:4, 13:1. Eusebius, a Christian
writer of the fourth century, pointed these things out: "Now the
whole period of our Saviour's teaching and working of miracles is
said to have been three-and-a-half years, which is half a week.
John the evangelist, in his Gospel makes this clear to the
attentive." (Footnote 2)
And so, after three and a half years of ministry as the
Christ�the anointed one�Jesus was cut off in death, in the middle
of the 70th week of seven years. As Augustine said: "Daniel even
defined the time when Christ was to come and suffer by the exact
date." (Footnote 3)
Understanding this, we can now see real significance in certain
New Testament statements which also speak of a definite
established time at which Jesus would die. For example, we read:
"They sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because
his hour was not yet come" (John 7:30). In John 2:4, Jesus said,
"Mine hour is not yet come." On another occasion, he said, "My
time is not yet come" (John 7:6). Then just prior to his betrayal
and death, he said, "My time is at hand" (Mt. 26:18), and
finally, '"the hour is come" (John 17:1; Mt. 26:45).
These and other verses clearly show that there was a definite
time in the plan of God when Jesus would die. He came to fulfill
the scriptures, and there is only one Old Testament scripture
which predicted the time of his death�the prophecy which stated
that Messiah would be cut off in the midst of the 70th week�at
the close of three and a half years of ministry! How perfectly
the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ!
But those who say that the confirming of the covenant and causing
sacrifices to cease in the midst of the 70th week refers to a
future Antichrist, completely destroy this beautiful fulfillment
and are at a complete loss to show where in the Old Testament the
time of our Lord's death was predicted.
The prophecy of Daniel 9 stated that Messiah would confirm the
covenant (or would cause the covenant to prevail) with many of
Daniel's people for the "week" or seven years. We ask then, when
Christ came, was his ministry directed in a special way to
Daniel's people �to "Israel " (Dan. 9:20)? Yes!
John introduced him as he "that should be made manifest to
ISRAEL" (John 1:31). "I am not sent", Jesus said, "but unto the
lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL" (Mt. 15:24). And when he first
sent out his apostles, they were directed: "Go not into the way
of the Gentiles...go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
ISRAEL" (Mt. 10:5,6).
The first half of the "week", the time of our Lord's ministry,
was definitely directed toward ISRAEL. But what about the second
half�the final three and a half years of the prophecy�was it also
linked with Israel? Did the disciples continue to preach for the
duration of the remaining three and a half years (as Christ's
representatives) especially to Daniel's people�to Israel? Yes,
they did!
Jesus had told the disciples to go into all the world and preach
the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15; Mt.28:19; Acts 1:8),
YET�and this is significant�after Christ ascended, the disciples
still at first preached only to Israel! Why? We know of only one
prophecy which would indicate that this was to be the course
followed. It is the prophecy of the 70 weeks which implied that
after the death of Messiah there would still be three and a half
years that pertained to Israel!
Bearing this in mind, we can now understand at least one reason
why the gospel went "to the Jew first" and then later to the
Gentiles (Rom. 1:16). Peter preached shortly after Pentecost: "Ye
are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant... unto you
first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you,
in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (Acts 3:25,
26). "It was necessary that the word of God should first have
been spoken to you" (Acts 13:46).
In person, Christ came to Israel during the first half of the
"week"�three and a half years. Through the disciples�for the
three and a half years that remained�his message still went to
Israel, "the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with
signs following" (Mk. 16:20). In a very real sense of the word,
the ministry of the disciples was a continuation of the ministry
of Christ.
Then came the conversion of Cornelius which completely changed
the missionary outreach, outlook, and ministry of the church.
Though the New Testament does not give an exact date when this
happened, apparently the time for special exclusive blessing upon
Daniel's people had drawn to a close. The gospel which had gone
first to the Jews was now to take its full mission�to be preached
to all people of all nations!
This time of changeover was marked by a number of supernatural
events. Cornelius received a heavenly visitation. An angel
appeared to him and told him to call for Peter "who shall tell
thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved" (Acts
11:14). God showed Peter a vision which caused him to know that
the gospel was now to go to the Gentiles and not to Israelites
only. All of these things were timed perfectly�showing that God's
hand was accomplishing a definite purpose.
Returning to Jerusalem, Peter explained what had happened. "When
they heard these things, they... glorified God, saying, Then hath
God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts
11:18). From this very point, more and more, there was a turning
to the Gentiles with the gospel message. God's measurement of 490
years pertaining in a special way to Israel had obviously been
completed.
And finally,
12. THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND THE TEMPLE. This part of the
prophecy was not dated within the framework of the 70 weeks as
was the time of the appearance of Messiah to Israel, the time of
his death, etc. Nevertheless, living on this side of the
fulfillment, we know that the predicted destruction found
fulfillment in 70 A.D. when the armies of Titus brought the city
to desolation.
With Adam Clarke we say: "The whole of this prophecy from the
times and corresponding events has been fulfilled to the very
letter." (Clarke's Commentary, note on Daniel 9)
(Footnotes:)
1. In this verse the feast is not mentioned by name. However, by
taking John 4:35 about the "four months" into consideration, it
is possible to determine that this was the feast of the passover
(See Boutflower, page 208).
2. Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, bk. 8, chapter 2.
3. quoted in The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1, page
487.
Copyrighted material used by permission of the Ralph Woodrow
Evangelistic Association, PO Box 21, Palm Springs, CA 92263.
www.ralphwoodrow.org
What do YOU think ?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in
the world believed that the world was flat? And
up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought
the atom was the smallest thing, until you split
it open and this like, whole mess of crap came out.
Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably
arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny
tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?"
- Phoebe from Friends, regarding evolution
Pastor Dave
Daniel 9:24-27
And finally,
(Footnotes:)
--
Pastor Dave
"Education is a state-controlled manufactory of echoes."
-Norman Douglas
bear
There is nothing in the passage that would suggest it to be referring
to "490 days", seventy weeks or seventy sevens can be denotative of
years as well as days. No different than we would now recognize 49
decades to be 490 years.
Strong's Hebrew #7620 shabua from 7651; a period of seven (days,
years),
>It was this same year-for-a-day principle that was used
>in Numbers 14:34. Because of unbelief, the Israelites
>were to wander for 40 years in the wilderness, a year
>for each day that the spies were absent searching out
>the land. This same scale was used in Ezekiel 4:4-6:
>"I have appointed thee a day for a year, a day for a year."
>
Numbers specifically says one year for a day, so does Ezekiel, Daniel
has no such reference. That is only an opinion of the author.
Numbers 14:34 'According to the number of days which you spied out the
land, forty days, for every day you shall bear your guilt a year, even
forty years, and you will know My opposition.
Ezekiel 4:4-6 (NASB95)
4 "As for you, lie down on your left side and lay the
iniquity of the house of Israel on it; you shall bear their iniquity
for the number of days that you lie on it.
5 "For I have assigned you a number of days
corresponding to the years of their iniquity, three hundred and ninety
days; thus you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.
6 "When you have completed these, you shall lie down a
second time, but on your right side and bear the iniquity of the house
of Judah; I have assigned it to you for forty days, a day for each
year.
Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your
holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make
atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal
up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
Not one word about "days", all one must do to verify the verse is
referring to years is to count from the decree to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem until the Messiah came was seven weeks and sixty-two weeks,
69 weeks, 483 years.
>While Christians are generally united in the belief that
>the "seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks",
>that is, 69 weeks (483 years) measured unto "Messiah",
>concerning the final week of the prophecy, the 70th week,
>there are two entirely different interpretations that are
>held today:
>
>1) The FUTURIST interpretation which usually the
> Dispensationalist view, which is very new, from
> the early 1800's.
>
This is a ploy of the Preterists, they are aware that they cannot
defend their doctrine from scripture, therefore, they try to cast
suspicion on those that challenge their views by bringing up things
like the "Dispensationalist view, which is very new". It has
absolutely nothing to do with what scripture says.
>2) The FULFILLED interpretation, otherwise known
> as the Preterist view, which says that all of what
> Daniel said here has been fulfilled and is supported
> by the fact that Jesus quoted Daniel, even Daniel 12
> and applied it to His time, thereby unsealing all of
> Daniel and making clear that it was being fulfilled
> in His time.
>
This is nothing but an opinion of the author and one that he cannot
support and/or prove with scripture by answering questions challenging
his assumptions. Notice how little, if any, specific scripture the
Preterists quote that validates their claims.
>The Futurist interpretation is that a huge gap of 2,000 years
>or so separates the 70th week from the other 69 weeks that
>measured unto Messiah. The Preterist interpretation is that
>no gap is to be placed between the 69th week and the 70th
>(that the 70th week followed the 69th in logical sequence).
>
Ok, if there is no gap, then answer the following questions, with
verifiable answers.
Seventy weeks of seven years for a total of 490 years. "have been
decreed" for a specific people and purpose. Four hundred and ninety
years were decreed (determined) for Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for
six purposes.
1 "�to finish transgression�"
If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
and when and provide some evidence?
Keep in mind that Gabriel told Daniel these verses were for Daniel's
people and the Holy City, Jerusalem. So that would mean the Jews are
no longer in violation of God's laws, commands, or their.
2 "�to make an end of sin�"
If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
and when and provide some evidence?
3 "�to make atonement for iniquity�"
I believe the argument could be made that this was at least partially
accomplished by Jesus on the cross. If you have other views, would you
explain them with specifics?
4 "�to bring in everlasting righteousness�"
I do not see anything ambiguous about the word "everlasting". Is
there anyone that believes "everlasting righteousness" has been
achieved?
If so, I would certainly like to see any plausible explanation you may
have. My view is that it will not happen (cannot happen) until Jesus
physically returns to earth and sets up His kingdom here. Remember,
this passage of scripture is explicitly directed to the Jewish people.
5 "�to seal up vision and prophecy�"
If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
and when and provide some evidence? As an example, provide some proof
that all prophecy has been fulfilled.
6 "�and to anoint the most holy place�"
If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
and when and provide some evidence?
The same Hebrew word, "qodash" is used for "the most holy place" as
for "holy city". If you note the meaning for "qodash', it is a
"BUILDING", "a PLACE" and not a person as some in this group proclaim.
Ex 26:33 "You shall hang up the veil under the clasps, and shall bring
in the ark of the testimony there within the veil; and the veil shall
serve for you as a partition between the holy place and the holy of
holies.
Ex 26:34 "You shall put the mercy seat on the ark of the testimony in
the holy of holies .
2 Chron 3:8 Now he made the room of the holy of holies: its length
across the width of the house was twenty cubits, and its width was
twenty cubits; and he overlaid it with fine gold, amounting to 600
talents.
2 Chron 3:10 Then he made two sculptured cherubim in the room of the
holy of holies and overlaid them with gold.
2 Chron 4:22 and the snuffers, the bowls, the spoons and the fire pans
of pure gold; and the entrance of the house, its inner doors for the
holy of holies and the doors of the house, that is, of the nave, of
gold.
2 Chron 5:7 Then the priests brought the ark of the covenant of the
LORD to its place, into the inner sanctuary of the house, to the holy
of holies, under the wings of the cherubim.
Heb 9:3 Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called
the Holy of Holies,
The above verses are from the NASU and everyone of them references a
"thing" or "place" not once a person. The KJV has 46 occurrences where
the phrase "most holy" is used and not one of them references Jesus or
the church. In each verse, it is speaking of a "thing" or "place". It
is easy to understand why some cannot possibly have 9:24 talking about
a "place" (or a physical temple) because that would present a huge
problem for their theories. It would destroy their whole story.
Therefore, I believe it is irrefutable evidence that verse 24 is in
reference to the "anointing" of the physical temple as described by
Ezekiel in ch 40-48 that will be built at some point in time before
Jesus' second coming.
Remember, the verse reads, "Seventy weeks (490 years) have been
decreed for your people (the Jews) and your holy city (Jerusalem)�."
It is obvious from Dan 9:25 that 483 of those years have elapsed.
It seems quite clear to me that there are two possibilities,
1 The 490 years were completed approximately 39 AD with all 6 of the
entities being fulfilled for the Jews and Jerusalem, or,
2 The 6 entities of v24 have not been fulfilled and the last week of
Daniel's prophesy is still future.
For those that ridicule the idea of a "gap in time". First, other than
a figure of speech, I know no one that suggests that physical time
stopped. The prophesies of Daniel gives the amount of time for the
specified "events" to be fulfilled.
If there is no time lapse (gap) between the "events" described in Dan
9:24-27 as some assert, then can you explain when and how the six
events in Dan 9:24 were fulfilled and provide supporting evidence for
your opinions?
®
bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
> Seventy weeks of seven years for a total of 490 years. "have been
> decreed" for a specific people and purpose. Four hundred and ninety
> years were decreed (determined) for Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for
> six purposes.
>
> 1 "�to finish transgression�"
>
> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
> and when and provide some evidence?
>
> Keep in mind that Gabriel told Daniel these verses were for Daniel's
> people and the Holy City, Jerusalem. So that would mean the Jews are
> no longer in violation of God's laws, commands, or their.
>
> 2 "�to make an end of sin�"
>
> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
> and when and provide some evidence?
>
> 3 "�to make atonement for iniquity�"
>
> I believe the argument could be made that this was at least partially
> accomplished by Jesus on the cross. If you have other views, would you
> explain them with specifics?
>
> 4 "�to bring in everlasting righteousness�"
>
> I do not see anything ambiguous about the word "everlasting". Is
> there anyone that believes "everlasting righteousness" has been
> achieved?
>
> If so, I would certainly like to see any plausible explanation you may
> have. My view is that it will not happen (cannot happen) until Jesus
> physically returns to earth and sets up His kingdom here. Remember,
> this passage of scripture is explicitly directed to the Jewish people.
>
> 5 "�to seal up vision and prophecy�"
>
> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
> and when and provide some evidence? As an example, provide some proof
> that all prophecy has been fulfilled.
>
> 6 "�and to anoint the most holy place�"
> decreed for your people (the Jews) and your holy city (Jerusalem)�."
> It is obvious from Dan 9:25 that 483 of those years have elapsed.
>
> It seems quite clear to me that there are two possibilities,
>
> 1 The 490 years were completed approximately 39 AD with all 6 of the
> entities being fulfilled for the Jews and Jerusalem, or,
>
> 2 The 6 entities of v24 have not been fulfilled and the last week of
> Daniel's prophesy is still future.
>
> For those that ridicule the idea of a "gap in time". First, other than
> a figure of speech, I know no one that suggests that physical time
> stopped. The prophesies of Daniel gives the amount of time for the
> specified "events" to be fulfilled.
>
> If there is no time lapse (gap) between the "events" described in Dan
> 9:24-27 as some assert, then can you explain when and how the six
> events in Dan 9:24 were fulfilled and provide supporting evidence for
> your opinions?
>
Correct! Glad to see you back posting again Bear.
