eschatology continued

[OnlyaSinner]

Robycop3 did you read Hal Lindsey's book countdown to Armageddon? When is that ufo going to land and demons come out saying they created man?

You can't make this stuff up. It's laughable.

Your literalism is flawed. You have a preconceived theology dictating what is literal and what's not.

Just because a fallible human author incorrectly tried to apply current (and imagined future) events to Bible prophecy, that means we should toss futurism altogether? Seems like a pretty thin reed to me.

 

[prophecy70]

Just because a fallible human author incorrectly tried to apply current (and imagined future) events to Bible prophecy, that means we should toss futurism altogether? Seems like a pretty thin reed to me.

Where in that post did I say we should throw out futurism because of Hal Lindsey's UFO blunder?

 

[prophecy70]

Your OP does not mention the Antichrist. I don't know what you mean by "that part" of futurism. Your OP is so broad that almost anything in Daniel or Revelation or the Olivet Discourse will fit. I'm not really excited about discussing all of that with you. If you want to ask me specific questions about the Antichrist I'll do my best to answer them.

I just want to know with out preconceived information, Where you get the antichrist, A one man ruler, that rules in a third temple, and makes peace in the middle east with a literal interpretation of the bible. A prophecy of 490 years needs a 2000 and counting year gap to make that work.

The he in Daniel 9:27, is talking about the Messiah. That is the subject of verse 26. The only he in that verse. So either the Hebrew is different, or the translators were wrong if you need it to fit.
It is an accepted rule of grammar that a pronoun should not refer to noun within a prepositional phrase. The word “of” is a preposition and the word “prince” is in the prepositional phrase. Prince simply informs us about the “peoples” relationship with him. The prince is not the subject to the sentence.
All the futurist commentaries leave out "the people of" and say the he is the "prince who is to come"


Mike and the children of Dan went into the room and then he turned on the light switch. Who turned on the switch?

 

[John of Japan]

I just want to know with out preconceived information, Where you get the antichrist, A one man ruler, that rules in a third temple, and makes peace in the middle east with a literal interpretation of the bible. A prophecy of 490 years needs a 2000 and counting year gap to make that work.

The he in Daniel 9:27, is talking about the Messiah. That is the subject of verse 26. The only he in that verse. So either the Hebrew is different, or the translators were wrong if you need it to fit.
It is an accepted rule of grammar that a pronoun should not refer to noun within a prepositional phrase. The word “of” is a preposition and the word “prince” is in the prepositional phrase. Prince simply informs us about the “peoples” relationship with him. The prince is not the subject to the sentence.
All the futurist commentaries leave out "the people of" and say the he is the "prince who is to come"


Mike and the children of Dan went into the room and then he turned on the light switch. Who turned on the switch?

I just have a few minutes before I have to teach, but I'll point out a couple of things.

1. You are thinking in English. Hebrew grammar is quite different. If you have e-Sword, download the K&D commentary, which deals with the Hebrew in this passage.
2. Your example about Mike is all in one sentence, but the passage has a couple of sentences to it.
3. Worst of all, your interpretation has the Messiah making a covenant for 7 years, but then breaking it halfway through. In other words, you have Jesus breaking His promise, and that is impossible!

 

[David Kent]

Are you able to give an actual answer or just the intellectual equivalent of "am not, are too!"?

@TCassidy Sorry, I was wrong.

@John of Japan, John I apologise.

@robycop3 I apologise.

 

[David Kent]

I don't know of anyone on here believes that the Second Coming of the Lord has already happened. No doubt they will say and prove me wrong if they do.

BUT. The Lord of the vineyard did come and take away their inheritance during the Jewish-Roman wars. Before you say that nobody saw him, In Ruth we read that " Ruth 1:6 she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread."

 

[Covenanter]

I just have a few minutes before I have to teach, but I'll point out a couple of things.

1. You are thinking in English. Hebrew grammar is quite different. If you have e-Sword, download the K&D commentary, which deals with the Hebrew in this passage.
2. Your example about Mike is all in one sentence, but the passage has a couple of sentences to it.
3. Worst of all, your interpretation has the Messiah making a covenant for 7 years, but then breaking it halfway through. In other words, you have Jesus breaking His promise, and that is impossible!

