Who Has Part in The First Resurrection?

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
The Seventieth Week

Much of the dispensational theology of the ‘end times’ is based on faulty exegesis of this vision of the prophet Daniel, particularly Daniel 9:26-27. There are some who refer to the period of time discussed in the entire vision as Israel's ‘prophetic destiny’.

Daniel 9:26,27, KJV
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.

From this passage we see that the Messiah, Jesus Christ was ‘cut off’, killed, sometime after the end of the 69th week; actually after His ministry of about three and one half years when he confirmed {cause to prevail} the New Covenant through His sacrificial death. Because of His sacrificial death the Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and I believe the continuation of animal sacrifices in the Temple were an abomination

Christ was "cut off" at the crucifixion. Now there is one week left, or seven years. Half way through that seven years the Antichrist will desecrate the temple. At the beginning of that seven year period he will make a covenant with Israel. When, OR, did those things happen?.

Jesus Christ was crucified after the 69th week and that is exactly what Scripture states. Daniel 9:26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: The additional seven weeks is discussed in 9:25.

So you see Scripture does not say there was one week left. John Nelson Darby may have but after all he was only human and the Revelation was closed with the passing of the Apostles.. After the crucifixion and resurrection of the Messiah the temple was a useless edifice. It was destroyed in 70 AD by Rome because the Jews continued to offer sacrifices in the Temple.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
There is absolutely no basis in the text of the passage to indicate a delay in the start of the seventieth week until some time in the far distant future, 2000 years and counting. That is a fiction of dispensational doctrine.

You can believe what you want. But it is your dreams vs. dispensational truth. Prove from history that these events have already happened. Prove from history that the events described in Rev.6-19 have already happened (the 70th week). Does history record a hailstorm, for example, with hailstones each weight a hundred pounds? Rev.16:21 does.

I don't have the time and space on this BB to give a review of the last 2000 years of history. If you are really interested study the Book of Revelation and the last 2000 years of history. Or you could get a commentary on Revelation by someone other than a dispensationalist. I suggest you get Revelation, Four Views edited by Steve Gregg. It might work wonders, God willing!

The 70th week followed the 69th week. It is lunacy to believe there is a 2000 year gap between the 69th week and the 70th week, actually only 3.5 weeks since the crucifixion took place half way through the 69th week. The "abomination" of Verse 27 may well be the continued blood offerings the Jews offered in the Temple until God had it destroyed. And the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ, as are all who reject Him, were and are certainly desolate. And Rome, I believe as the instrument of God, certainly made all Jerusalem desolate. As I noted above:

Because of His sacrificial death the Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and I believe the continuation of animal sacrifices in the Temple were an abomination

*********************************************************************************

Originally Posted by OldRegular
We know from Scripture that the Messiah, Jesus, was killed, not for himself, but for the sins of those chosen in Him from the foundation of the world [Ephesians 1: 4]. Thus the Covenant has already been instituted by the shed blood of Jesus the Messiah. Sometime after the death of the Messiah the city and sanctuary were to be destroyed by a people belonging to an unnamed prince. The armies of Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

That part is true.

Gee thanks!

But Titus never made a covenant with Israel for one week or seven years.
Titus never desecrated the Temple exactly 3 1/2 years into that seven year period.
Titus simply went in 70 A.D., and in that one year razed the city and the Temple. It didn't take seven years. Thus it wasn't a complete fulfillment of the prophecy. It doesn't account for all that is written there.

The only one who made a Covenant with Israel was God and Israel crucified His Messiah.

Acts 2:22-24
22. Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23. Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

But did them no good because He came out of the grave, The First Resurrection!

*************************************************

I will repeat part of my earlier post for your edification!

Daniel 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, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

From this passage we see that the Messiah, Jesus Christ was ‘cut off’, killed, sometime after the end of the 69th week; actually after His ministry of about three and one half years when he confirmed {cause to prevail} the New Covenant through His sacrificial death. Because of His sacrificial death the Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and I believe the continuation of animal sacrifices in the Temple were an abomination.

 

[RLBosley]

If you don't want to be accused of holding "tradition" then don't accuse others (me) of doing so. I am simply throwing the same back at you. Now you are offended because I use the same language you use toward me, and yet you don't think I should be offended? Where is the logic in that?
As I said, I believe the Word of God, not tradition, as you accuse me of. And every time you accuse me I will throw the same back at you just to show what you are doing.

If you can't see the difference between me saying that your tradition influences your interpretation, and you saying that I view the very Word of God as tradition, then I simply can't help you. That is a basic category error.

So you believe the world ends three times? Does it or does it not? Be clear!
As I said previously there is a "general chronology" to the book. There are some exceptions. The world ends but once.

You're joking right? I fully explained this already. One more time, as simply as I possibly can make it:

In the book of Revelation, the world ends at least 3 times. Clearly destroying your idea of "general chronology" since we all know the world will only end once. Got it?

I am not dishonest at all. You said "your tradition" right? The fact is I don't believe in tradition, so it must be you. I have already explained this to you. You are the one that needs to be rationale here and stop hurling the insults.

Nope you don't hold to any tradition at all!
It's the ones who cry "I have no tradition!" that are really the most blinded by their tradition.
I gladly acknowledge I have tradition. But I pray that God removes bad tradition and allows me to interpret the text clearly, as he intended it to be understood and not how my tradition dictates.

