PDA

View Full Version : The "Secret Rapture" - What You Should Know



Pages : [1] 2

herald
Feb 3rd 2007, 02:29 AM
MARTIN LUTHER:"nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist...For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny." Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196, 197.

JOHN CALVIN:"I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist--I deny him to be the successor of Peter...I deny him to be the head of the church." "Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul, himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt...I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in 2 Thessalonians 2), are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies to the Papacy." John Calvin, Tracts, Vol.1, pp. 219, 220. John Calvin, Institutes.

JOHN WYCLIF:"Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence in the seventh chapter of Daniel, Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the 4th kingdom. For it grew from [among] our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?] struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time...and the horn has arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking that he is able to change times and laws." (Daniel 7:8,25 quoted)..."For so our clergy foresee the lord pope, as it is said of the eighth blaspheming little head." Translated from Wyclif's De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, Vol. 3, pp. 262, 263.

There are similar statements made by John Wesley, William Tyndale, King James, John Knox, Phillip Melanchthon, Huldreich Zwingli, and, almost, eighty other pre and post Reformers. Many of whom paid with their lives for such statements.

After these men focused the fulfillment of prophecy upon the office of the Papacy, the church commissioned a Jesuit priest, named, Alberto Ribera, to come up with an alternative interpretation of prophecy. He invented the "Secret Rapture" theory, which, does not appear in the Scripture. (He, also, came up with the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple, even though, Jesus and the Apostle Paul made clear, that believing Jews and Gentiles, are now, His temple upon the earth. John 2:19-21; 1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21.) The "Secret Rapture" was picked up by John Darby, and, later, by Scofield, who incorporated it into his Bible notes. In the late '60s, Scofield's Bible was very popular with Evangelicals, who ran with his interpretation.

"But the day of the lord will come as a thief in the night; IN THE WHICH the heavens shall pass away with a GREAT NOISE, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up." 2 Peter 3:10.

As we can see from this verse, His coming will be, neither, secret nor silent, but, the end of the world as we know it. Please compare this verse with the seventh plague, found in Revelation 16:17-21.

What did Jesus prophesy, concerning His coming?

"For THEN shall be Great Tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, nor ever shall be...Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and THEN shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and THEN shall the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:21-35.

Jesus said, that, He is coming AFTER the Great Tribulation. Should we fear? The seven last plagues, mimic the Ten Plagues in Egypt. Were God's people kept from His wrath? Were Noah and his family kept safe, during the Great Flood? Yes! He is able to keep us through tribulation.

So, why did the New Testament Saints look for His coming? Because, Pagan Rome persecuted Jesus, the Christians and the Jews. The Roman Emperors gave their power, seat and authority (Revelation 13:2) to the Bishop of Rome. Papal Rome murdered and tortured millions of Christians. One final time, the "Mother of Harlots" (the apostate Catholic/Protestant religious system, as seen in Revelation 17) will persecute His remnant church.

It's, always, been about Rome.

Naphal
Feb 3rd 2007, 06:30 AM
It's, always, been about Rome.

No, Rome was just a type, a shadow of something greater to come. We are to look at Rome and learn so we can spot the one that is to come.

herald
Feb 3rd 2007, 02:10 PM
If you do an advanced search on this site, (under "herald"), you will find my posts, "Daniel & Revelation Reveal The Antichrist," and "Revelation 13:11 - Protestant America."

In these posts, I demonstrate from Daniel, Revelation and world history, how that, the apostate religious system fulfills every Scripture dealing with The Antichrist.

skypair
Feb 4th 2007, 03:57 PM
If you do an advanced search on this site, (under "herald"), you will find my posts, "Daniel & Revelation Reveal The Antichrist," and "Revelation 13:11 - Protestant America."

In these posts, I demonstrate from Daniel, Revelation and world history, how that, the apostate religious system fulfills every Scripture dealing with The Antichrist.
Herald -- I'm with you. Christ's return for His bride has been imminent on this very account -- that the AC has been "in the wings" to be revealed at any moment that the true church is taken out, 2Thes 2:6-8!

He is the first one -- the first sign -- of the tribulation!

skypair

third hero
Feb 4th 2007, 04:54 PM
Finally someone else has noticed whatr I have concerning the vials of God's wrath. YES! The verses themselves equate the vials of God's wrath to the 10 plagues of Moses's era. The people of God, (both Israel and the saints), will be kept safe from the vials, while the wicked will without a doubt suffer the plagues found in those vials. Look at Rev 16:2. Who receives the vial? That's right, those "whose has the mark of the beast". Look at the other vials as well. They all seem to affect the wicked.

Look at verse 6. The first three vials are poured upon the earth, and the seas and the rivers became blood, and every living soul in the sea dies. No more fish, no more whales, no more sealife. Look at the reason why God did this. "Because they have shed the blood of the saints and prophets". Look at the fourth vial. Whom is affected? It is the ones who curse God because of the sores and the sun. That's the wicked.

The fifth vial is poured directly onto the kingdom of the beast itself. So everyone that is a part of that kingdom will suffer from the chaos that the kingdom of the beast will suffer.

The sixth vial is poured on the Euphrates, why? Because the kings of the east will go by that way to get to Israel, to fight with the beast against the Lord.

And the Seventh vial is poured on the city Babylon, when God remembers the sins of that city. everything that happens to that city afterwards wil be because of that vial. Also, as a result of that vial, every mountain and island is leveled. Who is affected? The wicked. Many of the wicked that live in the cities that are set on mountains will be destroyed when the Lord levels their mountains. All of the wicked that live on islands will perish with them. Say goodbye to Hawaii, and Indonesia.

Again, all of the plagues will affect the wicked in one way or another. Look at it like this. All of the seas being turned into blood, do you think that the kings of the east will want to sail over dead seas? I know I wouldn't especially if I was wicked and have these darn sores over my body and the sun beaming down on me like I was in an eternal desert.

To say that the saints would be in any danger when the vials are poured, that just shows me the utter lack of understanding of the vials and trheir contents. Moreover, the only vial that could possibly harm the saints is the last one, when the mountains and islands are leveled. But look at Verse 15. Many can say with this one thqat before the seventh vial is poured, the Lord Himself takes us out of this world, and we would meet Him in the air then. So, that vial wouldn't affect us either. See.

herald
Feb 4th 2007, 05:26 PM
An Irish Catholic Bishop in the 12th century, named St. Malachy was visiting Rome in 1139 and went into a trance, and received a vision. He claimed to have foreseen all of the Popes from the death of Innocent 11 until the destruction of the church and the return of Christ. He named, exactly 112 Popes from that time until the end.

He wrote a few prophetically descriptive words about each one of the Popes. He gave the manuscript to Pope Innocent 11 and it was archived and forgotten. In 1590, it was rediscovered and published.

If St. Malachy is accurate, there will be, only, one more Pope.

He said, "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign 'Petrus Romanus' (Peter the Roman), who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people."

Jesus, is coming back as the Judge, and will destroy Babylon - Vatican City.

Saved7
Feb 4th 2007, 06:07 PM
(the apostate Catholic/Protestant religious system, as seen in Revelation 17) will persecute His remnant church.
.

I'm not going to presume anything about who it is or where it comes out of. But how do you see the "protestants" as those among the ones who would persecute the church? Protestants are against the teachings of Rome, so wouldn't that include anybody that is not a Roman Catholic? I consider myself a born again christian, a protestant, because I protest the RCC teachings. I'm a little confused how you came to this conclusion, could you explain this please?:confused

herald
Feb 4th 2007, 08:53 PM
If you read my post, "Revelation 13:11 - Protestant America," you will better understand my reasoning. We should not be protesting, but, declaring the entire Word of God, and nothing else. I am a member of a denomination, but, my allegiance is to His Word, alone.

I am like the Bereans, who "...received the word with all readiness of mind, searching the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11. When what is taught in my church, doesn't line up with the Word, I speak up.

Unfortunately, many Protestant churches are in the Image of the RCC, and have substituted their traditions for the Word of God. In Revelation 17, she is called, the "Mother of harlots." Who are the harlots? The Protestant churches.

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, COME OUT of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." (lawlessness) Revelation 18:4,5.

We come out, by choosing His Word over the traditions, opinions and speculations of the denominational system.

"And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him." Hebrews 5:9.

Saved7
Feb 5th 2007, 05:39 AM
Oh, I thought that protestant just simply meant that we disagree with RCC so we don't go to that type of church. I've been to many differnet types of churches, but I've always simply called myself a christian. And assuming that a person who calls themself a protestant is a part of the harlot is a big generalization, don't you think? :confused After all I know a number of folks who call themselves that, and attend many different denominations, but they all know the word very well, and desire a close walk with Jesus. These folks don't care about "traditions" nor does my church practice any tradition other than alter call and baptism, but baptism is commaned by the Lord. So....I think to declare the protestants as all the same is really kind of wrong. Maybe we just don't understand what the term protestant really means, but we certainly don't go around protesting, and I don't attend a church called "protestant", but "baptist".:saint:

herald
Feb 5th 2007, 12:50 PM
Jesus told us to be in the world, but, not of the world. So, be in the Protestant churches, but, not of them.

I tried to make the distinction. I am in a Protestant church, but, when the denomination strays from the Word of God, into their tradition, I don't.

It is easy to go along to get along, but, God wants us to grow up and be Sons of God, who, can use His Word against the enemy.

Our allegiance must be to His Word above all else.

wpm
Feb 5th 2007, 02:29 PM
If you read my post, "Revelation 13:11 - Protestant America," you will better understand my reasoning. We should not be protesting, but, declaring the entire Word of God, and nothing else. I am a member of a denomination, but, my allegiance is to His Word, alone.

I am like the Bereans, who "...received the word with all readiness of mind, searching the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11. When what is taught in my church, doesn't line up with the Word, I speak up.

Unfortunately, many Protestant churches are in the Image of the RCC, and have substituted their traditions for the Word of God. In Revelation 17, she is called, the "Mother of harlots." Who are the harlots? The Protestant churches.

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, COME OUT of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." (lawlessness) Revelation 18:4,5.

We come out, by choosing His Word over the traditions, opinions and speculations of the denominational system.

"And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him." Hebrews 5:9.

Do you fellowship with fellow believers? Do they have a creed or beliefs? Do they have a leader?

Paul

herald
Feb 5th 2007, 03:38 PM
Yes. I belong to a church, but, I do not represent a church. I have been a member of several different denominational and non-denominational churches.

I have, yet, to find a church, that teaches the full council of God.

When I heard the seventh-day Sabbath taught from Genesis-Revelation, I knew I had to return to keeping it. Our Creator instituted the seventh-day Sabbath at creation, and never changed it. To think, that, any man/institution could over-rule Him and change the day to the pagan day of the sun, is to agree with the Usurper. This is one of the marks of The Antichrist (Daniel 7:25). The Sabbath was, officially, "changed" at the Council of Laodicea, 364 A.D., by the RCC.

The other Scripture, that, exposes the churches, is when Jesus said,

"And these signs SHALL FOLLOW THEM THAT BELIEVE; In my name SHALL they cast out devils; they SHALL speak with new tongues; They SHALL take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it SHALL not hurt them; they SHALL lay hands on the sick and they SHALL recover." Mark 16:17,18.

I am like the Bereans who "...received the Word with all readiness of mind, searching the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11.

When what is taught in my church doesn't line up with the Scripture, I speak up. That is the responsibility of the Sons of God.

alleycat
Feb 5th 2007, 05:15 PM
herald; a Jesuit priest, named, Alberto Ribera, to come up with an alternative interpretation of prophecy. He invented the "Secret Rapture" theory, which, does not appear in the Scripture.

The "Secret Rapture" was picked up by John Darby, and, later, by Scofield, who incorporated it into his Bible notes. In the late '60s, Scofield's Bible was very popular with Evangelicals, who ran with his interpretation.
So the theory started with Alberto Ribera-a priest, and traveled to Darby Scofield, throughout the Evangelical's doctrine. I take it most of the Evangelicals are protestants? You don't have to convince me, I've read the Bible and there is no secret rapture in it any where. I would have thought that the Evangelicals would have run with the secret rapture theory way back in the 40's, but actually it's been more recent. I guess people were looking for more back then at that time. More civil rights, women's rights, and I guess people took their eyes off the churches at that time due to all the protesting and Satan slipped right in. Why would Satan want the pastors to continue to have the members who have hardly any understanding of the Bible continue to look for a secret rapture? What is Satan's trickery behind this one?

and THEN shall the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:21-35.
Jesus said, that, He is coming AFTER the Great Tribulation. Should we fear? The seven last plagues, mimic the Ten Plagues in Egypt. Were God's people kept from His wrath? Were Noah and his family kept safe, during the Great Flood? Yes! He is able to keep us through tribulation.
What you said is definetly confirmed by the Bible. No secret rapture is any where in the Bible and there has never been a large group of people who where secretly raptured or taken away in the Old Testament, so why do people believe that a large group of people will be secretly taken now if...as it was so shall it be? And the pastors continue to feed this to the flock.

So, why did the New Testament Saints look for His coming? Because, Pagan Rome persecuted Jesus, the Christians and the Jews. The Roman Emperors gave their power, seat and authority (Revelation 13:2) to the Bishop of Rome. Papal Rome murdered and tortured millions of Christians. One final time, the "Mother of Harlots" (the apostate Catholic/Protestant religious system, as seen in Revelation 17) will persecute His remnant church.

It's, always, been about Rome.
It has always been about Rome. She has been wicked for centuries. One should keep an eye on Rome, but they should keep an eye on America the Great whom the Bible referes to as Babylon the Great. Scrpiture points out what appears to be a merge in power. Rome is not going to get the land in Israel through a peace and safety scheme, nor is Rome going to have power to give life to the image of the beast, but America is. Just as the dragon (Satan) gave his power to the beast of Rome from the sea, the beast of Rome from the sea, gives its power to the beast from the earth with horns like a lamb (Rev. 13:11). This is the beast who does all of the things in Rev.13:12-17, that angers God more than anything Rome could have ever done.

Change in power from Rome to America/Babylon the Great:
Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
Revelation 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

This beast who enforces the making of an image to the beast is not Rome, although Rome continues to be a factor.

third hero
Feb 5th 2007, 05:35 PM
Yes. I belong to a church, but, I do not represent a church. I have been a member of several different denominational and non-denominational churches.

I have, yet, to find a church, that teaches the full council of God.

When I heard the seventh-day Sabbath taught from Genesis-Revelation, I knew I had to return to keeping it. Our Creator instituted the seventh-day Sabbath at creation, and never changed it. To think, that, any man/institution could over-rule Him and change the day to the pagan day of the sun, is to agree with the Usurper. This is one of the marks of The Antichrist (Daniel 7:25). The Sabbath was, officially, "changed" at the Council of Laodicea, 364 A.D., by the RCC.

The other Scripture, that, exposes the churches, is when Jesus said,

"And these signs SHALL FOLLOW THEM THAT BELIEVE; In my name SHALL they cast out devils; they SHALL speak with new tongues; They SHALL take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it SHALL not hurt them; they SHALL lay hands on the sick and they SHALL recover." Mark 16:17,18.

I am like the Bereans who "...received the Word with all readiness of mind, searching the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11.

When what is taught in my church doesn't line up with the Scripture, I speak up. That is the responsibility of the Sons of God.

As far as the Sabbath is concerned, Paul mentioned that if the Lord compells you to keep the Sabbath, then do so, but do not condemn those who do not, because the Lord is Lord of the Sabbath, and those who obey the Lord are to be judged by Him alone, and not by us.

As far as the Protestant churches being the harlots, we do not have to look very far. Look at the Methodists and Episcopalians. Both have committed an abomination by allowing a non-repentant homosexual to be a bishop in their denominations, making them look really bad in the eyes of most of the churches. Many others have called the Bible a symbolic book, and replaced several fundamental doctrines in favor of heresy, like the idea that you do not have to follow CHrist in order to gain access to the Kingdom of Heaven. We all know that is heresy, but yet there are churches teaching these things.

