| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
18 Jun 2005 12:31:55 PM |
| Object: |
DANIEL 9:24-27 & THE 70TH WEEK |
Hi,
While folks await the 70th week of Daniel, there
is a serious problem with this approach to the text.
They paint the Messiah as being cut off at the end
of the 69th week and the "prince" in v26, as the
AntiChrist. What they don't realize, is that they
have the Messiah being anointed and dying on
the same day. How so? Please, read on and
bear in mind, that we must read EACH AND EVERY
WORD of the Bible carefully, since even one word
can change the whole context of a passage. And
sometimes it is a word that is NOT there that changes
the context of the message, that people assume
the text is implying, when it isn't and we can see
this, if we study it CAREFULLY. :)
It is also important to note, that what the modern
churches teach, is not the historic belief of the
church. They were not waiting for the events of
Matthew 24 to happen after the first century. That
is a construct of modernism in the church. It started
in the 1800's. Darby invented dispensationalism and
Scofield made the Rapture famous, in his Scofield
Study Bible of 1830. And while any serious scholar
knows that Scofield was one of the worst Biblical
scholars out there, the churches today flock to
his Rapture invention. Hmmmm...
Now the futurists will try to paint Preterism as an
invention of some Jesuits in the 15th century (or
thereabouts) and try to associate it with the RCC,
because many of them associate the RCC with
a revived Roman Empire. They will snip out any
points made in a message and respond with that,
because it is their way of trying to dishonestly make
the Preterist perspective look Satanic, so that they
can avoid dealing with the Biblical points made.
I do not label myself as a "Preterist". I may not
agree with everything some camp says and these
people also try to force me into some specific camp,
so that, once again, they will be able to ignore the
specific points made.
Watch them for yourselves, folks. See if they will
deal with the points in this message Biblically. I
guarantee, all you will see, is personal attacks and
attacks on Preterism, which they cannot back up,
except with web links that do no more research
than they do and seek to do the same thing (trash
Preterism and never deal with the specific points).
What is labeled today as "Preterism" was actually the
historic belief of the church and the modern churches
have bought into fairy tales and these futurist
doctrines are leading the churches into denying the
words of Jesus Himself, while they are claiming to
shout forth His truths.
Don't believe me?
Trace this end times stuff back and see what year
you end up in.
Trace this stuff back and see when the people
started to gather crowds and have them waiting
for Jesus' return, after they picked a date.
With maybe a couple of exceptions, you will always
end up at a date that doesn't go back farther than
the early 1800's.
Anyway, let's take a quick look at some notes from
history and see what was believed (there are many
more references) and then we will move on to the
discussion of Daniel...
Here's a few someone posted as the churches
answers to this issue and then denied that the
church believed that Christ's return involved the
events in AD 70. I post these, because I thought
that was funny of him to do. :) There are more,
however...
In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote regarding
the fulfillment of the Olivet prophecy, and his
perception that the destruction of Jerusalem was
God's judgment on the Jews:
"For I will ask them, Did He send the prophets
and wise men? Did they slay them in their synagogue?
Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance
come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it
was so, and no man gainsays it." (Homily LXXIV,
Sec. 3, A.D.347)
The above also references Matthew 23:29-28
Origin wrote that the destruction of Jerusalem had
come upon the Jews because they crucified Jesus:
"I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue
if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed
less than one whole generation later on account of
these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For
it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when
they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem."
(Contra Celsum, 198-199)
Athanasius (A.D. 340) wrote (and note the phrase,
"since the coming of our Savior):
"Now observe; that city, since the coming of our
Savior, has had an end, and all the land of the
Jews has been laid waste; so that from the
testimony of these things (and we need no
further proof, being assured by our own eyes
of the fact) there must, of necessity, be an
end of the shadow. For as soon as these
things were done, everything was finished,
for the altar was broken, and the veil of the
temple was rent; and although the city was
not yet laid waste, the abomination was ready
to sit in the midst of the temple, and the city
and those ancient ordinances to receive their
final consummation." (Athanasius, Festal Letters, VIII)
Note above, "an end of the shadow". Now see...
Colossians 2:16-17
16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat,
or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of
the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17) Which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body is of Christ.