The Mount of Olives does not have to be in this exact text.
When he comes the Second time he will come to the Mount of Olives.

No debate here. But again, you are saying that the two events mentioned are different because the one mentions that Jesus comes in the clouds but actually returning to the mount is not mentioned. I am pointing out that the mount is not mentioned in either text, so based on your method of interpretation, neither of the passages can be the return to the mount. You need to be consistent.

Zechariah 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
--Clear enough.
Now go back and read 1Thes.4:16-18. Both events cannot happen at the same time. He cannot come "to the clouds" and land on the Mount of Olives at the same time. Have you studied physics?

Yep it is clear. It's also painfully clear that the 1 Thess and 2 Thess passages describe two aspects of the same event. You keep saying that in 1 Thess 4, that the Lord comes "to the clouds" as if that is his final destination in this event. As if he comes down to the clouds and the text says he goes no further. You are inserting that into the text.

It says:

1Th 4:16-17 NASB - For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

We go to meet the Lord in the clouds. That is where those who are alive at his return go to meet him and finally see him face to face. It says nothing about that being Jesus' final destination.

The world doesn't end three times, does it. Just because you think it is suggested doesn't mean that it happens.

See above, and the last several posts I've made. I've clearly explained this to you.

I moved from the modern evangelical default position of Dispensational Premil, to PreWrath, Historic Premil and then took a long break from the study of eschatology. I jumped into a study of the covenants and realized I could no longer, after understanding the covenants and the Pauline epistles, hold to anything but Amil.

jm

I've heard that is the common route people take. Sam Storms went that way too IRRC. I'm Historic pre ATM, but like you said, as you understand the covenants, Amill becomes more likely. I'm leaning that way, but not there yet.

The Seventieth Week

Much of the dispensational theology of the ‘end times’ is based on faulty exegesis of this vision of the prophet Daniel, particularly Daniel 9:26-27. There are some who refer to the period of time discussed in the entire vision as Israel's ‘prophetic destiny’.

Daniel 9:26,27, KJV
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.

From this passage we see that the Messiah, Jesus Christ was ‘cut off’, killed, sometime after the end of the 69th week; actually after His ministry of about three and one half years when he confirmed {cause to prevail} the New Covenant through His sacrificial death. Because of His sacrificial death the Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and I believe the continuation of animal sacrifices in the Temple were an abomination

There is absolutely no basis in the text of the passage to indicate a delay in the start of the seventieth week until some time in the far distant future, 2000 years and counting. That is a fiction of dispensational doctrine. But, they add a thousand years between the resurrection of the just and the unjust {John 5:28, 29}. We know from Scripture that the Messiah, Jesus, was killed, not for himself, but for the sins of those chosen in Him from the foundation of the world [Ephesians 1: 4]. Thus the Covenant has already been instituted by the shed blood of Jesus the Messiah. Sometime after the death of the Messiah the city and sanctuary were to be destroyed by a people belonging to an unnamed prince. The armies of Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

Yes! Exactly :applause:

 

[OldRegular]

In the book of Revelation, the world ends at least 3 times. Clearly destroying your idea of "general chronology" since we all know the world will only end once. Got it?

There are at least three clear pictures {some use the term progressive parallelism} in the Book of Revelation that end with the Second coming, the Seals, the Trumpets, and the Bowls. I lean toward the position of the Reformation Bible {formerly the New Geneva Bible} which sees 7 such pictures. But as you say the end only comes once!

 

[RLBosley]

There are at least three clear pictures {some use the term progressive parallelism} in the Book of Revelation that end with the Second coming, the Seals, the Trumpets, and the Bowls. I lean toward the position of the Reformation Bible {formerly the New Geneva Bible} which sees 7 such pictures. But as you say the end only comes once!

Yep. Progressive parallelism is a good term for it. I've heard of the 7 parallels view, but I'm unconvinced as of yet, so I say "at least" 3 times.

 

[DHK]

If you can't see the difference between me saying that your tradition influences your interpretation, and you saying that I view the very Word of God as tradition, then I simply can't help you. That is a basic category error.

I don't believe in tradition. I find it an insult that you accuse me of such. If you are a Calvinist and believe in the "tradition" of Calvin that is your problem. I study the Bible; am a "Biblicist" if you will.
I come from a RCC background where tradition and the Bible were on par with each other. When I got saved I did away with all tradition, and put the Bible as my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.
I go to my Bible for answers. Now you tell me. What tradition are you referring to? You may have tradition; I don't. I get my answers from the Word of God. Tradition only influenced me when I was a Catholic. Prove me wrong or stop with the false allegations. It is insulting.

You're joking right? I fully explained this already. One more time, as simply as I possibly can make it:

In the book of Revelation, the world ends at least 3 times. Clearly destroying your idea of "general chronology" since we all know the world will only end once. Got it?

Let's call the bluff this time. Don't make assertions unless you can back it up. The world ends three times, eh?
Chapter and verse! Provide the three times that it ends--the exact references!

Nope you don't hold to any tradition at all!
It's the ones who cry "I have no tradition!" that are really the most blinded by their tradition.
I gladly acknowledge I have tradition. But I pray that God removes bad tradition and allows me to interpret the text clearly, as he intended it to be understood and not how my tradition dictates.