I have, with difficulty, read the relevant parts of the K&D Commentary. Difficult to see what they believe as they quote various authorities, with differing opinions, & they rarely resort to paragraphs, but this is the conclusion:

Not less doubtful is the matter of the definition of the terminus ad quem of the seventy שׁבעים, and of the chronological reckoning of the whole period. As for the terminus ad quem, a sharply defined factum must form the conclusion of the sixty-ninth week; for at this point the public appearance of Christ, His being anointed with the Holy Ghost, is named as the end of the prophecy. If this factum occurred, according to Luk 3:1, in the year of Rome 782, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes - i.e., the year 455 b.c., according to the usual chronology - would be the year 299 A.U.C.; if we add to that sixty-nine weeks = 483 years, then it gives the year 782 A.U.C. In the middle of this last week, beginning with the appearance of the Anointed, occurred His death, while the confirming of the covenant extends through the whole of it. With reference to the death of Christ, the prophecy and its fulfilment closely agree, since that event took place three and a half years after His baptism. But the terminus ad quem of the confirming of the covenant, as one more or less moveable, is capable of no definite chronological determination. It is sufficient to remark, that in the first years after the death of Christ the ἐκλογή of the Old Covenant people was gathered together, and then the message of Christ was brought also to the heathen, so that the prophet might rightly represent the salvation as both subjectively and objectively consummated at the end of the seventy weeks for the covenant people, of whom alone he speaks (Hgst. pp. 163f., 180). Thus also Auberlen, who, however, places the end of the seventy weeks in the factum of the stoning of Stephen, with which the Jews pressed, shook down, and made full to the overflowing the measure of their sins, already filled by the murder of the Messias; so that now the period of grace yet given to them after the work of Christ had come to an end, and the judgment fell upon Israel.

Summarising, the conclusion of the 69th week marks the public appearance of Messiah - his anointing with the Holy Spirit at his baptism;
Jesus' death occurs in the middle of the final, 70th week, the the confirming of the covenant occurs throughout the 70th week;
in the first years after the death of Jesus, the covenant continued to be confirmed with the Old Covenant people who gathered in Jerusalem, until the stoning of Stephen.

That is the interpretation I would maintain - I believe prophecy70 & David Kent would agree.

It's an understanding one can readily see by reading the Scriptures & relating the fulfilment to the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Matthew Henry is substantially in agreement.

The is no question of Messiah making & breaking a covenant - he confirms the covenant for seven years, which as K&D assert, takes until the stoning of Stephen. At that time the Holy Spirit declared the Jewish leaders "uncircumcised." Acts 7:51. Of course the Gospel continued to be proclaimed & open to the Jews as a people - & continues until our Lord returns in glory for resurrection & judgment.

 

[David Kent]

I just have a few minutes before I have to teach, but I'll point out a couple of things.

1. You are thinking in English. Hebrew grammar is quite different. If you have e-Sword, download the K&D commentary, which deals with the Hebrew in this passage.
2. Your example about Mike is all in one sentence, but the passage has a couple of sentences to it.
3. Worst of all, your interpretation has the Messiah making a covenant for 7 years, but then breaking it halfway through. In other words, you have Jesus breaking His promise, and that is impossible!

Sorry John, but you are misquoting scripture here. Dan 9 does not say that anyone would make a covenant for seven years and then break it, It says "27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: Confirm is not to "make" and the covenant refers to God's covenant with the Jews. Neither does it say that anyone would break a covenant.

 

[John of Japan]

Sorry John, but you are misquoting scripture here. Dan 9 does not say that anyone would make a covenant for seven years and then break it, It says "27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: Confirm is not to "make" and the covenant refers to God's covenant with the Jews. Neither does it say that anyone would break a covenant.

BDB (leading Hebrew lexicon) confirms the meaning of "confirm." Now, if it is the Messiah confirming the covenant, He is saying that it is a valid covenant. You are right about that. But then if the Messiah is the subject of that sentence, He is also the subject of the next sentence: "and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." Therefore, if the Messiah is the subject of both sentences, then He is the one who will break the covenant He Himself has confirmed as valid by causing the sacrifice to cease.

P. S. If I'm wrong, I didn't "misquote" the Scripture as you say, I misinterpreted it. "Judge righteous judgement." I would never misquote Scripture to prove a point.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't know of anyone on here believes that the Second Coming of the Lord has already happened. No doubt they will say and prove me wrong if they do.