This is what he was referring to. He knew
it was the old covenant system that Jesus
was talking about and the judgment upon
Jerusalem and the removal of that system.
Paul here states it as future to him "things
to come". But Athanasius states it as
something in the past to him. It was
fulfilled.
Note also, the abomination was ready to be
in the temple, just before this happened, etc..
As I said, there is more.
Historical evidence of the return of Jesus being the
judgment on Jerusalem and the surrounding area.
Heavenly phenomena:
-A star resembling a sword
- A comet (Halley's Comet)
- A bright light shining around the altar
and the temple
- A vision of chariots and soldiers running around
among the clouds and all cities of Palestine.
Earthly phenomena (reported by priests)
- A quaking
- A great noise
- The sounds of a great multitude saying, "Let us
remove hence."
Read the testimonies and get more detailed information
at the following link...
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/c/chariots-in-clouds.html
Anyway, on to the discussion about Daniel...
Take a read through this please and please keep
any objections in check, until you have read it all.
The most common objections that I know will pop
into your head as you read this, will be dealt with,
as you proceed through the message.
Daniel 9:24-27
24) Seventy weeks are determined upon
thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish
the transgression, and to make an end of sins,
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to
bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal
up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the
most Holy.
We must note here that the end of the timeline,
is to, "bring in everlasting righteousness" and
to complete the 70 weeks. This "righteousness"
was brought in, when Jesus Christ was killed,
rose and ascended to Heaven (see Daniel 7:13
and note that the Son goes TO the Ancient of
Days. He does not come FROM the Ancient
of Days, as most people think. It is about His
ascension, not His return (see Acts 7:7:54-60).
25) Know therefore and understand, that from the
going forth of the commandment to restore and to
build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall
be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks:
the street shall be built again, and the wall, even
in troublous times.
26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah
be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
You see, people read the first sentence in v26 and
figure that at the end of the 69th week, the Messiah
is cut off. But it doesn't say that. It says that it
happens "after", not "immediately after" and it can't
be "immediately after" because if you read v25,
it tells you, that "from the going forth of the
commandment... UNTO Messiah the Prince shall
be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks".
In other words, it will be 69 weeks UNTIL the Messiah.
Now, if 69 weeks has to pass UNTIL the Messiah,
then that means that at the end of the 69 weeks,
the Messiah is anointed. So if He's "cut off" at the
end of the 69 weeks, as many propose, that means
that He is anointed and crucified on the same day.
That can't be right. :)
Therefore, we have to pay attention carefully to what
it is saying. Since He is obviously anointed before
being cut off, that means that what happens at the
end of 69 weeks, is that He's anointed. Then, AFTER
the 69 weeks (it doesn't say "immediately") He will be
cut off. So the end of the 69 weeks STARTS His
ministry. It does not END His ministry. Therefore,
the 70 weeks must still be running, or the Messiah
is left without a time line in the 70 weeks, during
His ministry.
Also remember, the text calls Him, "Messiah THE PRINCE"
That is VERY IMPORTANT! I mean, here we know that
the Messiah shall be "cut off" sometime after the end
of the 69 weeks and the text then goes on to tell us
that the "prince" shall be cut off in the middle of the
70th week and yet, we don't put 2 + 2 together and
realize that the Messiah is the prince of v26, even
after He is called, "Messiah the Prince" in v25? Does
that make any sense whatsoever, that we don't see that,
considering how easy the language is? The problem
here, is that we invent doctrines that make the Bible
all about us and what happens is, that we seem to be
no longer able to read simple statements. (:
More on that later. For now, let's look at v27...
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.
Now who is "he" in the beginning of this verse? Well,
who was it just talking about? "Messiah the Prince".
Why do people demand that Daniel switches gears
here mid thought? It's because of what they read
about "the people of the prince". They assume that
if it is discussing the Messiah, that they would have
to be either Christians, or Jews (or Jewish Christians)
and so to them, that can't be the Messiah's people,
so it must be talking about the AntiChrist. But that's
not true and no offense, it comes from ignorance of
the Old Testament. God used other nations to judge
His people many times in the past. It's all through
the Old Testament. Take a look for yourself...