The Bible is my authority and from there I get my beliefs, not from the RCC magesterium, and not from the Institutes of Calvin. Perhaps you should define "tradition," lest we be talking past each other. By the definition I know and understand, I do not follow tradition, and in fact we are commanded not to. (not to follow the traditions of men).

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

No debate here. But again, you are saying that the two events mentioned are different because the one mentions that Jesus comes in the clouds but actually returning to the mount is not mentioned. I am pointing out that the mount is not mentioned in either text, so based on your method of interpretation, neither of the passages can be the return to the mount. You need to be consistent.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
--Christ descends. He does not land on the earth here. There is no indication that he actually touches the earth.
However, the dead in Christ rise. We which are alive at this time arise.
Both of the above meet Christ in the air or clouds where Christ is, not on the earth, and, yes we shall see him as he is, if not in the clouds then in heaven.
The even is instantaneous!
1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
--The twinkling of an eye is very fast.

Yep it is clear. It's also painfully clear that the 1 Thess and 2 Thess passages describe two aspects of the same event. You keep saying that in 1 Thess 4, that the Lord comes "to the clouds" as if that is his final destination in this event. As if he comes down to the clouds and the text says he goes no further. You are inserting that into the text.

It says:

1Th 4:16-17 NASB - For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

We go to meet the Lord in the clouds. That is where those who are alive at his return go to meet him and finally see him face to face. It says nothing about that being Jesus' final destination.

Which is it? An ascent or a descent? He descends to the clouds. We ascend to the clouds and there meet him. It is during this time we receive our glorified bodies.
As it says:
1 Corinthians 15:52-53 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
--But our direction is upward. 1Cor.15 makes that abundantly clear. So does Rev.19, which indicates that we have already been there for some time--at the marriage feast of the Lamb. There are two resurrections, not one. None of the unjust are raised at this time. Only believers are mentioned. And the direction is an ascent. We meet the Lord, and with him arise.
Thus the two events (1Thes.4 and 2Thes.1) cannot be the same event. Impossible.

See above, and the last several posts I've made. I've clearly explained this to you.

Yep, all opinion, and every time it falls short of Scripture.

 

[DHK]

Jesus Christ was crucified after the 69th week and that is exactly what Scripture states. Daniel 9:26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: The additional seven weeks is discussed in 9:25.

You are confused. The seven weeks of verse 25 are included in the 69 weeks. The first seven weeks are the time it took for them to rebuild the Temple. Then there was 62 more weeks from the commandment of Cyrus to the death of Christ--a total 483 years or 69 weeks.
Of Daniel's 70 weeks, 69 have passed and one still remains.

Daniel 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, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
--There is a definite week of seven years which the Antichrist makes a covenant with the Jews, and then breaks it in the midst by desecrating the Temple. It is right there. No allegorizing is needed.

So you see Scripture does not say there was one week left.

Dan.9:27 clearly says one week is left. Your unbelief doesn't change facts.

I don't have the time and space on this BB to give a review of the last 2000 years of history. If you are really interested study the Book of Revelation and the last 2000 years of history. Or you could get a commentary on Revelation by someone other than a dispensationalist. I suggest you get Revelation, Four Views edited by Steve Gregg. It might work wonders, God willing!

I have done the study OR. Your answer is a cop-out and you know it!
I'll state my question again so the readers can see what you are answering:

Does history record a hailstorm, for example, with hailstones each weight a hundred pounds? Rev.16:21 does.

No, of course you don't have the time to go through 2,000 years of history to see if this ever happened. We know it didn't. It was never recorded. The Great Tribulation never happened. :laugh:
Please take the study of the Scriptures a bit more seriously OR.

The 70th week followed the 69th week. It is lunacy to believe there is a 2000 year gap between the 69th week and the 70th week, actually only 3.5 weeks since the crucifixion took place half way through the 69th week. The "abomination" of Verse 27 may well be the continued blood offerings the Jews offered in the Temple until God had it destroyed. And the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ, as are all who reject Him, were and are certainly desolate. And Rome, I believe as the instrument of God, certainly made all Jerusalem desolate. As I noted above:

Not even Peter believes you. Nor does the prophet Joel.

Act 2:16-20
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

Peter quotes this prophesy and says that it happened on that day. The truth is that it was only partially fulfilled.
Were there wonders in heaven above; signs in the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke; the sun turned to darkness, the moon to blood--just before that great and notable day of the Lord?
No! That great and notable day is at the end of the Tribulation, when Christ will come in vengeance to defeat the enemies of Israel.

It will be at the end of the 70th week of Daniel.

The only one who made a Covenant with Israel was God and Israel crucified His Messiah.

The antichrist has not yet come. He will make a covenant with Israel.
Besides, in this day and age, all kinds of nations have made treaties, agreements, pacts, etc. Israel has different agreements with America today.

 

[RLBosley]

I don't believe in tradition. I find it an insult that you accuse me of such. If you are a Calvinist and believe in the "tradition" of Calvin that is your problem. I study the Bible; am a "Biblicist" if you will.
I come from a RCC background where tradition and the Bible were on par with each other. When I got saved I did away with all tradition, and put the Bible as my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.
I go to my Bible for answers. Now you tell me. What tradition are you referring to? You may have tradition; I don't. I get my answers from the Word of God. Tradition only influenced me when I was a Catholic. Prove me wrong or stop with the false allegations. It is insulting.