All of this lines up with what we call apostacy, which is meaning for a lot of us that the end is near. Even premils and amils can agree on that.

alleycat
Feb 5th 2007, 07:16 PM
As far as the Sabbath is concerned, Paul mentioned that if the Lord compells you to keep the Sabbath, then do so, but do not condemn those who do not, because the Lord is Lord of the Sabbath, and those who obey the Lord are to be judged by Him alone, and not by us.

As far as the Protestant churches being the harlots, we do not have to look very far. Look at the Methodists and Episcopalians. Both have committed an abomination by allowing a non-repentant homosexual to be a bishop in their denominations, making them look really bad in the eyes of most of the churches. Many others have called the Bible a symbolic book, and replaced several fundamental doctrines in favor of heresy, like the idea that you do not have to follow CHrist in order to gain access to the Kingdom of Heaven. We all know that is heresy, but yet there are churches teaching these things.

All of this lines up with what we call apostacy, which is meaning for a lot of us that the end is near. Even premils and amils can agree on that.
It has gotten worse and worse over the last 5-10 years. At times is seems as if eveything demonic shows up in the churches from one person to the next they are captive by darkness and they don't even know it. Some of those demonic spirit are so strong, that it is best to stay away from them. Jesus said for us to agree with our advesary quickly. Those spirits will posess one person with the spirit of homosexuality, sorcery, self hate, suicide, and murder. If a pastor is a non-repentant homosexaul, he has several other dark spirits in and around him that are demonic. The spirits travel in packs. The Bible says that the legions are many. I'm sure more will be exposed as time goes by.

third hero
Feb 5th 2007, 07:39 PM
It has gotten worse and worse over the last 5-10 years. At times is seems as if eveything demonic shows up in the churches from one person to the next they are captive by darkness and they don't even know it. Some of those demonic spirit are so strong, that it is best to stay away from them. Jesus said for us to agree with our advesary quickly. Those spirits will posess one person with the spirit of homosexuality, sorcery, self hate, suicide, and murder. If a pastor is a non-repentant homosexaul, he has several other dark spirits in and around him that are demonic. The spirits travel in packs. The Bible says that the legions are many. I'm sure more will be exposed as time goes by.

Now we are diving into something that should be in biblechat, but, I, being the anomoly, will do it anyway.

You are absolutely correct, these demonic spirits travel in packs, infecting many who are susceptible to them. The apostacy is getting worse, and unless the believers gain the knowledge on how to defeat these demons and freeing those who have been imprisoned by these spirits, these spirits will gain an even further foothold in the churches, manking most churches more like the world, and less like what Christ wants for us.

Faith is the key, and I mean faith in what Christ taught concerning faith. He taught that believers will be able to cast out demons, and to free those who are bound by them. There is a significant lack of faiththat I have found in a lot of the churches today in the West. This is a problem.

herald
Feb 5th 2007, 09:26 PM
Faith is the key, but, faith in what? Faith comes by hearing God's Word.

Faith is lacking. The serpent questioned God's Word in the garden, when he queried, "Hath God said?" Hebrews 3:19 says, that, the children of Israel didn't enter into the promised land because of unbelief. Jesus could not do many works in Nazareth because of their unbelief. Mark 6:5,6. Jesus got angry at the disciples, because, they couldn't cast out a devil due to their unbelief. Hebrews 3:12 says, that, unbelief comes out of an EVIL heart. 1 John 5:10 says, that, if we don't believe God, we make Him a liar.

I have cast out devils, healed the sick and raised one dead man. How? By faith in God's Word. I could write a book on the many healings and miracles my family and I have experienced. I refuse to trust in my senses, I choose to believe God's Word, instead.

Do rods become snakes? Do donkeys talk? Do fish swallow prophets and spit them up again? Do fish have tax money in their mouths? Do virgins conceive? Yes!!!

If you do an advanced search for "herald" on this site, you will find my post, "Revelation 13:11 - Protestant America." I believe, that, the last beast the Antichrist will work through is the USA.

It is, both, the RCC and the Protestant churches, which, have gone astray from God's Word. Revelation 17 refers to this religious system as the "Mother of harlots." The daughters are in the image of the Mother.

Homosexuality is splitting many different churches. Could this be the beginning of separating the wheat from the chaff?

That serves to prove my point - is our allegiance to our denomination, or, to the Word of God (made flesh). At some point, we will, all, have to choose.

Remember, the greatest deception is the one, that, seems to be the closest to the truth. In the wilderness, Satan used the very Word of God to try to trip up the Word of God made flesh!!!!!

I was listening to Dr. R.C. Sproul, who was making the point, that, the woman with the spirit of divination was telling the truth! She said of Paul and Silas, "These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation." Acts 16:17 But it was a demonic spirit!

How sobering! We need to be consecrated to the Word of God and separated to the Lord, so that we won't be deceived.

Prophecy Man
Feb 9th 2007, 05:39 PM
You folks got let us know when it is going to happen.

Jesus promised to return and take us to
himself. Jesus did not say He was comming to us but rather we are going to him. He said " I will recieve you unto myself ".

When I was a kid in school a bus used to pick " us up and take us to a swimming pool near by". It happned every friday. 3 - 5 : 00, we swam.

We knew about it before time because the scool staff told us when to be there and what to do. Jesus never told us when He is comming, the hour or the day , He just told us to be ready.

Does this sound like we should know the Hour or the day? We do not, and when it suddenly happens it will be in the twinkling of an eye, death will be defeated. We will be with the Lord in the air as the word says.

Tell me, can anyone come up with a day since it is believed the rapture should be known. They seem to scoff at it.

By the way, the Disciples didn't know because they asked the Lord before He departed " will you establish the kingdom to Israel at this time?"

Does anyone know the hour or day it will happen?

Doug

David Taylor
Feb 9th 2007, 06:06 PM
You folks got let us know when it is going to happen.

Jesus promised to return and take us to
himself. Jesus did not say He was comming to us but rather we are going to him. He said " I will recieve you unto myself ".

When I was a kid in school a bus used to pick " us up and take us to a swimming pool near by". It happned every friday. 3 - 5 : 00, we swam.

We knew about it before time because the scool staff told us when to be there and what to do. Jesus never told us when He is comming, the hour or the day , He just told us to be ready.

Does this sound like we should know the Hour or the day? We do not, and when it suddenly happens it will be in the twinkling of an eye, death will be defeated. We will be with the Lord in the air as the word says.

Tell me, can anyone come up with a day since it is believed the rapture should be known. They seem to scoff at it.

By the way, the Disciples didn't know because they asked the Lord before He departed " will you establish the kingdom to Israel at this time?"

Does anyone know the hour or day it will happen?

Doug


Noone (living today) knows the hour or day of the Advent of the Lord.

Have you noticed anyone on here date-setting or making predictions to the contrary?

Naphal
Feb 10th 2007, 12:27 AM
You folks got let us know when it is going to happen.

What?


Jesus promised to return and take us to
himself. Jesus did not say He was comming to us but rather we are going to him. He said " I will recieve you unto myself ".

That has nothing to do with the rapture. Jesus said he is coming to us:


Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Luke 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.


When I was a kid in school a bus used to pick " us up and take us to a swimming pool near by". It happned every friday. 3 - 5 : 00, we swam.

We knew about it before time because the scool staff told us when to be there and what to do. Jesus never told us when He is comming, the hour or the day , He just told us to be ready.

He told us when he is returning as far as the season and by signs that had to occur first. We only do not know the actual hour. He will return 3.5 days after the two prophets are killed. The ascend up to heaven and then sometime that day Christ returns.

herald
Feb 10th 2007, 12:55 AM
Many believe, that, the two were Moses and Elijah, symbolic of the law and the prophets. In the case of Moses, fire came down from heaven on the Egyptians when they pursued God's children and it consumed the sons of Aaron. It also consumed the soldiers when they challenged Elijah.

"These have the power to shut up heaven so no rain falls in the days of their prophecy; and they have power over water to turn them to blood." Elijah prayed and the rain stopped. Moses prayed and the water turned to blood.

Many believe, that, this was fulfilled in the Dark Ages from 538-1798 A.D., when the law and the prophets were obscurred. Moses and Elijah are in heaven with their glorified bodies, so, it is unlikely, that, they would be killed.

There will be two types of saints when Jesus returns: the resurrected and the living. Moses, died and was resurrected (Jude 1:9), symbolic of those who will arise from their graves. Elijah was caught up to heaven, before death, just like those who are alive at His coming.

Naphal
Feb 10th 2007, 02:35 AM
Moses, died and was resurrected (Jude 1:9)


Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.


What exactly do you mean Moses was resurrected? In spirit or do you mean his corpse came back to life? The verse you listed does not say any such thing.

herald
Feb 10th 2007, 02:44 AM
Yes, Moses and Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus. He, obviously, had a new body.

Naphal
Feb 10th 2007, 02:48 AM
Yes, Moses and Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus.

Sure but Moses' first body is dead and buried. Everyone that dies receives a new body.


Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:


Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
Deuteronomy 34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

herald
Feb 10th 2007, 03:08 AM
But we don't receive them until He comes:

"...the King of Kings and the Lord of lords; Who ONLY hath immortality." 1 Timothy 6:15,16.

"Behold, I shew you a mystery;We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed, 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..." 1 Corinthians 15:51-55.

Haben Fantaye
Feb 10th 2007, 04:27 AM
so many protestant belive Jesus teachs about the secret raputer in matt 24:39-41 but if we see this chapter fully it speakes about the second coming of Jesus please read it full matt chapter 24:3-the last so many time Jesus says the son of man will come. we know that when after Jesus come in the second time there are two gruops the saved one Isaiah 25:8-9and the sinners Revelation16:17-21. and Jesus what did He say in John 14:1-3 read it please with out the second comeing no bady can inter in to the new Jerusaalem. if there is secreat raputer why Jesus have to come in to this earth you see He will come to take the saved pople all.

your's in Christ Haben Fantaye
MARTIN LUTHER:"nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist...For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny." Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196, 197.

JOHN CALVIN:"I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist--I deny him to be the successor of Peter...I deny him to be the head of the church." "Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul, himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt...I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in 2 Thessalonians 2), are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies to the Papacy." John Calvin, Tracts, Vol.1, pp. 219, 220. John Calvin, Institutes.

JOHN WYCLIF:"Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence in the seventh chapter of Daniel, Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the 4th kingdom. For it grew from [among] our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?] struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time...and the horn has arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking that he is able to change times and laws." (Daniel 7:8,25 quoted)..."For so our clergy foresee the lord pope, as it is said of the eighth blaspheming little head." Translated from Wyclif's De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, Vol. 3, pp. 262, 263.

There are similar statements made by John Wesley, William Tyndale, King James, John Knox, Phillip Melanchthon, Huldreich Zwingli, and, almost, eighty other pre and post Reformers. Many of whom paid with their lives for such statements.

After these men focused the fulfillment of prophecy upon the office of the Papacy, the church commissioned a Jesuit priest, named, Alberto Ribera, to come up with an alternative interpretation of prophecy. He invented the "Secret Rapture" theory, which, does not appear in the Scripture. (He, also, came up with the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple, even though, Jesus and the Apostle Paul made clear, that believing Jews and Gentiles, are now, His temple upon the earth. John 2:19-21; 1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21.) The "Secret Rapture" was picked up by John Darby, and, later, by Scofield, who incorporated it into his Bible notes. In the late '60s, Scofield's Bible was very popular with Evangelicals, who ran with his interpretation.

"But the day of the lord will come as a thief in the night; IN THE WHICH the heavens shall pass away with a GREAT NOISE, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up." 2 Peter 3:10.

As we can see from this verse, His coming will be, neither, secret nor silent, but, the end of the world as we know it. Please compare this verse with the seventh plague, found in Revelation 16:17-21.

What did Jesus prophesy, concerning His coming?

"For THEN shall be Great Tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, nor ever shall be...Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and THEN shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and THEN shall the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:21-35.

Jesus said, that, He is coming AFTER the Great Tribulation. Should we fear? The seven last plagues, mimic the Ten Plagues in Egypt. Were God's people kept from His wrath? Were Noah and his family kept safe, during the Great Flood? Yes! He is able to keep us through tribulation.

So, why did the New Testament Saints look for His coming? Because, Pagan Rome persecuted Jesus, the Christians and the Jews. The Roman Emperors gave their power, seat and authority (Revelation 13:2) to the Bishop of Rome. Papal Rome murdered and tortured millions of Christians. One final time, the "Mother of Harlots" (the apostate Catholic/Protestant religious system, as seen in Revelation 17) will persecute His remnant church.

It's, always, been about Rome.

Haben Fantaye
Feb 10th 2007, 04:36 AM
i know Elija and moses and kaleb are in heaven . in belive moses is taken to show when Christ after come the all dead will be rise or resrect 1thessloni 4:16-17and Elija show those saved and in the second comeing to meet Jesus and take to heaven 1thesslo 4:16-17,1corhthians 15:51-55. but in the new testament Jesus oredy tell us to take His pople in His secon caomeingquote=Naphal;1147609]Sure but Moses' first body is dead and buried. Everyone that dies receives a new body.


Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:


Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
Deuteronomy 34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.[/quote]

Haben Fantaye
Feb 10th 2007, 04:53 AM
He is reseracted in phsical body didn't understud the vers that when Jesus and peter and john and jems in that mountan apired i belive he is resracted in the body not in the spirit and if you see in duteronom 34 moses is deadbut is flesh is not there after time and if you see in juda 1:9 when maicl resrect moses from the dead or from the grave satan was very anger butJesus is the winner and toke moses bady in to heaven. by Haben Fantaye


What exactly do you mean Moses was resurrected? In spirit or do you mean his corpse came back to life? The verse you listed does not say any such thing.

Naphal
Feb 10th 2007, 07:45 AM
But we don't receive them until He comes:

"...the King of Kings and the Lord of lords; Who ONLY hath immortality." 1 Timothy 6:15,16.

"Behold, I shew you a mystery;We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed, 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..." 1 Corinthians 15:51-55.

Having a new body after dying isn't equal to having immortality yet. Only by being given a crown of life ie: judgement to salvation, are we immortal.

The second verse only applies to a certain group which remain loyal to Christ through the tribulation. They will receive their new bodies without dying but everyone else has had to die first aside from Enoch and Elijah.

herald
Feb 10th 2007, 01:26 PM
The Scripture says, "We shall be changed..." It does not say, just a certain group. You are reading your own interpretation into it.

Naphal
Feb 10th 2007, 01:35 PM
The Scripture says, "We shall be changed..." It does not say, just a certain group. You are reading your own interpretation into it.


lol

Is that so? So Paul didn't die? Paul lived until Christ returned and was changed without dying?

Come on now...

Paul is talking about the tribulation saints. It is they and ONLY they that will be changed without dying. Everyone else has to die.

herald
Feb 10th 2007, 02:08 PM
"For David is not ascended into the heavens..." Acts 1:34

Paul, like David, is sleeping in the grave, awaiting the resurrection. That is why the dead arise at the Second Coming.

Naphal
Feb 10th 2007, 02:13 PM
"For David is not ascended into the heavens..." Acts 1:34

Paul, like David, is sleeping in the grave, awaiting the resurrection. That is why the dead arise at the Second Coming.

The doctrine of soul sleep is false.


We shall be changed..." It does not say, just a certain group.

You said this and that would mean you had to believe Paul was including himself when he said "we". My point is that he wasn't including himself and that you are wrongly interpreting the verse.

herald
Feb 10th 2007, 04:32 PM
Throughout the Scriptures, death is called, "sleep."

aurora77
Feb 10th 2007, 05:08 PM
It is, both, the RCC and the Protestant churches, which, have gone astray from God's Word. Revelation 17 refers to this religious system as the "Mother of harlots." The daughters are in the image of the Mother.


Which Protestant Churches are these? Care to name names?

I have a real problem with the idea of a secret rapture. To me, it indicates that Christ won't return again, He'll come back twice!