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
dolf
days, then it is a base-7 chronology central upon the unit 6D as 24 x 7
x 13 = 2184 days or 6 x 364.
In this instance the 70 weeks are the equivalent of 70 x 7 x 364 =
178,360 days / 365.2425 - 488.33 years
dolf
days, then it is a base-7 chronology central upon the unit 6D as 24 x 7
x 13 = 2184 days or 6 x 364.
In this instance the 70 weeks are the equivalent of 70 x 7 x 364 =
178,360 days / 365.2425 - 488.33 years
Thus if 457 BCE is considered the starting point, it brings you to 31.33
CE to the time of the crucifixion.
On 3/01/10 11:47 AM, � wrote:
bear
wrote:
This is not an accurate statement by the author. His problem stems
from the fact that the Preterists have a problem comprehending what
the verses say, or, they just refuse to accept what is written as it
would destroy their bogus doctrine. They seem to think that Daniel was
incapable of referencing more that one prince in four verses.
Daniel 9:25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a
decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there
will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with
plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
Nothing ambiguous about v25, it definitely states, "Messiah the
Prince" and gives the time when He would come.
Daniel 9:26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut
off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will
destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a
flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
Verse 26 is where it gets real confusing for the Preterist. Notice,
there is no question that it is the same Prince as in v24 that "will
be cut off and have nothing", all that was promised to Mary, "He will
be great, will be called the Son of the Most High, God will give Him
the throne of David, He will reign over the house of Jacob forever,
His kingdom will have no end". Jesus had none of these promises when
He was here the first time. Does that mean that God lied to His Son,
what do you say?
The Preterist will probably not respond to this but if they do, watch
all the spiritualizing they will perform on Luke's writings.
Luke 1:32 "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most
High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
Luke 1:33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His
kingdom will have no end."
Now notice the comma after "will have nothing", followed by the
conjunction "and" which means there is additional information
following, that being, "...and the people of the prince who is to come
will destroy the city and the sanctuary".
Who is it that will destroy the city and the sanctuary? Is it not the
people of "the prince who is to come"? Was it not the Romans who
destroyed Jerusalem and the sanctuary? I believe that history will
prove that it was. Being that the verse said that it would be the
prince who is to come of the people that would destroy the city, then,
those believing this is the same prince as is referred to in the first
part of verse 26 and in verse 25 has to believe that Jesus was Roman,
or at least He was a Roman prince. Now which is it, was Jesus a Roman
prince or, is this prince a different prince. There is no reasonable,
logical argument for Jesus being a Roman prince.
"...its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war;
desolations are determined."
Can the end of Jerusalem and the sanctuary be described as coming
"with a flood"? Can you give a logical explanation as to how this
description would apply to the destruction of Jerusalem?
The Preterist say the last days were in the first century so how do
they explain the phrase, "even to the end there will be war"? What
"end" was Daniel talking about? We are still having wars, does that
not mean the end has not come yet?
>>What differences exist here!
We can certainly agree on this statement.
>>One says the 70th week is
>>future and the other says it is fulfilled!
Again, a true statement. You answer my questions proving the 70th
week is fulfilled and I will answer your questions of why it is
future, fair enough?
>>One says there
>>is a huge gap between the 69th and the 70th weeks;
>>the other requires no gap.
OK, then can you provide proof that all the events in v24-27 have been
fulfilled? If you cannot, then your interpretation is in error, one
cannot believe what the Bible says or, God has decided not to start
the events prophesied for the 70th week.
>>One says the 70th week
>>pertains to Antichrist; the other to Jesus Christ!
Now this is a blatant falsehood, the Preterists say that v24-27 is
only about Jesus Christ, whereas, the Futurists read it as it is
written, it is about Jesus and, the prince who is to come. They are
not one and the same and the Preterists refuse to answer specific
questions that would prove their belief to be valid.
>>In view
>>of such glaring differences, both of these interpretations
>>simply cannot be correct, period!
>>
Amen to that brother! So why do the Preterists refuse to engage in a
discussion where they are expected to answer questions proving their
view to be correct?
>>We believe the Preterist interpretation is the correct view;
If it is the correct view, why is it that not one holding to that
belief can answer questions with supporting evidence that would
validate their belief.
>>that the 69 weeks measured "unto Messiah"; that in the
>>midst of the 70th week after three and a half years of
>>ministry,
Another fabrication by the Preterist. Ask them for scripture that says
the Messiah was cut off in the "midst of the 70th week", they cannot
provide one, because there is not one. It explicitly states, "Then
after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off..." Not one
word about the "midst" of anything, nor, is there anything about
"three and a half years", or "His ministry". This is nothing but a
concoction of the Preterists. "AFTER sixty-two" does not equate to
"in the midst of the 70th" except in the fantasies of the Preterists.
>>He was cut off in death;
First, how can one be "cut off in death"? I would like to see an
explanation for that.
>>that this sacrifice, being
>>the perfect sacrifice, caused other sacrifices to cease in
>>God' s plan.
Where is there any reference to Jesus being a "sacrifice" in these
four verses? There are not any. The only reference to "sacrifice" is
in v27 and there is not one word in v27 that is about Jesus, not one.
Daniel 9:27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one
week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice
and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who
makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is
decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
When it is to his advantage, Dave likes to apply the "rules of
grammar", however, when it comes to Daniel, those rules are discarded.
"And he..."
he (h) rules of grammar, a personal pronoun refers to the previous
nearest proper noun, "the prince (p) who is to come", which was proven
earlier that this is not the Messiah.
Then there are these questions that the Preterists cannot answer.
If, this is talking about the Messiah as the Preterists claim, why
would He "make a firm covenant with the many for one week"? What was
that covenant, who was it with? The verse states, "...but in the
middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain
offering...".
OK, if Jesus made this covenant, why would he choose to "put a stop to
sacrifice and grain offering" in the middle of the week? Did He make
a mistake, did He not realize what He was doing when He made it for a
week, or did He change His mind? Is the Jesus you worship one that
makes a "firm covenant" and then breaks it?
It does not say that the sacrifice stopped, it says that "he will
"put" a stop to it, there is a difference. If this was Jesus and He
was crucified approximately 30-35 AD, why was sacrifice and offerings
still preformed until the sanctuary was destroyed in 70 AD? If Jesus
was crucified in the "midst" of the 70th week, was it still the
"midst" of the week 35-40 years later? Is there some glaring
inconsistencies with the Preterists views? I think there are.
"...and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate,"
Keep in mind the Preterists believe there is no "Antichrist" in
v24-27, only Jesus, so how does Jesus make anything "desolate"? Is He
not holy, what would he do to make the sanctuary desolate?
"...even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured
out on the one who makes desolate."
This states that a "complete destruction, one that is decreed" will be
poured out on the one who makes desolate, so, is it the contention of
the Preterist that it was decreed that Jesus would suffer complete
destruction? Can they offer any scripture that would support such a
view? If Jesus was subject to complete destruction, then there does
not seem to be any hope for Christians and the Bible is not what it
claims to be.
There is a plethora of details that the Preterist conveniently
overlook when it comes to trying to support their doctrine. They
preach a good sermon unless and until they are challenged and asked
for evidence supporting their views, that gets people placed into the
"kill file" and ignored.
bear
>On Sat, 01/02/10, at 1:51:59PM,
>bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Seventy weeks of seven years for a total of 490 years. "have been
>> decreed" for a specific people and purpose. Four hundred and ninety
>> years were decreed (determined) for Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for
>> six purposes.
>>
>> 1 "�to finish transgression�"
>>
>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>> and when and provide some evidence?
>>
>> Keep in mind that Gabriel told Daniel these verses were for Daniel's
>> people and the Holy City, Jerusalem. So that would mean the Jews are
>> no longer in violation of God's laws, commands, or their.
>>
>> 2 "�to make an end of sin�"
>>
>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>> and when and provide some evidence?
>>
>> 3 "�to make atonement for iniquity�"
>>
>> I believe the argument could be made that this was at least partially
>> accomplished by Jesus on the cross. If you have other views, would you
>> explain them with specifics?
>>
>> 4 "�to bring in everlasting righteousness�"
>>
>> I do not see anything ambiguous about the word "everlasting". Is
>> there anyone that believes "everlasting righteousness" has been
>> achieved?
>>
>> If so, I would certainly like to see any plausible explanation you may
>> have. My view is that it will not happen (cannot happen) until Jesus
>> physically returns to earth and sets up His kingdom here. Remember,
>> this passage of scripture is explicitly directed to the Jewish people.
>>
>> 5 "�to seal up vision and prophecy�"
>>
>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>> and when and provide some evidence? As an example, provide some proof
>> that all prophecy has been fulfilled.
>>
>> 6 "�and to anoint the most holy place�"
>> decreed for your people (the Jews) and your holy city (Jerusalem)�."
>> It is obvious from Dan 9:25 that 483 of those years have elapsed.
>>
>> It seems quite clear to me that there are two possibilities,
>>
>> 1 The 490 years were completed approximately 39 AD with all 6 of the
>> entities being fulfilled for the Jews and Jerusalem, or,
>>
>> 2 The 6 entities of v24 have not been fulfilled and the last week of
>> Daniel's prophesy is still future.
>>
>> For those that ridicule the idea of a "gap in time". First, other than
>> a figure of speech, I know no one that suggests that physical time
>> stopped. The prophesies of Daniel gives the amount of time for the
>> specified "events" to be fulfilled.
>>
>> If there is no time lapse (gap) between the "events" described in Dan
>> 9:24-27 as some assert, then can you explain when and how the six
>> events in Dan 9:24 were fulfilled and provide supporting evidence for
>> your opinions?
>>
>
>
>Correct! Glad to see you back posting again Bear.
Thanks Randy. It is still hectic around here but hope to have a
little time for the group. I'm sure there are some that wish I was
gone permantly but they are not that lucky yet.
Hope you have a better 2010 than 2009, God Bless.
Bear
randy
"�"
>> Seventy weeks of seven years for a total of 490 years. "have been
>> decreed" for a specific people and purpose. Four hundred and ninety
>> years were decreed (determined) for Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for
>> six purposes.
>> 1 "�to finish transgression�"
>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>> and when and provide some evidence?
All sin that has ever been done to God, or could be done to God, was done at
Calvary. Terminating the Son of God was the worst thing the human race could
do to God, because the Son of God represented all of God's love shown to
humanity.
>> 2 "�to make an end of sin�"
>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>> and when and provide some evidence?
Sin is completely dealt with at the death of Christ. In his death God faced
the sum total of all human sin, and Christ forgave it. Therefore, sin as a
source of human judgment was dealt with, so that death can no longer prevent
man from attaining to his destiny. If people choose to continue in sin, they
may. But if they choose to live by the spirit of the Son of God sin can no
longer prevent them from obtaining eternal redemption.
>> 3 "�to make atonement for iniquity�"
>> I believe the argument could be made that this was at least partially
>> accomplished by Jesus on the cross. If you have other views, would you
>> explain them with specifics?
Same as #2.
>> 4 "�to bring in everlasting righteousness�"
>> I do not see anything ambiguous about the word "everlasting". Is
>> there anyone that believes "everlasting righteousness" has been
>> achieved?
Jesus offered his own life to mankind in the form of the gift of his
spirituality to them. If we receive his spirituality we receive his own life
and righteousness. And it is a righteousness that endures forever, not being
able to be suppressed by mortality and death.
>> 5 "�to seal up vision and prophecy�"
>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>> and when and provide some evidence? As an example, provide some proof
>> that all prophecy has been fulfilled.
This specifically has to do with prophecy of the coming of Christ.
>> 6 "�and to anoint the most holy place�"
>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>> and when and provide some evidence?
The "most holy place" was already described by Jesus to be his own body. He
described his own body as the true temple of God, the true dwelling place of
God's presence, the very place at which God's identity was established.
Jesus was anointed as true representative of God and as the true God when he
lived his earthly existence and carried out his redemptive work.
I hope this helps.
randy
teresita
> Thus if 457 BCE is considered the starting point, it brings you to 31.33
> CE to the time of the crucifixion.
Why should 457 BC be the starting point? Because that was when the Zeus
Temple at Olympia was completed. The forty-foot statue of Zeus inside it
became one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
bear
wrote:
>
>"�"
>
>>> Seventy weeks of seven years for a total of 490 years. "have been
>>> decreed" for a specific people and purpose. Four hundred and ninety
>>> years were decreed (determined) for Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for
>>> six purposes.
>>> 1 "�to finish transgression�"
>>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>>> and when and provide some evidence?
>
>All sin that has ever been done to God, or could be done to God, was done at
>Calvary. Terminating the Son of God was the worst thing the human race could
>do to God, because the Son of God represented all of God's love shown to
>humanity.
>
Hello Randy, thanks for sharing your thoughts, I appreciate your
opinions. However, I do have a couple of issues; one being that if
you notice after the questions, I requested some evidence that would
support the answers. I fail to see where you provided any. Also, I
believe you missed the topic of my original post to this thread. That
said, I will offer some of my views on your comments.
Perhaps I misunderstand your intent with your first comment, which I
have some question about. I believe that Jesus paid the price for all
sins, past, present and future at the Cross, however, I do not believe
that His paying the price for all sins eliminated our propensity for
still committing sins. If so, why would John write v9? I have not
seen anywhere in scripture where it implies we are forgiven our sins,
unless, we confess and ask for forgiveness.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to
forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
I also must disagree with your comment, "Terminating the Son of God
was the worst thing the human race could do to God..." If that view
is correct, how do you explain Matthew 12:31,32?
Matthew 12:31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be
forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be
forgiven.
Matthew 12:32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall
be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall
not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
>>> 2 "�to make an end of sin�"
>>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>>> and when and provide some evidence?
>
>Sin is completely dealt with at the death of Christ. In his death God faced
>the sum total of all human sin, and Christ forgave it. Therefore, sin as a
>source of human judgment was dealt with, so that death can no longer prevent
>man from attaining to his destiny. If people choose to continue in sin, they
>may. But if they choose to live by the spirit of the Son of God sin can no
>longer prevent them from obtaining eternal redemption.
>
Again, I have a problem. I agree that Jesus offered Himself as the
ultimate sacrifice for all sins, however, can you provide some
scripture where all sin was forgiven at the cross? If that is true,
then why would it be necessary for us to confess and ask for
forgiveness of those sins?
>>> 3 "�to make atonement for iniquity�"
>>> I believe the argument could be made that this was at least partially
>>> accomplished by Jesus on the cross. If you have other views, would you
>>> explain them with specifics?
>
>Same as #2.
>
No specifics, no supporting scripture.
>>> 4 "�to bring in everlasting righteousness�"
>>> I do not see anything ambiguous about the word "everlasting". Is
>>> there anyone that believes "everlasting righteousness" has been
>>> achieved?
>
>Jesus offered his own life to mankind in the form of the gift of his
>spirituality to them. If we receive his spirituality we receive his own life
>and righteousness. And it is a righteousness that endures forever, not being
>able to be suppressed by mortality and death.