You never actually dealt with the issue. You were accusing me of believing the very Word of God, the scriptures, are just tradition. I said you were using your tradition to interpret scripture. Do you not see the VAST difference between the two?

We all study the Bible. At least I hope we do. However, we are coming to different conclusions. Therefore we clearly are both being influenced by extra-biblical sources, e.g., tradition, ignorance, personal bias etc. To say you get all your answers from the word of God and you have no tradition at all means that you have a perfect theology. Are you really comfortable saying you perfectly understand the Word of God? That you have arrived at a perfect system of doctrine and that there is no area where you must learn or grow or, dare I say it, change?

Let's call the bluff this time. Don't make assertions unless you can back it up. The world ends three times, eh?
Chapter and verse! Provide the three times that it ends--the exact references!

Revelation 6:12-17
Revelation 11:15-19
Revelation 19:11-16

Three pictures of the same event.

Cue the cries of, "but the judgments are chronological!"

The Bible is my authority and from there I get my beliefs, not from the RCC magesterium, and not from the Institutes of Calvin. Perhaps you should define "tradition," lest we be talking past each other. By the definition I know and understand, I do not follow tradition, and in fact we are commanded not to. (not to follow the traditions of men).

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Tradition:
an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition

Not sure why you feel the need to bring up the RCC or Calvin as a smokescreen. I sincerely hope you don't truly think you have no tradition. We all have tradition.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
--Christ descends. He does not land on the earth here. There is no indication that he actually touches the earth.
However, the dead in Christ rise. We which are alive at this time arise.
Both of the above meet Christ in the air or clouds where Christ is, not on the earth, and, yes we shall see him as he is, if not in the clouds then in heaven.
The even is instantaneous!
1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
--The twinkling of an eye is very fast.

Christ descends, yes, but 1 Thess 4 does not say that he only descends to the clouds. There is nothing in the text that rules out his coming to Earth. The purpose of the passage is to comfort the Thessalonian believers about the state of their dead loved ones. They are being comforted by the promise that we will all, dead and alive, be reunited together with Christ at his return. What follows after the gathering together (rapture) is not the purpose of the passage.

I am aware that it is instantaneous. What's your point?

Which is it? An ascent or a descent? He descends to the clouds. We ascend to the clouds and there meet him. It is during this time we receive our glorified bodies.
As it says:
1 Corinthians 15:52-53 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
--But our direction is upward. 1Cor.15 makes that abundantly clear. So does Rev.19, which indicates that we have already been there for some time--at the marriage feast of the Lamb. There are two resurrections, not one. None of the unjust are raised at this time. Only believers are mentioned. And the direction is an ascent. We meet the Lord, and with him arise.
Thus the two events (1Thes.4 and 2Thes.1) cannot be the same event. Impossible.

Christ descends and we ascend to meet him in the air. Just like the passage says. Again, the focus here is on our gathering together to him, not what happens afterward. The passage never says we go to Heaven after this event. It simply says after this gathering we will always be with the Lord. There is nothing in either text (1 Thess 4 or 2 Thess 2) that makes them mutually exclusive. You are reading your traditional, dispensational interpretation into it, just like I did for years.

Further, the word translated as "meet" is not an uncommon word. It was often used to describe the process of the people of a city going out to greet a ruler or dignitary while they were still off in the distance and accompany them back to the official's destination. The word (and another related word) is used in precisely that way in Matt 25 in a parable about the return of Christ!

Mat 25:1 NASB - "Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet (related word) the bridegroom.
Mat 25:5 NASB - "Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep.
Mat 25:6 NASB - "But at midnight there was a shout, 'Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet (Same as 1 Thess 4) him.'
Mat 25:10 NASB - "And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut.

Yep, all opinion, and every time it falls short of Scripture.

It really is sad to see you being so hateful towards someone you don't know and so disparaging to a view you apparently don't understand or even want to try to understand.

I'm curious DHK, how old are you? What kind of Baptist church do you attend?

 

[OldRegular]

Jesus Christ was crucified after the 69th week and that is exactly what Scripture states. Daniel 9:26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: The additional seven weeks is discussed in 9:25.

You are confused. The seven weeks of verse 25 are included in the 69 weeks. The first seven weeks are the time it took for them to rebuild the Temple. Then there was 62 more weeks from the commandment of Cyrus to the death of Christ--a total 483 years or 69 weeks.
Of Daniel's 70 weeks, 69 have passed and one still remains.

It is you who are confused or grasping at straws in an argument you cannot win. Jesus Christ was crucifies AFTER 69 weeks. Verst 26 which states this only mentions 62 weeks because 7 have already been mentioned in Verse 25 just as i stated!

*************

Daniel 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, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
--There is a definite week of seven years which the Antichrist makes a covenant with the Jews, and then breaks it in the midst by desecrating the Temple. It is right there. No allegorizing is needed.

You are the one allegorizing. You have divined a mythical person who will make a covenant with Israel. I said in my previous post:

The only one who made a Covenant with Israel was God and Israel crucified His Messiah.