Also, where in the quotes given do Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al, actually promote the idea of a secret rapture? All those quotes show is that they hate the Catholic Church, which is no secret.

herald
Feb 10th 2007, 05:23 PM
The Reformers didn't promote a secret rapture - that came after them. They didn't hate the RCC, they pointed to the Papacy as the fulfillment of prophecies, concerning the Antichrist. Judas was an antichrist, who arose from within the disciples. The greatest deception, is that which is closest to the Truth. In the wilderness, the Adversary used the Word of God to try to deceive the Word of God made flesh!

We owe the Reformers a great debt. They sacrificed their lives, to point out discrepancies between church tradition and the Scripture.

God has many people in "Mystery Babylon" - both, Catholic and Protestant, just as He did in Babylon of old.

It is not the people, but, the system of religion, that substitutes tradition for God's word.

The Apostle Paul wrote, "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas (Peter); and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

"For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" ! Cor 1-3

James said, "For where envying and strife is, there is confusion (just like at Babel), and every EVIL work." James 3:16.

The denominational system was never God's plan.

That is why, we read, "And I heard another voice from heaven saying, COME OUT of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." (lawlessness) Revelation 18:4,5.

How do we come out? By doing as the Bereans, who "...received the Word with all readiness of mind, searching the Scriptures daily whether those things were so." Acts 17:11.

When what is taught in my church doesn't line-up, I speak-up.

Is our allegiance to man's system of religion, or, to the Word of God (made flesh)?

aurora77
Feb 10th 2007, 05:32 PM
The Reformers didn't promote a secret rapture - that came after them. See, this is where I have a huge problem with the whole Rapture idea. If it came after the reformers, and the reformers came about 1500 years after Christ, then it seems to me that this is a new "system of religion." If this is truly a Biblical idea wouldn't it have been taught by the early Christians and not be of a more recent vintage?


Is our allegiance to man's system of religion, or, to the Word of God (made flesh)? Absolutely, I agree with you here. Our allegiance is to God, not to anything or anyone else. But, couldn't all religions in a sense be classified as "man's system of religion?" Unless they find at their root, in their history, Christ, they can only claim to be started by a man.

third hero
Feb 10th 2007, 07:16 PM
Did any of you ever hear the term, "Classical Premillennialism"? This is what all of the original disciples and church fathers taught clear up till the 19th century, when Darby introduced the Dispensational POV, which is the root of the rapture theory anyway. Before I go on, I would like to inform you of what that means.

The rapture as taught by Christ.
Matthew 24:29-31. It is the time when Christ returns, "Immediately after the tribulation of that time". This is the time that the survivors will be picked up by angels, and as Paul puts it, "Meet the Lord in the Air".

The Rapture according to Paul.
1Thessalonians 4:13-17, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8. It is a period of time in which those who live "until the coming of the Lord" will meet Him in the air, and be with Him forever. However, some conditions come with that arrival. 2 Thessalonians 2 clearly tells us that the apostacy must come first and the revealing of the son of perdition, who we call the man of sin, who proclaims himself to be God in the Holy Place.

IN none of these passages, the word rapture ever mentioned, but the words, gather and meet, are used. So if we stop using the word rapture and go by what was actualy taught, which is that the Lord will return to get us imediately after the tribulation, and that we will meet the Lord in the Air after the dead in Christ are raised first.

In other words, there is no secret rapture, for the Lord will cause the dead in Christ to rise first, and then we will be changed into our incorruptible bodies, and meet Him in the air, to be with Him forever. No secret there. Christ will be visible to all, for every eyes wil see Him, or else it would not say, "all of the tribes of the earth will mourn". Everyone will see the Lord return, not everyone will be ready. This is what we are to focus on, getting not only unbelievers ready, but getting believers ready, for Jesus warns us in several passages that not all who says Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who hear and do what He says.

aurora77
Feb 10th 2007, 08:49 PM
Did any of you ever hear the term, "Classical Premillennialism"? This is what all of the original disciples and church fathers taught clear up till the 19th century, when Darby introduced the Dispensational POV, which is the root of the rapture theory anyway. Before I go on, I would like to inform you of what that means.. This is new to me. Could you show me some links?


In other words, there is no secret rapture, for the Lord will cause the dead in Christ to rise first, and then we will be changed into our incorruptible bodies, and meet Him in the air, to be with Him forever. No secret there. Christ will be visible to all, for every eyes wil see Him, or else it would not say, "all of the tribes of the earth will mourn". Everyone will see the Lord return, not everyone will be ready. This is what we are to focus on, getting not only unbelievers ready, but getting believers ready, for Jesus warns us in several passages that not all who says Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who hear and do what He says.

So, this is the Second Coming? If it is, then time stops and the world ends, right? If not, then there are two Second Comings? Still confused...

Naphal
Feb 10th 2007, 11:21 PM
Throughout the Scriptures, death is called, "sleep."

That's only because dead bodies look like they are sleeping. The soul itself never goes to sleep waiting in the grave.

skypair
Feb 11th 2007, 01:18 AM
We should not be protesting, but, declaring the entire Word of God, and nothing else. I am a member of a denomination, but, my allegiance is to His Word, alone.

I am like the Bereans, who "...received the word with all readiness of mind, searching the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11. When what is taught in my church, doesn't line up with the Word, I speak up.

Unfortunately, many Protestant churches are in the Image of the RCC, and have substituted their traditions for the Word of God. In Revelation 17, she is called, the "Mother of harlots." Who are the harlots? The Protestant churches. You've got the essence of the problem, herald! The "Reformation" merely reformed Catholicism -- it didn't reject it. This is what makes the union of Protestants with Catholics to make the tribulation 1 church (Rev 2:22) so palatable!

skypair

skypair
Feb 11th 2007, 01:25 AM
And assuming that a person who calls themself a protestant is a part of the harlot is a big generalization, don't you think? :confused After all I know a number of folks who call themselves that, and attend many different denominations, but they all know the word very well, and desire a close walk with Jesus. These folks don't care about "traditions"... Herald is right -- Rev 17 calls RCC the "Mother of harlots." That is an idictment of all churches that follow her traditions -- like making communion the actual body and blood granting grace/salvation to those who partake. Friend, communion is a REMEMBRANCE and a SYMBOL of the affiant partaking of Christ's death and His life.

There are many such traditions. Basically, Protestantism didn't go far enough, saved.

skypair

herald
Feb 11th 2007, 01:52 AM
Here we are, coming together across denominational lines from different countries to study God's Word! Wow! Never before in the history of the world. If this isn't a sign of the end of all things, what is?!

Pretty soon, we will have all of eternity to get to know one another.

Praise the Lord, my brethren!

warren
Feb 11th 2007, 02:09 AM
That's only because dead bodies look like they are sleeping. The soul itself never goes to sleep waiting in the grave.
Is it scriptual that part of us dosn't sleep until the taking up or the first resurrection.
When we sleep at night, the whole of us sleep, if some part of us dosn't then we are not aware of it. If for instance our soul goes to Heaven awaiting our resurrected bodies, what do our souls do there.
After our bodies are resurrected we know we have things to do because scripture tells us we will be with Christ.

third hero
Feb 11th 2007, 02:13 AM
This is new to me. Could you show me some links?

I wish I could, but I only found out reently that this is the system that I believed. I have discovered what I believe from reading the Bible and seeing what was written there, while at the same time, rejecting everything that men taught me. The Bible is a good place to start looking for what is actually there, then comparing what is writtten in there to actual historical records and see what is fulfilled and what is not. Then, when that happens, you will see a clear picture.



So, this is the Second Coming? If it is, then time stops and the world ends, right? If not, then there are two Second Comings? Still confused...

Actually, there is only one second coming of the Lord, where He will set up His Kingdom here on Earth in Jerusalem. IN this Kingdom, the Tribulation saints will rule this world with the Lord for all time, and time as we know it ends. The Return of the Lord is the end of this age, the age of men. This is what I call it anyway. When CHrist returns, no one can say, "there is no God", for God will be in Jerusalem, commanding every country to bow to Him, or face the consequences. At His Return, the Lord will destroy the armies of this world, cause Israel to take seven months to find and bury the bones of the armies that He slayed, and every country will have to face Him. The ones He finds wicked will be utterly destroyed, and the others will be left to serve Him until the end of this dimension, when Christ hands this world over to His Father, which means the utter and total destruction of this universe.

aurora77
Feb 11th 2007, 02:19 AM
You've got the essence of the problem, herald! The "Reformation" merely reformed Catholicism -- it didn't reject it. This is what makes the union of Protestants with Catholics to make the tribulation 1 church (Rev 2:22) so palatable!

skypair
Actually, the Reformers rejected much of Catholicism. I find the term "reformation" misleading; the reformers didn't want to reform the CC, if they had, they wouldn't have broken away.


I wish I could, but I only found out reently that this is the system that I believed. I have discovered what I believe from reading the Bible and seeing what was written there, while at the same time, rejecting everything that men taught me. The Bible is a good place to start looking for what is actually there, then comparing what is writtten in there to actual historical records and see what is fulfilled and what is not. Then, when that happens, you will see a clear picture.


So, which early church fathers promote this system then? I've been wanting to delve into their writings, but have been a little intimidating.

herald
Feb 11th 2007, 02:39 AM
I will, gladly, discuss the immortality of the soul in another thread. This is a post about the Second Coming.

Maybe, tomorrow.

third hero
Feb 11th 2007, 05:01 AM
So, which early church fathers promote this system then? I've been wanting to delve into their writings, but have been a little intimidating.

Follow the threads of the disciples of John, who started writing their material around 120 AD, and see for yourself. They reveal many things, like the rift that existed since the fall of Jerusalem, where the Churches in the Middle East were having to deal with the churches at Rome, who had held to the doctrines of the Nicolaitans, which Christ explicitly dealt with in Revelation 1-3. They even reveal that the Roman churches thought they were the new leaders of the Christian world back then, and many ofthe churches resisted that idea.

I admit, these writings are very imposing, and I would have to agree with the idea of them being intimidating, but then again, they are that way because the discipls of John were basically at "war" with the romans who held to the Nicolaitan belief system, much of which still exists in the RCC.

aurora77
Feb 11th 2007, 09:25 PM
Follow the threads of the disciples of John, who started writing their material around 120 AD, and see for yourself. They reveal many things, like the rift that existed since the fall of Jerusalem, where the Churches in the Middle East were having to deal with the churches at Rome, who had held to the doctrines of the Nicolaitans, which Christ explicitly dealt with in Revelation 1-3. They even reveal that the Roman churches thought they were the new leaders of the Christian world back then, and many ofthe churches resisted that idea.

I admit, these writings are very imposing, and I would have to agree with the idea of them being intimidating, but then again, they are that way because the discipls of John were basically at "war" with the romans who held to the Nicolaitan belief system, much of which still exists in the RCC.

So, Polycarp and Ireneaus then?

aurora77
Feb 12th 2007, 12:13 AM
I have another rapture related question. I hope this isn't off topic. We were talking about the idea at work the other day and one of my co-workers posed the question that what would make the generation to be raptured any more special than previous generations? After all, there have been countless martyrs for Christ, why did they have to die, while the raptured believers don't have to undergo persecution? We couldn't come up with an answer, so I'll throw that out there for you all.

herald
Feb 12th 2007, 01:14 AM
My grandfather went to China as a missionary with the Dutch Reformed Church. He was arrested by Mao Tse Tung, put on trial with a gun held to his head, and ordered to renounce his faith. Before thousands of Communist Chinese, he chose,rather, to preach the Gospel. He was thrown into a dungeon. After sometime, He cried out to the Lord, to, either, release him or, take him home. That night, "someone" came, released him, led him to the Hong Kong Harbor, and set him free. After, collecting his family, he went to Singapore.

Why? Because he loved Jesus more than life.

I have told the Lord, that, I would be honored to be martyred for Him, by His enabling grace.

Here is a promise: "Yea, and ALL that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution." 2 Timothy 3:12.

There were more Christian martyrs in the 20th century, then, in all others combined.

Why isn't there more persecution in the USA? Perhaps, because we are, no longer, much of a threat to the powers of darkness.

May we come to love Him more then life, itself!

Prophecy Man
Feb 12th 2007, 02:55 PM
I think this is a good topic. It should be answered and I think I will pose this as a new thread Question. Everyone reads the scripture and comes up with their own understanding. I should be though when " we " read the scripture we should take it at face value. This is how to understand it, not looking for something because you don't see it. You do see it , you really do.

I sugest to approach this topic in this way.

Doug

Prophecy Man
Feb 12th 2007, 03:51 PM
I have forgotten how to start a new thread or have been blocked. I get blocked a lot.

' The answer to the question about being spared the tribulation is this. The church is comprised of all nations and people throughout the world. WE the Church have carried the gospel since Jesus went to sit by our heavenly father's side in heaven. We were promised tribulation " in the world " but " be of good cheer ( good courage ) because Jesus had overcome the world. The church has done a very good job of carring the gospel to the whole world. The church has suffered greatly for carring the gospel to the whole world. This is the tribulation Jesus promised. The evidence is all ever the place and even recorded in book form.

The tribulation was created for the wicked, Christ rejecting world. It will either make a person better or bitter. Some people will recieve Christ at that time but will be martered for their faith in Christ. Others will not recieve Christ but will recieve " the Mark " making solid their rejection of Christ.

God wants all the Glory and will be gloriefied before the whole world when at the final battel God defeats the armies of the AntiChrist. It says " He will destroy them by the Brightness of His comming". It says in revelation Jesus returns with all the saints " and the armies of Heaven.

Jude makes reference to " the Lord comming with all the saints" and in revelation Jesus returns with the Armies of Heaven dressed if white which is the righteousness of the saints".

The church will be at Christ's side when the tribulation happens

Doug

herald
Feb 12th 2007, 10:40 PM
That is not what Jesus said in Matthew 24.

Many believe, that, Jesus returns, collects the saints, and the millenium is in Heaven. We all return in the New Jerusalem as it sits down on the promised land. The wicked are revived, attack and are destroyed. Jesus recreates the heaven and earth and reigns in the New Jerusalem forever.

warren
Feb 12th 2007, 11:07 PM
For those who are hoping for a pre. trib. rapture, here is a short article of encouragement from gracethrufaith. http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ikvot/this-week-in-mid-east-prophecy

Prophecy Man
Feb 13th 2007, 04:31 PM
As I pointed out , we go to Him , not the other way around.

When Jesus returns bodily and phiscially His brightness will destroy
"them" with the brightness of His coming. This a Judgement not a
blessing for those on earth. It says " all the tribes of the earth will
Mourn at His coming"

I think you had better read Isaiah 11 and 64 if you think the 1000 yrs are in heaven. It says HE will create a new heaven and earth, The former shall
not be remembered. The oceans will dissapear, a sinner will die at a 100 yrs old. This is in the new heaven and earth where God transforms every
thing back to it's origional beauty. The Lion shall lie with down with the lamb. There shall be no more war. The Temple will be rebuilt.

The location is earth, not the heavens. Where it says of John " behold I saw a new heaven and Earth come down from heaven " John was seeing how God is to do it. How can we be in heaven when the word says it is to come down from heaven after it Is created?

We will only be in heaven a short time while God deals with the "Earth dwellers". We will return with Christ as the word says.

Doug

aurora77
Feb 13th 2007, 04:50 PM
' The answer to the question about being spared the tribulation is this. The church is comprised of all nations and people throughout the world. WE the Church have carried the gospel since Jesus went to sit by our heavenly father's side in heaven. We were promised tribulation " in the world " but " be of good cheer ( good courage ) because Jesus had overcome the world. The church has done a very good job of carring the gospel to the whole world. The church has suffered greatly for carring the gospel to the whole world. This is the tribulation Jesus promised. The evidence is all ever the place and even recorded in book form.


This is something I hadn't thought of. The Church has spread the Gospel to just about everyone on the planet. So, if that's going to happen before the rapture, we've pretty much accomplished that. So, the end could come at this point.

herald
Feb 13th 2007, 11:33 PM
Actually, what I said was, that, many believe the millenium is in Heaven, afterwards, we descend in the New Jerusalem, which, lands on the Promised Land, on earth.