Jeremiah 27:6-8
6) And now have I given all these lands into the hand
of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant;
and the beasts of the field have I given him also to
serve him.
7) And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and
his son's son, until the very time of his land come:
and then many nations and great kings shall serve
themselves of him.
8) And it shall come to pass, that the nation and
kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar
the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck
under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation
will I punish, saith the LORD, with the sword, and
with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have
consumed them by his hand.
Read CAREFULLY what it says there! GOD brought
this to pass and said that He would PUNISH any
nation that would not serve Nebuchadnezzar.
Babylon was, "the people of God" at that point,
for that purpose. GOD used a pagan nation as
His tool to judge His people with. That is VERY
IMPORTANT to remember as you read Daniel!
See Ezekiel also...
Ezekiel 30:24-25
24) And I will strengthen the arms of the king of
Babylon, and put my sword in his hand: but I will
break Pharaoh's arms, and he shall groan before
him with the groanings of a deadly wounded man.
25) But I will strengthen the arms of the king of
Babylon, and the arms of Pharaoh shall fall down;
and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I
shall put my sword into the hand of the king of
Babylon, and he shall stretch it out upon the land
of Egypt.
The fact is that, linguistically, from the Hebrew,
the "He" in v27 does not refer back to "the prince
who is to come" (which is not a different prince
anyway) of v26. The word "prince" is a subordinate
noun. "The people" is the dominant noun. Thus,
the "he" refers to the last dominant individual
mentioned (not the next). And in this case, again,
linguistically, the last dominant noun in the text, is
"the Messiah", the leading figure in the prophecy.
The destruction of the temple results from His
death and the destroyers are His armies (people),
the Romans. This is legal cause and judicial effect.
Matthew 22:2-7
2) The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king,
which made a marriage for his son.
3) And sent forth his servants to call them that were
bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4) Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell
them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my
dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all
things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5) But they made light of it, and went their ways,
one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6) And the remnant took his servants, and entreated
them spitefully, and slew them.
7) But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth:
and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those
murderers, and burned up their city.
Again, v26 merely says that "after" the 69 weeks,
He shall be cut off. As demonstrated, it can't be
immediately after and v27 is still talking about the
same "he" as in v26.
1) After 69 weeks the Messiah is anointed.
2) He is to confirm the covenant for one week.
Note that it says, "the covenant", because this
is a covenant that is already know to the people.
And the word translated as "confirm", actually
means, "make strong". "He will make strong
the covenant". What covenant? It is obviously
one already known to the reader, since no
description is given. It is the same covenant
that God made with His people already. The
Promise of the Messiah.
Now to look at it from the modern church's
point of view, some questions arise. For one
thing, you need to explain how "the AntiChrist",
"makes strong a covenant for one week", if he
breaks it in the middle of the week. That is a
logical request, is it not?
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith
the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they
shall be as white as snow; though they be red
like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18
The LORD says, that He and we should, "reason
together". And God is not illogical, so logic plays
a role. Is this not a logical question to ask, as to
how the AntiChrist could "make strong a covenant for
one week", if he breaks it in the middle of the week?
It doesn't simply say that he would "make a covenant".
No, that would be to invent a covenant. It says that
he will "make it strong" for a full week. And, as I
said, the text also shows that this is a covenant
already known to the reader. He doesn't invent
a covenant. He makes an already existing covenant
strong, according to the text. No, this is not
"the AntiChrist" that is being discussed here. It is
the Messiah. Daniel never says the word, "AntiChrist",
but he does say, "Messiah" and he even calls the
Messiah, "the prince". Yet the modernists want
us to believe that a different prince comes under
discussion, even given the fact that Daniel never
switches gears and that linguistically, in the Hebrew,
the text shows that it is still the Messiah under
discussion here.
Now I love the KJV. It is a great Bible. But the
English leaves the door open to a lot of insertion
of thoughts that the text doesn't actually say.
And frankly, most people who read the KJV haven't
taken the time to learn more about the sentence
and thought construction of the Elizabethan English
used for the translation, since even it doesn't allow
for a lot of what people read into their KJV's, of
their own personal doctrines, which comes from
ignorance of these things and a desire for the Bible
to be all about them, whether due to vanity, ego,
or just a fear of taking the dirt nap.