Actually, there are several full preterists on the BB who say that exact thing, that Jesus came spiritually in AD 70 and therefore there is no second coming.

I haven't yet figured out what you are.

 

[John of Japan]

I just want to know with out preconceived information, Where you get the antichrist, A one man ruler, that rules in a third temple, and makes peace in the middle east with a literal interpretation of the bible. A prophecy of 490 years needs a 2000 and counting year gap to make that work.

Actually, the time from the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem to the Messiah being "cut off," or killed, was 69 weeks of years, or 483 years, just as Dan. 9:25 says. This fulfillment of prophecy concerning the exact year the Messiah would die is huge in defending the Word of God. That leaves the 70th week, which you are free to interpret as you wish.

A huge problem with the preterist view is that they say that prophecy concerning the 2nd coming of the Messiah is allegorical, "spiritual." I have asked the preterists on the BB, since all of the prophecies of the first coming of the Messiah are literally fulfilled (Bethlehem, etc.), why are not the prophecies of the 2nd coming to be literally fulfilled? I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Preterists dance all around that one.

 

[David Kent]

BDB (leading Hebrew lexicon) confirms the meaning of "confirm." Now, if it is the Messiah confirming the covenant, He is saying that it is a valid covenant. You are right about that. But then if the Messiah is the subject of that sentence, He is also the subject of the next sentence: "and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." Therefore, if the Messiah is the subject of both sentences, then He is the one who will break the covenant He Himself has confirmed as valid by causing the sacrifice to cease.

P. S. If I'm wrong, I didn't "misquote" the Scripture as you say, I misinterpreted it. "Judge righteous judgement." I would never misquote Scripture to prove a point.

Well my understanding is that Christ confirmed the covenant with the Jews for one week and then at the conversion of Cornelius and his house, the covenant was opened to the Gentiles, so Jews an Gentiles could be partakers in the covenant.
It could not be the "prince who would come" as it is not said that he would do anything. It was "his people" who would destroy the city and the sanctuary.

I haven't yet figured out what you are.

I follow the Historicist understanding.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Where in that post did I say we should throw out futurism because of Hal Lindsey's UFO blunder?

You did not, nor did I say (or intentionally imply) that you did. However, the repeated ridiculing of people like Lindsey, plus some other posts (not necessarily yours) seem to imply that position.

 

[David Kent]

Actually, the time from the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem to the Messiah being "cut off," or killed, was 69 weeks of years, or 483 years, just as Dan. 9:25 says. This fulfillment of prophecy concerning the exact year the Messiah would die is huge in defending the Word of God. That leaves the 70th week, which you are free to interpret as you wish.

Actually the 69 weeks were until Messiah, the prince. Jesus was revealed as that at his baptism when John said "Behold the lamb of God, and the voice from heaven, and when Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit."
He was cut off after the 69th week and crucified in the midst of the week, the 70th week. That leaves ½ week till the opening of the kingdom to the gentiles.

Remember only six things were to happen during the 70 weeks

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.

All those were fulfilled in Christ. Other events described were as a result of those 6 points. The Most Holy was Christ, the anointed.

If you introduce Antichrist into this you are saying something that scripture doesn't.

 

[David Kent]

BDB (leading Hebrew lexicon) confirms the meaning of "confirm." Now, if it is the Messiah confirming the covenant, He is saying that it is a valid covenant. You are right about that. But then if the Messiah is the subject of that sentence, He is also the subject of the next sentence: "and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." Therefore, if the Messiah is the subject of both sentences, then He is the one who will break the covenant He Himself has confirmed as valid by causing the sacrifice to cease.

It doesn't say he would break the covenant. He caused the sacrifice to cease by His death at Calvary, When he became the sacrifice "Once for all." The Covenant was not broken but opened up to the gentile

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

• .The sacrifice continued for a time, but was invalidated by the sacrifice of Christ. (once for all.)

 

[Revmitchell]

It doesn't say he would break the covenant. He caused the sacrifice to cease by His death at Calvary, When he became the sacrifice "Once for all." The Covenant was not broken but opened up to the gentile

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

• .The sacrifice continued for a time, but was invalidated by the sacrifice of Christ. (once for all.)