He makes the heavens and earth new, and we dwell in the New Jerusalem on earth, forever!

Naphal
Feb 14th 2007, 12:18 AM
As I pointed out , we go to Him , not the other way around.



Not so. Its called the second "coming" not the second "waiting around for us to come to him"

He is coming here and he is staying here. No one goes back to heaven after Christ returns.

herald
Feb 14th 2007, 01:43 AM
We can all hold our own opinions, but, the, only authority is the Word of God. We will see what He has planned.

cwb
Feb 14th 2007, 03:48 AM
This is something I hadn't thought of. The Church has spread the Gospel to just about everyone on the planet. So, if that's going to happen before the rapture, we've pretty much accomplished that. So, the end could come at this point.


I did not know we have accomplished spreading the gospel to everyone on the planet. Seems to me we still have alot of work to do.

Naphal
Feb 14th 2007, 09:25 PM
We can all hold our own opinions, but, the, only authority is the Word of God. We will see what He has planned.

And the word of God states Christ has a "coming" to us.



Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Matthew 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Prophecy Man
Feb 15th 2007, 04:10 PM
Aurora72
yes the gospel has gone around the whole world. Every country ( even the small tribes of people recently discovered on the history channel ) has
been given the gospel. Everyone has been given a chance to " know God" , who He is , His power but I don't know if all has heard of Christ. That is up to God Himself to determine that. Missionaries have been all over the globe.
Remember, Paul ( Missionaries ) planted , Apollos ( Missionaries again) watered but the most important part -- God gives the increase.
We have to let God Himself take over where we can't. I here " God is able"
from preachers all the time. I believe that, Where we are helpless we certanially are not hopeless--God Is able.

We are on the brink of the second advent where Christ sets up His kingdom.

Herald,
We are on the same page--end of story!

Naphal,
You have the catching away and the second advent as one event. The very language of 1 thes 4 and mathew 24 are different in content
Do not forget Christ said in John 14 : 1-6 ----- He was going to prepare a place for us. He will come again and recieve us to Himself that where He is ( in His fathers house locate in the heavens ) we will always be. How are we to get there? He will take us there?
Jesus was refering to a different event other than His second advent. The language supports this. Jesus was talking to believers only and was a message of Comfort ( Let not your heart be troubled ).
Paul, in refering to the Catching away in 1 thes 4 : 13-18 was also a message of comfort ( therefore comfort one another ).

Mathew 24 and other passages speaks of " after the tribulation of those days " as a time of Judgement. ALL eyes will see Him and the tribes of the Earth will mourn at His coming.

If you can't see what I have pointed out which is a message of comfort ( I did not say believe it ) how can you comfort me with your message which is opposite--Judgement.

Tell me Naphal, is it you really do not see it or not believe it?

One last point , when God passed Judgement on the world or a city , God always removed the righteouse before the event. This is in keeping with comforting the believers.

Judgement or comfort--the choice is yours.

Doug

David Taylor
Feb 15th 2007, 05:24 PM
Do not forget Christ said in John 14 : 1-6 ----- He was going to prepare a place for us. He will come again and recieve us to Himself that where He is ( in His fathers house locate in the heavens ) we will always be. How are we to get there? He will take us there?

Natural Death.

2 Corinthians 5:8 "5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. "

Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. "

Luke 23:46 "into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. "





Jesus was refering to a different event other than His second advent. The language supports this. Jesus was talking to believers only and was a message of Comfort ( Let not your heart be troubled ).
Paul, in refering to the Catching away in 1 thes 4 : 13-18 was also a message of comfort ( therefore comfort one another ).

Six explicit verses in I & II Thessalonians disagrees with your splitting and dicing of the gathering apart and away from the 2nd Advent.

1 Thessalonians 2:19 "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming <ADVENT>?"
1 Thessalonians 2:19 Quae est enim nostra spes aut gaudium aut corona gloriae — nonne et vos — ante Dominum nostrum Iesum in ADVENTu eius?

1 Thessalonians 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming <ADVENT> of our Lord Jesus Christ
1 Thessalonians 3:13 ad confirmanda corda vestra sine querela in sanctitate ante Deum et Patrem nostrum, in ADVENTu Domini nostri Iesu

1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming <ADVENT> of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1 Thessalonians 4:15 Hoc enim vobis dicimus in verbo Domini, quia nos, qui vivimus, qui relinquimur in ADVENTum Domini, non praeveniemus eos, qui dormierunt

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming <ADVENT> of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 pse autem Deus pacis sanctificet vos per omnia, et integer spiritus vester et anima et corpus sine querela in ADVENTu Domini nostri Iesu Christi servetur.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming <ADVENT> of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 Thessalonians 2:1 Rogamus autem vos, fratres, circa ADVENTum Domini nostri Iesu Christi et nostram congregationem in ipsum

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness <epiphaneia> of his coming <ADVENT>:
2 Thessalonians 2:8 Et tunc revelabitur ille iniquus, quem Dominus Iesus interficiet spiritu oris sui et destruet illustratione ADVENTus sui


Doug, you can wish and believe the gathering of Christ's followers will occur at some earlier prior time, split off, separated, and removed from His 2nd ADVENT.....but the scriptures reveal in explicit and exact terms in I and II Thessalonians that He comes for His Followers at His ADVENT!

(That's kinda why the word 'Advent' is found throughout each passage)

John146
Feb 15th 2007, 05:53 PM
Naphal,
You have the catching away and the second advent as one event. The very language of 1 thes 4 and mathew 24 are different in content
Do not forget Christ said in John 14 : 1-6 ----- He was going to prepare a place for us. He will come again and recieve us to Himself that where He is ( in His fathers house locate in the heavens ) we will always be. How are we to get there? He will take us there?
Jesus was refering to a different event other than His second advent. The language supports this. Jesus was talking to believers only and was a message of Comfort ( Let not your heart be troubled ).
Paul, in refering to the Catching away in 1 thes 4 : 13-18 was also a message of comfort ( therefore comfort one another ).

Mathew 24 and other passages speaks of " after the tribulation of those days " as a time of Judgement. ALL eyes will see Him and the tribes of the Earth will mourn at His coming.

If you can't see what I have pointed out which is a message of comfort ( I did not say believe it ) how can you comfort me with your message which is opposite--Judgement.

Tell me Naphal, is it you really do not see it or not believe it?

One last point , when God passed Judgement on the world or a city , God always removed the righteouse before the event. This is in keeping with comforting the believers.

Judgement or comfort--the choice is yours.

Doug

Doug,

The following passage shows that the second coming of Christ is both a time of judgment AND comfort. Read closely:

7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. - 2 Thess 1:7-10

Verses 8 and 9 speaks of the destruction and judgment of unbelievers at His return while verse 10 is a comforting verse for believers. Despite the fact that unbelievers will be destroyed and judged, believers can be comforted and take heart in the fact that they will be with the Lord and will glorify Him and admire Him on that day. God is fully capable of delivering punishment to unbelievers and protecting His own at the same time. He has done it many times before. Just look at Noah and Lot and their families. Destruction went on around them but they were protected. It just so happens that 1 Thess 4:13-17 deals with the comforting part of His return. But that is clearly not the whole story as we can see in the passage I quoted above from 2 Thessalonians.

cwb
Feb 15th 2007, 06:07 PM
Natural Death.

2 Corinthians 5:8 "5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. "

Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. "

Luke 23:46 "into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. "





Six explicit verses in I & II Thessalonians disagrees with your splitting and dicing of the gathering apart and away from the 2nd Advent.

1 Thessalonians 2:19 "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming <ADVENT>?"
1 Thessalonians 2:19 Quae est enim nostra spes aut gaudium aut corona gloriae — nonne et vos — ante Dominum nostrum Iesum in ADVENTu eius?

1 Thessalonians 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming <ADVENT> of our Lord Jesus Christ
1 Thessalonians 3:13 ad confirmanda corda vestra sine querela in sanctitate ante Deum et Patrem nostrum, in ADVENTu Domini nostri Iesu

1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming <ADVENT> of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1 Thessalonians 4:15 Hoc enim vobis dicimus in verbo Domini, quia nos, qui vivimus, qui relinquimur in ADVENTum Domini, non praeveniemus eos, qui dormierunt

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming <ADVENT> of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 pse autem Deus pacis sanctificet vos per omnia, et integer spiritus vester et anima et corpus sine querela in ADVENTu Domini nostri Iesu Christi servetur.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming <ADVENT> of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 Thessalonians 2:1 Rogamus autem vos, fratres, circa ADVENTum Domini nostri Iesu Christi et nostram congregationem in ipsum

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness <epiphaneia> of his coming <ADVENT>:
2 Thessalonians 2:8 Et tunc revelabitur ille iniquus, quem Dominus Iesus interficiet spiritu oris sui et destruet illustratione ADVENTus sui


Doug, you can wish and believe the gathering of Christ's followers will occur at some earlier prior time, split off, separated, and removed from His 2nd ADVENT.....but the scriptures reveal in explicit and exact terms in I and II Thessalonians that He comes for His Followers at His ADVENT!

(That's kinda why the word 'Advent' is found throughout each passage)


I really don't see how any of the verses you quoted prove anything. It seem that what you don't understand is that there are two parts to his coming. His coming for his saints and his coming with his saints.

David Taylor
Feb 15th 2007, 07:50 PM
I really don't see how any of the verses you quoted prove anything. It seem that what you don't understand is that there are two parts to his coming. His coming for his saints and his coming with his
saints.

cwb,
Since you don't see how the verses I listed 'prove anything', my reply isn't directed to you, but to those who might not understand your query, and might be uncertain in their understanding.

No scripture in the bible mentions two different future comings (Advents) of Christ from Heaven.

Scripture only speaks of one singular future coming of Christ from Heaven.

Likewise, no scripture in the bible mentions two future Appearings (Epiphaneas) of Christ from Heaven.

Additionally, no scripture in the bible mentions two future Revelations (Apocalypsis) of Christ from Heaven.

That is why I provided the verses....to show that the Bible does not make the (2-comings) distinction you are making. The Bible itself, only speak of the one singular 'ADVENT' of the Lord.

Likewise, no scripture in the bible mentions a long, stretched out, phased Coming period either....with various comings and goings in and out of Heaven of the Lord.

Thanks for sharing though. I appreciate where you are coming from. I had been taught that same view once, and accepted it as true also, for many, many years. It has become a quite popular view over the last 100 years.

Merton
Feb 15th 2007, 10:16 PM
cwb,
Since you don't see how the verses I listed 'prove anything', my reply isn't directed to you, but to those who might not understand your query, and might be uncertain in their understanding.

No scripture in the bible mentions two different future comings (Advents) of Christ from Heaven.

Scripture only speaks of one singular future coming of Christ from Heaven.

Likewise, no scripture in the bible mentions two future Appearings (Epiphaneas) of Christ from Heaven.

Additionally, no scripture in the bible mentions two future Revelations (Apocalypsis) of Christ from Heaven.

That is why I provided the verses....to show that the Bible does not make the (2-comings) distinction you are making. The Bible itself, only speak of the one singular 'ADVENT' of the Lord.

Likewise, no scripture in the bible mentions a long, stretched out, phased Coming period either....with various comings and goings in and out of Heaven of the Lord.

Thanks for sharing though. I appreciate where you are coming from. I had been taught that same view once, and accepted it as true also, for many, many years. It has become a quite popular view over the last 100 years.


There is one coming of Christ from Heaven to this worlds clouds separated by His coming down from the clouds at armageddon by some time but not 7 years of it.

So I understand why it can easily be proven that Christ first comes for His saints before He comes down with His saints.

There is no coming of Christ with any supposed souls with Him from Heaven.

The very word soul requires life and Christ returns to raise His own FROM the DEAD.

Anything else is pure spiritualism and anti-scripture.

The mistake made about Christs coming is that it is so often regarded as all happening in an instant when in fact many things happen after the first instance of His coming which is described as occuring during His presence (coming).




Merton.

John146
Feb 15th 2007, 10:27 PM
There is one coming of Christ from Heaven to this worlds clouds separated by His coming down from the clouds at armageddon by some time but not 7 years of it.

So I understand why it can easily be proven that Christ first comes for His saints before He comes down with His saints.

There is no coming of Christ with any supposed souls with Him from Heaven.

Explain 1 Thessalonians 4:14 then.

Merton
Feb 15th 2007, 11:17 PM
Explain 1 Thessalonians 4:14 then.


13But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; 17then we who are alive, who are left, shall 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. 18Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Christ returns to the clouds (and in clouds) to raise the dead to be with Him before He descends with them to the earth at the Armageddon event.

We shall always be WITH the Lord as verse 17 states AFTER the resurrection from the DEAD.

and this is given as the point in time, not any earlier, promised in John 14.

3And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

Christ is in the clouds of this earth with the resurrected saints (not restricted to there either) which are dark clouds from below (but light from above) during the 6 vials of wrath before coming down at the 7th vial and Armageddon to begin the day of light upon the world when His Spirit will only then be from sea to sea with the banishment of the spirit of this present age to the pit for the thousand years.

The place of Christ with the saints in the clouds (ex.19 Zeph 1) during the 6 vials of wrath is given in Rev.15--

2And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands. 3And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,

Merton.

cwb
Feb 16th 2007, 02:53 AM
cwb,
Since you don't see how the verses I listed 'prove anything', my reply isn't directed to you, but to those who might not understand your query, and might be uncertain in their understanding.

No scripture in the bible mentions two different future comings (Advents) of Christ from Heaven.

Scripture only speaks of one singular future coming of Christ from Heaven.

Likewise, no scripture in the bible mentions two future Appearings (Epiphaneas) of Christ from Heaven.

Additionally, no scripture in the bible mentions two future Revelations (Apocalypsis) of Christ from Heaven.

That is why I provided the verses....to show that the Bible does not make the (2-comings) distinction you are making. The Bible itself, only speak of the one singular 'ADVENT' of the Lord.

Likewise, no scripture in the bible mentions a long, stretched out, phased Coming period either....with various comings and goings in and out of Heaven of the Lord.

Thanks for sharing though. I appreciate where you are coming from. I had been taught that same view once, and accepted it as true also, for many, many years. It has become a quite popular view over the last 100 years.


i never said there were two coming. I said there are two parts to his one coming.

Naphal
Feb 16th 2007, 03:54 AM
Naphal,
You have the catching away and the second advent as one event.

That's because they are. Christ returns and sends for his elect.

Prophecy Man
Feb 16th 2007, 04:09 PM
BLESS YOU BOTH, YOU SEE WHAT I WAS SAYING. THERE IS ONLY ONE COMMING BUT TWO PARTS TO IT
(David, The Jews in Jesus's day could not understand two phases of one messiah. If you know this then why can't you see this today, one Messiah, ONE coming two phases )

JESUS IS CONFUSING THE ISSUE AGAIN THIS DAY. HE RETURNS AGAIN BODILY THE SECOND TIME BUT THE FIRST PHASE IS THE REMOVAL OF
THE BELIEVERS. AS I SAID THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE CARACTER OF GOD, BEFORE GOD PASSES JUDGEMENT HE REMOVES THE RIGHTEOUS/BELIEVERS/SAINTS--WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO CALL HIS PEOPLE THEY ARE STILL HIS PEOPLE AND HE WILL ACT ACCORDING TO HIS CARACTER.

David, what is the context of first and second thessolonians any way.
Why did paul write them?

By the way, glad you know Greek, I do not and don't need to know Greek because there is so much information , if I want to know something then I go to commentaries written centuries before you and I were born. I have access to them all, I have a soft wear that has about ten commentaries , translations and word studies.

You said it, one advent but you never touched on the catching away of the saints.
by the way, I know the bible speaks of more than one kind of saint and I don't read Greek. When Jude speaks of " the Lord coming with ten thousands and tenthousands of His saints" which group of saints is he refering to? How can The lord return with His saints if He has to catch them away at the same time?

Doug

wpm
Feb 16th 2007, 04:36 PM
ONE coming two phases


This is Pretrib double-speak. Where does Scripture use such a term? There is indeed one Coming which is climactic. This sees the judgment of all and the eternal reward of all - whether good or bad.