But anyway, what is it we are to "reason" about?
The text is clear. Our sins becoming "as wool".
This passage in Isaiah is about the promise of
the Messiah and that is what Daniel is dealing with.
The Messiah and His ministry, not some AntiChrist.
God said let us reason about the Messiah and
Daniel is talking about the Messiah, so certainly,
we need to reason this text out logically, which is
especially easy for us, given that it is in our past.
Again, wait before objecting. The focus is on the
wrong point in the text anyway, regarding this issue.
More on this later, in point #3.
You see, they are unknowingly doing a disservice to
the text. The text doesn't say that someone stops
making it strong in the middle of the week. It clearly
says that it WOULD BE made strong for one week.
Thus, it is impossible, according to the text, that
anyone break this covenant in the middle of the week.
This covenant is the covenant God made with His
people a long time before these events. Do not give
to some man, the same power as God.
What it says happens in the middle of the week, is
that sacrifice and oblation will cease. They take that
as a physical statement about a third temple, but in
reality, none of that is found in the text. See below.
After (which is all it says, not "immediately after")
the Messiah is anointed, the prophecy continues
and the 70 weeks are still rolling. They have to be,
or as I said, the Messiah is anointed and crucified
on the same day, at the end of 69 weeks. :)
Now, remembering what I said about reading every
word carefully and that even one word can change
the context of a reading, please take careful note
of point 3, below...
3) The other thing they miss and end up unknowingly
doing a disservice to the text with, is that they don't
focus on the right point. They say that the AntiChrist
will break the covenant in the middle of the week.
But the text does *NOT* say that "the covenant will
be cut off in the middle of the week". It says that
*_HE_* will be cut off in the middle of the week. So
it is NOT about "the AntiChrist breaking a covenant".
It is about the PERSON being cut off in the middle
of the week, NOT the covenant! The text clearly says
that the covenant was to be made strong for one week,
not a half of a week. Surely God knew what He wanted
to say. :)
Now that we know that the Messiah was anointed
at the end of the 69th week and that it is the person
who is cut off in the middle of the week and not a
covenant being broken, the fact remains, that the
covenant must be made strong for one full week
and the Messiah is alive and well on Earth, just
beginning His ministry, at the end of the 69th week.
The Messiah begins His ministry when the 70th
week begins. His ministry is 3 1/2 years and then
He is crucified. That's why it says He would be
"cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF".
You see, if it were "the AntiChrist", then he WOULD
BE cut off FOR HIMSELF... for what he was doing.
But that's not what it says. It says that this person
would be cut off, but... "*NOT* for himself".
Remembering that it is the person who is cut off
and not the covenant, we must acknowledge that
when the Messiah was crucified, He was... "cut off,
BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF".
He was cut off for OUR SINS! The Messiah was
the ONLY ONE who could fulfill this text, because
He was the only one who could be cut off and it
wouldn't be because of anything HE did!
4) So the Messiah carries out His ministry for
3 1/2 years and then He is "cut off". This is where
the "sacrifices and oblations cease". This is a
spiritual statement and a physical statement.
Physically, the Apostles and the disciples they
made, ceased to sacrifice animals for sin.
Spiritually, they were useless after Jesus died and
rose. They became an abomination to God, because
to continue the sacrifices, is to spit in the face of
God and tell Him that what he did by His Son, meant
nothing at all.
But don't forget, the covenant must be confirmed
for 3 1/2 more years, to complete the whole week
that the text says the covenant must be confirmed
for and the covenant was with the Jews. Jesus even
said He was here to confirm the covenant. Not in
those exact words I'll grant you, but it is certainly
clear from the following statement by Him, while
He was alive here on Earth, in the first half of the
last week of Daniel's prophecy...
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house
of Israel." - Matthew 15:24
As for the 2nd half of the week, Christ "made strong
the covenant with the Jews through the Apostles,
who ministered to the Jews for the first 3 1/2 years.
That is clear from checking the time line in the book
of Acts.
