history lesson

[BobRyan]

You have made the claim that two totally unrelated texts are speaking to the same subject -- it is up to you to prove it.

Nothing I can do to help you with that one.

 

[Ed Edwards]

To this:
//the 2300 year timeline of Dan 8.//

Ed said:

Dan 8:14 And he answered me, Vnto the euening and
the morning, two thousand and three hundreth: then shall
the Sanctuarie be clensed.

start - daily sacrifice taken away
period - ??? (maybe the Lord will come back in 2370AD?)
-(more likely - 2300 literal days in the days of the four kingdoms)
-(in which Alexandria's [Greek] kingdom was divided)
end - Sanctuary cleansed

This could be divided into 2,000 + 300?
Greek is [two thousand] [three] [hundred] [dawns] [sunsets].

To which BobRyan said:

Could be?

That statement was rather simple, I'll try to explain it
and probably get accused of Obfuscation

Chances are the expression of 2300 Years
was just listed as 2K+300 - that would NOT be a break.
But if any break was made - it would be after the 2,000
years and before the 300 years. (or after the 2,000 days
and before the 300 days, if that is what it means).
I was doing something else at the time so I didn't sit
around trying to figure out what the 2300 days were
all about.

You have yet to show how you can
insert BETWEEN the days 1000's of years of undefined
lengths of time and STILL have the 2300 years
of Dan 8 work out. so my point in raising this example remains.

IMHO the 2300 'years' of Daniel 8 and the
70 'sevens' (70x7-years = 490 years of Daniel 9)
are not related. The 'breaks' added as a mystery
resolution in the New Testament are preceeded by
the time divisions mentioned by Daniel some 450
years earlier!

I have shown this adequately.
God blew your partial preterist socks off.
(I admit, I loved to be the typest!)
The world doesn't End when Jesus comes.
He comes to SET UP THE FIRST WORKING WORLD
ORDER - the physical Millennial Messanic Kingdom
Age!

EVEN if you take them as 2300 days and ignore the day-for-year principle in daniel you STILL can't make that timeline work by inserting 1000's of years of undefined gaps of time between the days of the timeline. hence -- the point remains.

Unfortunately you totally missed what I said.
I was showing that ONE BIBLE TIMELINE is shown BY THE BIBLE
to have an addition. In my attempt to show the obvious,
I showed that all other timelines that you mentioned
do NOT have broken timelines IN THE BIBLE.

I have shown this adequately.
God blew your partial preterist socks off.
(I admit, I loved to be the typest!)

IT is left as an exercise for the reader to observe
that there is really no way out of this point for the PTR model.

TeeHee - leave the impossible part for the 'readers'

:godisgood:

 

[BobRyan]

To this:

IMHO the 2300 'years' of Daniel 8 and the
70 'sevens' (70x7-years = 490 years of Daniel 9)
are not related.

How can you possibly miss the point that they are ALL numeric timelines that can not survive the abuse of slicing them in pieces and inserting 1000's years of gaps between the pieces??

I find it hard to believe that you are missing that point.

The 'breaks' added as a mystery
resolution in the New Testament

There are no mystery breaks in the 490 year timeline of Dan 9 mentioned in the NT nor in all of scripture.

This is one thing that has been very clear in this discussion so far - if nothing else.

preceeded by
the time divisions mentioned by Daniel some 450
years earlier!

I have shown this adequately.
God blew your partial preterist socks off.

As much as proclaiming victory over your posts may be a good way to sum up your position here -- it does not form a compelling argument that has actual proof to it.

I have offerred details - specific tlmeilnes -- showing that none of what you have done to the 490 year timeline can work in ANY timeline of scritpure much less the Dan 9 timeline.

Unfortunately you totally missed what I said.
I was showing that ONE BIBLE TIMELINE is shown BY THE BIBLE
to have an addition. In my attempt to show the obvious,
I showed that all other timelines that you mentioned
do NOT have broken timelines IN THE BIBLE.

I have shown this adequately.
God blew your partial preterist socks off.
(I admit, I loved to be the typest!)

Your position that NO timeline is abused in the slice and dice way that PTR needs to use on the 490 year timeline - simply shows that there is no Bible principle being followed here by PTR's unique treatment of the 490 year timeline.