Paul

wpm
Feb 16th 2007, 04:53 PM
I really don't see how any of the verses you quoted prove anything. It seem that what you don't understand is that there are two parts to his coming. His coming for his saints and his coming with his saints.

1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 confirms this saying: “if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the Coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 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.”

This is a record of Christ’s one and only future Coming. This reading describes how Christ comes with and for His saints the next time. Verse 14 of our reading explicitly states, “them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” Our Pretrib brethren have yet to acknowledge this point. This is the final uniting of the elect on earth (the live in Christ) and those in heaven (the dead in Christ). It is accompanied by the great sound of the trump ushering in the end. The word rendered “remain” in our King James Version (which relates to those that are alive at Christ’s Coming) is the Greek word perileipo, which means “to survive.” Thus, we can take from this reading that the Lord is returning for those who remain by surviving. These are tribulation saints.

Jesus says of His Coming, in Matthew 24:29-30, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”

This is referring to the exact same event as is described in 1 Thessalonians 4. It is the Coming of the Lord that is signalled by the sound of the last trump and the uniting of the elect both on earth and in heaven. Christ tells us that the angels “shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” This agrees with Paul’s assertion in 1 Thessalonians 4 that Christ will come with and for His saints at His Coming. Those saints that the angels gather in heaven are the "dead in Christ," those that are gathered from the four winds of the earth are 'the live in Christ'. This seems to be describing the same event. Moreover, this passage locates the catching away at the end of the tribulation, not seven years before it.

Paul

John146
Feb 16th 2007, 05:03 PM
13But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; 17then we who are alive, who are left, shall 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. 18Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Christ returns to the clouds (and in clouds) to raise the dead to be with Him before He descends with them to the earth at the Armageddon event.

We shall always be WITH the Lord as verse 17 states AFTER the resurrection from the DEAD.

and this is given as the point in time, not any earlier, promised in John 14.

3And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

Christ is in the clouds of this earth with the resurrected saints (not restricted to there either) which are dark clouds from below (but light from above) during the 6 vials of wrath before coming down at the 7th vial and Armageddon to begin the day of light upon the world when His Spirit will only then be from sea to sea with the banishment of the spirit of this present age to the pit for the thousand years.

The place of Christ with the saints in the clouds (ex.19 Zeph 1) during the 6 vials of wrath is given in Rev.15--

2And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands. 3And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,

Merton.

That's quite a unique view you have there. But I completely disagree with it. I believe the context of verse 14 is saying that Jesus will bring the dead in Christ with Him FROM HEAVEN. Verse 16 says He descends from heaven. Verse 14 says that He would be bringing those who sleep in Him (the dead in Christ) with Him. From where? Heaven. I think it's pretty clear.

John146
Feb 16th 2007, 05:14 PM
BLESS YOU BOTH, YOU SEE WHAT I WAS SAYING. THERE IS ONLY ONE COMMING BUT TWO PARTS TO IT
(David, The Jews in Jesus's day could not understand two phases of one messiah. If you know this then why can't you see this today, one Messiah, ONE coming two phases )

JESUS IS CONFUSING THE ISSUE AGAIN THIS DAY. HE RETURNS AGAIN BODILY THE SECOND TIME BUT THE FIRST PHASE IS THE REMOVAL OF
THE BELIEVERS. AS I SAID THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE CARACTER OF GOD, BEFORE GOD PASSES JUDGEMENT HE REMOVES THE RIGHTEOUS/BELIEVERS/SAINTS--WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO CALL HIS PEOPLE THEY ARE STILL HIS PEOPLE AND HE WILL ACT ACCORDING TO HIS CARACTER.

Doug, what I believe you are missing is that God can protect His own and deliver punishment and destruction all on the same day. The very day that the ark door closed, the flood came and destroyed all of the unbelievers. The very day that Lot and his family departed from Sodom, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. No significant time period is required in between, such as 7 years. There is one coming with different aspects to it (resurrection of the dead, "rapture", destruction of unbelievers, etc.), but it all happens in a very short amount of time.



You said it, one advent but you never touched on the catching away of the saints.
by the way, I know the bible speaks of more than one kind of saint and I don't read Greek. When Jude speaks of " the Lord coming with ten thousands and tenthousands of His saints" which group of saints is he refering to? How can The lord return with His saints if He has to catch them away at the same time?

Doug, doesn't 1 Thess 4:14 say that those who sleep in Jesus (the dead in Christ) will be coming with Him when He returns? He is returning with the souls of the dead in Christ. Don't you believe the soul and spirit of a believer go to be with the Lord when they die? I think you probably do. Well, that's what it is talking about. You believe the 1 Thess 4:13-17 passage is speaking of a pre-trib Rapture. And yet it says that those who sleep in Jesus will be coming with Him at the Rapture. So why do you have such a hard time understanding that He will both be bringing the saints with Him as well as meeting them in the air? He brings the souls and spirits of the saints with Him and then He resurrects their bodies and gives them new immortal bodies which unite with their souls and spirits when they are caught up to meet Him in the air. Those who are alive and remain are also changed and together with the dead in Christ meet Him in the air.

David Taylor
Feb 16th 2007, 05:34 PM
i never said there were two coming. I said there are two parts to his one coming.

Sure you did.

Your view has Christ coming from Heaven here (Coming #1)
I Thess 4:16 "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven" (Coming #1)

Your view has Christ coming again later from Heaven here (Coming #2)
Rev 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. " (Coming #2)

That's two comings....not one coming.

If astronaunt Eugene Cernan went from the Earth to the moon,
then returns to the Earth..

..then several years later Cernan again goes from the Earth to the moon.

That's two comings, not one.


No difference.

In your view, Jesus is in Heaven, goes to the Earth,
then returns to Heaven..

..then several years later Jesus again goes from Heaven to the earth.

That's two comings, not one.

The Bible, however, never makes any distinctions about plural future comings, multiple comings, or phased-stretched out comings that should be interpretted as one coming; regardless of the fact that He comes twice from Heaven.

Christ has one future Coming. (Parousia, Advent)
Christ has one future Appearing. (Epipheniea)
Christ has one future Revelation. (Apocalypsis)

It is better to receive the singular nature of what the text actually tells us, about His return; than to choice and pick-n-choose which 2nd Coming verses to split apart, and to reassign to Coming #1 and Coming #2.

David Taylor
Feb 16th 2007, 05:47 PM
David, The Jews in Jesus's day could not understand two phases of one messiah. If you know this then why can't you see this today, one Messiah, ONE coming two phases


Because we have the NT that they didn't have, and it clearly and plainly tells us that Jesus will come one more time (singular) from Heaven.

Nowhere does the NT teach two more comings from Heaven of Jesus.
Nowhere does the NT teach a phased set of multiple comings from Heaven.

That is why I can't see this today, because the NT doesn't allow me to see it.




David, what is the context of first and second thessolonians any way.
Why did paul write them?

I regards to their references about the 2nd Coming, it was to teach them, and then to teach them again with MORE DETAILS, about it.

It wasn't to teach two future comings; one told in I Thess and another taught in 2 Thess.

Is that what you think Doug?

That I Thess teaches about the Rapture Coming....
and 2 Thess teaches about the later different Glorious Appearing Coming?

(They both give details and attributes of Christ's Return. A singular event.)




By the way, glad you know Greek, I do not and don't need to know Greek because there is so much information , if I want to know something then I go to commentaries written centuries before you and I were born. I have access to them all, I have a soft wear that has about ten commentaries , translations and word studies.

So what is your point then? If the 'Advent' of the Lord is the Revelation 19 Coming as you seem to support, then why is Paul many times using the term 'Advent' to describe the other coming....the coming you believe is the earlier rapture Coming? That creates a 2nd Advent and a 3rd Advent Doug....do you really want to believe that?





You said it, one advent but you never touched on the catching away of the saints.


The Catching away of the Saints occurs at the 2nd Advent Doug. It's no trick and no confusing thing. Just like Mark 13:26 tells us, When Christ comes in Advent, His elect "will be gathered from the uttermost part of the Earth to the uttermost part of Heaven".

Our catching up, occurs at the 2nd Advent when He appears.





by the way, I know the bible speaks of more than one kind of saint and I don't read Greek. When Jude speaks of " the Lord coming with ten thousands and tenthousands of His saints" which group of saints is he refering to? How can The lord return with His saints if He has to catch them away at the same time?


Easy.

Let's say for arguement sake, the 2nd Advent is singluar, and the rapture itself, occurs at the 2nd Advent. (no extra preliminary pretrib coming).

Let's say that the 2nd Advent will occur March 17, 2058.

Christ will bring with Him 'from Heaven', all of the saints who lived and died belonging to Him prior to March 17, 2058. They are in Heaven, awaiting His return and the conclusion of human history.

Christ will also gather up 'from the Earth', or catch up, if you prefer, all those who are alive and remain.

The 2nd Advent has both those in Heaven and those still living on the Earth being united with Christ together, in the Air as He descends in glory.

Everyone is accounted for. All saints participate. No one is left behind.

cwb
Feb 17th 2007, 02:52 AM
Sure you did.

Your view has Christ coming from Heaven here (Coming #1)
I Thess 4:16 "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven" (Coming #1)

Your view has Christ coming again later from Heaven here (Coming #2)
Rev 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. " (Coming #2)

That's two comings....not one coming.

If astronaunt Eugene Cernan went from the Earth to the moon,
then returns to the Earth..

..then several years later Cernan again goes from the Earth to the moon.

That's two comings, not one.


No difference.

In your view, Jesus is in Heaven, goes to the Earth,
then returns to Heaven..

..then several years later Jesus again goes from Heaven to the earth.

That's two comings, not one.

The Bible, however, never makes any distinctions about plural future comings, multiple comings, or phased-stretched out comings that should be interpretted as one coming; regardless of the fact that He comes twice from Heaven.

Christ has one future Coming. (Parousia, Advent)
Christ has one future Appearing. (Epipheniea)
Christ has one future Revelation. (Apocalypsis)

It is better to receive the singular nature of what the text actually tells us, about His return; than to choice and pick-n-choose which 2nd Coming verses to split apart, and to reassign to Coming #1 and Coming #2.


Your post here makes it abundantly clear to me that you do not know what my view is. Nor do you understand it. Maybe you should know and understand what my viewpoiunt is before making statements about what I believe.

NLathrop
Feb 17th 2007, 03:08 AM
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 discusses Saints being "caught up" to meet Jesus in the air. This passage seems to imply that the Saints, both those who are dead and those who are living will rise to meet Jesus in the clouds.

Zechariah 14:4 states that Jesus will return to the Earth, physically to the Mount of Olives, where it splits in two. Zechariah 14:5 continues by saying that the Lord God comes with all His saints and angels....this seems to imply that Jesus returns to the Mount of Olives, with his army of Saints and Angels.

Using the theories floated through this thread about the falseness of the rapture...it would seem that the Second Coming of Christ would play out something like this:

Here comes Jesus, descending from Heaven in the clouds with His Angels. Oh look...there go the Saints, first dead then alive, floating up into the clouds to meet King Jesus. Now look...here come Jesus, His Angels and His Saints down to the Earth. Oh no!!! The Mount of Olives has now split in two.

Sound silly? I think so. Why would Jesus call the Saints, both dead and living, to meet Him in the air just to do a 180 degree turn and head back to earth? It just doesn't make sense when one looks at the Scripture.

Another distinction:

1 Thessalonians 4:16 describe Jesus descending with a shout and trumpet noise....however, Revelation 19:11-21 do not have Jesus coming with a shout or a trumpet noise.

Even more startling to me is Revelation 19:14 which says that the armies of heaven come dwn with Him, dressed in the finest linen, white and clean. This type of description is reserved for Blood-bought Saints of God. In all my Bible reading and studying, I do not recall angels being described as dressed in the finest of linen, white and clean. In fact, if one reads the passage on the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb, Revelation 19:6-10, we see it is the bride of Christ who is clothed in the finest and whitest of linens, symbolizing the righteousness of the saints. So if the Saints are coming down from Heaven with Christ...riding on white horses and wearing the finest and whitest of linens...how and when did we receive these? On our way up to the clouds? And the Wedding Banquet? Did that take place on our way up as well? It just doesn't fit with the Scriptures.

Merton
Feb 17th 2007, 03:24 AM
Sound silly? I think so. Why would Jesus call the Saints, both dead and living, to meet Him in the air just to do a 180 degree turn and head back to earth? It just doesn't make sense when one looks at the Scripture.

Given that the gathering of the saints into the clouds requires that the saints first go up to the clouds having being gathered together from all of the earth, and that there is a time of the 6 vials of wrath between them going up and their coming down then it does not seem silly to me.

Merton.

NLathrop
Feb 17th 2007, 04:29 AM
So, the Saints go up prior to the 6 vials....then the Saints come back down after the 6 vials....that sounds like you are describing the Rapture and the Second Coming as two different events....because at the Second Coming of Christ, judgment of God has already been poured out upon the earth.

cwb
Feb 17th 2007, 05:18 AM
1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 confirms this saying: “if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the Coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 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.”

This is a record of Christ’s one and only future Coming. This reading describes how Christ comes with and for His saints the next time. Verse 14 of our reading explicitly states, “them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” Our Pretrib brethren have yet to acknowledge this point. This is the final uniting of the elect on earth (the live in Christ) and those in heaven (the dead in Christ). It is accompanied by the great sound of the trump ushering in the end. The word rendered “remain” in our King James Version (which relates to those that are alive at Christ’s Coming) is the Greek word perileipo, which means “to survive.” Thus, we can take from this reading that the Lord is returning for those who remain by surviving. These are tribulation saints.

Jesus says of His Coming, in Matthew 24:29-30, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”

This is referring to the exact same event as is described in 1 Thessalonians 4. It is the Coming of the Lord that is signalled by the sound of the last trump and the uniting of the elect both on earth and in heaven. Christ tells us that the angels “shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” This agrees with Paul’s assertion in 1 Thessalonians 4 that Christ will come with and for His saints at His Coming. Those saints that the angels gather in heaven are the "dead in Christ," those that are gathered from the four winds of the earth are 'the live in Christ'. This seems to be describing the same event. Moreover, this passage locates the catching away at the end of the tribulation, not seven years before it.

Paul

Sorry but there is no catching away mentioned in Matthew 24.

cwb
Feb 17th 2007, 05:29 AM
Using the theories floated through this thread about the falseness of the rapture...it would seem that the Second Coming of Christ would play out something like this:

Here comes Jesus, descending from Heaven in the clouds with His Angels. Oh look...there go the Saints, first dead then alive, floating up into the clouds to meet King Jesus. Now look...here come Jesus, His Angels and His Saints down to the Earth. Oh no!!! The Mount of Olives has now split in two.

Sound silly? I think so. Why would Jesus call the Saints, both dead and living, to meet Him in the air just to do a 180 degree turn and head back to earth? It just doesn't make sense when one looks at the Scripture.



What sounds even sillier to me is that the saints go up to the clouds and come down to earth at the same time since going up to the clouds and coming down to earth is supposedly the same event. I have no idea how that could work. How do the saints go up and come down at the exact same time?

Naphal
Feb 17th 2007, 07:32 AM
Even more startling to me is Revelation 19:14 which says that the armies of heaven come dwn with Him, dressed in the finest linen, white and clean. This type of description is reserved for Blood-bought Saints of God. In all my Bible reading and studying, I do not recall angels being described as dressed in the finest of linen, white and clean.


Revelation 15:6 And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.

Love123
Feb 17th 2007, 12:59 PM
Recall the Groom must inspect the Bride before; she is rewarded or stripped of rewards for her faithfulness since betrothed upon her salvation. Before she is given a white garment she is to be judged.
Every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess to God.

This judgment does not take place as we are on earth.

We all must be judged before God… He must be on a throne... as in the Great White Throne of Judgment… those will be judged accordingly...
Like wise the Bride must be judged... we catch a glimpse of the;
--Bema Judgment Throne here;( Revelation 4)

2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a *throne was set in heaven, ..and one *sat on the *throne.