At the end of that second 3 1/2 years, the last week
is fulfilled and the covenant has been "made strong"
for the full week. Let's not forget, the covenant
between God and His people, was about the coming
Messiah and the kingdom of God.
After the last wee had been fulfilled, enter Paul the
Apostle, who ends up going out to the Gentiles.
Coincidence in timing? I think not. :)
Now I know that many believe this Kingdom is physical
and literal, but I do not. because of what Jesus said
and I know the Bible doesn't contradict itself. I also
do not take the fantastic literally and then try to
wrap clear simple statements around them. We should
take the clear simple statements as they read and then
see if taking the fantastic literally matches up and if
not, then we need to take the fantastic statements
symbolically. So what did Jesus say about the Kingdom?
Folks are making the same mistake as the Pharisees
did, when they demanded that the Scriptures be
about an Earthly victory. Yet Jesus showed us that
the Messiah would suffer. He did not come to be a
political, Earthly ruler. What did Jesus say about the
Kingdom of God, after all?
Luke 17:20-21
20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees,
when the kingdom of God should come, he answered
them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with
observation:
Note that the Pharisees wanted to know when
the Kingdom of God would come to the Earth.
Now what was Jesus' response???
"The Kingdom of God cometh NOT WITH OBSERVATION".
I.e., YOU WON'T SEE IT WITH YOUR EYES! :)
21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for,
behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
They WON'T say, "look here, or look there"!
The Kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU. It is NOT a new
literal, physical kingdom set up after the destruction
of heaven and earth.
Now either what Jesus said is true, or the Bible
contradicts itself and folks are taking the fantastic
things literally and physically, instead of taking them
symbolically, which is how they're meant.
And for those who would try to slice up the Kingdom
of God, Jesus does not say, "partially here" when
He discusses the Kingdom of God. He doesn't say
"first spiritually and then physically" and that is
just your imagination trying to compensate so that
you don't have to give up your man made doctrine
and so that you can believe that the Bible is all about
you and your generation and that is not something
that should be done to the text.
5) Well, what about the "desolations" that Daniel
spoke of? How are those accounted for in this
scenario?
Again, we must read every word of the Bible carefully.
It says, "and for the overspreading of abominations
he shall make it desolate".
It says, "shall make". It does not say, "shall
immediately make".
It also says... "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."
It says that "desolations are DETERMINED" within
the 70 weeks. It does not say, "carried out". Thus,
the "desolations" do NOT happen WITHIN the
70 weeks. They are merely DETERMINED within
the 70 weeks, to happen.
And we should note, that the text also says that the
desolations are determined to happen "unto the end
of the war". What war? The same war that happened
when "the people of the Prince" were to come and did
come, in 70 AD. It says clearly there, "they shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary". That is a LOCAL
EVENT, NOT A WORLD WIDE EVENT. It is about
Jerusalem and the only other thing Jesus included,
was Judea, because that's the way the army would
come, to get to Jerusalem.
Look at Jesus' words, while in the temple, when He
was blasting the Pharisees...
Matthew 23:36-38
36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come
upon this generation.
37) O JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM, THOU that killest
the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto
THEE, how often would I have gathered THY children
together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens
under her wings, and YE would not!
38) Behold, YOUR house is left unto YOU *DESOLATE*.
He says specifically, "Jerusalem". And He says
specifically that it is "their house" that is to be
"left to them desolate".
As Daniel said, desolations were DETERMINED.
Jesus said Jerusalem would be destroyed. Jesus
prophesied a LOCAL judgment, that would have
world wide implications. Read what He said and
compare it with Daniel's prophecy...
Daniel: "they shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary"
Jesus: "Behold your house (temple) is left to you
desolate." - Matthew 23:38
Jesus: Luke 21:20-22
20) And when ye shall see JERUSALEM compassed
with armies, then know that the DESOLATION THEREOF
is nigh.
21) Then let them which are IN JUDEA flee to the
mountains; and let them which are in the MIDST OF IT
depart out; and let not them that are in the countries
enter thereinto.
22) For THESE BE THE DAYS of vengeance, that ALL
THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN may BE FULFILLED.