How is it that the very evidence that shows this to be without excuse in scripture is being glossed over in your response.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

//I have offerred details - specific tlmeilnes -- showing
that none of what you have done to the 490 year timeline
can work in ANY timeline of scritpure
much less the Dan 9 timeline.//

I resent the accusation: 'what you have done'.
God did it.
I won't apologize 4 what God has done.

If I can't convince you from the Bible,
then you just won't be convinced.

Welcome to the age you are in:
the church age, Time of the Gentiles,
age of Mercy on Gentiles, etc.

 

[jilphn1022]

Thanks Doubting Thomas !

Yeah, it would be amusing, if it wasn't so sad--the bizarre lengths folks go to in coming up with ever more creative..(ahem)..."interpretations" of scripture to bolster a doctrine that was just invented in the 1800 (let alone the effort some folks on this message board expend defending this imaginary doctrine!) :tear:

I agree it is sad!

God's Word should always be the final answer!

 

[BobRyan]

//I have offerred details - specific tlmeilnes -- showing
that none of what you have done to the 490 year timeline
can work in ANY timeline of scritpure
much less the Dan 9 timeline.//

I resent the accusation: 'what you have done'.
God did it.

I won't apologize 4 what God has done.

I should not have said "you have done", I should have said "What the PTR idea tries to do to the 490 timeline of Dan 9".

As for your showing that "God sliced up the timeline" -- you have yet to do it. In fact I believe you admitted that there is no timeline in Romans 11 and yet you wanted to claim that Romans 11 says the 490 year timeline is to be sliced up.

Basically there is NO statement in Dan 9 saying that "the time of the gentiles occurs between the 69th and 70th week" -- no not even in all of scripture.

Just as the PTR doctrine WOULD have benefited if Matt 24 had said "Now BEFORE the tribulation of those days the Son of Man will appear in the clouds and will gather His elect" --- SO ALSO the PTER doctrine WOULD have benefited if Dan 9 had said "And then after the 69th week will be the times of the gentiles -- and once that time period has ended the 70th week will begin".

The problem for PTR is that NONE of that is found in scripture -- even worse the exact OPPOSITE is found!



in Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

...

God's Word should always be the final answer!

Amen, Jilphn -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

I note that all my eschatology is from the New Testament
(God's Word), which was completely written by 96AD when
John finished the book of Revelation.

-------------------------
Pretrib pre-mill outline of time forward:

0. church age continues <== you are here!
1. rapture/resurrection event
2. Tribulation time
3. Second Advent of Jesus event
4. literal MK=millennial kingdom
5. new heaven & new earth

I.
The time line according to Matthew 24
(Mount Olivet Discourse, also Matthew 25,
Mark 13, Luke 21):

0. church age continues <== you are here!
Matthew 24:4-15

1. rapture/resurrection event
Matthew 24:31-44

2. Tribulation time
Matthew 24:21-28

3. Second Advent of Jesus event
Matthew 24:29-30)

Not mentioned in Matthew 24:
(4. literal MK=millennial kingdom)
(5. new heaven & new earth)

2.
The time line according to Revelation:

0. church age continues - Rev 2-3 <== you are here!
1. rapture/resurrection event - Rev 4:1 (type)
2. Tribulation time - Rev 4:2-19:10
3. Second Advent of Jesus event - Rev 19:11-21
4. literal MK=millennial kingdom - Rev 20:1-6
5. new heaven & new earth - Rev 20:7-22:5

III:
The time line according to 2 Thessalonians 2:

0. church age continues <== you are here!
(implied, until the falling away /rapture2/)

1. rapture/resurrection
v.1 - gathering together unto him
v.3 - falling away

2. Tribulation time
(time of the man of sin)

3. Second Advent of Jesus event
v.1 - coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
v.8

Not mentioned:
(4. literal MK=millennial kingdom)
(5. new heaven & new earth)

BTW, I believed in the pre-tribulation rapture/resurrection
in 1952 before i saw these three scriptures as pretrib.
So even if you can prove all three of these scriptures
in error, I'll still hope in the pre-tribulation rapture
as will 80% of Baptists and 60% of kindred Christians.