Acts 2:22-24
22. Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23. Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

But did them no good because He came out of the grave, The First Resurrection!

The One confirming a Covenant in Verse 27 is Jesus Christ, the Messiah. After His ministry of about three and one half years Jesus Christ instituted, or confirmed, or caused to prevail, the New Covenant through His sacrificial death. The Book of Hebrews tells us:

Hebrews 9:11-18, NASB
11. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12. and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,
14. how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15. And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16. For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.
17. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.
18. Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

Because of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ in instituting the New Covenant the Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom in effect making the Temple a useless edifice. The continuation of animal sacrifices in the Temple, after the perfect sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah, were an abomination before God. We read in proverbs:

Proverbs 15:8. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?

It was the wicked of Israel, particularly the priests and Pharisees, who instigated the murder of Jesus Christ by the Romans.

John 11:47-53
47. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52. And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
53. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

**************

Dan.9:27 clearly says one week is left. Your unbelief doesn't change facts.

NO! DHK, verse 27 does not clearly say one week is left. Verse 27 says there is only a half week following the sacrificial death of the Messiah. It is only because you and John Nelson Darby have divined some mythical person who will make a covenant with revived Israel.

I have done the study OR. Your answer is a cop-out and you know it!

You have followed the wrong man DHK. You brag in another post that you are a Biblicist. That is not true because the Bible does not teach "dispensationalism", John Nelson Darby invented it "out of whole cloth" so to speak!

I'll state my question again so the readers can see what you are answering:

Does history record a hailstorm, for example, with hailstones each weight a hundred pounds? Rev.16:21 does.

No, of course you don't have the time to go through 2,000 years of history to see if this ever happened. We know it didn't. It was never recorded.

Just because it has not been recorded means nothing!

The Great Tribulation never happened. :laugh:

You think the tribulation that the Saints have undergone is funny. That is pathetic DHK. Of course after the Roman Empire stopped burning Christians the RCC took over, both the Roman Empire and burning Christians. Furthermore I posted information recently showing more Christians were murdered in the past 100 years than in the previous 1900.

Please take the study of the Scriptures a bit more seriously OR.

I do follow Scripture, not John Nelson Darby or Cyrus Scofield.

Not even Peter believes you. Nor does the prophet Joel.

Act 2:16-20
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

Peter quotes this prophesy and says that it happened on that day. The truth is that it was only partially fulfilled.

So DHK, or Biblicist the Great, is calling Scripture a liar?

Were there wonders in heaven above; signs in the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke; the sun turned to darkness, the moon to blood--just before that great and notable day of the Lord?

I wasn't there DHK but you are showing abysmal ignorance of apocalyptic Scripture.

No! That great and notable day is at the end of the Tribulation, when Christ will come in vengeance to defeat the enemies of Israel.

It will be at the end of the 70th week of Daniel.

The antichrist has not yet come. He will make a covenant with Israel.
Besides, in this day and age, all kinds of nations have made treaties, agreements, pacts, etc. Israel has different agreements with America today.

That is all dispensational fiction out of the mind of John Nelson Darby and sadly many people have fallen for it!

Don't you feel strange, gloating over the things you say will happen to people in what you call the grrrreat tribulation?

 

[webdog]

Jesus is reigning from above.....and in the hearts of His children. He defeated satan when He sprang forth from the tomb...

It must be an awfully weak reign due to the fact we each sin constantly. The Bible says we cannot serve two masters.

 

[DHK]

You never actually dealt with the issue. You were accusing me of believing the very Word of God, the scriptures, are just tradition. I said you were using your tradition to interpret scripture. Do you not see the VAST difference between the two?

And you are wrong. I use the Bible. I am guided by the Holy Spirit. I do consult other reference material. But tradition I do not use. In fact I would be disobeying the Word of God if I relied upon tradition:

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Mark 7:7-8 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

We all study the Bible. At least I hope we do. However, we are coming to different conclusions. Therefore we clearly are both being influenced by extra-biblical sources, e.g., tradition, ignorance, personal bias etc. To say you get all your answers from the word of God and you have no tradition at all means that you have a perfect theology. Are you really comfortable saying you perfectly understand the Word of God? That you have arrived at a perfect system of doctrine and that there is no area where you must learn or grow or, dare I say it, change?

I have sources which are extra-biblical: historical, commentaries, dictionaries, reference books, etc. That does not fall into the category of tradition, but rather of study.
If your tradition includes ignorance and personal bias you need to do something about that.

Revelation 6:12-17

How do you get the end of the world out of this?
Revelation 6:16-17 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
--It is the end of the Tribulation meant to coincide with Rev.19:11-16. Most of the book is chronological. But the sixth seal occurs at the end. I have posted this before. I said it has a general chronology, not a strict chronology.

Revelation 11:15-19

Revelation 11:18-19 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
--No where near the end of anything. This is simply the judgment of the seventh angel, and it will get worse after this. There are still seven vials of judgment to come. What makes you think this is the end of the world? That is a stretch of the imagination! This is God pouring out his wrath upon the world during this seven year period of Great Tribulation.

Revelation 19:11-16

This is a description of Christ, and his coming. Read what happens after verse 16. After Christs comes (and his saints which were already in heaven because of the rapture, come with him) he sets up His Kingdom and will reign for a thousand years. The thousand years is mentioned at the beginning of chapter 20.
--There is no end of the world here. It is the end of the Tribulation Period.