Jesus said that when Jerusalem is compassed
by armies and is desolated, all things that are
written are fulfilled. Daniel was something that
"was written", btw. :)
"See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you,
There shall not be left here one stone upon another,
that shall not be thrown down." - Matthew 24:2
It is a fact that in 70AD, Rome burned down the temple
and afterward, pried every stone apart, to retrieve the
melted gold that ran in between them. There was quite
a bit of it. The doors alone were 40 ft high and
covered in gold.
Now why doesn't this count? Why doesn't a direct, to
the letter fulfillment of His words count? Even though
this happened in the first century, that doesn't count,
right? Jerusalem is surrounded and destroyed. Jesus
said that there would not be one stone left upon
another in the temple and that happened. But that
one doesn't count, because it's not about you???
Daniel dealt with the Messianic times and Jesus said
that He would return within the time of the generation
alive at the time.
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD
EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS.
Now note Revelation...
"And, behold, I COME QUICKLY; and my REWARD
is with me, to give EVERY MAN ACCORDING AS
HIS WORK SHALL BE." - Revelation 22:12
Same wording and He said, "QUICKLY". And He
meant quickly. When anyone tries to claim that a
word can mean any amount of time, then they make
it mean nothing at all and Jesus wasn't about saying
nothing.
Now note the very next verse in Matthew 16...
28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son
of man coming in his kingdom.
Note: Some of those STANDING THERE would not
die before it happened. That means at least one will
be alive, but not most. He said, "some".
No, it isn't the Transfiguration. That was eight days
later and they were all still alive.
No, it wasn't Pentecost. Only one was dead, which
would mean that most were still alive and Jesus said
"some" would still be alive.
Anything anyone says that tries to contradict those
facts, is just them pitting the Bible against itself.
Posting this passage or that passage, without first
explaining why Jesus' words don't mean what they
clearly say (remember, we shouldn't try to wrap the
clear, simple statements around our personal
interpretation of the more difficult, fantastic ones)
is to ignore half of what Jesus said and it is to make
a scenario in which he contradicts Himself.
Let me give you an example of why it should not
be taken as a literal, physical Earthly government,
when it speaks of the Kingdom of God and the
"new heaven and earth".
The end timers (no offense, it just means anyone
who is still waiting for Jesus to return) tell us that
in this new heaven and earth scenario, that there
will be no more death. They refer us to Revelation
and show us the following passage, which comes
after it talks about the new heaven and earth being
created and the holy city coming down to Earth...
"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;
and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow,
nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for
the former things are passed away." - Revelation 21:4
However, one of the passages that end timers also
use, to show that it is a literal, physical, Earthly
kingdom, is the following passage from Isaiah...
"There shall be no more thence an infant of days,
nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the
child shall die a hundred years old; but the sinner
being a hundred years old shall be accursed."
- Isaiah 65:20
So I have a question... three actually ("Come, let us
reason together, saith the Lord.")...
Since the end timers take this literally, if there
is no more death, then how is it that Isaiah,
who is also talking about the new heaven and
earth, says that a child will die 100 years old?
Is there death, or isn't there death?
You see, if we take it literally, then the Bible
contradicts itself, clear and simple and I'm
sorry, but there is no way around that fact.
My second question is... If the old heaven and
earth have passed away and the judgment has
taken place and all of the sinners are thrown in
the lake of fire, who are these people outside
the gates of the New Jerusalem, in the following
passage, which comes after all of this has taken
place...
Revelation 22:14-15
14) Blessed are they that do his commandments,
that they may have right to the tree of life, and
may enter in through the gates into the city.
15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and
whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters,
and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Now please don't tell me that they're people who
sinned after the judgment. No one, knowing the
fate of those who sinned, is going to leave the
presence of God and sin, so that He can throw
them into the lake of fire. That's RIDICULOUS
to propose! And we should note that the text
doesn't say that they get destroyed after that,
so now you have God taking refuge in the holy
city, the New Jerusalem.
Question number 3 is, Given your scenario of
literalism, which places God as having created
this new heaven and earth, which taking their
conclusion to its logical end, has the earth
getting corrupted by sinners again, how do
they explain God having to take refuge in the
holy city, the New Jerusalem, since He cannot
live in the presence of sin? Did God give up
His perfect and holy Heaven, only to move
down here, to Earth, where the crime rate
would once again soar?