>
Randy, I believe you missed the subject and the admonishment that I
presented. Perhaps you did not read this.
"Seventy weeks of seven years for a total of 490 years "have been
decreed" for a specific people and purpose. Four hundred and ninety
years were decreed (determined) for Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for
six purposes."
And this,
"Keep in mind that Gabriel told Daniel these verses were for Daniel's
people and the Holy City, Jerusalem. So that would mean the Jews are
no longer in violation of God's laws, commands, or their."
>>> 5 "�to seal up vision and prophecy�"
>>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>>> and when and provide some evidence? As an example, provide some proof
>>> that all prophecy has been fulfilled.
>
>This specifically has to do with prophecy of the coming of Christ.
>
What scripture are you basing your comment on?
>>> 6 "�and to anoint the most holy place�"
>>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>>> and when and provide some evidence?
>
>The "most holy place" was already described by Jesus to be his own body. He
>described his own body as the true temple of God, the true dwelling place of
>God's presence, the very place at which God's identity was established.
>Jesus was anointed as true representative of God and as the true God when he
>lived his earthly existence and carried out his redemptive work.
>
This was written by Daniel approximately six centuries before Jesus,
so how could this "holy place" be the body of Jesus? Remember, this
chapter of Daniel was written to and for the Jews. They would never,
at that time, associate the "holy place" with the body of Jesus but
they would associate it with their temple. Do you agree or not?
>I hope this helps.
>randy
May I suggest you read my original post on this thread, read your
comments and ask yourself did you really address the context of the
post?
Again, thanks for offering your views.
Bear
I
> Again, I have a problem. I agree that Jesus offered Himself as the
> ultimate sacrifice for all sins
Where does Jesus HIMSELF state that in the Synoptic gospels????
--
"All things are probable. Try to believe. Really! Try to believe even if
it's bloody stupid and irrational. Why? Because I said so, that's why!
Don't ask questions. Just believe." - Mark 17: 1- 3 (MTV)
bear
wrote:
>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Again, I have a problem. I agree that Jesus offered Himself as the
>> ultimate sacrifice for all sins
>
>Where does Jesus HIMSELF state that in the Synoptic gospels????
Well, you show me where I claimed that Jesus was the one that made
such a statement, in the gospels or anywhere else, and perhaps I can
show where He did.
I believe you are reading things into my comment that are not there,
why?
Bear
I
>>> Again, I have a problem. I agree that Jesus offered Himself as the
>>> ultimate sacrifice for all sins
>>Where does Jesus HIMSELF state that in the Synoptic gospels????
>
> Well, you show me where I claimed that Jesus was the one that made
> such a statement, in the gospels or anywhere else, and perhaps I can
> show where He did.
So .....
Jesus himself never stated that he was a human sacrifice for God (at least
not in the earliest Synoptic Gospels).
What makes you think Jesus was a human sacrifice for God? Does God require
a human sacrifice? Why does "God" have to die in order to appease God?
You are reading into Jesus what others stated about him decades after his
death. Jesus referred to himself as "son of man" - an Aramaic phrase
meaning "human".
--
MY BLOG - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
bear
wrote:
>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Again, I have a problem. I agree that Jesus offered Himself as the
>>>> ultimate sacrifice for all sins
>>>Where does Jesus HIMSELF state that in the Synoptic gospels????
>>
>> Well, you show me where I claimed that Jesus was the one that made
>> such a statement, in the gospels or anywhere else, and perhaps I can
>> show where He did.
>
>
>So .....
>
>Jesus himself never stated that he was a human sacrifice for God (at least
>not in the earliest Synoptic Gospels).
>
>What makes you think Jesus was a human sacrifice for God? Does God require
>a human sacrifice? Why does "God" have to die in order to appease God?
>
>You are reading into Jesus what others stated about him decades after his
>death. Jesus referred to himself as "son of man" - an Aramaic phrase
>meaning "human".
So you have a different opinion than I do. BTW, you snipped my
question and did not answer it, why? You answer my questions and I
will be happy to answer yours. You prove your views with scripture
and I will prove mine with scripture. If you do not believe the Bible
is what it claims to be, then we have nothing to discuss, it is your
word against mine, and what does that prove?
Bear
I
> You prove your views with scripture
> and I will prove mine with scripture.
I only prove mine with truth. Any idiot can quote a bible verse to back up
another bible verse. It is no proof of anything.
> If you do not believe the Bible
> is what it claims to be, then we have nothing to discuss, it is your
> word against mine, and what does that prove?
Truth matters.
All truth is God's truth no matter where it is found. (That's why Paul can
quote the Hymn to Zeus in Acts 17:28)
All that is not true is not God's truth even if it is found in the bible.
"The things that you're liable
To read in the bible
Ain't necessarily so!" - Porgy & Bess
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t9njj5p5org20tg27...@4ax.com...
>
> Daniel's 70 Weeks - Future or Fulfilled?
The problem here is the word "or," moron.
[snippeth]
Ike
randy
"bear"
randy
>>All sin that has ever been done to God, or could be done to God, was done
>>at
>>Calvary. Terminating the Son of God was the worst thing the human race
>>could
>>do to God, because the Son of God represented all of God's love shown to
>>humanity.
> Hello Randy, thanks for sharing your thoughts, I appreciate your
> opinions. However, I do have a couple of issues; one being that if
> you notice after the questions, I requested some evidence that would
> support the answers. I fail to see where you provided any. Also, I
> believe you missed the topic of my original post to this thread. That
> said, I will offer some of my views on your comments.
I agree that my response was abbreviated, and incomplete. I was trying to be
brief.
> Perhaps I misunderstand your intent with your first comment, which I
> have some question about. I believe that Jesus paid the price for all
> sins, past, present and future at the Cross, however, I do not believe
> that His paying the price for all sins eliminated our propensity for
> still committing sins. If so, why would John write v9? I have not
> seen anywhere in scripture where it implies we are forgiven our sins,
> unless, we confess and ask for forgiveness.
I completely agree that sin is still with us. What I'm arguing here is that
Daniel is given a very narrow focus when it is said sin is finished and
eternal righteousness introduced. It all relates to putting away sin in
terms of preventing immortality. The effect of sin in the beginning was to
destroy immortality. We were sentenced as human beings to death. So when
this passage in Daniel speaks of dealing successfully with sin, what it's
saying is that the ability of death to take away our eternal inheritance is
successfully dealt with. The ability of sin to take away our eternal life is
terminated. And our ability to live in righteousness forever is successfully
given to us. This all happened at the cross where Jesus looked death in the
face and then said that death cannot prevent mankind from rising from the
dead and from inheriting a righteousness that cannot be voided.
> I also must disagree with your comment, "Terminating the Son of God
> was the worst thing the human race could do to God..." If that view
> is correct, how do you explain Matthew 12:31,32?
> Matthew 12:31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be
> forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be
> forgiven.
People may outwardly rejected Jesus, but it is not always sincere. When
people enter into a spiritual level of commitment what they do is more
serious. When they reject Jesus in a spiritual way, their rejection of Jesus
is more serious, and thus more dangerous. At any rate, the blasphemy of the
Spirit is, I believe, equal to rejecting the Son of God. In the context in
which Jesus spoke of this, he was referring to those who rejected him and
attributed his works to demons.
> Again, I have a problem. I agree that Jesus offered Himself as the
> ultimate sacrifice for all sins, however, can you provide some
> scripture where all sin was forgiven at the cross? If that is true,
> then why would it be necessary for us to confess and ask for
> forgiveness of those sins?
Jesus said on the cross that we were forgiven. He asked his Father to
forgive those who reject him, which makes it a sure thing. He received
whatever he asked for from his Father. Then Paul goes to great lengths to
prove that redemption from sin was completed on the cross at Calvary.
Again, the issue does not concern the fact that sin does continue, and it
does. Rather, it concerns the ability of sin to prevent us from receiving
eternal life. At the cross we were told that sin can no longer prevent us
from rising from the dead and from obtaining immortality. That is what
happened to sin at the cross. It was emptied of its power to prevent our
eternal inheritance. Sin was in a sense weakened. It's power to destroy our
hope was completely terminated.
>>Jesus offered his own life to mankind in the form of the gift of his
>>spirituality to them. If we receive his spirituality we receive his own
>>life
>>and righteousness. And it is a righteousness that endures forever, not
>>being
>>able to be suppressed by mortality and death.
> Randy, I believe you missed the subject and the admonishment that I
> presented. Perhaps you did not read this.
> "Seventy weeks of seven years for a total of 490 years "have been
> decreed" for a specific people and purpose. Four hundred and ninety
> years were decreed (determined) for Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for
> six purposes."
> And this,
> "Keep in mind that Gabriel told Daniel these verses were for Daniel's
> people and the Holy City, Jerusalem. So that would mean the Jews are
> no longer in violation of God's laws, commands, or their."
What was promised by the end of the 70 Weeks was a messianic salvation. My
argument is that it came in the form of a spiritual Kingdom, albeit an
invisible Kingdom. It was a guarantee of eternity based on the spirituality
of Jesus, which Israel was to receive. Israel did receive that spirituality,
among a remnant, and so became a kind of "firstfruits" of Israel's future
salvation. Ultimately, the whole nation is to be restored and made into a
Christian nation, I believe.
Israel was not guaranteed a complete national salvation at the end of the 70
Weeks. It was only promised the legal fix that took place at that time, when
Messiah first appeared. That, at least, is what I'm arguing.
>>>> 5 ".to seal up vision and prophecy."
>>This specifically has to do with prophecy of the coming of Christ.
> What scripture are you basing your comment on?
Daniel 9.24. Jesus said in his Olivet Discourse that one day he would come
in his Kingdom. We now know that he first came to set up his spiritual
Kingdom, making his spiritual righteousness available to us by faith.
Ultimately he will come to establish his Kingdom on earth. That will happen
when he appears from heaven, just as he said in his Olivet Discourse.
> This was written by Daniel approximately six centuries before Jesus,
> so how could this "holy place" be the body of Jesus? Remember, this
> chapter of Daniel was written to and for the Jews. They would never,
> at that time, associate the "holy place" with the body of Jesus but
> they would associate it with their temple. Do you agree or not?
Keep in mind that even in David's time the location of the temple itself was
subject to change. When it was ultimately settled, worship there was based
on a contractual relationship. By the time of Jesus the contract of Law was
in question, as Jesus indicated Israel was not in compliance with the
requirements of the Law. So Jesus once again called into question the
location of God's dwelling, and indicated he was actually the final resting
place of God's dwelling among His people.
Daniel only foretold the fact God would dwell among Israel forever, which is
what the "holy place" means. But by the time this was actually fulfilled, it
became clear that the holy place would not be a temporal building, but
rather, the eternal Son of God.
Incidently, thankyou for the respectful tone you set in your posts! :)
randy
bear
wrote:
So we understand each other, perhaps I should say up front how I
approach scripture. I believe the Bible, all of it, is the inspired
word of God and it is for our learning. I take it literally, unless
there is compelling reason to believe otherwise and if that is the
case, I search scripture to try to find an explanation for the
symbolism, figure of speech, allegory etc. I also try to pay close
attention to each word in the passage that I am reading. Perhaps you
will have a better understanding after my following comments.
What is said specifically, in Daniel 9 that causes you to conclude in
your statement?
"...Daniel is given a very narrow focus..."
I fail to see anything in the verses that would give me that
impression. I checked five different translations and not one of them
stated, "...sin is finished and
eternal righteousness introduced." They read, "to make an end of
sin", future tense, contrasted to your, "sin is finished", implying
completion.
Where does it say anything about "eternal righteousness introduced"?
Again, the wording is "to bring in everlasting righteousness", in my
mind, there is a difference in the meanings of the two phrases. Are
you suggesting that "everlasting righteousness" was not "introduced"
until Daniel?
Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your
holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make
atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal
up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
>It all relates to putting away sin in
>terms of preventing immortality.
Would you quote the scripture that you base this assertion on?
>The effect of sin in the beginning was to
>destroy immortality. We were sentenced as human beings to death.
Can you provide the verse(s) that say, "We were sentenced" to death?
As it is written in Romans,
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the
world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because
all sinned-
I cannot find where it says we were "sentenced" to death.
>So when
>this passage in Daniel speaks of dealing successfully with sin, what it's
>saying is that the ability of death to take away our eternal inheritance is
>successfully dealt with.
I see you saying that Randy, I do not see Daniel saying it. If he
does, would you quote the verse?
>The ability of sin to take away our eternal life is
>terminated. And our ability to live in righteousness forever is successfully
>given to us.
Again, I must disagree. Un-confessed and un-repentant sin, perhaps
does not take away "eternal life" but it certainly has an influence on
where that eternity is spent. Can you show with scripture where the
"ability to live in righteousness" started with Daniel?
>This all happened at the cross where Jesus looked death in the
>face and then said that death cannot prevent mankind from rising from the
>dead and from inheriting a righteousness that cannot be voided.
>
I do not disagree with this Randy, however, what does it have to do
with Daniel? The intent of my post was about Daniel, not about the
Gospel, salvation or even what Christ accomplished on the cross.
I will end this for now and wait to see how you respond. Some of your
writings I agree with, some I do not. Those that I disagree with you
on, requires more than your word to convince me you are correct.
I have no problem with what your or anyone's belief happens to be,
unless it is stated as fact but cannot be proven with scripture. If
you wish to convince me that your belief is correct and mine is in
error, then show me with scripture. If you cannot do that, then it
comes down to I say this and you say that and it is just my word
against yours and yours against mine, there is no standard without the
Bible. Either the Bible is what it claims to be, or it is not. If it
is not all the inspired word of God, then who gets to choose what part
to believe and what part to discard?
You responded with a rather lengthy post and I believe I am correct in
saying that you did not quote one verse to support your views.
Have a great day.
Bear
randy
"bear"
randy
>>I completely agree that sin is still with us. What I'm arguing here is
>>that
>>Daniel is given a very narrow focus when it is said sin is finished and
>>eternal righteousness introduced.
> ...What is said specifically, in Daniel 9 that causes you to conclude in
> your statement?
> "...Daniel is given a very narrow focus..."
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the
word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a
prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be
built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
If you'll notice above, verse 24 is followed by verse 25 in which the focus
of this prophecy is narrowed down to a prophecy of Messiah's coming, the
"prince." So we're talking about an end *he* made to sin at the cross, when
he *forgave* sin. It was not a termination of sin as an extant reality, but
rather, it was a legal dismissal of sin as the tool of Satan in preventing
humanity from fulfilling the will of God. All of this is the very context of
the Bible. And Messiah was to come to fulfil these biblical issues, so that
what man started to do for God can be completed, by the lifting of the curse
of death. It does not mean we will not die, but it does mean that we can
experience victory over death. Therefore, every good thing we do survives
death and completes everything God wanted us to do.