Three pictures of the same event.

No they are not. The sixth seal takes place just before the coming of Christ. You have that close. The reference in chapter 11 isn't even close.

Cue the cries of, "but the judgments are chronological!"

Again there follows a general chronology, not a specific chronology. I noted that you put gaps in there where none are to be put, thus your confusion.

Tradition:
an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition

Not sure why you feel the need to bring up the RCC or Calvin as a smokescreen. I sincerely hope you don't truly think you have no tradition. We all have tradition.

Sure, like me getting together with my family at Christmas time.
I am not sure how that affects my understanding of the Bible. Would you like to enlighten me? I have no traditions that affect my understanding of the Bible. Why do you insist that I do? You don't even know me.

Christ descends, yes, but 1 Thess 4 does not say that he only descends to the clouds. There is nothing in the text that rules out his coming to Earth. The purpose of the passage is to comfort the Thessalonian believers about the state of their dead loved ones. They are being comforted by the promise that we will all, dead and alive, be reunited together with Christ at his return. What follows after the gathering together (rapture) is not the purpose of the passage.

What follows after: "Wherefore comfort one another with these words," is not the purpose?? Yes it was. It was a comforting passage to know that Christ was coming for his own, that we would be with Him, resurrected as His Bride. The events following the meeting of the Bride and Bridegroom would follow immediately, not vengeance on the enemies of Christ and Israel.

I am aware that it is instantaneous. What's your point?

That we would be in heaven as described in 1Cor.15, not on earth. We are given a "celestial body" for a reason, and that is not to be immediately on earth.

 

[DHK]

Christ descends and we ascend to meet him in the air. Just like the passage says. Again, the focus here is on our gathering together to him, not what happens afterward. The passage never says we go to Heaven after this event. It simply says after this gathering we will always be with the Lord. There is nothing in either text (1 Thess 4 or 2 Thess 2) that makes them mutually exclusive. You are reading your traditional, dispensational interpretation into it, just like I did for years.

What made you stray away from the truth? As Paul said: "Who hath bewitched you?"
The two events are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled into one event, and you are not doing a very good job.

Further, the word translated as "meet" is not an uncommon word. It was often used to describe the process of the people of a city going out to greet a ruler or dignitary while they were still off in the distance and accompany them back to the official's destination. The word (and another related word) is used in precisely that way in Matt 25 in a parable about the return of Christ!
Yes, but our meeting is in the air. Where do we proceed from there? To heaven of course. How do we know? Because that is where we are found in Revelation 19 before we come back with Christ at his Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation.

The rapture took place before the Great Tribulation, and the Bride was taken to heaven as it is described in 1Thes.4:16-18. And then:
Revelation 19:7-8 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
--The actual marriage takes place.
The saints are clothed in fine linen which is symbolic of the righteousness of the saints.

Revelation 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
--Then the marriage supper takes place.

This is a time capsule. It is in eternity where there is no time. John records and tells only what he is told. Thus, some time after this:

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
--Christ is about to come; the Second Coming.

Revelation 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
--Who are the armies? They are clothed in fine line, white and clean. They are clothed in the righteousness of the saints, the same saints that sat at the marriage supper of the Lamb. These are the believers that were raptured seven years earlier. Now they will descend with Christ. The word "armies" is plural meaning more than one. We know that his holy angels will be with him also (Mark 8:38). He will come to defeat the enemies of Israel, and then to set up his Kingdom.

It really is sad to see you being so hateful towards someone you don't know and so disparaging to a view you apparently don't understand or even want to try to understand.

Please, I don't need the martyr complex in this debate.
This is your answer to these words of mine:

Yep, all opinion, and every time it falls short of Scripture.

And that was in answer to a statement of yours that basically said: "I have already explained this to you."
So yes, you have given me your opinion, and IMO it has fallen short of the Scriptural view each and every time. Now what is so hateful about that? I would think an apology should be coming. If you get so easily offended in a debate perhaps you should go into the Fellowship forums and discuss the weather, cats and dogs, etc.

 

[OldRegular]

And you are wrong. I use the Bible. I am guided by the Holy Spirit. I do consult other reference material. But tradition I do not use. In fact I would be disobeying the Word of God if I relied upon tradition:

1Corinthians 14:33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

The dispensational doctrine of John Nelson Darby has caused nothing but confusion and disharmony among the Saints and the churches since Darby dreamed it up in the early 1800's and Cyrus I. Scofield peddled it in the SRB.

 

[DHK]

It is you who are confused or grasping at straws in an argument you cannot win. Jesus Christ was crucifies AFTER 69 weeks. Verst 26 which states this only mentions 62 weeks because 7 have already been mentioned in Verse 25 just as i stated!

We agree. Jesus was crucified after 69 weeks. So far so good.
The passage starts out "70 weeks are determined on thy people..."
70 minus 69 equals one. There is still one week to account for. It is called Daniel's 70th week. That prophetic week has not happened yet, and all the prophecies related to it have not happened it: from Joel 2:28ff, Acts 2, Rev.6-19, etc.
Your interpretation fails to account for this week of years and the events surrounding it (like a hailstorm with hailstones of one hundred pounds each); just one example.