--------------------------------------

 

[BobRyan]

Ed --
0. church age continues <== you are here!
1. rapture/resurrection event
2. Tribulation time
3. Second Advent of Jesus event
4. literal MK=millennial kingdom
5. new heaven & new earth

The reader will find it "instructive" that you give No text for that sequence

I.
The time line according to Matthew 24
(Mount Olivet Discourse, also Matthew 25,
Mark 13, Luke 21):

0. church age continues <== you are here!
Matthew 24:4-15

1. rapture/resurrection event
Matthew 24:31-44

2. Tribulation time
Matthew 24:21-28

We instantly observe that instead of taking the sequence given in Matt 24 you are rearranging Matt 24 explicitly telling us that you need vs21 to come after vs 31 (in sequence) -- you are also careful to avoid quoting the actual text saying "AFTER the tribulation of those days .. . the Son of Man will appear.. will gather His elect".

So here is the really strange part - you are citing a text that DOES place vs 31 AFTER vs 21 -- the Rapture and 2nd coming AFTER the tribulation and you are giving this as an example of "proof" that the rapture is stated in scripture as coming AFTER the tribulation.

The only reason for taking such an extreme indefensible position is that you in fact have no place to go other than this post-trib text sequence to try and switch it around to a pre-trib sequence EVEN though you know we can all see you arrange this as "vs 21 after vs 31". The reader is here asked to imagine just how quickly you WOULD be quoting a text that actually said "but BEFORE The Tribulation of those days the Son of Man will return and gather His elect" if such a text actually existed.

So what should this tell us? This should tell us that you surely MUST expect a pre-trib group that DOES accept the sequence of vs 31 coming AFTER vs 21 -- to be very very skeptical of anyone claiming that vs 21 needs to come AFTER vs 31 for their view to work -- while still claiming that they are getting their view from scripture not bias. You can not act surprised that the post-trib view that ACCEPTS the sequence AS GIVEN in Matt 24 "not to notice" what you are doing! It would make no sense to be shocked that we find this re-arrangement needed by PTR to be " PTR arguments made in spite of the sequence in the text and not BECAUSE of it".

It is left as an exercise for the reader to observe whether it is true that we should expect those who do not reject post-trib to argue the post-trib view from the actual sequence given in Matt 24 "BECAUSE of the sequence given in the chapter and not IN SPITE of it".

2.
The time line according to Revelation:

0. church age continues - Rev 2-3 <== you are here!
1. rapture/resurrection event - Rev 4:1 (type)

The rapture is not mentioned in Rev 4.

The coming of Christ is not mentioned in Rev 4.

The Church is not said to be taken to heaven in Rev 4.

It is instructive that you give no quote at all in your reference above --

But if Rev is of interest.

Rev 16 The Plagues -
Rev 19 the Second Coming
Rev 20 the FIRST resurrection
Rev 20:5-11 the literal Millennium
followed by literal second resurrection
"over these the 2nd death" -- does have power
Rev 20 - the lake of fire - the "second death"

III:
The time line according to 2 Thessalonians 2:

0. church age continues <== you are here!
(implied, until the falling away /rapture2/)

1. rapture/resurrection
v.1 - gathering together unto him
v.3 - falling away

1. Falling away is apostacy not rapture.
2. "Our gathering together to Him" (stated clearly in 2Thess2) is the rapture.
3. "That day WILL NOT come unless the apostacy comes first".

2Thess 2 has once again given the post-trib view and in desperation the PTR view is forced to claim that "the falling away" (apostacy of the church during the dark ages) is the "rapture" INSTEAD of "our gathering together to Him" being the rapture!!

How much more of a direct contradiction to scripture could even be imagined for the PTR???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

These last two post illustrate the point perfectly -- the post trib view is claiming that it's sequence comes directly FROM the text without any "inserts and re-arrangements".

The PTR view is also claiming that IT's views come DIRECTLY from scripture alone - but then it must instantly and blatantly show the reader just how scipture inserts and re-arrangements must be effected to come out with PTR instead of post-trib.

Ok - be that as it may -- the one thing that IS clear is that those holding to PTR should not be shocked or surprised that those who do not reject Post-trib find the PTR view to involve a lot of Bible "reworking" to get to the desired PTR goal.

At the very least - this little truth has to be apparent to all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

1 Thessalonians 4:18 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Wherefore, comfort your selues one another
with these wordes.

Please write an essay using the words of
1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 which fulfills the
COMMAND OF GOD to comfort somebody
with those words. Thank you.