> Can you provide the verse(s) that say, "We were sentenced" to death?
> As it is written in Romans,
> Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the
> world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because
> all sinned-
> I cannot find where it says we were "sentenced" to death.
"Sentence" is a synonym for God's "judgment." God "judged" Adam and Eve and
consigned them to mortality, to death. I don't understand the problem?
>>The ability of sin to take away our eternal life is
>>terminated. And our ability to live in righteousness forever is
>>successfully
>>given to us.
> Again, I must disagree. Un-confessed and un-repentant sin, perhaps
> does not take away "eternal life" but it certainly has an influence on
> where that eternity is spent. Can you show with scripture where the
> "ability to live in righteousness" started with Daniel?
I never said this truth *started* with Daniel.
>>This all happened at the cross where Jesus looked death in the
>>face and then said that death cannot prevent mankind from rising from the
>>dead and from inheriting a righteousness that cannot be voided.
> I do not disagree with this Randy, however, what does it have to do
> with Daniel? The intent of my post was about Daniel, not about the
> Gospel, salvation or even what Christ accomplished on the cross.
You discussed Dan 9.24, and my interpretation of it involves Christ, and
what he accomplished on the cross.
> You responded with a rather lengthy post and I believe I am correct in
> saying that you did not quote one verse to support your views.
The Scriptures are in my memory, and in my heart. They form the background
of my thinking. I could probably quote Scriptures regarding this all day
long. As far as answering the questions at hand, the answer is found in the
following verse, verse 25. I quoted it above.
randy
bear
wrote:
>
>"bear"
>randy
>>>I completely agree that sin is still with us. What I'm arguing here is
>>>that
>>>Daniel is given a very narrow focus when it is said sin is finished and
>>>eternal righteousness introduced.
>
>> ...What is said specifically, in Daniel 9 that causes you to conclude in
>> your statement?
>
>> "...Daniel is given a very narrow focus..."
>
>Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the
>word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a
>prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be
>built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
>
Thanks for your response Randy. I think it prudent for us to agree to
disagree and move on. There are a few things that I have little, if
any, patience with, some examples are, statements as fact without
supporting evidence, misquoting or changing the way scripture reads,
dishonesty, not answering questions with verifiable answers and one
arbitrarily deleting parts of the post pertinent to the discussion
and/or subject.
God bless.
Bear
Doug
article <en82k5t83i1qp594v...@4ax.com>:
Ted's statement, "Daniel was written to and for the Jews" is only true,
if the "Jews" meant here are those defined by the apostle Paul, in Romans
2:29, "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that
of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not
of men, but of God."
If persons who live in the Jewish state in Palestine are meant, well,
then it is untrue, and similarly, if persons who practise Judaism are
meant, it is untrue, and similarly, if persons who have Jewish-sounding
names are meant, it is untrue, as it contradicts what the apostle Peter
wrote about prophecy to Christians, in his first epistle.
1 Peter 1:9-12
9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently,
who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was
in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of
Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they
did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that
have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
In the verses above, Peter says the prophets enquired diligently about
the salvation that had come to those who believe in Christ, and they
ministered not to their own race, or their own generation, or to
themselves, but "unto us," meaning Christians. I suspect Ted meant by
"Jews" in his quote above, ethnic Jews, and if so, his post directly
contradicts the words of the apostle Peter, and the Spirit of Christ that
was given to him.
Peter also showed in the above verses that the prophets wrote about the
gospel, "the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have
preached the gospel unto you," rather than the establishment of the
Jewish race as a master-race in an earthly kingdom. But of course, the
prophets used metaphors and parables, and figures of national prosperity,
and victorious battles, and similar images to convey spiritual truths to
the saints.
And Peter also showed that the prophets wrote by "the Spirit of Christ
which was in them." This refutes the doctrine of dispensationalism, which
claims as one of its fundamental premises that the OT prophets were part
of an entirely separate "dispensation," and that the church is only a
"parenthesis" in God's plan which is primarily, according to them, the
establishment of ethnic Jews as rulers of the world.
The comments by Peter on prophecy provide Christians with an excellent,
and biblically sound approach to interpreting prophecy, one which takes
into account the purpose for which it was given. The approach used by
most dispensationalists is nowhere supported in scripture. It is based on
man's viewpoint, not God's. It is one used by secular scholars who were
and are unbelievers. Thus, it is no surprise that it would lead to wrong
interpretations. Because they ignore the comments of Peter, referred to
above, they fall into the ditch, together with their followers.
Ted's approach to prophecy is one that effectively denies the Spirit of
Christ was in the prophets, and that it was Christ who inspired them, and
his words illustrate the profound truth of the apostle Paul's statement:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned.
The things Daniel wrote about are "spiritually discerned" and so are not
understood by he "natural man." Randy, however, perceives that Christ
declared himself to be the temple of God, and it was Jesus who was
anointed by the Spirit of God, when he was baptized by John the Baptist,
and similarly, those "in Christ" are anointed by the Spirit of Christ, as
the entire church is called the temple of God in Ephesians 2:20, the
apostles and prophets being its foundation and Christ the chief corner
stone.
J. Preston Eby wrote:
<quote>
If your theology brings you to the place where you go back to outward
temples made with hands, and the ashes of red heifers, and the blood of
bulls and goats - somewhere you missed the point! There are few things
that I will argue with anyone about, but I tell you, if your theology
ends with the blood and ashes of bulls and heifers, someone has
hoodwinked you and pulled the wool over your eyes! If you think the blood
of red heifers will ever purify a priesthood to serve in a temple in
Jerusalem, or that some Antichrist will one day sit and reign from a
Jewish temple, you haven't learned your ABC's of spiritual truth and
divine revelation. I can hear the Holy Ghost saying, What! Are you mad?
You mean to say that after 65 books of the Bible you didn't get that
point?" "And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are
the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and
walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (II
Cor. 6:16). "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my
God, and he shall go no more out" (Rev. 3:12).
</quote>
I would also say, Christ was born a king, who reigns on the throne of
David, who was an ancient king of Israel and Jerusalem. In Acts 15:16-18,
James identified the tabernacle of David with the church. Jesus called
Jerusalem "the city of the great King." He said "salvation is of the
Jews." If you think by "Jews," Jesus meant followers of Judaism, you have
missed the spiritual truth expressed by Paul in Romans 2:29. If you think
the name "Israel" properly belongs only to the Jewish state in Palestine,
you have believed what the Jews say, and what the world believes, but you
have missed the spiritual truth taught in the New Testament. If you think
that "Jerusalem" or "Judah" in prophecy means the earthly city or the
Jewish state in Palestine, you have not understood the spiritual truth
and divine revelation.
>
>>I hope this helps.
>>randy
>
> May I suggest you read my original post on this thread, read your
> comments and ask yourself did you really address the context of the
> post?
>
> Again, thanks for offering your views.
>
> Bear
--
Doug
Ike E 1/2/2010
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:raSdndpAhst9pNnW...@wavecable.com...
> Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the
> word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a
> prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be
> built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
Already fulfilled (once) between the destruction of the temple and the end
of the Maccabean Revolt.
Then God turned the prophecy back around between the defilement of the
Temple by Pompey (62 years before Jesus came up out of Egypt) and the
beginning of the Simon bar Koseba Revolt (62 years after the destruction of
the temple, which is why 62 "week" are mentioned twice), fulfilling the
prophecy again, only backward--the Jews finished where they originally
started, resetting Daniel back to the beginning.
Now comes the THIRD iteration, IN ITS ENTIRETY, STARTING WITH THE REBUILDING
OF THE TEMPLE.
The funniest part is you idiots want to jump to the end of a prophecy that
can't start UNTIL THE FIRST PART IS FULFILLED, i.e. THE PART ABOUT THE
REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE.
Absolute idiocy.
Ike
bear
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:12:14 -0600, bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in
>article <en82k5t83i1qp594v...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:13:33 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"�"
>>>
>>>>> Seventy weeks of seven years for a total of 490 years. "have been
>>>>> decreed" for a specific people and purpose. Four hundred and ninety
>>>>> years were decreed (determined) for Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for
>>>>> six purposes.
>>>>> 1 "?to finish transgression?"
>>>>> 2 "?to make an end of sin?"
>>>>> If anyone believes this has been accomplished, would you explain how
>>>>> and when and provide some evidence?
>>>
>>>Sin is completely dealt with at the death of Christ. In his death God
>>>faced the sum total of all human sin, and Christ forgave it. Therefore,
>>>sin as a source of human judgment was dealt with, so that death can no
>>>longer prevent man from attaining to his destiny. If people choose to
>>>continue in sin, they may. But if they choose to live by the spirit of
>>>the Son of God sin can no longer prevent them from obtaining eternal
>>>redemption.
>>>
>>>
>> Again, I have a problem. I agree that Jesus offered Himself as the
>> ultimate sacrifice for all sins, however, can you provide some scripture
>> where all sin was forgiven at the cross? If that is true, then why
>> would it be necessary for us to confess and ask for forgiveness of those
>> sins?
>>
>>
>>>>> 3 "?to make atonement for iniquity?" I believe the argument could
>be
>>>>> made that this was at least partially accomplished by Jesus on the
>>>>> cross. If you have other views, would you explain them with
>>>>> specifics?
>>>
>>>Same as #2.
>>>
>>>
>> No specifics, no supporting scripture.
>>
>>
>>>>> 4 "?to bring in everlasting righteousness?" I do not see anything
>>>>> ambiguous about the word "everlasting". Is there anyone that
>>>>> believes "everlasting righteousness" has been achieved?
>>>
>>>Jesus offered his own life to mankind in the form of the gift of his
>>>spirituality to them. If we receive his spirituality we receive his own
>>>life and righteousness. And it is a righteousness that endures forever,
>>>not being able to be suppressed by mortality and death.
>>>
>> Randy, I believe you missed the subject and the admonishment that I
>> presented. Perhaps you did not read this.
>>
>> "Seventy weeks of seven years for a total of 490 years "have been
>> decreed" for a specific people and purpose. Four hundred and ninety
>> years were decreed (determined) for Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for
>> six purposes."
>>
>> And this,
>>
>> "Keep in mind that Gabriel told Daniel these verses were for Daniel's
>> people and the Holy City, Jerusalem. So that would mean the Jews are no
>> longer in violation of God's laws, commands, or their."
>>
>>
>>>>> 5 "?to seal up vision and prophecy?" If anyone believes this has
>been
>>>>> accomplished, would you explain how and when and provide some
>>>>> evidence? As an example, provide some proof that all prophecy has
>>>>> been fulfilled.
>>>
>>>This specifically has to do with prophecy of the coming of Christ.
>>>
>> What scripture are you basing your comment on?
>>
>>>>> 6 "?and to anoint the most holy place?" If anyone believes this has
>>>>> been accomplished, would you explain how and when and provide some
>>>>> evidence?
>>>
>>>The "most holy place" was already described by Jesus to be his own body.
>>>He described his own body as the true temple of God, the true dwelling
>>>place of God's presence, the very place at which God's identity was
>>>established. Jesus was anointed as true representative of God and as the
>>>true God when he lived his earthly existence and carried out his
>>>redemptive work.
>>>
>> This was written by Daniel approximately six centuries before Jesus, so
>> how could this "holy place" be the body of Jesus? Remember, this
>> chapter of Daniel was written to and for the Jews. They would never, at
>> that time, associate the "holy place" with the body of Jesus but they
>> would associate it with their temple. Do you agree or not?
>
>Ted's statement, "Daniel was written to and for the Jews" is only true,
>if the "Jews" meant here are those defined by the apostle Paul, in Romans
>2:29, "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that
>of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not
>of men, but of God."
>
Doug cannot prove his doctrine with the Bible, unless, one is willing
to just take his word for what he claims that it says. Numerous
individuals have proved that many times. I think Fred is giving him
too much credit when he calls him Satan, he is not that smart. OTOH,
if one reads his writings and compares them with the actions of Satin,
I think a good case could be made for him being one of Satan's
flunkies.
2 Corinthians 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful
workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
2 Corinthians 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself
as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants
also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will
be according to their deeds.
V13-15 fits Doug quite favorably in my opinion.
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the
field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed,
has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
Notice how Satan changed what God actually said from,
Genesis 2:16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree
of the garden you may eat freely..." , to, "you shall not eat from
any tree of
the garden".
Pure deception, the same as Doug uses in his writings.
Here is another example, God said, "�you will surely die" and Satan's
response was, "you surely will not die". Exactly the same methods as
Doug employs.
Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you
shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely
die."
Genesis 3:4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
How many times does Doug quote scripture and change perhaps just one
word that changes the meaning, or quotes one verse out of context to
promote it meaning something completely opposite of how it was
intended.
I am convinced that is why he refuses to discuss scripture with anyone
that insists upon him proving his views with unadulterated scripture,
he is fully aware that he cannot do so, it would destroy what he is
trying to accomplish, and in my opinion, it is definitely the desires
of Satan.
In case anyone doubts the accuracy of my accusations about Doug, I
have, and will gladly provide proof for what I accuse him of.
Bear
Doug
in article <6K-dneDodbXF_97W...@wavecable.com>:
This is basically what I have said too. Jesus is the "most holy." And
also the church, of which he is the head. However, many times this has
been met with abusive responses from Ted.
In one of his posts, Ted argued that
<quote>
The KJV has 46 occurrences where the phrase "most holy" is used and not
one of them references Jesus or the church. In each verse, it is speaking
of a "thing" or "place".
</quote>
It would be hard to deny that the church is metaphorically called the
temple of God in the NT. Paul said,
Ephesians 2:19-22
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but
fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy
temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through
the Spirit.
Why couldn't a "holy temple in the Lord" be metaphorically called a
"place"?
Ted has a serious problem with understanding metaphors, and insists on
reading the OT in context, and probably consults with his
dispensationalist commentaries or tracts, and upon following the vaunted
method of "Dispensational Hermeneutics" known as the literal,
grammatical, historical method of interpretation.
Literalism means that words have the same meaning that they would have in
its normal usage, such as in speech, or when written. They follow
Cooper's "Golden Rule of Interpretation": When the plain sense of
Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every
word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of
the immediate context, studied in light of related passages and axiomatic
and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.
Literalism to them means resisting going beyond what is written.
Grammatical means analyzing the role grammar plays in any given text.
Historical means taking into account the historical context, and
circumstances in which the words of Scripture were written.
No allowance is permitted in the literal, grammatical, historical method
of interpretation for the Spirit of Christ inspiring the words of the
prophets. Apparently, for them, it would violate their rule.
Dispensationalism demands that the advice given in 1 Peter 1:9-12 must
NOT be followed!
Dispensationalists ignore the insight of the apostle Peter about the
purpose of prophecy given in his epistles. They prefer their literal,
grammatical, historical method of interpretation, above anything in
scripture itself. They seek to please men, not God!