You are the one allegorizing. You have divined a mythical person who will make a covenant with Israel. I said in my previous post:

Do you deny that an antichrist will come against all evidence of a great plethora of Scripture which says he will? That is astounding!

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
--He is called the "man of sin." He will sit in the temple of God. He will deceive others and make others think that he is god. This is the antichrist.

2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
--that Wicked, or "Wicked One," or as the ASV puts it "Lawless One," is again the Antichrist. Wickedness is always at work, and will continue to work, as does lawlessness. But when the Holy Spirit is taken out of the way, the Antichrist will have full control over mankind. Christians, the salt of the earth, will have been removed. Evil will go on unrestrained. And at the end of that seven years, "Christ will destroy with the brightness of his coming."

Read the rest of the passage: 9-13.
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.
There is "one antichrist" that will come. Now many stand against Christ as John describes. But in the end times, there will be one particular one that will come.

I don't have the space or time to list all the references here for you. There is a multitude of them.

The One confirming a Covenant in Verse 27 is Jesus Christ, the Messiah. After His ministry of about three and one half years Jesus Christ instituted, or confirmed, or caused to prevail, the New Covenant through His sacrificial death. The Book of Hebrews tells us:

IMO, that is a blasphemous interpretation, as the one who confirms the covenant is the one who breaks the covenant, and desecrates the Temple. Do you believe Jesus blasphemes and desecrates the Temple? Is he that kind of person?

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
--It is the same person as this one.

Jesus identifies the one who makes that covenant and then breaks it:
Matthew 24:15-16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
--It is the antichrist. He is speaking to the Jews here. They are the Jews that would be alive during the Tribulation Period. They are to flee for safety when they see this happen. Terrible things are about to happen. This is their sign. Half way through the Tribulation is the start of the worst part of God's wrath being poured out against the wickedness of those on the earth.

Because of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ in instituting the New Covenant the Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom in effect making the Temple a useless edifice. The continuation of animal sacrifices in the Temple, after the perfect sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah, were an abomination before God. We read in proverbs:

That has nothing to do with his 70th week, and all the related prophecies.

It was the wicked of Israel, particularly the priests and Pharisees, who instigated the murder of Jesus Christ by the Romans.

So? That has been dealt with already. Christ died. The 69 weeks were over.
NO! DHK, verse 27 does not clearly say one week is left. Verse 27 says there is only a half week following the sacrificial death of the Messiah. It is only because you and John Nelson Darby have divined some mythical person who will make a covenant with revived Israel.

You have followed the wrong man DHK.

Jesus Christ and the Apostles are not the wrong men. I follow them.

You brag in another post that you are a Biblicist. That is not true because the Bible does not teach "dispensationalism", John Nelson Darby invented it "out of whole cloth" so to speak!

I have not read Darby. I don't read a Scofield Bible. Don't level false accusations against me. Yes, I am a Biblicist. I get my teachings from the Bible. Where do you get yours from?[/quote]

Just because it has not been recorded means nothing!

When "prophecies" have not yet been recorded then they have not yet happened have they. There are some here that like to think Christ has already come a second time. But there would be some evidence of that if he had come.
Let's look at the facts:
JW's believe in a spirit resurrection thereby denying the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are some here that come close to such a belief.
The JW's believe that Christ is Michael, an angel. Any other similarities?
The JW's believe that Christ really didn't die on the cross. It was someone else--perhaps Barabbas.
In the last point what I am getting at is if you believe 1,000 years is not one thousand years then you can believe Christ did not die, did not rise, and isn't even Christ. You can make the Bible say anything you want to say.

You think the tribulation that the Saints have undergone is funny. That is pathetic DHK. Of course after the Roman Empire stopped burning Christians the RCC took over, both the Roman Empire and burning Christians. Furthermore I posted information recently showing more Christians were murdered in the past 100 years than in the previous 1900.

I have posted similar information time and time again. In Islamic nations today Christians are undergoing intense persecution. That doesn't make today the time of The Tribulation. That is nonsense. There is a seven year period of Tribulation where God will pour out HIS wrath out against the wickedness of this world.
What you are speaking of is Satan's wrath against God's saints. Those are two very different things.

I do follow Scripture, not John Nelson Darby or Cyrus Scofield.

Likewise.:thumbsup:

So DHK, or Biblicist the Great, is calling Scripture a liar?

Not me. The Scripture I quoted says: "It SHALL come to pass.
I believe that. Do you? No you don't. You believe "It has come to pass." But that is not what it says.

I wasn't there DHK but you are showing abysmal ignorance of apocalyptic Scripture.

You have not been there in 2,000 years of history, but we do have records.
You have not been in the Great Tribulation nor ever heard of it, because it has not happened yet.
You cannot account for the events in Rev.6-19 because they have not happened yet. Your allegorical method of interpretation only leads to serious biblical error.

That is all dispensational fiction out of the mind of John Nelson Darby and sadly many people have fallen for it!

Darby wasn't around when the Muslims destroyed the WTC towers.
He hasn't been around since that time when currently our nation has made many agreements, pacts, etc., not only with Israel, but with many other nations. So your point is entirely moot.
You don't address scripture. You don't even address those points that arise out of scripture and are relevant today.