 

[Ed Edwards]

//... in desperation the PTR view is forced to claim
that "the falling away" (apostacy of the church
during the dark ages) is the "rapture" INSTEAD
of "our gathering together to Him" being the rapture!!//

tee hee! You are getting your beliefs confused with
those of a PTR (Pretribulation rapture2).
No PTR (since 1848 - not 1828) that I've ever
heard of I know of claims that the apostasy has
happened years in the past. They all claim that
such apostasy is to happen in the future
(or is beginning to happen now).

Strangely enough Paul says he is going to talk
about "our gathering together to Him" in
2 Thess 2:1 but never mentions it again?
Isn't that poor writing? Actually I believe that
Paul did mention "our gathering together to
Him" -- the Pretribulation
Departure (Geneva Bibles) of the Saints from Earth (into the hands
of Jesus) or the Falling Away (KJVs) of the Saints
from Earth (into the hands of Jesus).

Some unimaginative people say that
1 Thess 4:17 Says that we who are Alive when
Jesus comes will RISE into the Arms of Jesus.
And 2 Thess 2:3 says we will Fall Away
into the Arms of Jesus -- isn't that a pretty concept
-- Falling Away from the Earth into the very
Arms of Jesus!!!
(rotate the camera 180-degrees and see if the
pictures aren't the same)

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed --
0. church age continues <== you are here!
1. rapture/resurrection event
2. Tribulation time
3. Second Advent of Jesus event
4. literal MK=millennial kingdom
5. new heaven & new earth

The reader will find it "instructive" that you
give No text for that sequence

The descerning reader noticed that
I gave three examples of 0 to 3
both from scripture.
And one example of 0 to 5 in the
exact sequence as given in Revelation.
The discerning reader noticed also what else
I said in the same post:

BTW, I believed in the pre-tribulation rapture/resurrection
in 1952 before i saw these three scriptures as pretrib.
So even if you can prove all three of these scriptures
in error, I'll still hope in the pre-tribulation rapture
as will 80% of Baptists and 60% of kindred Christians.

Has your eschatological understanding
expanded lately?

In the time line according to Revelation
(actually it is an event sequence)
I said:

1. rapture/resurrection event - Rev 4:1 (type)

To make it easier to figure out what I meant,
I even noted that it was a TYPE.
A TYPE is something similar in some manner
between what is said and what is meant.
For example the Genesis story of JOSEPH
is a type of CHRIST - that is Joseph went
ahead of his brothers to provide them
salvation in the time of need. Likewise Christ
has also gone ahead of us to provide us
salvation for our eternal need.

The rapture is not mentioned in Rev 4.

The rapture2 of which I speak is the resurrection2
plus the closely following rapture1.
So I was defining a rapture2 in my statement.

The coming of Christ is not mentioned in Rev 4.

The Coming of Chirst is not directly mentioned
in Revelation 4. But the rapture2 is part of the first phase
(at the start of the 'day') and the resurrection2 is part of
the coming of Jesus in power
and glory is the second phase (at the end of the day).

I'm sorry, but when I mention all that goes on in
the 'rapture2' each time I use the term, people (like BobRyan)
get on my case for being too wordy; when I don't mention what
goes on in each use of the term, people (like BobRyan) say
I'm unclear. Cut some slack. BTW, has SDA eschatology changed
any in the last 90 years?

The Church is not said to be taken to heaven in Rev 4.

TYPE, TYPE, TYPE - it was a TYPE.
John was taken to heaven.
In the rapture2 the Church will be taken to heaven.

It is instructive that you give no quote at all
in your reference above --

I thought a scripture reference might be good
enough. I note the whole book of Revelation
was in the References - more than one
post can contain. So the instruction is:
Ed obeys legitimate quotation rules.

 

[Ed Edwards]

//We instantly observe that instead of taking the sequence
given in Matt 24 you are rearranging Matt 4
so that vs 21 comes after vs 31 -- you are also
careful to avoid the actual text saying "AFTER
the tribulation of those days .. . the Son of Man
will appear.. will gather His elect".//

I'm glad you noticed.
In Matthew 24:3 the disciples asked three
questions. And I showed using all of
Matthere 24:4-44.
(Matthew 24:45- the end of chapter 25, is
some parables that Jesus uses to support
His eschatology).
I don't recall anybody using all
of Matthew 24:4-44 to explain the
answer to the three questions EXCEPT ME.
I don't recall anybody on the BB
showing the LAST verse that is effected
by Matthew 24:29's phrase: "After the
tribulation of that day". I say Matthew 24:30.