3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.
4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

7 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.

--Likewise the Great White Throne here:

And I saw a great white *throne, and him that *sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. Revelation 20:11

We will all stand and kneel before God and be judged;
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Romans 14:11

If not a pre rapture then:
Where do we fit this judgment in?

John146
Feb 18th 2007, 02:33 AM
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 discusses Saints being "caught up" to meet Jesus in the air. This passage seems to imply that the Saints, both those who are dead and those who are living will rise to meet Jesus in the clouds.

Zechariah 14:4 states that Jesus will return to the Earth, physically to the Mount of Olives, where it splits in two. Zechariah 14:5 continues by saying that the Lord God comes with all His saints and angels....this seems to imply that Jesus returns to the Mount of Olives, with his army of Saints and Angels.

Using the theories floated through this thread about the falseness of the rapture...it would seem that the Second Coming of Christ would play out something like this:

Here comes Jesus, descending from Heaven in the clouds with His Angels. Oh look...there go the Saints, first dead then alive, floating up into the clouds to meet King Jesus. Now look...here come Jesus, His Angels and His Saints down to the Earth. Oh no!!! The Mount of Olives has now split in two.

Sound silly? I think so. Why would Jesus call the Saints, both dead and living, to meet Him in the air just to do a 180 degree turn and head back to earth? It just doesn't make sense when one looks at the Scripture.

Another distinction:

1 Thessalonians 4:16 describe Jesus descending with a shout and trumpet noise....however, Revelation 19:11-21 do not have Jesus coming with a shout or a trumpet noise.

Matthew 24:29-31 has Jesus coming with a loud trumpet noise and that passage says He comes AFTER the tribulation.



Even more startling to me is Revelation 19:14 which says that the armies of heaven come dwn with Him, dressed in the finest linen, white and clean. This type of description is reserved for Blood-bought Saints of God. In all my Bible reading and studying, I do not recall angels being described as dressed in the finest of linen, white and clean. In fact, if one reads the passage on the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb, Revelation 19:6-10, we see it is the bride of Christ who is clothed in the finest and whitest of linens, symbolizing the righteousness of the saints. So if the Saints are coming down from Heaven with Christ...riding on white horses and wearing the finest and whitest of linens...how and when did we receive these? On our way up to the clouds? And the Wedding Banquet? Did that take place on our way up as well? It just doesn't fit with the Scriptures.

A close read of Revelation 19:8 shows that fine linen is a symbolic term for the righteousness of the saints and should not be taken literally. It is the souls and spirits of the dead in Christ that come with Him, as we can see in 1 Thesssalonians 4:14.

David Taylor
Feb 18th 2007, 02:44 AM
Sorry but there is no catching away mentioned in Matthew 24.

So "when Jesus's Elect are "gathered" from the uttermost part of the Earth
to the uttermost part of Heaven",

at the sounding of the Great Trumpet, when Jesus appears in the sky in power and glory.....

What exactly is that, if not the "catching away"of Jesus' elect to Him?

How are Jesus' elect gathered into Heaven in mortal bodies, if they are not changed from corruptible to incorruptible, and from mortal to immortal?




The same word used for 'gather' ('episunogo') in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 is also found in this verse by Paul....

2 Thessalonians 2:1 "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him"

Is this too, not an example of the 'rapture' of Jesus' elect to meet Him at His Coming?

(if not, who is Jesus gathering to Him in the above verse?)

Mograce2U
Feb 18th 2007, 03:11 AM
Revelation 15:6 And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.I tend to agree with you here. While armies could mean saints as there are OT passages that make that reference, we also have this verse:

(2 Th 1:7 KJV) And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

I think Rev 19 correlates with this verse in 2 Thes and is the Lord coming to bring vengeance upon Jerusalem as stated in Luke 21. This coming need not be visible to fulfill the prophecy about the destruction of the temple & the city. Yet when it occurs, the saints will know it is the Lord.

Mograce2U
Feb 18th 2007, 03:15 AM
What sounds even sillier to me is that the saints go up to the clouds and come down to earth at the same time since going up to the clouds and coming down to earth is supposedly the same event. I have no idea how that could work. How do the saints go up and come down at the exact same time?In the twinkling of an eye...

cwb
Feb 18th 2007, 02:51 PM
In the twinkling of an eye...

??????????

Are you sying we go up to the clouds to meet the lord in the air and then come back down to earth in a twinkling of an eye? What would the purpose be?

David Taylor
Feb 18th 2007, 03:42 PM
??????????

Are you sying we go up to the clouds to meet the lord in the air and then come back down to earth in a twinkling of an eye? What would the purpose be?


The purpose is because presently, believers are scattered all over the world.

They are in China, and Alaska, and Argentina, and Norway, and Madacascar, and Guam, etc.....

They are all gathered up to meet Christ in the air as He descends from Heaven.

Then forevmore to be with the Lord.

The purpose is carefully explained in Mark, we are "gathered from the uttermost part of the Earth, to the uttermost part of Heaven"; when He appears in power and great glory.

cwb
Feb 18th 2007, 04:20 PM
The purpose is because presently, believers are scattered all over the world.

They are in China, and Alaska, and Argentina, and Norway, and Madacascar, and Guam, etc.....

They are all gathered up to meet Christ in the air as He descends from Heaven.

Then forevmore to be with the Lord.

The purpose is carefully explained in Mark, we are "gathered from the uttermost part of the Earth, to the uttermost part of Heaven"; when He appears in power and great glory.

I don't think you answered the question. You seem to be saying we go up to the clouds, meet the lord in the air, come back down to earth, all in a twinkling of an eye. It sill sounds silly to me.

Mograce2U
Feb 18th 2007, 04:48 PM
??????????

Are you sying we go up to the clouds to meet the lord in the air and then come back down to earth in a twinkling of an eye? What would the purpose be?To bring us to eternal life so that we can enter into the new earth where no sin or death exists. He thus brings us our salvation.

(1 Pet 1:3-5 KJV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, {4} To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, {5} Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

(Titus 2:13 KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Naphal
Feb 18th 2007, 06:31 PM
So "when Jesus's Elect are "gathered" from the uttermost part of the Earth
to the uttermost part of Heaven",

at the sounding of the Great Trumpet, when Jesus appears in the sky in power and glory.....

What exactly is that, if not the "catching away"of Jesus' elect to Him?

How are Jesus' elect gathered into Heaven in mortal bodies, if they are not changed from corruptible to incorruptible, and from mortal to immortal?


The error you are making is that the verse is not saying they are gathered from earth to heaven but the search area for the elect to be gathered from is "from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."

No one is being taken to heaven.

Mark 13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.


"from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven"


Think of this in the same way as if I hired you to pick fruit and I said "gather together all the fruit from that first tree over there, to that last tree over there." Now, I didn't tell you where to put the gathered fruit but only the area that you should focus upon. It would be a mistake to think I said to take the fruit from the first tree and take it over to the last tree and deposit it there.

Most who believe in the pre-trib make this mistake. They think the elect are gathered from earth and taken to heaven when that is not what is being said.

cwb
Feb 18th 2007, 09:44 PM
To bring us to eternal life so that we can enter into the new earth where no sin or death exists. He thus brings us our salvation.

(1 Pet 1:3-5 KJV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, {4} To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, {5} Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

(Titus 2:13 KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Now you have Him creating a new heaven and earth also in a twinkling of an eye? So He takes us up to the clouds, changes us, creates a new heaven and earth, all in a twinkling of an eye? So when it all happens, we don't know that all this happened. We may be walking down the street and all of a sudden we have new bodies and living in a new earth. We had been up to the clouds and changed and come back but don't even know it because it all happened in a twinking of an eye. This seems to be what you are saying here.

NLathrop
Feb 18th 2007, 09:54 PM
To bring us to eternal life so that we can enter into the new earth where no sin or death exists. He thus brings us our salvation.

(1 Pet 1:3-5 KJV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, {4} To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, {5} Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

(Titus 2:13 KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

I thought eternal life was something we received the instant we accept Christ as Lord and Savior. I didn't know that we had to wait for that eternal life. If we've drank in the eternal water offered by Jesus...we become eternal at that moment...not at some point later in the future. We aren't given eternal life when He returns...we have it now! John 17:3; 1 John 5:12; 1 Cor. 5:1-5

Naphal
Feb 18th 2007, 10:05 PM
I thought eternal life was something we received the instant we accept Christ as Lord and Savior. I didn't know that we had to wait for that eternal life. If we've drank in the eternal water offered by Jesus...we become eternal at that moment...not at some point later in the future. We aren't given eternal life when He returns...we have it now! John 17:3; 1 John 5:12; 1 Cor. 5:1-5


Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.


Eternal life only comes in the next world, not this one. What we have NOW is the PROMISE.


1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.


1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
1 John 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

wpm
Feb 18th 2007, 11:37 PM
Naphal


Eternal life only comes in the next world, not this one. What we have NOW is the PROMISE.

Who told you that?

It is more than a promise it is a reality. Are you a JW or a former JW?

Jesus declares in John 17:3, saying, “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

To know God, according to Christ, is to possess eternal life. Plainly, those that don’t have this eternal life do not know God. Those that do, do.

Paul

Naphal
Feb 19th 2007, 01:27 AM
Naphal



Who told you that?

Read the above verses to find out who "told" me that.



It is more than a promise it is a reality. Are you a JW or a former JW?

It's a real promise of an inheritance but not something we have now. Your view is askew because of your Amil beliefs. I am a Christian not a JW.





Jesus declares in John 17:3, saying, “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

To know God, according to Christ, is to possess eternal life. Plainly, those that don’t have this eternal life do not know God. Those that do, do.


It says no such thing. God is clear that eternal life comes in the next world not this one.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

NLathrop
Feb 19th 2007, 02:25 AM
Read the above verses to find out who "told" me that.




It's a real promise of an inheritance but not something we have now. Your view is askew because of your Amil beliefs. I am a Christian not a JW.





It says no such thing. God is clear that eternal life comes in the next world not this one.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.


John 17:3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 5:11-13: And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Naphal
Feb 19th 2007, 02:27 AM
John 17:3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 5:11-13: And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.


Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.


Eternal life only comes in the next world, not this one. What we have NOW is the PROMISE.


1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.


1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
1 John 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

NLathrop
Feb 19th 2007, 02:30 AM
Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.


Eternal life only comes in the next world, not this one. What we have NOW is the PROMISE.


1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.


1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
1 John 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

What is Jesus?? Is He just a promise of eternal life or is He eternal life?

Naphal
Feb 19th 2007, 02:34 AM
What is Jesus??



Who is Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God. Those that believe upon Him shall receive eternal life in the future.

NLathrop
Feb 19th 2007, 02:35 AM
Who is Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God. Those that believe upon Him shall receive eternal life in the future.

That is not what I asked....I asked...Is Jesus the promise of eternal life or is Jesus eternal life?

Naphal
Feb 19th 2007, 02:38 AM
That is not what I asked....I asked...Is Jesus the promise of eternal life or is Jesus eternal life?

Its not important. Jesus is the Son of God and we are promised eternal life in the next world. If you don't believe that then take the verses I have posted and argue against them one by one.


Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.


1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.


1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
1 John 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

NLathrop
Feb 19th 2007, 02:44 AM
Its not important. Jesus is the Son of God and we are promised eternal life in the next world. If you don't believe that then take the verses I have posted and argue against them one by one.


Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.


1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.


1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
1 John 2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

It is important...and the mere fact that you cannot answer the question directly shows just how important it is.

You keep posting verses which state that eternal life is promised to us...but no where in those passages does it actually state it is a futuristic promise. While eternal life has INDEED been promised to us...so has immediate forgiveness of sin (upon repentance), immediate indwelling of the Holy Spirit (upon repentance), immediate protection from God (upon repentance)...and many many more promises. Just because something has been promised to someone...it doesn't imply that they will have to wait until some futurist time to receive the item of the promise.

Now...is Jesus a just a promise of future eternal life or is Jesus Himself eternal life?

Naphal
Feb 19th 2007, 02:58 AM
You keep posting verses which state that eternal life is promised to us...but no where in those passages does it actually state it is a futuristic promise.


You don't read very well then.

Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.


1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.


Do you not understand what "in the world to come" and "that which is to come" means?

Love123
Feb 19th 2007, 03:39 AM
That is not what I asked....I asked...Is Jesus the promise of eternal life or is Jesus eternal life?

Jesus is eternal…:)

We shall live eternally.:rolleyes:

We through salvation will live eternally with Jesus.:pp

Unsaved will live eternally with Satan.:mad:

God Bless*:kiss:

warren
Feb 19th 2007, 10:38 PM
From the scriptures posted in this thread, we have Eternal life now. If the Holy Spirit dwells in us then we certinally have Eternal Life within us.
We don't have the full experience of Eternal life because we still have flesh and blood bodies, and we are living in time and not in Eternity.
We have Eternal life because Jesus Spirit is in us.

Naphal
Feb 19th 2007, 10:47 PM
From the scriptures posted in this thread, we have Eternal life now.


Correction. The scriptures posted show the promise of eternal life now and that eternal life is literally received in the next world.

warren
Feb 19th 2007, 11:55 PM
There is scripture talking off the hope of Eternal life, and Eternal life in the age to come, and there is scripture telling of us having Eternal life now, and these scriptures do not contradict each other.

1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
If you go the opposite of this then believers do have Eternal life abiding in them.

1John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
And so if the Son is in us then also is Eternal life.

1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Ye have Eternal life, not you will have eternal life.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jesus said we have Eternal life before He raises us up at the last day.
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
No man can pluck us out of His hand when we have our spirit bodies, Jesus is talking about while we are still in the flesh.
The Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Naphal
Feb 20th 2007, 12:00 AM
There is scripture talking off the hope of Eternal life, and Eternal life in the age to come, and there is scripture telling of us having Eternal life now, and these scriptures do not contradict each other.

1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
If you go the opposite of this then believers do have Eternal life abiding in them.

1John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
And so if the Son is in us then also is Eternal life.

1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Ye have Eternal life, not you will have eternal life.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
The Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

These things speaks of the concept of having the promise of it. Literally eternal life is granted at judgement day and begins in the next world. We can't use some scriptures and deny others.


Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Eternal life comes in the world to come, not now. We can be written in the book of life now but that judgement is not made until judgement day.


Titus 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Titus 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

warren
Feb 20th 2007, 12:29 AM
Naphal said:


We can't use some scriptures and deny others.


No, certinally not and I don't see any conflict in any of these verses.

Naphal
Feb 20th 2007, 01:32 AM
The conflict comes in trying to say eternal life is possessed literally now rather than when scripture says it shall be. No one but God has eternal life right now. Eternal life is granted at judgement time.

David Taylor
Feb 20th 2007, 04:06 PM
The conflict comes in trying to say eternal life is possessed literally now rather than when scripture says it shall be. No one but God has eternal life right now. Eternal life is granted at judgement time.

You're simply wrong Naphal.
A sinless glorified incorruptible body is given at judgment time.
The Spirit of a redeemed believer, however, gains eternal life in this present life.


It is only a promise to the lost, prior to it being given to them who repent and believe.

To the redeemed, it is a gift given, to last forevermore.

KJV John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life"
NIV John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life"
NAS John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life"



KJV John 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
NAS John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life"



KJV John 11:25 "he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

KJV John 6:54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life"

John146
Feb 20th 2007, 06:21 PM
These things speaks of the concept of having the promise of it. Literally eternal life is granted at judgement day and begins in the next world. We can't use some scriptures and deny others.


Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Eternal life comes in the world to come, not now. We can be written in the book of life now but that judgement is not made until judgement day.


Titus 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Titus 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

You are confusing eternal physical life with eternal spiritual life. We have eternal spiritual life now as Paul explained here:

11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. - 1 John 5:11-13

This is all written in present tense. The following passage confirms the concept that we have eternal spiritual life even now:

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. - John 5:24-25

Notice the present tense again in verse 24. It is speaking of passing from death to life as a current and ongoing reality. That can only be speaking of spiritual death and spiritual life. Then verse 25 clarifies it even sooner when it says the hour is coming, AND NOW IS (current reality), when the dead hear Jesus' voice and live. The following passage expands on this even further:

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: - Ephesians 2:4-6

This passage shows that before we are saved, we are dead in sins. Spiritually dead. But we are quickened (made spiritually alive) together with Christ when we are saved.