Uh no it is a new convenant Luke 22:20

 

[John of Japan]

Actually the 69 weeks were until Messiah, the prince. Jesus was revealed as that at his baptism when John said "Behold the lamb of God, and the voice from heaven, and when Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit."
He was cut off after the 69th week and crucified in the midst of the week, the 70th week. That leaves ½ week till the opening of the kingdom to the gentiles.

I disagree. You are speculating as to the 1/2 week. There is nothing in history or the Bible to suggest that Jesus was crucified in the middle of a week of years.

Remember only six things were to happen during the 70 weeks

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.

All those were fulfilled in Christ. Other events described were as a result of those 6 points. The Most Holy was Christ, the anointed.

I disagree. You can't have 69 weeks of years and then make the 70 a week of days.

If you introduce Antichrist into this you are saying something that scripture doesn't.

I completely disagree.

 

[John of Japan]

It doesn't say he would break the covenant. He caused the sacrifice to cease by His death at Calvary, When he became the sacrifice "Once for all." The Covenant was not broken but opened up to the gentile

But the sacrifice did not cease. The sacrifices continued until the temple was destroyed in AD 70.

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

• .The sacrifice continued for a time, but was invalidated by the sacrifice of Christ. (once for all.)

See there? You can't change the meaning of the word to fit your own theological construct. "Ceased" (Hebrew shabath) does not mean "invalidate." It occurs only twice in the OT, here and in Dan. 11:18. The BDB lexicon says, "to cease, desist, rest." It doesn't allow for a meaning of "kind of ceased, but kept going for awhile." The usage in Dan. 11:18 shows this where the reproach ceased, and then it says "without his own reproach." So the reproach was completely gone.

 

[David Kent]

I disagree. You can't have 69 weeks of years and then make the 70 a week of days.

I didn't,
69 weeks till Jesus was revealed as the Son of God and Lamb of God at His Baptism.

• Matt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
• 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
  • Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
  • 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
  • 11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

• John1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
• 33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
• 34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
• 35Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
• 36And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
• 37And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
• 38Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
• 39He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
• 40One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
• 41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
• 42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
• 43The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
• 44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
• 45Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Messiah was to be cut off after 69 weeks, not at the end as someone on another site repeatedly told me. After the 69th week is the 70th.
Dan 9:27 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, (By His death on the cross)

• Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

What could those promises be but the covenant?

I am sorry Bro John, but I cannot see any other understanding than that, apart to impose a pre conceived idea.

 

[prophecy70]

I just have a few minutes before I have to teach, but I'll point out a couple of things.

1. You are thinking in English. Hebrew grammar is quite different. If you have e-Sword, download the K&D commentary, which deals with the Hebrew in this passage.
2. Your example about Mike is all in one sentence, but the passage has a couple of sentences to it.
3. Worst of all, your interpretation has the Messiah making a covenant for 7 years, but then breaking it halfway through. In other words, you have Jesus breaking His promise, and that is impossible!

I will look at that commentary but EVEN on Jewish website dan 9:27 reads.

I just have a few minutes before I have to teach, but I'll point out a couple of things.

1. You are thinking in English. Hebrew grammar is quite different. If you have e-Sword, download the K&D commentary, which deals with the Hebrew in this passage.
2. Your example about Mike is all in one sentence, but the passage has a couple of sentences to it.
3. Worst of all, your interpretation has the Messiah making a covenant for 7 years, but then breaking it halfway through. In other words, you have Jesus breaking His promise, and that is impossible!

I will read that commentary, But even after looking at jewish commentaries, The antecedent of the word "he, refers back to the the anointed one to most of them, does it have to in Hebrew? No I think they gave a couple of places where it didn't follow the english rule, anyways all of them have verse 26 people of prince talking about Romans and Titus anyways... they are the who destroyed the city and sanctuary, any attempt to change that idea is out of someones head. So even if the Hebrew Language is different, sometimes. Verse 26 is not talking about 2000 later in a 490 year prophecy. There is not a grammar law, not anything to say verse 26 is about anyone other then ad 70. So either verse 27 the HE is jesus, or its titus or vespasian. To start saying its some future ruler has no more creditably, then for me to say it is a kid in my 7th grade class.