Dispensationalists insist that the NT must NOT be allowed to interpret
the prophecies of the OT! (Such as the apostles frequently did in the NT.)
This is why, IMO, dispensationalists and others who follow the literal,
grammatical, historical method of interpretation give heed to "seducing
spirits." They give heed to the spirit of "literalism," the spirit of
"grammaticalism," and the spirit of "historicism,"
The spirit of dispensationalism is one that abhors the Holy Spirit, and
"the spiritual method of interpretation" that guided the apostles of
Christ.
The spirit of dispensationalism is one of the manifestations of the beast
from the bottomless pit, in Revelation 11:7, that makes war with the two
witnesses, and overcomes them, and kills them. The two witnesses are the
scriptures, and the Holy Spirit. These are two things Jesus said would
testify of him.
>
> Daniel only foretold the fact God would dwell among Israel forever,
> which is what the "holy place" means. But by the time this was actually
> fulfilled, it became clear that the holy place would not be a temporal
> building, but rather, the eternal Son of God.
>
> Incidently, thankyou for the respectful tone you set in your posts! :)
> randy
--
Doug
bear
Doug spews forth one lie after another, just like his mentor. It is
OK if he thinks that is abusive, it is a provable fact, which I have
done and Doug has not once refuted. If, Doug's blasphemous doctrine
were correct and provable, he would jump at the opportunity to answer
questions proving it so. Does he do that? On the contraire, he
refuses to engage in any discussion where he has to use unadulterated
scripture and scripture only, to prove his views. He much prefers
someone that he can ridicule and mock rather than discussing scripture
and what it says. There is a good reason for that, he knows his
preaching is bogus and is unprovable.
Bear
Doug
in article <raSdndpAhst9pNnW...@wavecable.com>:
The prophecy of Daniel cannot be separated from the gospel, because as
the apostle Peter said, in his first epistle, the prophets all wrote
about the gospel, and the 70 weeks prophecy is no exception.
1 Peter 1:9-12
9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently,
who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was
in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of
Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they
did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that
have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from
heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
Peter says in the above verses that the prophets "prophesied of the grace
that should come unto you," which means they wrote about the gospel,
various aspects of which are referred to in Daniel 9:24, such as making
"reconciliation for iniquity," and bringing in "everlasting
righteousness."
Dispensationalists would prefer not to find any reference to the gospel
in the Old Testament, because their doctrine says the prophets knew
nothing at all of the church age, which they characterize as a
"parenthesis" in a Jewish oriented divine plan.
And so, when it comes to interpreting Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks,
these people are blind! They simply can't see it, as Ted illustrates by
his comments above. Sadly, they are among the enemies of Christ, who
suffer the plague described by Zechariah that smites those who fight
against Christ and his saints.
Zechariah 14:12
And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people
that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while
they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their
holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
It is a spiritual plague, affecting the eyes [it causes spiritual
blindness], and the tongue [they say and write evil things, and utter
nonsense] and the flesh.
Peter said the prophets ministered not to their own race, or their own
generation, or to themselves, but "unto us," meaning Christians.
Peter showed in the above verses that the prophets wrote about "the
things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the
gospel unto you," which means they wrote about the gospel.
But Ted's comments show that he fails to see any connection between
Daniel's prophecy and the gospel. He has been deceived. Too many tapes
from Chuck Missler, probably!
The prophets wrote about the gospel, and used metaphors and parables, and
figures, sometimes picturing armies in victorious battles, and
geographical images such as rivers flowing in peculiar place, deserts
that contain trees, hills flowing with milk, trees clapping their hands,
and many other similar images, to convey spiritual truths to the saints.
Peter also showed that the prophets wrote by "the Spirit of Christ which
was in them." This refutes utterly Darby's doctrine of
dispensationalism, which claims as one of its fundamental premises that
the OT prophets were part of an entirely separate "dispensation," and
that the church is only a "parenthesis" in God's plan which is primarily,
according to them, the establishment of ethnic Jews as rulers of the
world.
Pity the deluded dispensationalists!
>
> You discussed Dan 9.24, and my interpretation of it involves Christ, and
> what he accomplished on the cross.
>
>> You responded with a rather lengthy post and I believe I am correct in
>> saying that you did not quote one verse to support your views.
>
> The Scriptures are in my memory, and in my heart. They form the
> background of my thinking. I could probably quote Scriptures regarding
> this all day long. As far as answering the questions at hand, the answer
> is found in the following verse, verse 25. I quoted it above. randy
--
Doug
Doug
article <VdS%m.66484$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
> If the 70 weeks is an artifact of time divisions by jubilees, weeks and
> days, then it is a base-7 chronology central upon the unit 6D as 24 x 7
> x 13 = 2184 days or 6 x 364.
>
> In this instance the 70 weeks are the equivalent of 70 x 7 x 364 =
> 178,360 days / 365.2425 - 488.33 years
>
> Thus if 457 BCE is considered the starting point, it brings you to 31.33
> CE to the time of the crucifixion.
The 69 weeks end at the start of the ministry of Jesus, not the end of it.
And 31 AD as the crucifixion date can be ruled out, because Passover was
on a Monday that year.
>
> On 3/01/10 11:47 AM, ® wrote:
>> On Sat, 01/02/10, at 1:51:59PM,
>> bear <tevan...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Seventy weeks of seven years for a total of 490 years. "have been
>>> decreed" for a specific people and purpose. Four hundred and ninety
>>> years were decreed (determined) for Daniel's people, the Hebrews, for
>>> six purposes.
--
Doug
bear
Fred A Stover
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:20:58 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
> wrote in article raSdndpAhst9pNnW...@wavecable.com:
> Dispensationalists would prefer not to find any reference to the
> gospel in the Old Testament, because their doctrine says the prophets
> knew nothing at all of the church age, which they characterize as a
> "parenthesis" in a Jewish oriented divine plan.
<snip to point>
More of your lies and ignorance. The church age is prophesied in the OT.
Isaiah (11:2), for example, told of the uncircumcised goyim coming into the
kingdom not under the law. It is what was predestined (Rom 8:29) and already
done that was not revealed (Amos 3:7). And it is Jeremiah (31:31) who tells
of the NT dispensation following the OT dispensation; .
Ephes. 3:2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given
me to youward:
1 Cor. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned.
<snip>
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
Doug
wrote in article <7qm0vn...@mid.individual.net>:
> Doug wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:20:58 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
>> wrote in article raSdndpAhst9pNnW...@wavecable.com:
>
>> Dispensationalists would prefer not to find any reference to the gospel
>> in the Old Testament, because their doctrine says the prophets knew
>> nothing at all of the church age, which they characterize as a
>> "parenthesis" in a Jewish oriented divine plan.
>
> <snip to point>
>
> More of your lies and ignorance.
No, it is not a lie. Neither is it an ignorant statement.
Dispensationalists have been forced to modify their position, because it
is so obviously false and is contradicted by the scriptures. Some have
admitted Darby, Chafer, Ironside, Walvoord and other leading
dispensationalists were wrong, and the church age is indeed prophesied in
the OT.
> The church age is prophesied in the OT.
> Isaiah (11:2), for example, told of the uncircumcised goyim coming into
> the kingdom not under the law. It is what was predestined (Rom 8:29) and
> already done that was not revealed (Amos 3:7). And it is Jeremiah
> (31:31) who tells of the NT dispensation following the OT dispensation;
> .
Many dispensationalists continue to believe the doctrine of a
"parenthesis." Here is what Walvoord wrote about it":
<quote>
The Church Age as a Parenthesis
Not only do the Scriptures indicate that the church of the present age is
a distinct body of believers, but there is good evidence that the age
itself is a parenthesis in the divine program of God as it was revealed
in the Old Testament. There has been considerable opposition from
amillenarians, as well as from some premillenarians, to the concept of
the church age as a parenthesis. Generally speaking, however, those who
distinguish clearly between the church and Israel have recognized the
present age as an unexpected and unpredicted parenthesis as far as Old
Testament prophecy is concerned. While a concept of a parenthesis is not
absolutely essential to pretribulationism, if this teaching be accepted,
it greatly strengthens the pretribulational argument.
Of major importance is the relationship of this to the interpretation of
Daniel's seventieth week (Dan. 9:27). Those who believe that the present
age is a parenthesis regard it as the extended period of time between the
close of the sixty-ninth week of Daniel and the beginning of the
seventieth week. This would support the teaching the pretribulationists
that the future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week has to do with
Israel and not the church and thereby strengthens the pretribulation
position. The study of Daniel's seventieth week will sustain the teaching
that the church of the present age is a distinct body from those who live
in the seventieth week.
</quote>
[The rapture question, by John F. Walvoord. Zondervan, 1979. p. 25]
The key words to note in the quotation above are Walvoord's suggestion
that the church age is "an unexpected and unpredicted parenthesis as far
as Old Testament prophecy is concerned." Here, he expresses the idea that
no prophecy of the OT relates to the church. Of course it is a pernicious
error.
Here is what is said on Wikipedia about the alleged "parenthesis."
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
<quote>
The relationship between the ancient nations of Israel and Judah
(sometimes collectively referred to as Israel or the Jewish people) and
the church as the people of God is the key discriminator between
Dispensationalism and other views. In the dispensational view, the time
in which the church operates, known as the church age or the Christian
dispensation, represents a "parenthesis". That is, it is an interruption
in God's dealings with the Jewish people as a nation as described in the
Old Testament, and it is the time when the Gospel was preached and
salvation in the present age is offered to the Gentiles and Jews alike.
</quote>
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_dispensationalism
<quote>
Traditional dispensationalists perceive the present age of grace to be a
"parenthesis" or "intercalation" in God's plans. In general the concept
means God's revealed plans concerning Israel from the previous
dispensation has been "put on hold" until it resumes again after the
rapture....For traditionalists, who perceive the present dispensation as
a parenthesis, the standard approach has been to view Old Testament
quotations in the New Testament as applications rather than fulfillment.
If an Old Testament quotation is said to have a fulfillment role in the
New Testament (outside of the gospels), then that may imply that the
present dispensation is no longer a parenthesis, but has a relationship
or connection with the prior dispensation.
</quote>
Kim Riddlebarger, a former Dispensationalist Premillennialist who
abandoned that position says: "... I consider dispensationalism to be a
very problematic way to read Scripture. While dispensationalism is a
hermeneutic (despite protests to the contrary), one can be a
dispensationlist and a five-point Calvinist. John Nelson Darby and John
MacArthur come to mind. But dispensationalism's two interpretive
presuppositions (that God has distinct redemptive purposes for Gentiles
and national Israel, and that we must interpret biblical prophecy
"literally") are highly problematic. God's redemptive purpose is to save
his elect-both Jew and Gentile. This is why there is one gospel, and this
is why Paul can tell us that Christ's purpose (under the new covenant) is
to make Jew and Gentile one (cf. Ephesians 2:11-22). This flies directly
in the face of the dispensational hermeneutic which sees one gospel, but
distinct redemptive purposes for Jew and Gentile.
And while dispensationalists rail against those who "spiritualize" the
Bible, the amillennarian insists upon interpreting Old Testament prophecy
as Jesus and the apostles do. The tough thing for dispensationalists to
face is that Jesus and the apostles do the very thing dispensationalists
claim should not be done. This means that at the end of the day, it is
dispensationalists who don't take the Bible "literally" since they insist
that Old Testament passages which speak about the role of Israel, tell us
in advance what the New Testament writers actually mean. This, of course,
is highly problematic. The New Testament writers must be allowed to
interpret the Old Testament, especially in light of the coming of Christ."
http://exiledpreacher.blogspot.com/2008/02/against-dispensationalism.html
Ed Knorr, Revelation and Bible Prophecy--A Comparison of Eschatological
Views: Classical Dispensationalism and Preterism
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~knorr/public/comparison_of_eschat_models.pdf
<quote>
Thus, the doctrine of the separation of Israel and the Church, the
foundation of dispensationalism, was born out of Darby's attempt to
justify his newly fabricated rapture theory with the Bible.
Dispensationalists believed justification for carving up the Scriptures
came from 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) "rightly dividing the word of truth."
Subsequent dispensationalists divided the Scriptures in terms of
categories of people: Jew, Gentile, and Christian. Chafer taught that the
only Scriptures addressed specifically to Christians were the gospel of
John, Acts, and the Epistles! Pettengill taught that the Great Commission
was for the Jews only. Scofield taught that the Lord's prayer was a
Jewish prayer and ought not be recited by Christians. Along with much of
the New Testament, the Old Testament was described as "not for today."
Ryrie dismissed the validity of the Old Testament commands to non-Jews
because "the law was never given to Gentiles and is expressly done away
for the Christian." Christians were even mocked as legalists for
believing in the Ten Commandments! As other critics have observed, this
segmentation of the Bible makes dispensationalism a Christianized version
of cultural relativism.
</quote>
Dispensationalism is contrary to the gospel, and is clearly refuted in
scripture. James said, in Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his works
from the beginning of the world." This scripture alone throttles the
claims of many dispensationalists that the church age was unknown to the
prophets.
In his series on "Revelation Spiritually Understood," #7, Charles D.
Alexander says:
<quote>
Defective views of the Church lie at the root of most prophetical errors,
and have played havoc with the holy art of Bible exposition.
"Dispensations" have been invented to account for the insertion of the
Age of the Christian Church where the kingdom of earthly Israel should
have been established according to the literal interpretation of
prophecy. So convinced are the dispensationalists that all prophecy is
for the nation of Israel that they have introduced the extraordinary
theory that the Church as such is nowhere envisaged in OT prophecy, but
is hidden from the view of the prophets. This despite the fact that the
Day of Pentecost was the subject of the main prophecy of Joel, as Peter
asserts in his great Pentecostal sermon - and James's subsequent verdict
at the council of the Church at Jerusalem that the calling of the
gentiles into the Church was the subject of the prophecy of Amos in his
ninth chapter (see Acts 15:13-18). Paul teaches the Ephesians that the
Church, so far from being an unexpected event in history was all along
that to which God was working from before the foundation of the world, as
the means by which He should make known to all creation His manifold
wisdom (Eph. 3:9-10).
In Galatians Paul makes it plain that the Church in her NT form is the
continuity of the Israel of the OT and the inheritor, as of right, of the
promises made to Abraham (Gal. 3:26 - 4:7).
There has been but one Church from the foundation of the world, and one
faith (which Paul describes in its continuity from Abel down to his own
day, and from then on to the end of time -see Hebrews 11). Faith does not
change either as to its nature or its object. The object of faith is the
promise of life in Christ Jesus, first made in the Garden in the presence
of our first parents, around which promise clustered the worship and the
hope of the human race from the beginning. ... Paul assures us that so
far from the promise to Abraham 'and his seed' being the exclusive
preserve of the natural seed of Abraham, it was in fact the promise of
life to all who believe, be they Jew or gentile. Abraham's altered name
was a pledge of this - "The Father of Many Nations". "They who are of
faith are blest with faithful Abraham" declares Paul (Gal. 3:9).