"Come, let us reason together...".
I'm sorry, but their beliefs and the resulting
scenarios, are not "reasonable" to conclude. (:
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
| User: "Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator" |
|
| Title: Re: DANIEL 9:24-27 & THE 70TH WEEK |
24 Jun 2005 12:58:08 PM |
|
|
nobody special
using this <ZomdndMQ5bDAGCXfRVn-sw@comcast.com> message-id
on 2005-06-21 announced the following statement:
"Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator" <werner@peace-with.all> wrote in message news:slrndbabm6.1ca.werner@not_known_to.me...
John P. Boatwright
using this <42B52FC1.45E1@For-God.net> message-id
on 2005-06-19 announced the following statement:
Werner -the Christian Agnostic- Kurator wrote:
"In fact, many professing agnostics are nearer belief in
the true God then are many conventional church-goers who
believe in a bogey that does not exist whom they miscall God."
Leslie D. Weatherhead; Preface to his "The Christian Agnostic"
Re 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans
write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful
and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot:
I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold
nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with
goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that
thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind,
and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire,
that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that
thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy
nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with
eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous
therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man
hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to
him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Werner-the-?Christian?-agnostic proclaimed
I just answered a post to another fellow who claims that God draws the
believers to him, and if one doesn't feel the pull of God he then isn't
called to be among those who are saved. Shows me that one can use the
Bible to support all kind of doctrines...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==========================================
The other fellow is right. You are wrong.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;
and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which
hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the
last day.
John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no
man can come unto me, except it were given unto
him of my Father.
You show your ignorance of scripture once again.
======
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man
hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to
him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
=====
Now this verse tells *me* that it's a individual himself, who has to
make up his mind, (open the door so to speak) if he/she wants to follow
Christ.
So as not to misunderstand you, do you believe that God *determined*
already who will be with him and who will *not*?
John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked
no more with him.
Why do you feel qualified to indulge in textual criticism
or criticism of doctrine? I believe you claim to be an
agnostic. That is a word synonymous with 'fence sitter'.
Nay, I view myself as a "Christian Agnostic". I'd advise you to study the
writings of Mr Weatherhead, especially the book by that name, who while
he was the Pastor of the famous "City Temple" in London, he regarded
himself also as such...
No one is going to change your mind except thru Bible
study and prayer. No one will do your work for you. All
those that say openly 'Jesus is Lord' have been called by
God. I think you have NOT been called although something
has drawn you here. Pray, man. Very soon it will be too
late.
Scare-tactics don't work with me, dude!
Soon, how "soon" is soon?
(KJV) Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which
God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which
must *shortly* come to pass; and he sent and signified it by
his angel unto his servant John:
The NIV renders "shortly" as "soon" my Lutheran German Bible uses
"in kürze" (which in effect is also *soon*) and we all know that
those words were written quite a long time ago.
b'Shem Yeshua nobody special
==========================================
Werner Kurator
===============================================================
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one falls short of it goal. Yet we are
grateful to God for the extend to which he has enabled us to
realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our
colleagues to complete our task"
Preface to the "New International Version" of the Bible
August 1983......
===============================================================
"In fact, many professing agnostics are nearer belief in
the true God then are many conventional church-goers who
believe in a bogey that does not exist whom they miscall God."
Leslie D. Weatherhead; Preface to his "The Christian Agnostic"
--
"Windows 98 should have been released for free on Jan. 1, 1996 and titled
Windows 95.1. If this were Hollywood, then Windows 98 would be the equivalent
of 'Heaven's Gate', 'Waterworld' and 'Godzilla' rolled into one.
A huge, overhyped, bloated, embarrassment." -- Jesse Berst, ZDNet editor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody special" |
|
| Title: Re: DANIEL 9:24-27 & THE 70TH WEEK |
21 Jun 2005 03:40:58 PM |
|
|
"Mark T" <wh@tfunwithfundies0113> wrote in message news:42b4b4c1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
***********WANTED***************************
MALE AND FEMALE FUNDAMENTALIST GENTILE SLAVES
1. I want to buy two Fundamentalist Gentiles as my personal slaves (one
woman, one man) ... just like in the Bible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
========================================
Your post is way off-topic. You have shown yourself
to be a troll. You can change this.