Naphal
Feb 21st 2007, 01:24 AM
You're simply wrong Naphal.
A sinless glorified incorruptible body is given at judgment time.
The Spirit of a redeemed believer, however, gains eternal life in this present life.



Ok but I say you are wrong on both counts. An incorruptible body has nothing to do with whether the body's owner can sin or not, its about whether it can get sick and decompose or not. Everyone gets this type of body when they die, not only at judgement day. What happens on judgement day is the body and soul of a person is allowed to live or not.




KJV John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life"
NIV John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life"
NAS John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life"



KJV John 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
NAS John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life"



KJV John 11:25 "he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

KJV John 6:54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life"


I believe these are being misunderstood. We must compare all relative scriptures in order to form a proper opinion on this subject. There are plenty of other scriptures that explain eternal life is not literally received in this life/world. What the above verses are speaking about is no different than a golf game when the person is so far in the lead that nothing he or anyone does can prevent him from winning so he has "won" the game even though technically he cannot officially win until the game is over.


You've taken a handful of verses and made a doctrine out of them when equal or more verses explain otherwise.

Naphal
Feb 21st 2007, 01:25 AM
You are confusing eternal physical life with eternal spiritual life. We have eternal spiritual life now as Paul explained here:

11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. - 1 John 5:11-13

This is all written in present tense. The following passage confirms the concept that we have eternal spiritual life even now:

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. - John 5:24-25

Notice the present tense again in verse 24. It is speaking of passing from death to life as a current and ongoing reality. That can only be speaking of spiritual death and spiritual life. Then verse 25 clarifies it even sooner when it says the hour is coming, AND NOW IS (current reality), when the dead hear Jesus' voice and live. The following passage expands on this even further:

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: - Ephesians 2:4-6

This passage shows that before we are saved, we are dead in sins. Spiritually dead. But we are quickened (made spiritually alive) together with Christ when we are saved.

The above post also addresses these same things.

Prophecy Man
Feb 21st 2007, 03:57 PM
This disscussion on eternal life is mind boggling. The scripture states that " believing in Jesus one is passed from death to life everlasting ".

Try and understand this --we are given eternal life now but it will realized later when Jesus sets up His kingdom. I in all of my thirty years as a born again believer have never discuissed when we have Eternal life.

What does it matter? I John states that we are passed from death to life and " this life is in the Son". If I die now I have His word I have eternal life but if I keep on living I have the same promise.

This is one of those arguments the bible warns us about not to get into.

PM

Prophecy Man
Feb 21st 2007, 04:29 PM
As I understand it all believers go to be with the Lord at death. ( to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord)

Try and understand this fact. The word says " the dead in Christ shall rise first " " then we which are alive remain shall be caught up to meet Him ".

It does not say " the dead in Christ shall desend first " . It says " rise".


Those who promote other wise is promoting a false hood.

What really is taking place is Our dead , mortal bodies will rise first then our already with Christ Spirit shall unite with our -- changed in a moment , in a twinkling of an eye bodies.

What follows is the verses that promotes a literal 1000 year reign of Christ.
It says the " lion will eat straw , the babe shall put His hand in the vipers den, and a sinner shall die at a hundred years of age.

In the 1000 years of Christ these three things will exist. Those that were caught up only to return with Christ , and those that made it through the " tribulation of those days and didn't recieve the mark will populate that 1000 years on earth. ". This is how a sinner will die at a hundred years of age and at the end of that time period Satan will be loosed from his prision and gather together people that have the ability to sin. They will be the ones that will be decieved into one last rebellion against God.

To teach otherwise one has to by pass the physicall regin of Christ completely and Just make it all spiritual. Jesus regining in our hearts is so flowery but the evidence of a physical regin is not there, it is even denied.


Pm

David Taylor
Feb 21st 2007, 07:19 PM
As I understand it all believers go to be with the Lord at death. ( to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord)

Try and understand this fact. The word says " the dead in Christ shall rise first " " then we which are alive remain shall be caught up to meet Him ".

It does not say " the dead in Christ shall desend first " . It says " rise".


Those who promote other wise is promoting a false hood.


Doug, noone is promoting a falsehood. Try understanding it a little better.

Here is an example.

Event Part 1. You die Monday 4/1/2007.

Your spirit goes to be with the Lord in Heaven.
Your body is buried into the ground on the Earth.
Event Part 2a. Tuesday 4/2/2007. The 2nd Advent starts.

Jesus descends from Heaven, bringing back with Him your spirit.
Jesus calls your dead body out of the grave, and it ascends to meet Him in the air, and is reunited with your Spirit that can with Him from Heaven.Event Part 2b. Tuesday 4/2/2007. The 2nd Advent continues.

Those who are alive and remain (on the Earth) are caught up with (those who have died and were just brought back(spirit) and raised(body) to meet Jesus first. Those who were still alive are then gathered 'with them' as Jesus descends.
All believers of all time are now united together with Christ, glorified, incorruptible, and immortal.This is exactly the analogy Paul gives us in 1 Thessalonians 4.








What really is taking place is Our dead , mortal bodies will rise first then our already with Christ Spirit shall unite with our -- changed in a moment , in a twinkling of an eye bodies.

Exactly. The Spirit descends with God from Heaven.
The dead Body is raised and ascends out of the grave up to meet Him FIRST.

Then those who are alive and remain are also gathered up to meet Him/Those who had died....everyone's now together with the Lord.

Naphal
Feb 21st 2007, 10:17 PM
Try and understand this --we are given eternal life now but it will realized later when Jesus sets up His kingdom.

And I think this is key. It isn't "realized" or in full force until the time of the Kingdom and that's what I have tried to show in this thread.

Prophecy Man
Feb 22nd 2007, 03:51 PM
Naphel,

I understood what you were saying. sometimes putting it in words is the problem. As I sit and think about the " mechanics " as to how something works even this is necessary scripturally. We could start to err if we do not consider how things work.

I used to be a Gymnast, and any time I tried a new move I had to understand the " mechanics " of it or I might wind up with a broken neck or worse a broken back. I saw plenty of guys do something wrong in a move and pay the price. I learned faith through Gymnastics, I had to have faith my coach knew what he was talking about. Also I had to trust my spotters, they keep a guy from getting hurt.

I remember the first time I ever did a double off the High bar. My landing would be on a hard mat not the soft sand I was used to at the beach. I had done plenty of doubles off the rings at the beach but a high bar and a hard floor was a bit scary. Then out of nowhere the person who had the reputation of " the best spotter " in southern California walked into our gym. Imeadiatly " Don " ( the best gymnast I have ever known) got excited and calling Danny to help him spot me. I looked at these two guys and I knew I would be standing on my feet if I threw a double off the high bar.

I had faith in these guys and they jumped up and down when I tried the double. I remember as I did a kip and a cast, I pushed away with my arms and chest and tucked and the rest is history. I popped out of my spin and these guys caught me on the way down. I was elated!

I had to know the right mechanics as a baseball umpire or I would not see a play correctly and then I would eat it when a coach would chew me out " for being out of position". I did not have anything to say if it were true and I cost a team an important call. The is why I went to " umpire school " . I wanted to know the rules and the how toos.

David,
the Mecanics we agree on is the only way it can happen when the Lord comes. WE just dissagree on when not how. I have good reason to believe there is yet one more week of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy.

Do you know there were four decrees from more than one ruler in Bablyon after Daniel was given His revelation of the 70 weeks. If so which one fits the prophecy best?

Doug

David Taylor
Feb 22nd 2007, 04:15 PM
I have good reason to believe there is yet one more week of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy.

Do you know there were four decrees from more than one ruler in Bablyon after Daniel was given His revelation of the 70 weeks. If so which one fits the prophecy best?

Doug

It's very simple.
Jesus was cut off in the midst of the last, 70th week.

"After the 69th means 'within' the 70th".

Jesus fulfilled all of Gabriel's 70 week prophecy during the literal and natural timespan given to us in the prophecy.

Jesus death, not some mythical endtime badguy, "in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease".

The demarker of Daniel 9 is not to argue over which decree initiated it, but rather, when was Jesus cut off, and the passage says after the 69th week of the 70th weeks prophecy....placing His death within the final 70th week.

Jesus Admirer
Feb 22nd 2007, 05:39 PM
It's very simple.
Jesus was cut off in the midst of the last, 70th week.

"After the 69th means 'within' the 70th".

Jesus fulfilled all of Gabriel's 70 week prophecy during the literal and natural timespan given to us in the prophecy.

Jesus death, not some mythical endtime badguy, "in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease".

The demarker of Daniel 9 is not to argue over which decree initiated it, but rather, when was Jesus cut off, and the passage says after the 69th week of the 70th weeks prophecy....placing His death within the final 70th week.


I'm well aware of your theory, which has been taught by the Seventh Day Adventists, but I just have one problem with it. If you look at Daniel 9:26 below, then you will see that it says the people of the prince shall come and destroy the temple, which preceeds the sacrifice being ceased in verse 27.

So it's actually referring to a different prince than Jesus Christ, and there was about 40 years between the Time Jesus was crucified and when the temple was destroyed in about 70 A.D. Which mans at least 40 years had already passed before this other prince caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. So at least 40 years pass between the time the Messiah is cut off in verse 26 until this other prince destroys the temple in verse 26. It's that 40 year gap which puts about 40 holes in your theory.

Yet! Some could say the the sacrifice and oblation ceased when the temple was destroyed, so we better get this right, because some are calling this other prince in vese 27 of the devil, while others believe it was Jesus Christ himself.

That's what makes verse 27 so contovesal and important to get right. I believe verse 27 is talking about another prince other than Jesus Christ, because it says the people of this prince shall destroy the temple.

I really don't think the people of Jesus Christ would destroy the temple, but I do believe the devil's people would destroy it. So I believe this other prince is someone other than Jesus Christ. (See scripture below!)

Daniel 9:25 *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.
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.

David Taylor
Feb 22nd 2007, 06:07 PM
I'm well aware of your theory, which has been taught by the Seventh Day Adventists


Nice try at guilt by association.

Unfortunately, the historical and natural application (non-future 70th week) of Daniel's 70th week did not originate with the Seventh Day Adventists, and has been held by the majority of Christondome throughout the New Testament era prior to the 19th century.








, but I just have one problem with it. If you look at Daniel 9:26 below, then you will see that it says the people of the prince shall come and destroy the temple, which preceeds the sacrifice being ceased in verse 27.


No problem, at all. 26b is nothing more than an additional tidbit of info that was recorded, to supplement the main point being given; that Messiah the prince would be cut off, and that his death in the 70th week (after the 69th) would cause sacrifice and offering to cease forevermore.

If you recognize 26b as a parenthetical insert, then 27 continues where 26 a left off, there is no misunderstanding or problem.

26b itself, becomes a result of Messiah the princes death to stop the sacrifice and offering, and to begin the covenant with the many, shed in His blood.





So it's actually referring to a different prince than Jesus Christ,
26b breaks the present flow of the prophecy to give an extra note of info, before returning back to discussing the accomplishment of Messiah the princes sacrifice in verse 27, concluding the prophecy.





and there was about 40 years between the Time Jesus was crucified and when the temple was destroyed in about 70 A.D. Which mans at least 40 years had already passed before this other prince caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. So at least 40 years pass between the time the Messiah is cut off in verse 26 until this other prince destroys the temple in verse 26. It's that 40 year gap which puts about 40 holes in your theory.

I don't have a 40 years theory...you brought that dog into the hunt.

I see a 70 weeks prophecy that is natural, consistent, and in harmony with itself.

week 2 is consistent and in continuation from week 1.
week 28 is consistent and in continuation from week 27.
week 69 is consistent and in continuation from week 68.
and.....
week 70 is consistent and in continuation from week 69.

No unnatural breaks, inserts, gaps, or manipulations.





Yet! Some could say the the sacrifice and oblation ceased when the temple was destroyed, so we better get this right, because some are calling this other prince in vese 27 of the devil, while others believe it was Jesus Christ himself.
I'll line up with the Jesus Christ guys for verse 27, because Jesus Christ, when He was cut off in the 70th week, ended the sacrifice and offering forevermore....thus fulfilling the prequirements mentioned in 9:24 that started the prophecy.




That's what makes verse 27 so contovesal and important to get right. I believe verse 27 is talking about another prince other than Jesus Christ, because it says the people of this prince shall destroy the temple.

And alot of folks since the 19th century have also made this misapplication of verse 27, because they have been taught to apply it to an endtime person with a supposed 2000 year gap interjected between week 69 and week 70; .....even though we are told Messiah the prince is cut off 'within the 70th week'....(cut off after the 7 and the 62 means after the 69th week---which puts his death right smack-dab in the midst of the final 70th week).





I really don't think the people of Jesus Christ would destroy the temple, but I do believe the devil's people would destroy it. So I believe this other prince is someone other than Jesus Christ. (See scripture below!)


No Jesus destroyed the sacrifice and offering, and if you really want to get down to it, destroyed the very temple of His body as symbolized by the ripping of the veil upon His sacrificial death.

The 26b addendum is simply noting the fulfillment of the future razing of the temple building that Jesus also foretold in Matthew 23 and 24.

The NT mentions Jesus confirming the covenant with the many...never Satan. I can accept that.




Daniel 9:25 *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 (which means within the 70th week) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

(start 2nd parenthetical prophecy about the destruction of the temple: "THis house shall be left desolate, not one stone upon another")
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.

(return back to the original primary prophecy, concerning Messiah the prince and what his death in the 70th week accomplishes)
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.

Much more natural of a reading of the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, and much more inharmony with the NT scriptures that quote from this passage, and apply it to Jesus' accomplishments in the 1st century....(as opposed to popularly taught modern alternative interpretations).

Jesus Admirer
Feb 22nd 2007, 06:44 PM
Nice try at guilt by association.

Unfortunately, the historical and natural application (non-future 70th week) of Daniel's 70th week did not originate with the Seventh Day Adventists, and has been held by the majority of Christondome throughout the New Testament era prior to the 19th century.








No problem, at all. 26b is nothing more than an additional tidbit of info that was recorded, to supplement the main point being given; that Messiah the prince would be cut off, and that his death in the 70th week (after the 69th) would cause sacrifice and offering to cease forevermore.

If you recognize 26b as a parenthetical insert, then 27 continues where 26 a left off, there is no misunderstanding or problem.

26b itself, becomes a result of Messiah the princes death to stop the sacrifice and offering, and to begin the covenant with the many, shed in His blood.




26b breaks the present flow of the prophecy to give an extra note of info, before returning back to discussing the accomplishment of Messiah the princes sacrifice in verse 27, concluding the prophecy.




I don't have a 40 years theory...you brought that dog into the hunt.

I see a 70 weeks prophecy that is natural, consistent, and in harmony with itself.

week 2 is consistent and in continuation from week 1.
week 28 is consistent and in continuation from week 27.
week 69 is consistent and in continuation from week 68.
and.....
week 70 is consistent and in continuation from week 69.

No unnatural breaks, inserts, gaps, or manipulations.




I'll line up with the Jesus Christ guys for verse 27, because Jesus Christ, when He was cut off in the 70th week, ended the sacrifice and offering forevermore....thus fulfilling the prequirements mentioned in 9:24 that started the prophecy.




And alot of folks since the 19th century have also made this misapplication of verse 27, because they have been taught to apply it to an endtime person with a supposed 2000 year gap interjected between week 69 and week 70; .....even though we are told Messiah the prince is cut off 'within the 70th week'....(cut off after the 7 and the 62 means after the 69th week---which puts his death right smack-dab in the midst of the final 70th week).





No Jesus destroyed the sacrifice and offering, and if you really want to get down to it, destroyed the very temple of His body as symbolized by the ripping of the veil upon His sacrificial death.