</quote>
http://www.allbygrace.com/alexrevelationmainpage.html
>
> Ephes. 3:2
> If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is
> given
> me to youward:
>
> 1 Cor. 2:14
> But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
> for
> they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they
> are spiritually discerned.
>
>
> <snip>
--
Doug
Fred A Stover
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:59 -0600, "Fred A Stover"
> <fst...@tx.rr.com> wrote in article
> <7qm0vn...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:20:58 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
>>> wrote in article raSdndpAhst9pNnW...@wavecable.com:
>>
>>> Dispensationalists would prefer not to find any reference to the
>>> gospel in the Old Testament, because their doctrine says the
>>> prophets knew nothing at all of the church age, which they
>>> characterize as a "parenthesis" in a Jewish oriented divine plan.
>>
>> <snip to point>
>>
>> More of your lies and ignorance.
>
Satan, you're a liar. It is both a lie and a matter of your ignorance. What
someone else says has nothing to do with what I've said. And your lying
insinuation that I have changed my position by gossipping about others who
may have reveals your vile spirit. changedHe gave meYour insinuation that I
had allegedly , and I showed you where the Church is prophesied in the Old
Testament, which you would have seen if you had read further.
>> The church age is prophesied in the OT.
>> Isaiah (11:2), for example, told of the uncircumcised goyim coming
>> into the kingdom not under the law. It is what was predestined (Rom
>> 8:29) and already done that was not revealed (Amos 3:7). And it is
>> Jeremiah (31:31) who tells of the NT dispensation following the OT
>> dispensation; .
<gossip snipped>
> Here is what is said on Wikipedia about the alleged "parenthesis."
Check your lying spirit. I've said nothing of "parenthesis."
<false insinuations and gossip snipped>
> Dispensationalism is contrary to the gospel, and is clearly refuted in
> scripture.
You are a total idiot, for it is scripture which reveals the dispensations,
for example, Paul's speaking of the dispensation of grace given to him to
proclaim to the church: "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace
of God which is given me to youward" (Eph. 3:2).
> James said, in Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his
> works from the beginning of the world." This scripture alone
> throttles the claims of many dispensationalists that the church age
> was unknown to the prophets.
Another example of your lying spirit, and your incredible stupidity. Again,
the church age was prophesied in the OT and that God knew of what He would
do says nothing of others knowing it. And it certainly says nothing of the
mystery which had been hidden, not being hidden.
Ephes. 3:9
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which
from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things
by Jesus Christ:
Col. 1:26-27
Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but
now is made manifest to his saints: [27] To whom God would make known what
is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is
Christ in you, the hope of glory:
It is what was predestined, which was not revealed to the OT prophets, but
was revealed, "made manifest to his saints," which excludes you satanists,
who refused to heed His command: "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found"
(Is 55:6).
1 Cor. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned.
Doug
wrote in article <7qo08t...@mid.individual.net>:
> Doug wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:59 -0600, "Fred A Stover" <fst...@tx.rr.com>
>> wrote in article
>> <7qm0vn...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:20:58 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
>>>> wrote in article raSdndpAhst9pNnW...@wavecable.com:
>>>
>>>> Dispensationalists would prefer not to find any reference to the
>>>> gospel in the Old Testament, because their doctrine says the prophets
>>>> knew nothing at all of the church age, which they characterize as a
>>>> "parenthesis" in a Jewish oriented divine plan.
>>>
>>> <snip to point>
>>>
>>> More of your lies and ignorance.
>>
>> No, it is not a lie. Neither is it an ignorant statement. <Satan
>> snipped>
>
> Satan, you're a liar. It is both a lie and a matter of your ignorance.
> What someone else says has nothing to do with what I've said. And your
> lying insinuation that I have changed my position by gossipping about
> others who may have reveals your vile spirit. changedHe gave meYour
> insinuation that I had allegedly , and I showed you where the Church is
> prophesied in the Old Testament, which you would have seen if you had
> read further.
My comments were not about Fred's peculiar beliefs, but about
dispensationalism, and the views of well known dispensationalists, such
as the ones I mentioned in my post, Darby, Chafer, Ironside, and Walvoord.
I agree that the church age is prophesied in the OT. Apparently, Fred is
embarrassed by the statements of the dispensationalists who I quoted, who
promote the idea of a "parenthesis." They identify it with their alleged
gap between the 69th and 70th week. This is clearly shown in the
quotation from Walvoord I posted and have included below as well. Fred
probably believes in such a gap, but simply does not label it a
"parenthesis."
Walvoord argues for a parenthesis, by assuming it, which is circular
reasoning. He says, "The prophetic foreview of Daniel 2 in
Nebuchadnezzar's image and the fourth beast of Daniel 7:23-27 likewise
ignores the present age." [The source is indicated in the quote included
below.]
Walvoord's statement is untrue, as in Daniel 2, we read Daniel's
description of the king's dream:
Daniel 2:31-35
31 Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image,
whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof
was terrible.
32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver,
his belly and his thighs of brass,
33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote
the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to
pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold,
broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer
threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found
for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and
filled the whole earth.
Daniel then interprets the stone as the kingdom of God.
Daniel 2:43-45
43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle
themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to
another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a
kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be
left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these
kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain
without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay,
the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what
shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the
interpretation thereof sure.
In the present age, Christ reigns in his kingdom, in the holy city of the
saints. It is a heavenly city. [Hebrews 12:22-23] This is the kingdom
that will not be destroyed, but will stand forever. Eventually it will be
brought to earth, and will extend over the entire earth. Jesus said,
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." [Matthew 5:5]
Walvoord claimed Daniel 7:23-27 ignores the present age, which is also
incorrect.
Daniel 7:23-27
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,
which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole
earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise:
and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the
first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear
out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and
they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing
of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to
consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under
the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most
High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall
serve and obey him.
The present age is the time of the antichrist, as there are many who
"speak great words against the most High" and resist the truth, and God's
saints. John showed that this was true even in his lifetime.
1 John 2:18
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that
antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we
know that it is the last time.
The "last time" is the present age, that began in John's lifetime and
extends to the present. It is represented by the "time and times and the
dividing of time" in Daniel 7:25. John also spoke of the antichrist as a
spirit.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye
have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
The dispensationalists say that the little horn in Daniel 7, a.k.a. the
antichrist must refer to an individual human, who is to appear after the
rapture of the church! This is obviously false, as in Daniel's prophecy
in chapter 7, the little horn grows from the head of the fourth beast,
among the 10 horns, which beast represents the Roman empire. It was in
the days of the Roman Empire that Christ was born, and completed his
ministry among the Jews, and was crucified, and rose again. In the
present age, the saints have been dominated by the power represented by
the little horn, which represents the antichrist spirit. The church's
history, and the struggle of the saints against the spirit of antichrist,
over many centuries, is depicted in verse 25: "And he shall speak great
words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most
High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into
his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."
What "times and laws" were changed? The Roman Catholic church changed the
Passover to Easter. They changed the Sabbath to Sunday. They introduced
many laws and traditions, and false doctrines, which are still with us
today. Even dispensationalism has its roots in the teachings of Jesuits,
such as Francisco Ribera, in 1590. The dispensationalists follow Ribera
by inserting a portentous gap between the 69th and 70th week, and thus
they "speak great words against the most High," and against the prophets
and apostles.
Steve Wohlberg writes,
"In 1590, Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter-
interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified
the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation but the
earliest chapters to the end time rather than to the history of the
Church. Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by
the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem." "Ribera denied the Protestant
Scriptural Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2) as seated in the church of God--
asserted by Augustine, Jerome, Luther and many reformers. He set on an
infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God." "The result of his work
[Ribera's] was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth."
http://www.lmn.org/magazine/170/Jesuits.html
The "times" that the little horn in Daniel 7:25 changed include the
"times" of Daniel's prophecies, such as the "times, times and a half," a
prophetic period, which they wrongly insist applies to a future age, and
similarly they misrepresent the entire 70th week of the 70 week prophecy,
that they say refers to a terrible period of tribulation for the world,
and especially for Jews.
These opinions are false. The 70th week is the week in which Christ
confirms his covenant with his saints! It is also the last "7 times" of
the curse of Leviticus 26. There can be no gap in the 70 weeks, as it is
a prophecy about the duration of the desolations of the holy city, and
the end of it brings in "the times of restitution of all things, which
God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world
began." [Acts 3:21] If there were a gap, those desolations would
temporarily be suspended and that happy time of restitution of all things
would have already occurred.
The flawed view of the dispensationalists is illustrated in the quote
included below from Walvoord's book, where he defends the idea of a
"parenthesis," which he identifies with the "gap" within the 70 weeks.
The rapture question by John F. Walvoord. Zondervan, 1979.
p. 25-27
<quote>
The Church Age as a Parenthesis
Not only do the Scriptures indicate that the church of the present age is
a distinct body of believers, but there is good evidence that the age
itself is a parenthesis in the divine program of God as it was revealed
in the Old Testament. There has been considerable opposition from
amillenarians, as well as from some premillenarians, to the concept of
the church age as a parenthesis. Generally speaking, however, those who
distinguish clearly between the church and Israel have recognized the
present age as an unexpected and unpredicted parenthesis as far as Old
Testament prophecy is concerned. While a concept of a parenthesis is not
absolutely essential to pretribulationism, if this teaching be accepted,
it greatly strengthens the pretribulational argument. Of major importance
is the relationship of this to the interpretation of Daniel's seventieth
week (Dan. 9:27). Those who believe that the present age is a parenthesis
regard it as the extended period of time between the close of the sixty-
ninth week of Daniel and the beginning of the seventieth week. This would
support the teaching the pretribulationists that the future fulfillment
of Daniel's seventieth week has to do with Israel and not the church and
thereby strengthens the pretribulation position. The study of Daniel's
seventieth week will sustain the teaching that the church of the present
age is a distinct body from those who live in the seventieth week.
The interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 is of major importance no
premillennialism as well as pretribulationism. Conservative scholars
generally have interpreted the term week used here to mean seven years
(cf. Gen. 29:27) and usually trace the fulfillment of the first sixty-
nine sevens of years as culminating in the crucifixion of Christ. This
was predicted in the terms that "the Anointed One will be cut off and
will have nothing" (Dan. 9:26). While the interpretation of the first
sixty-nine sevens is thus afforded a literal fulfillment, nothing can be
found in history that provides a literal fulfillment of the last seven or
the seventieth week. It has been taken by many that this indicated a
postponement of the fulfillment of the last seven years of the prophecy
to a future seven-year period preceding the Second Advent. If so, a
parenthesis of time involving the whole present age is indicated.
This proposal has been rejected by the liberal, by the amillenarian, and
by some premillenarians, particularly those who are not
dispensationalists. Philip Mauro, an amillenarian, stated flatly, "Never
has a specified number of time-units making up a described stretch of
time, been taken to mean anything but continuous or consecutive time
units."
It should be obvious to careful students of the Bible that Mauro is not
only begging the question but is overlooking abundant evidence to the
contrary. Nothing should be plainer to one reading the Old Testament than
that the foreview provided in it did not describe the period of time
between the two advents. This very fact confused even the prophets (cf. 1
Peter 1:10-12). At best such a time interval was only implied, and this
may be observed in the very passage involved, Daniel 9:24-27. The
Anointed One, or the Messiah, is cut off after the sixty-ninth week, but
not in the seventieth. Such a circumstance could be true only if there
were a time interval between these two periods.
Many illustrations in the Old Testament
As H. A. Ironside has made clear in his thorough study of this problem,
there are more than a dozen instances of parenthetical periods in the
divine program. In Luke 4:18-20, quoting Isaiah 61:1-2, obviously the
present age, now extending over nineteen hundred years, intervenes
between the "year of the Lord's favor" and "the day of vengeance of our
God." There is no indication in the Isaiah passage of any interval at
all, but Christ stopped abruptly in the middle of the sentence in His
quotation in Luke, thus indicating the division. A similar spanning of
the entire church age is found in Hosea 3:4 as compared to 5:5 and Hosea
5:15 as compared with 6:1. Psalm 22:1-21 predicts the sufferings of
Christ, verse 22 anticipates the resurrection of Christ, and then the
remainder of the psalm deals with millennial conditions without reference
to the present age. This characteristic is found in much of messianic
prophecy in the Old Testament.
The prophetic foreview of Daniel 2 in Nebuchadnezzar's image and the
fourth beast of Daniel 7:23-27 likewise ignores the present age. Daniel
8:24 seems to refer to Antiochus Epiphanes (170 B.C.), whereas Daniel
8:25, some believe, anticipates typically the future beast of Revelation
13:1-10, who will appear alter the church age is concluded. A similar
instance is found in Daniel 11:35 as compared with Daniel 11:35. Psalm
110:1 speaks of Christ in heaven and Psalm 110:2 refers to His ultimate
triumph at His second advent.
Ironside suggested that Peter stopped in the middle of his quotation of
Psalm 34:12-16 in 1 Peter 3:10-12 because the last part of Psalm 34:16
seems to refer to future dealings of God with sin in contrast to present
discipline. The truth of a parenthesis is implied in Matthew 24 where the
present age is described as preceding and intervening between the Cross
and the sign foretold by Daniel 9:27 (cf. Matt. 24:15). Acts 15:13-21
makes sense only when it is understood that the present age intervenes
between the Cross and the future blessing of Israel in the Millennium.
</quote>
--
Doug
bear
Doug
wrote in article <t9njj5p5org20tg27...@4ax.com>:
> Daniel's 70 Weeks - Future or Fulfilled?
>
> By Ralph Woodrow
> From "Great Prophecies of the Bible"
>
> Daniel 9:24-27
<snip>
> And finally,
>
> 12. THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND THE TEMPLE. This part of the
> prophecy was not dated within the framework of the 70 weeks as was the
> time of the appearance of Messiah to Israel, the time of his death, etc.
This statement is incorrect. The first part of Daniel 9:27 is shown below
in several translations.
King James Bible
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the
midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.
New International Version (©1984)
He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of
the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.
New Living Translation (©2007)
The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of
seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and
offerings.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the
middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering;
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
He will confirm his promise with many for one set of seven time periods.
In the middle of the seven time periods, he will stop the sacrifices and
food offerings.
American King James Version
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the
middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to
cease,
American Standard Version
And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the
midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease;
Bible in Basic English
And a strong order will be sent out against the great number for one
week; and so for half of the week the offering and the meal offering will
come to an end;
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half
of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fall:
Darby Bible Translation
And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week; and in the
midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
English Revised Version
And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and for the
half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease;
Webster's Bible Translation
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the
midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
World English Bible
He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of
the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease;
Young's Literal Translation
And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and in the
midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease,
Hmmm.. Why would Ralph Woodrow claim the destruction of Jerusalem and the
temple was not included in the last week? That claim is clearly false!