You show a great deal of ignorance which must
certainly be noticed by many on this NG. There are
things you can do to correct this situation. That
must be good news for you. One way would be to
stop posting. I know, I know, that would be
removing your playground so I offer another
way; study your bible! That's all! It would not
hurt to pray for Spiritual guidance before
you read.
Here is the main problem with this post.
*A bondservant is NOT a slave*!
It is a
contractual arrangement between a lender
and a borrower. The bondservant is most
always treated as family. The law sets a
limit on the amount of time...I'm not going
to look it up but I think it is five (5) years.
Bond servants were also released and
debt forgiven in a Jubilee year.
Slaves were generally taken in war. They
could be bought and sold. If there is a
scriptural prohibition against this, please
show it to me. It was Christian love that
was behind the end of slavery in our
recent history.
nobody special
================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John P. Boatwright" |
|
| Title: Re: DANIEL 9:24-27 & THE 70TH WEEK |
18 Jun 2005 08:15:20 PM |
|
|
Douglas Cox wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:53:06 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
25) Know therefore and understand, that from the
going forth of the commandment to restore and to
build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall
be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks:
the street shall be built again, and the wall, even
in troublous times.
26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah
be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
This is where the translators blew it.
Notice "the people of the prince that shall come" or
the messiah... his KINSMEN... but the verse is then
translated that THEY would destroy the city and the
sanctuary... but they DIDN'T. The Jews did NOT destroy
their own city and sactuary... and there was no
FLOOD... the translators didn't do all that great
a job with that verse.
The translation makes sense though when translated
as:
Dan 9:26 And after sixty two sevens shall Messiah
be killed, but not for himself: and the
kinsman of the prince that shall come,
shall destroy the encampment of God; the
end thereof shall be outrageous. After
the attack the deserted shall be mutilated.
The verse now makes sense, it's exactly what happened
to the messiah.
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.
And this verse too... not done all that well.
It makes sense when translated as:
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with the
many for one week and in the midst of the
week he shall cause the sacrifice and the
oblation to cease, and at the corner of the
garment, detestable appalling destruction
and mutilation, poured out upon the deserted.
That one aspect though... where is the corner of
the gament?
You might be better off looking at the LXX, which seems a little less
garbled to me.
Nah, because it still loses the ANSWER God was giving Daniel
to Daniel's prayer for FORGIVENESS. Compare the translation
above, to this that you just the LXX gives:
26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the Anointed One shall be killed,
and there is no judgment in Him. And He shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary with the prince that is to come: they shall be cut off with
a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed He shall
appoint the city to desolations.
See?
That's all garbled... what happened to FORGIVENESS?
What happened to the messiah in the LXX???
???
The ANSWER to Daniel's prayer to God, was given by the angel,
and the ANSWER was that the messiah would be DESERTED, his
kinsmen would attack the encampment of God, and he'd be
BEATEN, MUTILATED and KILLED... while sins would end...
but it's not being done for him, it was being done for OTHERS.
The LXX is highly lacking in that verse.
27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many. And in the
midst of the week my sacrifice and drink offering shall be taken away:
and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the
end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.
Here too it's lacking.
The answer is seen on the corner of the garment, where the
eagles gather to the carcase... like Jesus said... when you
see it...
Line after line of Ezekiel 1, describes that corner of the
garment... with the disgusting devestation on the Holy One's
quarter... on the corner of the garment... Jesus clothed
in linen, blood on the linen, his HAND on his thigh... his
NAME is on his thigh... Jesus admitted to being AT LEAST
the HAND of God... Isaiah 53 says the ARM OF GOD would show
up as a MAN and would DIE for the transgressions of OTHERS.
God gave Daniel the answer to his prayer about FORGIVENESS,
but the answer was way off in the future... when Jesus would
show up and die for the sins of OTHERS.
The translations saying there's some "flood", etc... they're
lacking in that they LOST the flow, the ANSWER God was giving
Daniel to his prayer about FORGIVENESS.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