I win the debate hands down!
(Other Baptists are free to develope their own
Eschatology, but remember the people on this
board are hard on your eschatology )

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dear Ed Edwards,

You make these self-assured claims, but could not answer my simple question, What is eschatology to you? You have busied yourself these many pages with nothing but 'your', 'eschatology' - which may have been anything but true, Christian, Bible and New Testament 'eschatology'.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I'll attempt this for a definition of your 'eschatology': Dividing the apocalyptic into time-slots of personal fancy. It's nothing but fair you should win the debate hands down!

 

[Ed Edwards]

//What is eschatology to you? //

Can this be a multiple-choice quiz instead
of an essay quiz?

1/3 of the Bible is Eschatology.
Why? To improve our serve of Messiah Yeshua.

 

[Ed Edwards]

From dictionary.com
on Eschatology:

1.any system of doctrines concerning last, or final, matters,
as death, the Judgment, the future state, etc.
2.the branch of theology dealing with such matters.
{Origin: 1835–45; < Gk éschato(s)}

As for sequences of events, tell me when the
pretribulation rapture is to take place and I can
tell you the date the mid-tribulation crises starts
and about the date that Jesus will come and whip
the antichrist and the other bad guys.
It is the START of the Second Advent of Jesus that
comes as a thief in the night, not the end seven
years later.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thanks. This makes much - no, everything - clear, and helps a lot. You leave no doubt what you accepted for eschatology - which in my opinion you confirm yourself is nothing other and nothing but date-setting.

Try to reach at Christ the Living Lord Jesus the sum-total of Bible-eschatology and see if you can maintain your present views?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Dear Sir e-Vandel:

I said I was NOT a date setter. (Though the relative
timing I do claim to know.) ; Jesus says
even He does not know the date of the Pretribulation
Rapture2. But once the Pretribulation
Rapture2 happens, everybody will know,
when it happened. God has given His Wisdom to
Jesus and other Bible writers about the relative
happenings of God's Eschatology.

I should not be insulted for being a Baptist
on the Baptist Board - it is a poor sign.
My testimony is that I am Saved BY MESSIAH
JESUS and stay Saved IN MESSIAH JESUS.
We really can't afford to dis our fellow
Christian's testomonies.

Tell me you did read the part where this
Eschatology was develped by myself
(in Christ, with lots of guidance from the
Holy Spirit). My Eschatology
was not develped by some historical figure (or
group of demoninations).

(signed)
-- Ed the Baptist, the voice of one
crying in the Cyber-wilderness: "Ease
modify the way to the Lord!"

 

[BobRyan]

To this:
//the 2300 year timeline of Dan 8.//

Chances are the expression of 2300 Years
was just listed as 2K+300 - that would NOT be a break.

Indeed - no break at all in that timeline.

Which is just another example of a Bible timeline that will not survive what the PTR tries to do to the 490 year timeline of Dan 9.

But if any break was made - it would be after the 2,000
years and before the 300 years. (or after the 2,000 days
and before the 300 days, if that is what it means).
I was doing something else at the time so I didn't sit
around trying to figure out what the 2300 days were
all about.

Simply musing that you mighta broke 'em if you really tried -- does not form a kind of proof for the method PTR tries to use in Dan 9.

IMHO the 2300 'years' of Daniel 8 and the
70 'sevens' (70x7-years = 490 years of Daniel 9)
are not related.

Doesn't matter whether you choose to relate them or not - for the purposes of this discussion is simply obvious that EACH of those timelnes (yes even the 490 year timeline) has to remain in tact to work.

While you have shown a lot of imagination and creativity in trying to break up the 490 year timeline inserting undefine gaps of time into it -- it has been shown that this simply does not work.

Unfortunately you totally missed what I said.
I was showing that ONE BIBLE TIMELINE is shown BY THE BIBLE
to have an addition. In my attempt to show the obvious,
I showed that all other timelines that you mentioned
do NOT have broken timelines IN THE BIBLE.

You simply "proved" that you have no basis in scripture for breaking up Bible timelines by admitting that these timelines can not be broken and still be used as timelines.

I coulda left that part for the reader.

in Christ,

Bob