And why are preterists so gullible, that they would believe it? Are they
blind? I think the answer is yes! They are spiritually blind!
The truth is, the removal of sacrifices, and the destruction of the
temple, occur "in the midst" of the 70th week, and so divide it into two
halves. The last half-week is the "time, times and a half," which many
Christian scholars suggest represents the entire age of the church.
When it is completed, all Daniel's prophecies are fulfilled.
Daniel 12:6-7
6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of
the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the
river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and
sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and
an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the
holy people, all these things shall be finished.
The end of all these events occurs at the expiry of the "time, times and
a half" which is half of "seven times," or a prophetic week. It is the
symbolic week, in which Christ confirms his covenant with his saints.
At the end of it, the saints are scattered. There are said to be about
38,000 sects and denominations in Christendom. The power of the saints is
indeed "scattered" today.
But the end of the 70 weeks is a time of "restitution of all things,"
because the prophecy is about the duration of the desolations of
Jerusalem. They are about to end! This is good news for the saints. The
end of the 70th week, brings many benefits, such as those listed in verse
24.
--
Doug
Fred A Stover
You lying satanic twit. The discussion is the dispensations in scripture,
what scripture reveals, and what dispensationalists say. Your gossiping
about others and what they say is just another deception on a par with a
strawman argument, and their is nothing peculiar about what scripture says
which you dismiss as my beliefs. They are the beliefs of anyone with the
discernment to read scripture: "But the natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1Cor 2:14)..
<snip>
> I agree that the church age is prophesied in the OT.
The difference is I cited the evidence, but you run your mouth without any
evidence to support your peculiar confusion.
<idiotic gossip snipped>
>
> In the present age, Christ reigns in his kingdom, in the holy city of
> the saints.
Still trying to discern scripture with the spirit of satan?
Satan, you're a liar and an idiot. In the present age Christ sits at the
right hand of the Father: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice
for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth
expecting till his enemies be made his footstool" (Heb 10:12-13).. Then He
returns to reign in His Kingdom: "When the Son of man shall come in his
glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne
of his glory" (Matt 25:31).
:
<Blasphemy snipped>
randy
"bear"
randy
> Thanks for your response Randy. I think it prudent for us to agree to
> disagree and move on. There are a few things that I have little, if
> any, patience with, some examples are, statements as fact without
> supporting evidence, misquoting or changing the way scripture reads,
> dishonesty, not answering questions with verifiable answers and one
> arbitrarily deleting parts of the post pertinent to the discussion
> and/or subject.
No problem. I do understand that Dan 9 is subject to controversy, and I
remain open to changes in my current thinking. Thankyou for the respectful
response.
randy
randy
"Ike E 1/2/2010"
randy
>> Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the
>> word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a
>> prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be
>> built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
> Already fulfilled (once) between the destruction of the temple and the end
> of the Maccabean Revolt.
As the prophecy states, the 70 weeks (of years) began with the decree to
rebuild Jerusalem and extends to the coming of Christ. Then the prophecy
states that in the generation of Christ Jerusalem will be destroyed once
again. Jesus drew upon this passage in Daniel in his Olivet Discourse. So
the interpretation of this passage couldn't be much clearer. At least that
is how I look at it.
randy
randy
"Doug"
randy
> The prophecy of Daniel cannot be separated from the gospel, because as
> the apostle Peter said, in his first epistle, the prophets all wrote
> about the gospel, and the 70 weeks prophecy is no exception.
I agree with you, that clearly, the OT prophets foretold the coming of the
gospel of Christ. Certainly some of what was contained in the Law is also
contained in the gospel. I don't know precisely how Dispensationalism
separates the Law and the Gospel--certainly I believe there must be some
distinction. But I do not consider myself a Dispensationalist, largely
because its systematic theology is confusing to me. I do not see Israel as
significantly different from any other nation in the NT age. But I do
believe there are divine promises yet to be fulfilled for the Israeli
nation, which will lead Israel to become a Christian nation, just as there
have already been many Christian nations.
randy
Doug
in article <D-ydnd0jmsr6lNfW...@wavecable.com>:
The idea of "many Christian nations" is not really a biblical one,
because the NT teaches that those who believe in Christ are all part of
"one body," which is the body of Christ, and one family, the family of
Abraham, and the saints are called the seed of Abraham, and sons of God.
Galatians 3:7,29
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children
of Abraham...
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to
the promise.
Romans 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
The governments of the nations of Christendom, where the two great wars
of the previous century originated, are included among the worldly
governments represented by the beast in Revelation 13, that has the names
of blasphemy in its heads.
Revelation 13:1-4
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of
the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns,
and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as
the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon
gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly
wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and
they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is
able to make war with him?
The names of blasphemy suggest the labels claimed by those governments
and kingdoms are unfortunate. "Holy Roman Empire" was used by a union of
many of the states and cities in central Europe between 962-1806 AD. The
first emperor was Otto 1, and the empire was dissolved during the
Napoleonic wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
Hitler's Third Reich was an attempt to revive the "Holy Roman Empire,"
which was considered the "First Reich." The following is from:
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/4009
<quote>
The First Reich, was also known as The Holy Roman Empire (a continuation
of the Roman Empire in Europe), that started in the lands ruled by
Charlemagne (Germany, Austria, Eslovenia, Switzerland, Belgium,
Netherlands, Belgium, Czech Republic, eastern France, Northern Italy and
western Poland), with a period beginning on the 9th century and finishing
in the 19th century.
The Second Reich, also known as The German Empire, ruled by the
Hohenzollern dinasty, in the areas known as Prussia and Brandenburg, from
1871 to 1919, they fell with the ending of World War I. During this Reich
the "Iron Chancellor" Otto Von Bismark united Germany, and set the roots
for World War I.
Then there was a period known as the Weimar Republic, from 1919 to 1933
(called sometimes the pre-3rd Reich).
The Third Reich (from 1933 to 1945), called the Nazi Germany, was under
Hitler control. He called it the Third Reich because he thought that
under his leadership Germany could reunite the old Holy Roman Empire,
bringing Germany back to its glorious days. This Reich was terminated
with the fall of Germany at the end of World War II.
</quote>
The label "holy" applied to the various kingdoms and institutions of
Christendom, and their claims about being "Christian," are very likely
what John's prophecy labels blasphemous. And why not? Jesus said, "By
their fruits ye shall know them." Very gruesome methods of torture were
devised and utilised by them to suppress all forms of dissent, in those
countries. That sort of thing is what the Puritans sought to escape by
migrating to America. Many of the saints of Christ were burned at the
stake over the centuries. The truth is, there is only one "Christian
nation." It is the true Israel. The other one is a "pseudo-Israel," just
as the nations of Christendom are only "pseudo-Christian."
--
Doug
bear
>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:07:23 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote
>in article <D-ydnd0jmsr6lNfW...@wavecable.com>:
>
>> "Doug"
>> randy
>>
>>> The prophecy of Daniel cannot be separated from the gospel, because as
>>> the apostle Peter said, in his first epistle, the prophets all wrote
>>> about the gospel, and the 70 weeks prophecy is no exception.
>>
>> I agree with you, that clearly, the OT prophets foretold the coming of
>> the gospel of Christ. Certainly some of what was contained in the Law is
>> also contained in the gospel. I don't know precisely how
>> Dispensationalism separates the Law and the Gospel--certainly I believe
>> there must be some distinction. But I do not consider myself a
>> Dispensationalist, largely because its systematic theology is confusing
>> to me. I do not see Israel as significantly different from any other
>> nation in the NT age. But I do believe there are divine promises yet to
>> be fulfilled for the Israeli nation, which will lead Israel to become a
>> Christian nation, just as there have already been many Christian
>> nations. randy
>
>The idea of "many Christian nations" is not really a biblical one,
Wow, speaking of not being Biblical, there is nothing Biblical about
anything Doug promotes, none of it can he prove with unadulterated
scripture.
Bear
Doug
article <1u2lk55b6rsg1ldid...@4ax.com>:
Like the dispensationalists, Hitler believed in a Millennium. He thought
his regime would bring in the thousand year reign of the Holy Spirit. The
First Reich was considered the reign of the Father; the Second Reich the
reign of the Son, and the third one, of Hitler's Nazis, being that of the
Spirit, thus associating his regime with the Trinity. These idea of three
ages corresponding to the Trinity seems to have been borrowed and
modified from the writings of medieval theologian and mystic Joachim of
Fiore (1135-1202) about three ages.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_of_Fiore
<quote>
His theories can be considered millenarian; he believed that history, by
analogy with the Trinity, was divided into three fundamental epochs:
* The Age of the Father, corresponding to the Old Testament,
characterized by obedience of mankind to the Rules of God;
* The Age of the Son, between the advent of Christ and 1260,
represented by the New Testament, when Man became the son of God;
* The Age of the Holy Spirit, impending (in 1260), when mankind was
to come in direct contact with God, reaching the total freedom preached
by the Christian message. The Kingdom of the Holy Spirit, a new
dispensation of universal love, would proceed from the Gospel of Christ,
but transcend the letter of it. In this new Age the ecclesiastical
organization would be replaced and the Order of the Just would rule the
Church. This Order of the Just was later identified with the Franciscan
order by his follower Gerardo of Borgo San Donnino.
</quote>
The quote below references a quote by Hitler in one of his speeches
referring to a Millennium.
From:
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Millennialism/
<snip>
The most grotesque parody of the Three Ages philosophy and of
millennialism in general is Hitler's "Third Reich" ("Drittes Reich",
"Tausendjähriges Reich"), which, however, was to last for twelve rather
than a thousand years.
The phrase "Third Reich" was coined by the conservative German thinker
Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (b. 1876, suicide 1925), who in 1923
published a book entitled Das Dritte Reich, which eventually became a
catchphrase that even survived the Nazi regime.
Looking back at German history, two "glorious" periods were distinguished:
* the Holy Roman Empire (beginning with Charlemagne in 800 AD) (= the
"First Reich"), and
* the German Empire under the Hohenzollern dynasty (1871 - 1918) (=
the "Second Reich").
These were now to be followed -- after the shameful interval of the
Weimar Republic (1918 - 1933), during which constitutionalism,
parliamentarism and even pacifism ruled -- by
* the "Third Reich" of Adolf Hitler.
In a speech held on 27 November 1937, Hitler commented on his plans to
have major parts of Berlin torn down and rebuilt:
[...] einem tausendjährigen Volk mit tausendjähriger geschichtlicher
und kultureller Vergangenheit für die vor ihm liegende unabsehbare
Zukunft eine ebenbürtige tausendjährige Stadt zu bauen [...].
[...] to build a millennial city adequate [in splendour] to a
thousand year old people with a thousand year old historical and cultural
past, for its never-ending [glorious] future [...]
</snip>
Thus, it seems that Hitler was a dispensationalist, of sorts.
--
Doug
randy
"Doug"
randy
> The idea of "many Christian nations" is not really a biblical one,
> because the NT teaches that those who believe in Christ are all part of
> "one body," which is the body of Christ, and one family, the family of
> Abraham, and the saints are called the seed of Abraham, and sons of God.
You're talking about the unity we have in Christ, that in Christ we have no
distinctions, because Christ is one. On the other hand, I have no idea
whether the present existence of a multitude of nations is something that
will be extended outwards into eternity. I do know that in the book of
Revelation, this group that numbers out of many nations will constitute a
single city, the New Jerusalem. Its area will encompass the equivalent of a
large section of the Middle East, and will reach up into outer space. The
idea of a single city suggests there will *not* be the kinds of boundary
distinctions that today exists between nations.
randy
Fred A Stover
Except that you agree with Hitler that the Jews have been eliminated from
God's plan. Scripture, however, shows a millennium in which the Messiah
reigns and the Jews are redeemed.
1 Cor. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned.
<heresy snipped>
::: Jesus is LORD :::
bear
Has anyone noticed how Doug seldom tries to prove his views with
scripture? He has to quote what so and so author says and what he
believed. There is a very good reason for him doing that, he cannot
prove his bogus doctrine with scripture so his only recourse is to try
and divert to another subject, one more subjective than scripture. Now
he is using Hitler to support his views, quite pathetic.
Doug cannot refute any thing in the Bible, unless, one is willing to
just take his word for it. Numerous individuals have proved that many
times. I think Fred is giving him too much credit when he
calls him Satan, he is not that smart. OTOH, if one reads his
writings and compares them with the actions of Satin, I
think a good case could be made for him being one of Satan's flunkies.
2 Corinthians 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful
workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
2 Corinthians 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself
as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants
also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will
be according to their deeds.
V13-15 fits Doug quite favorably in my opinion.
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the
field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed,
has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
Notice how Satan changed what God actually said, "from any tree of the
garden you may eat freely", to, "you shall not eat from any tree of
the garden".
Genesis 2:16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree
of the garden you may eat freely..."
Pure deception, the same as Doug uses in his writings.
Here is another example, God said, "�you will surely die" and Satan's
response was, "you surely will not die". Exactly the same methods as
Doug employs.
Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you
shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely
die."
Genesis 3:4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
How many times does Doug quote scripture and change perhaps just one
word that changes the meaning, or quotes one verse out of context to
promote it meaning something completely opposite of how it was
intended.
I am convinced that is why he refuses to discuss scripture with anyone
that insists upon him proving his views with unadulterated scripture,
he is fully aware that he cannot do so, it would destroy what he is
trying to accomplish, and in my opinion, it is definitely the desires
of Satan.
Bear
Doug
wrote in article <7r0kum...@mid.individual.net>:
Not true. I don't agree with that. Jesus said,
Matthew 12:41
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall
condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold,
a greater than Jonas is here.
I believe what Jesus said; those Jews who rejected Christ will be raised
again. Paul said they are olive branches broken off from their tree, but
they can be grafted in again, and be reconciled to God, "if they abide
not still in unbelief." [Romans 11:23]
Many dispensationalists say they adore and love Jews, but it is a strange
sort of "love." Scripture says that love "Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but
rejoiceth in the truth." [1 Corinthians 13:6] They rejoice in the
delusion, that the unbelieving Jews remain the "people of God" because of
their race, or because an Asiatic tribe of Gentiles adopted the religion
of Judaism, centuries ago. Scripture says that there is only one people
of God. Paul said:
Philippians 3:3
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice
in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Dispensationalists consider themselves Gentiles, and apparently do not
want to be include among those Paul called "the circumcision," even if it
is spiritual. They would rather remain Gentiles. They do not want to be
included among the 12 tribes of Israel in Revelation 7:4-8, who are
sealed by the Spirit of God. They don't want to share the fate they think
is coming upon Jews, in the future tribulation.
Dispensationalists think Jews will suffer miserably, and many will die,
in the great war that occurs then. Yet, they encourage Russian Jews to
emigrate to Palestine, where these events, according to them, are
supposed to take place! American dispensationalist churches and Zionist
organizations even contribute funds to help them move. But is it love?