Don't you feel strange, gloating over the things you say will happen to people in what you call the grrrreat tribulation?

The Great Tribulation is described in much detail in Revelation 6 to 19.
None of those things have happened yet. But they will.
If you can point back into history where there was a hail storm with each hailstone weighing the approximate weight of one hundred pounds, then maybe we will have a starting point. But since you refuse to even look at these events in the light of history and would rather spiritualize it all we have no common ground.

 

[DHK]

1Corinthians 14:33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

The dispensational doctrine of John Nelson Darby has caused nothing but confusion and disharmony among the Saints and the churches since Darby dreamed it up in the early 1800's and Cyrus I. Scofield peddled it in the SRB.

Just keep quoting falsehoods OR. Why you do it I don't know.
Read this link. I know you haven't.
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/dispensation.htm

There were many before Darby and Scofield that believed in dispensationalism.
It started out as Chiliasm, that the ECF commonly believed.
Many scholars throughout the centuries have believed in it.
But if you don't do your homework, and just rant on whatever someone else has spoonfed you, then you are unteachable.

 

[OldRegular]

Just keep quoting falsehoods OR. Why you do it I don't know.

I "QUOTED" Scripture DHK!

1Corinthians 14:33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Are you calling Scripture a "falsehood"?

 

[OldRegular]

Do you deny that an antichrist will come against all evidence of a great plethora of Scripture which says he will? That is astounding!

1John 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.

1John 2:22*. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1John 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.

2John 7. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Above is the abundance of Scripture, as DHK insists, that speak of the antichrist and John says he was there /here 2000 years ago!

 

[OldRegular]

IMO, that is a blasphemous interpretation, as the one who confirms the covenant is the one who breaks the covenant, and desecrates the Temple. Do you believe Jesus blasphemes and desecrates the Temple? Is he that kind of person?

You might try understanding Scripture instead of making foolish accusations. Read the following for once:

Daniel 9:26, 27
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.

There is nothing in that Scripture about a covenant with Israel, but with "many"! I repeat my previous remarks. the ministry of Jesus Christ was about 3.5 years. At the end of that period He was murdered by Rome at the instigation of the priests and Pharisees.

It was the wicked of Israel, particularly the priests and Pharisees, who instigated the murder of Jesus Christ by the Romans and the wicked priests continued to offer useless sacrifices in a useless Temple.

John 11:47-53
47. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52. And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
53. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

By His death Jesus Christ instituted, or confirmed, or caused to prevail, the New Covenant promised by God in Jeremiah. So it is Jesus Christ spoken of in Daniel 9:27 not some human prince.

Again the Book of Hebrews tells us:

Hebrews 9:11-18, NASB
11. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12. and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
13. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,
14. how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15. And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16. For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.
17. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.
18. Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

Because of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ in instituting the New Covenant the Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom in effect making the Temple a useless edifice. The continuation of animal sacrifices in the Temple, after the perfect sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah, were an abomination before God. Scripture tells us that Holy God does not like the sacrifices of the wicked:

Proverbs 15:8. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?

I realize I am repeating myself DHK but repetition is a method frequently used in teaching! Like when you learned your multiplication tables: Repetition!

**************

 

[OldRegular]

I have not read Darby. I don't read a Scofield Bible. Don't level false accusations against me. Yes, I am a Biblicist. I get my teachings from the Bible. Where do you get yours from?

I doubt that you developed dispensational doctrine on your own. In fact dispensationalism is a doctrine that must be taught since Scripture does not teach dispensations but covenants. The tragedy is so many Christians got a SRB and did not realize where God stopped and Scofield started,

 

[DHK]

I doubt that you developed dispensational doctrine on your own. In fact dispensationalism is a doctrine that must be taught since Scripture does not teach dispensations but covenants. The tragedy is so many Christians got a SRB and did not realize where God stopped and Scofield started,

How many times do I have to repeat myself OR? Here it is again:

Just keep quoting falsehoods OR. Why you do it I don't know.
Read this link. I know you haven't.
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/dispensation.htm

There were many before Darby and Scofield that believed in dispensationalism.
It started out as Chiliasm, that the ECF commonly believed.
Many scholars throughout the centuries have believed in it.
But if you don't do your homework, and just rant on whatever someone else has spoonfed you, then you are unteachable.

 

[OldRegular]

Let's look at the facts:
JW's believe in a spirit resurrection thereby denying the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are some here that come close to such a belief.
The JW's believe that Christ is Michael, an angel. Any other similarities?
The JW's believe that Christ really didn't die on the cross. It was someone else--perhaps Barabbas.
In the last point what I am getting at is if you believe 1,000 years is not one thousand years then you can believe Christ did not die, did not rise, and isn't even Christ. You can make the Bible say anything you want to say.

You neglected to mention that the JW's are big on the earthly millennial reign. I would say your beliefs are closer to the Watchtower Society than mine. Both are a product of the 19th century. Jehovah's Witnesses out of the mind of Charles Taze Russell in 1872 and dispensationalism out of the mind of John Nelson Darby around 1830!

Do you believe the following:

John 5:28-29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

I know you reject that very clear Scripture because otherwise you could not be a dispensationalist. And to say there are 4 or 5 to half dozen resurrections wrapped up in the general resurrection Jesus Christ teaches is dispensational mythology.