Pastor Dave wrote in message ...

On 17 Jun 2005 09:00:26 GMT, "stone"
<antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> spake thusly:


I've made a few comments here that are not meant
to be derogatory, but rather, just to express my point
of view. Further down, there is a detailed discussion
of Daniel.

Lie #1: "There is only one "week" of years left in prophecy."

Eickleberry, you want the truth. It is the KJV bible.
One week of years does remain yet to be fulfilled
from Daniel's 70 weeks in Dan. 9.

The KJV Bible does not say, "In 2005, there will be
one week of years yet to be fulfilled from Daniel's
70 weeks".

But that is not saying only one week of years
is left in prophecy. I believe that the Ezekiel
prophecy Ezekiel 38 and 39 [which is not
armageddon] will be fulfilled before the final
7 years even starts. The situation in middle
east is leading up to that Ezekiel prophecy.

Really? Why? And how do you prove that?
It seems that everybody sees something,
"building up to the fulfillment of the prophecies".

Watch the middle east get more and more unstable
until armies unite to attack Israel.

And that means exactly what? No one has ever
attacked Israel before? What would make this
time (if it happened) any different? And don't tell
me "because the Bible says such and such will
happen", because then you're assuming you're
right that this is the beginning of the fulfillment
BEFORE it happens. Then you are making
yourself out as a prophet, who knows the future,
any time you tell me that "this is it, it's going to
happen".

[You can see important differences between the
Ezekiel prophecy and armageddon. Gog is not
the antichrist.] Israel will know that the God of
Israel is their God, and God will set His glory
among the heathen when they see His judgment
in this Ezekiel prophecy and the heathen will know
that He is the Lord. 7 years of weapons burning
will happen after that. So some time is prophecied
to occur after that prophecy. So don't say that only
7 years is left in prophecy.

You see? You're telling us what's going to happen
and how. You're making yourself out to be a prophet.

The end of the age is not seven years. The end
of the age is seventy years (although God reserves
the right to tarry in Psalm 90) and it follows the form
outlined in Revelation and the Olivet Discourse.

69 of the weeks in Dan. 9 have already happened,
leading up to the death of Messiah in about AD 29.
[Catholism messed up our calendar; it is years off.]
One 7 year period, the tribulation period is left and
can be fulfilled since Israel is a nation again and living
at Jerusalem.

You 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. :)

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 9:25-27

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, you 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, "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 you propose, that means
that He is anointed and crucified on the same day.
That can't be right. :)

Therefore, you 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.

Also remember, the text calls Him, "Messiah THE PRINCE"
That is VERY IMPORTANT!

Now we 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. GOG 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, linguistically, from the Hebrew, that
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 your 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 you want me 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, you 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. You 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 you miss and end up unknowingly
doing a disservice to the text with, is that you don't
focus on the right point. You 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.

Now I know that you 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.


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 to
happen within the 70 weeks, by God.

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 you try to claim that a word can mean
any amount of time, then you 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 you say that tries to contradict those facts,
is just 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 there will be no
more death and yet Isaiah, who is also talking about
the new heaven and earth, says that a child will die
100 years old. So my first question is, 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 your
conclusion to its logical end, has the earth
getting corrupted by sinners again, how do you
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 your 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

I'm curious Dave. Are you a catholic spy, taking orders from the vatican,
and pretending to be protestant? Aberto Rivera, former Jesuit, said that
there are catholic spies in all protestant churches. There must be many of
them.
Preterism was originally started by a Jesuit; it is a catholic doctrine. The
purpose of it was not to understand the bible correctly. The purpose of it
was to refute protestant claims in the 1500s that the vatican is the seat of
the antichrist. If you set up the preterism doctrine, you can say that those
protestant claims can't be true. The vatican believes it has the right to
change the bible, if it wants to. They really don't have that right and
could go to hell for doing that.