Merrill Frederick Unger (1909-1980), a Bible commentator, and professor
of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary wrote:
<quote>
Regathered to their homeland, established there as a nation in unbelief,
with a rebuilt temple, and a reinstated Judaism, under demon tutelage and
imposture, they will make a league with Antichrist at the beginning of
the amazing final seven years of this age (Dan. 9:27). The ungodly
alliance will prove a covenant with "death and hell" (Isa. 28:18), for in
the middle of the period the false, flattering Messiah will break his
agreement, sit in the temple, demanding worship for the image he will set
up, and for himself. The cruel and terrible "abomination of
desolation," (Matt. 24:15) will mark the commencement of the most intense
diabolical persecution of the Jew the world has yet seen, the horrible
"time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30:7). Through the fiery ordeal of death
and desolation, the nation will be made to see its supreme folly and
crime in rejecting its true Messiah, and choosing the false one. Through
the refining crucible they will learn the deadly power of demonic
delusion, and in their dire extremity, will turn their eyes heavenward,
and cry for their true deliverer, as the godless demon-led armies close
in to destroy them completely from the fact of the earth. When their
Messiah breaks through the heavens in unspeakable glory, the scales will
at last fall from their blind eyes, and when they look upon Him who they
have pierced, they will recognize Him not only as the Messiah, the King
of kings and LORD of lords, but as the meek and lowly Jesus of Nazareth,
whom they slew on Golgotha's brow. Unbelief will give way to radiant
faith, and hardness of heart to great mourning and "the spirit of grace
and supplications" (Zech. 12:10).
<quote>
Merrill F. Unger, Biblical demonology: a study of spiritual forces at
work today. Kregel Publications, 1994. p. 211.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=oJ7b7Wt6njIC
What a ghastly, depressing future dispensationalists like Unger predict
is in store for Jews! To encourage Jews to emigrate to Palestine, when
one believes they will suffer such a fate, is callous indeed. It is not
"love" at all, but hypocrisy! Many Jews are rightly suspicious of
American dispensationalism.
Ironically, another dispensationalist, Miles J. Stanford, accused Unger
of being influenced by demons! Stanford wrote: "UNGER'S UNDOING - This
paper documents the demise and slide of Dr. Merrill F. Unger into the
realm of charismatic demonism. A tragic story indeed!"
http://withchrist.org/MJS/unger.htm
Thomas Williamson, a Baptist minister in Chicago, wrote: "Any theological
teaching that gives Jews a place of privilege over Palestinians or
Gentiles in general, or that places any added burdens and restrictions
upon the Jews because of their ethnicity, is a relic of an unenlightened
past, should be erased from our thinking or preaching."
http://www.mediamonitors.net/williamson3.html
--
Doug
Fred A Stover
ROTFL! Now you're a dispensationalist? You don't believe that at all, for
what Jesus is speaking of His millennial kingdom when the "the saints shall
judge the world" (1Cor 6:2, Rev 20:4-5) and the gentiles of Nineveh judge
the Jews who receive Jesus after He returns (Zech 12:10), fufilling their
debt to the law as required in their dispensation:"here are they that keep
the
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Rev 14:12, Gal 5:3).
1 Cor. 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned.
You're an idiot.
<lunacy snipped>
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
>
Fred A Stover
Amen!
Doug
wrote in article <7r398f...@mid.individual.net>:
Fred scowled as fiercely as possibly could, and snarled,
>
> ROTFL! Now you're a dispensationalist? You don't believe that at all,
> for what Jesus is speaking of His millennial kingdom when the "the
> saints shall judge the world" (1Cor 6:2, Rev 20:4-5) and the gentiles of
> Nineveh judge the Jews who receive Jesus after He returns (Zech 12:10),
> fufilling their debt to the law as required in their dispensation:"here
> are they that keep the
> commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Rev 14:12, Gal 5:3).
>
> 1 Cor. 2:14
> But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
> for
> they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they
> are spiritually discerned.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> <lunacy snipped>
Revelation 13:1-5
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of
the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns,
and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as
the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon
gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly
wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and
they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is
able to make war with him?
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and
blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two
months.
John says the beast resembles the lion, the leopard, and the bear, which
are the same animals that Daniel described in his vision, in Daniel 7. In
Daniel's vision, the lion represented the kingdom of Babylon; the bear
represented Persia; the leopard which had four heads, represented the
hellenistic kingdoms; and the fourth beast represented Rome. And so the
elements of all those great empires are included in the beast John saw,
which contained seven heads and ten horns. That is, it inherited their
culture, and territory, and economic, philosophical, religious, military,
and political traditions. The same number of heads and horns is included
in Daniel's four beasts.
The head which received the deadly wound, I suggest, is the modern Jewish
state, which revives the Roman province of Judea. The "deadly wound" was
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.
Another link in John's prophecy to the prophecy of Daniel 7 is the time
stated for the duration of the beast's power, which John says is 42
months, while in Daniel 7:25, the little horn that grew from the head of
the fourth beast endures for "a time, and times, and the dividing of
time," or three and a half prophetic years, a symbolic period, equivalent
to 1,260 days in Revelation 11 and 12, but Daniel assigns two different
numbers to the period, 1,290 days, and 1,335 days, in Daniel 12. A
literal three and a half years cannot equal all these varying numbers of
days, but a symbolic period can! The fact that it is represented by
different, and inconsistent numbers clearly shows that it is not
referring to a literal three and a half years, but that the period itself
is a prophetic symbol. Dispensationalists entirely miss this basic truth,
and promote an utterly false view of prophecy, as proved by their many
failed attempts at setting dates for the coming of Christ.
The "time, and times, and a half" of Daniel is the Bible's symbol for the
entire age of the church. It is the last half of Daniel's 70th week, in
which Christ confirms his covenant with his saints. It extends to the end
of the age when all Daniel's prophecies are fulfilled.
Each of the numbers provided in prophecy for the "time, and times, and a
half" fit the pattern contained in that phrase. The months are 30 days,
and there are different combinations of regular years and leap or
embolismic years having an extra month, as in the Babylonian and Hebrew
calendars.
1,290 days = 13*30 + 2*12*30 + 12*30/2
1,335 days = 12*30 + 2*13*30 + 13*30/2
1,260 days = 12*30 + 2*12*30 + 12*30/2
Revelation 13:6-9
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his
name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome
them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are
not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of
the world.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
This verse shows that the beast blasphemes the tabernacle of God, which
is the church. The saints are those who "keep the commandments of God,
and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." [Rev 12:17] The beast makes war
with them and overcomes them, deceiving them, as in the USA and in other
countries, gullible Christians believe the modern Zionist Jewish state in
Palestine to be "Israel," and that the Jews who live there are the people
of God, rather than the church. Thus they follow the "beast," rather than
the Spirit of Christ.
Those who have their names in the book of life will not worship the
beast, but they are the ones described in Revelation 14:4, "These are
they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed
from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."
Dispensationalism teaches that the church is raptured to heaven, and the
Jews have to suffer the great tribulation, but in Revelation 7, it is the
saints who are sealed by God, who are identified with the 12 tribes of
Israel, who are the "firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb," while the
great multitude of all nations and tongues and peoples described in the
last part of the chapter are the ones who have come out of great
tribulation. "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and
have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
Those who are "firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb" are the saints, who
have their names in the book of life. John identifies them with the 12
tribes of Israel, not the worldly nation of Jews in Palestine, but those
who "keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus
Christ." [Rev 12:17] Paul also identifies the saints with the true
Israel, when he wrote:
Colossians 2:10-12
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and
power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without
hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the
circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through
the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Don't worship the beast! Eschew dispensationalism!
--
Doug
bear
Why does Doug refuse to answer questions like these?
Why would Doug, or any Christian have a problem with answering such
questions?
Is he ashamed of what he believes, is he afraid it will compromise his
purpose, or back him into a corner, is he afraid that it will show
that he does not even believe in the Bible or perhaps even in God,
what is his agenda when he makes dogmatic assertions but refuses to
answer questions with verifiable evidence, is he the type of
individual that you would trust when it comes to your eternity, what
does he have to hide?
1 Do you consider yourself a Christian?
2 What do you believe is necessary for salvation?
3 Do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God?
4 Do you believe in eternal salvation?
5 Do you believe in a literal Heaven?
6 Do you believe in a literal hell?
7 Do you believe Satan is a real entity?
8 Do you believe there will be a great tribulation?
9 Do you believe Jesus was born of a virgin?
10 Do you believe Jesus is the only way to salvation?
11 Do you believe God created all that was created in six days?
12 Do you believe Noah's flood was a global event?
13 Do you believe it is a sin to make false accusations and to
lie?
14 Why do you never suggest that people should read the
scriptures to prove to themselves that what you say is true?
Luke 9:26 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man
will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of
the Father and of the holy angels.
1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being
ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account
for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
Doug loves to quote Peter, however, this must be one of the verses
that he skips.
Bear
Fred A Stover
Lol, laughing hilariously isn't scowling.
>>
>> ROTFL! Now you're a dispensationalist? You don't believe that at all,
>> for what Jesus is speaking of His millennial kingdom when the "the
>> saints shall judge the world" (1Cor 6:2, Rev 20:4-5) and the
>> gentiles of Nineveh judge the Jews who receive Jesus after He
>> returns (Zech 12:10), fufilling their debt to the law as required in
>> their dispensation:"here are they that keep the
>> commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Rev 14:12, Gal 5:3).
>>
>> 1 Cor. 2:14
>> But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
>> God: for
>> they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they
>> are spiritually discerned.
>>
>> You're an idiot.
>>
>> <lunacy snipped>
>
<rambling snipped>
Changing the subject and citing scriptures you don't understand doesn't
change the fact that you've proven yourself an idiot, again.
Ike E 1/2/2010
"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:hm48k5d477uf90atb...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your
> holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make
> atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal
> up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
Completed literally in the events of the Maccabean Revolt.
Completed spiritually in the first advent of Christ.
Put A and B together, and you get the end of the age.
When ARE you fools going to get a clue: Prophecy is NOT fulfilled in lines
or segments--it's fulfilled IN STATEMENTS.
Ike
bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:hm48k5d477uf90atb...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your
>> holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make
>> atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal
>> up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
>
>Completed literally Ike thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, is now the smartest
man and will always be the smartest man, and he proves it with his
dogmatic assertions and analysis of the election poles.
[So, the INTERNAL DATA is STARTING TO LOOK LIKE IT DID BACK IN
SEPTEMBER, AND SHIFTING TO THE RIGHT AGAIN.]
or this one...
[Try looking at the INTERNAL data sometime--your "poll of polls" is
OVERINFLATED PUSH-POLLING CRAP.]
Now this is really indicative of Ike's version of the "truth".
[It's shaping up to be another GOP map.]
or this, has about the same value as his scripture commentary...
[Hey, idiot: HOW COME THE INTERNALS AREN'T MOVING BEYOND NORMAL
STATISTICAL ANOMALIES OF A POINT UP OR DOWN AS THE BATTLELINES
SOLIDIFY?]
right on mark again...
[WORSE, they subject to manipulation BY THE POLLSTERS THEMSELVES,
deliberately AND accidentally.]
[You MIGHT want to start paying attention TO THE BASIC POLLING,
Because IT MAY BE SAYING MORE THAN THE "PROFESSIONALS" DO.]
same dogmatic assertion as he makes with scripture, and just as wrong.
[And even THAT data is showing A MONUMENTAL SHIFT from OBAMA to
MCCAIN.]
yep, Ike has it all figured out...
[VoteFromAbroad.org IS ALREADY SHOWING MCCAIN TAKING THE LEAD, 270 to
268, with MORE SHIFTS TO COME from Washington, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania.]
how did everyone in the country miss this but Ike?
[EVEN NEW YORK STATE IS SHOWING A SHIFT TO THE GOP TICKET (and don't
be surprised if Giuliani Dems and the HUGE number of housewives in
up-state DON'T PUSH THE GOP WAY OVER THE TOP).]
[The rest of the electoral maps WILL SHORTLY FOLLOW SUIT.]
nothing wishy-washy about Ike's observations.
[By this time next week, the electoral college WILL SHOW THE SAME
REVERSAL AS IN THE GENERAL POLLING NUMBERS, with McCain have a HUGE
ADVANTAGE over Obama.]
same dogmatic, know it all tone as he has with scripture and the same
accuracy.
[This race is over--it ended last week.]
[Just like I told you last week concerning the general polling numbers
(and was right): WAIT FOR IT--it'll be along shortly.]
Ike provides a great demonstration of his analytical and interpreting
skills. He did come closer with the polls however than he does with
scripture.
Bear
>
>Ike
>
Ike E 1/2/2010
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:18:15 -0600, "Ike E 1/2/2010"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:hm48k5d477uf90atb...@4ax.com...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your
>>> holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make
>>> atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal
>>> up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
>>
>>Completed literally
> Ike thinks...
See. Told you he can't defend his lies nor thwart the truth.
And he just proved he knows it.
Ike
bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:6stel5dh5s4ofs03d...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:18:15 -0600, "Ike E 1/2/2010"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:hm48k5d477uf90atb...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your
>>>> holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make
>>>> atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal
>>>> up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
>>>
>>>Completed literally
>
>> Ike thinks...
>
>See. Told you he
Thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, is now the smartest
Ike E 1/2/2010
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:51:39 -0600, "Ike E 1/2/2010"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:6stel5dh5s4ofs03d...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:18:15 -0600, "Ike E 1/2/2010"
>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:hm48k5d477uf90atb...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>> Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your
>>>>> holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make
>>>>> atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal
>>>>> up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
>>>>
>>>>Completed literally
>>
>>> Ike thinks...
>>
>>See. Told you he
couldn't defend his false doctrines from scripture, historical fact,
prophetic precedence, etc., etc.
He's a false as the one he accuses, Doug, is.
Ike
bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:irkgl5doig8facs8q...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:51:39 -0600, "Ike E 1/2/2010"
>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:6stel5dh5s4ofs03d...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:18:15 -0600, "Ike E 1/2/2010"
>>>> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:hm48k5d477uf90atb...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your
>>>>>> holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make
>>>>>> atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal
>>>>>> up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
>>>>>
>>>>>Completed literally
>>>
>>>> Ike thinks...
>>>
>>>See. Told you he
>
>couldn't defend his
Ike thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, is now the smartest
Ike E 1/2/2010
questions--just like Pester Dave and Doug--or else his false system of
interpretation will fall apart right before his eyes.
So, once again...
Hey, "genius:" If Jeremiah was only talking about his present, what was John
doing quoting him in Revelation long after the fact, and if Jeremiah was
only talking about the future, why wasn't he stoned as a false prophet in
his day?
Ike
bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Notice that the fool
proves his supreme wisdom and intellect with the following quotes.