The 26b addendum is simply noting the fulfillment of the future razing of the temple building that Jesus also foretold in Matthew 23 and 24.

The NT mentions Jesus confirming the covenant with the many...never Satan. I can accept that.




Daniel 9:25 *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 (which means within the 70th week) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

(start 2nd parenthetical prophecy about the destruction of the temple: "THis house shall be left desolate, not one stone upon another")
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.

(return back to the original primary prophecy, concerning Messiah the prince and what his death in the 70th week accomplishes)
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.

Much more natural of a reading of the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, and much more inharmony with the NT scriptures that quote from this passage, and apply it to Jesus' accomplishments in the 1st century....(as opposed to popularly taught modern alternative interpretations).


If Daniel 9:26b is omissible, and it really isn't part of the original text, then your theory is plausible. Yet! Some Prophecy Preachers such as Jack Van Impe will place the end of the 69th week at the time Jesus road into Jerusalem on a donkey, whereas your theory puts it ending at His baptism, etc.

So was it His baptism or His triumphal entry into Jerusalem? This could be important to determining between your theory of the seventh week taking place immediately after the 69th, or the typical now-a-days theory of the 7oth week taking place at the end of time.

Thanks for the input information! I'm still working on this anyway, and I really do want to get it right! No Christian wants to call Jesus Christ the devil or the devil Jesus Christ, so we must get Daniel 9:27 right!

Here's Daniel 9:26b which is in question! Again! If it is omissible, then your theory is plausible, but is it all omissible, or just a word or two in it? I do ThankYou for bringing that to my attention, because it could make a big difference.

Questionable Daniel 9:26b-->Daniel 9:26b:........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

John146
Feb 22nd 2007, 07:09 PM
I'm well aware of your theory, which has been taught by the Seventh Day Adventists, but I just have one problem with it. If you look at Daniel 9:26 below, then you will see that it says the people of the prince shall come and destroy the temple, which preceeds the sacrifice being ceased in verse 27.

So it's actually referring to a different prince than Jesus Christ, and there was about 40 years between the Time Jesus was crucified and when the temple was destroyed in about 70 A.D. Which mans at least 40 years had already passed before this other prince caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. So at least 40 years pass between the time the Messiah is cut off in verse 26 until this other prince destroys the temple in verse 26. It's that 40 year gap which puts about 40 holes in your theory.

Yet! Some could say the the sacrifice and oblation ceased when the temple was destroyed, so we better get this right, because some are calling this other prince in vese 27 of the devil, while others believe it was Jesus Christ himself.

That's what makes verse 27 so contovesal and important to get right. I believe verse 27 is talking about another prince other than Jesus Christ, because it says the people of this prince shall destroy the temple.

Stop right there. Who destroys the temple? The prince of the people? No. It's the people of the prince. The subject is focused on THE PEOPLE. So, how do you figure that the "he" of verse 27 is speaking of the prince of the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary (which I take to be referring to the Roman armies destroying Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD)? No, the "he" of verse 27 is the Messiah, who was the last individual who was specifically focused on in verse 26. Verse 26 says that the Messiah could be cut off AFTER the 69 weeks. Wouldn't that mean He is cut off within the 70th week? Makes sense to me.

The rest of verse 26 explains the consequences of the Messiah being rejected and cut off (crucified). The fact that those consequences were fully realized almost 40 years later doesn't mean that verse 27 must be speaking of something that occurs sometime after 70 AD. As David Taylor already pointed out, I believe the last part of verse 26 is a parenthetical statement that explains what happens as a result of the Messiah being cut off. Whether it happened 40 years later or 400 doesn't really make much of a difference. Therefore verse 27 is a continuation of the main subject of verse 26, which is the Messiah. He (the Messiah) would confirm a previously declared covenant for one week. The key word there is "confirm". This implies that the covenant had already been declared before that time. Indeed, God spoke of the new covenant well before the time that Jesus the Messiah came to confirm it. So, the covenant doesn't last 7 years, it takes 7 years to confirm it. In other words, it would take Him one week to confirm the covenant. What covenant would that be? The new covenant. In the middle of the 70th week, Jesus was crucified and was resurrected, thereby causing the need for any more sacrifices and offerings to cease because He made the once and for all sacrifice and offering for sin. It just so happens that Jesus' ministry on earth was 3.5 years, which is no coincidence.

Romulus
Feb 22nd 2007, 07:09 PM
No problem, at all. 26b is nothing more than an additional tidbit of info that was recorded, to supplement the main point being given; that Messiah the prince would be cut off, and that his death in the 70th week (after the 69th) would cause sacrifice and offering to cease forevermore.


Well done. There also is no time element given for the verses referencing the destruction of the temple. Every other fulfillment is given with the term week. That is where the correct application of the prophecy to the time frame of 70 weeks must be attached. The references to 70 A.D. and the abomination of desolations were fulfilled in a generation but it is not included within the prophecy of the 70 weeks (490 years).



26b breaks the present flow of the prophecy to give an extra note of info, before returning back to discussing the accomplishment of Messiah the princes sacrifice in verse 27, concluding the prophecy.



Correct. No time frame given. The term week is not used.



And alot of folks since the 19th century have also made this misapplication of verse 27, because they have been taught to apply it to an endtime person with a supposed 2000 year gap interjected between week 69 and week 70; .....even though we are told Messiah the prince is cut off 'within the 70th week'....(cut off after the 7 and the 62 means after the 69th week---which puts his death right smack-dab in the midst of the final 70th week).



Exactly. Any supposed gap, even 40 years destroys the prophecy. There is nothing to warrant a gap. If there is, how could we in all conscience call this the prophecy of the seventy sevens (or 70 weeks).




The NT mentions Jesus confirming the covenant with the many...never Satan. I can accept that.



I want to know if anybody has an explanation. If the antichrist or beast is referenced here what covenant does he confirm? Making a covenant with Israel is NOT confirming an existing one. Confirming must mean fulfilling an Old Covenant. Only Jesus did this.

Jesus Admirer
Feb 22nd 2007, 07:41 PM
Gee! I just noticed this phrase in Daniel 9:27 "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate"

That might be very important, because it says he shall make abominations desolate, which is what Jesus Christ will do, or has done! So verse 27 could be talking about Jesus Christ, because I don't believe Satan wants to make abominatons desolate. (He's the father of abominations.)

So perhaps the seventhieth week was being fulfilled during the ministry of Jesus. I'm not through studying with this topic, because I think it's important to get it right as I said before.

third hero
Feb 22nd 2007, 08:00 PM
week 2 is consistent and in continuation from week 1.
week 28 is consistent and in continuation from week 27.
week 69 is consistent and in continuation from week 68.
and.....
week 70 is consistent and in continuation from week 69.

No unnatural breaks, inserts, gaps, or manipulations.



One little problem with that idea. the seventieth week, in order for that to happen immediately after the 69th week, the destruction of the temple and the ceasing of the sacrifices had to have happened at 40AD, which is seven years after the death of the Lord, which marks the end of the 69 weeks.

7 years does not equal 40 years.

However, to the amil, 7 years does equal 40, because that's how long it took for the temple and the city to be destroyed.

So, because 40 years does not equal 7, then there was a break, which means that your view is flawed, because history makes the claim that there was a break in between the death of the Lord and the ceasing of the sacrifices.

But, according to Paul, the abomination that causes desolation is the point when the the son of perdition, the man of sin, goes into the temple and declares himself to be God, which has not happened. Tidus did not step foot into the temple, nor did he declare himself to be God, so therefore the break is longer than even History tells the amil. In other words, the destruction of the city and the temple are part of the break, which had to occur after the death of the Lord, and the period of the seventieth week has not happened yet, especially since the goal of the seventieth week is to csause all Israel to come to Him, just as we have.

Romulus
Feb 22nd 2007, 08:13 PM
But, according to Paul, the abomination that causes desolation is the point when the the son of perdition, the man of sin, goes into the temple and declares himself to be God, which has not happened. Tidus did not step foot into the temple, nor did he declare himself to be God, so therefore the break is longer than even History tells the amil. In other words, the destruction of the city and the temple are part of the break, which had to occur after the death of the Lord, and the period of the seventieth week has not happened yet, especially since the goal of the seventieth week is to csause all Israel to come to Him, just as we have.


This is assuming that the abomination that causes desolation involves the man of sin.....it doesn't. The abomination were the Roman armies that surrounded Jerusalem before it's destruction. The man of Sin(or lawlessness, perdition) was a different figure. Simply comparing Matthew 24 and Luke 21 we get the correct identity:

Matthew 24 (written to Jews)

15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Luke 21 (written to gentiles)

20And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21Then let them which are in Judaea 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.

Scripture is clear as to the same event using different language for a different audience in the 1st century.

Mograce2U
Feb 22nd 2007, 08:23 PM
I want to know if anybody has an explanation. If the antichrist or beast is referenced here what covenant does he confirm? .
:pp ooh ooh - I know!
If we look AT ISRAEL in the flesh today, we can see that they are in sorry need of a PEACE TREATY with the Muslim terrorists within their borders. So it must be that Antichrist is going to bring them peace - albeit short lived - by establishing this treaty, aka covenant. Course I don't have any scripture for this except Daniel, but that must be it because it is what Israel wants (since they rejected the true peace that Jesus their Messiah brought to them 2000 yrs ago). Israel is therefore marked out for this great deception that God is sending the devil to deliver to them, all so that God can punish them AGAIN for killing their Messiah before He turns them to belief and faith.

But this is the beauty of God's plan, for after they have suffered at the hands of the devil and his horde of demon locusts, then they will turn as a nation to faith in Jesus Christ just in time for His return. They will do this only after all the Christians who could deliver the gospel to them will be gone in the rapture. Because after hearing millions of Christian testimonies which many have rejected over the millenia, God will send 2 prophets to preach the gospel to them who are able to do miracles. Although the false prophet will force many to take the mark of the beast before he kills these prophets, yet they will be resurrected before their very eyes providing a great sign for them. And then a great earthquake kills 7,000 men when 1/10th of the city falls. Then the wrath of God from the vials comes upon those with the mark, and just as Christ appears in the clouds - THEN they will believe and be saved. Well, that is, the ones who are still alive. But they will not be raptured at this time, instead they become the populaton for the 1,000 year kingdom that God promised them. Then after living under Jesus' rule & the OT sacrificial system for 1000 years in perfect obedience and peace, their children will rebel and be killed when Satan is released to deceive them. Whew, I tried to be brief.

Makes you want to move to Israel and evangelize them with this message doesn't it? Or it may make you want to reconsider this miserable interpretation and look instead to see what Jesus is revealing about Himself which Daniel was given and John confirmed.

Romulus
Feb 22nd 2007, 08:55 PM
:pp ooh ooh - I know!

If we look AT ISRAEL in the flesh today, we can see that they are in sorry need of a PEACE TREATY with the Muslim terrorists within their borders. So it must be that Antichrist is going to bring them peace - albeit short lived - by establishing this treaty, aka covenant.

Establishing is not Confirming a covenant.




Course I don't have any scripture for this except Daniel, but that must be it because it is what Israel wants (since they rejected the true peace that Jesus their Messiah brought to them 2000 yrs ago). Israel is therefore marked out for this great deception that God is sending the devil to deliver to them, all so that God can punish them AGAIN for killing their Messiah before He turns them to belief and faith.


Jews today are NOT guilty of crucifying Christ. Only 1st century Israel was. Remember the "sins of the fathers........" . They may be guilty of rejecting Him today as anyone else but are NOT guilty of the acts of 1st century Israel. It was that generation.


Makes you want to move to Israel and evangelize them with this message doesn't it?

We should want to evangelize them and every other nation, regardless. The Great Commission did not center in on Israel but every nation.



Or it may make you want to reconsider this miserable interpretation and look instead to see what Jesus is revealing about Himself which Daniel was given and John confirmed.


This miserable interpretation is the only one that does not ignore the audience it was written to and the time frame God himself gave. Can we trust God at His Word when He says within 490 years (70 weeks) all would be accomplished? If we can't then maybe creation didn't take 6 days like He said, or when Christ said, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand......". It wasn't. God is speaking to his Children. He is not writing to himself. He means what He says.

It would have been a huge letdown if you were in the time of Jesus and the prophecy was about to come true and suddenly......WHAM 2000+ years is meant and not when God said so. We must trust what is written.

God Bless

Jesus Admirer
Feb 22nd 2007, 09:04 PM
I think I'm going to sit back and just observe this thread, because I'm really in a learning mood regarding Daniel 9:27. I have thought about it much in the last 10 years, but I never really seen it debated, with both sides giving imput, so I will be watching closely!

I want to Thank all of you for your comments here, because I have really struggled with Daniel 9:27 through the years, so this will be education time for me regarding Daniel 9:27. (I see both points of view, so I'm stuck inbetween!)

David Taylor
Feb 22nd 2007, 09:16 PM
Yet! Some Prophecy Preachers such as Jack Van Impe will place the end of the 69th week at the time Jesus road into Jerusalem on a donkey, whereas your theory puts it ending at His baptism, etc.



Actually, I am not really trying to place specifically Jesus at any location or time, other than being crucified 'in the midst' of the 70th week, which is the natural reading of Daniel 9:25-27.

I don't think I tried to get down into the nitty-gritty of exactly when the 69th week ended and the 70th began in relation to what Jesus was doing....

I'm just accepting that Jesus was cut off in the midst of the 70th week somewhere within it, as the text naturally says.





Here's Daniel 9:26b which is in question! Again! If it is omissible, then your theory is plausible, but is it all omissible, or just a word or two in it? I do ThankYou for bringing that to my attention, because it could make a big difference.


I really wouldn't use the term 'omissible' to 26b.

Here is an analogy.

I'm going to Six Flags next Sunday. I will ride the roller coasters, and I will bump the bumper cars. Did you know they plan to add a new rollercoaster next summer? I will be staying at the PeachTree Hotel, and my tickets will cost $29.

Notice how the 3rd sentence did a slight diversion away from the main point of the paragraph (my trip next Sunday), but how my explanation was easily gotten back on track, and the extra tidbit of info didn't harm the paragraph, nor did it force us to assume the last paragraph isn't suppose to occur until next Summer instead of this Sunday.

Same thing....if you can look at it from that perspective.

Here are some other good NT verses that help properly place 9:27 at Christ's death.

Hebrews 9:20 "Then he said, 'This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.'"

Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ"

Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many"

Hebrews 10:2 "For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever..For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 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! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, 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."

John146
Feb 22nd 2007, 09:45 PM
Actually, I am not really trying to place specifically Jesus at any location or time, other than being crucified 'in the midst' of the 70th week, which is the natural reading of Daniel 9:25-27.

I don't think I tried to get down into the nitty-gritty of exactly when the 69th week ended and the 70th began in relation to what Jesus was doing....

I'm just accepting that Jesus was cut off in the midst of the 70th week somewhere within it, as the text naturally says.





I really wouldn't use the term 'omissible' to 26b.

Here is an analogy.

I'm going to Six Flags next Sunday. I will ride the roller coasters, and I will bump the bumper cars. Did you know they plan to add a new rollercoaster next summer? I will be staying at the PeachTree Hotel, and my tickets will cost $29.

Notice how the 3rd sentence did a slight diversion away from the main point of the paragraph (my trip next Sunday), but how my explanation was easily gotten back on track, and the extra tidbit of info didn't harm the paragraph, nor did it force us to assume the last paragraph isn't suppose to occur until next Summer instead of this Sunday.

Same thing....if you can look at it from that perspective.

Here are some other good NT verses that help properly place 9:27 at Christ's death.

Hebrews 9:20 "Then he said, 'This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.'"

Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ"

Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many"

Hebrews 10:2 "For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever..For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 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! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, 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."

Great post, David. You came up with a good analogy that helps in understanding the flow of Daniel 9:26-27. What I'd like to do now is to show that we have to be careful in how we interpret the passage. I believe premils make the mistake of replacing Christ in verse 27 with antichrist! Wow, what a difference in interpretation! Here is a passage, that if it were interpreted the way that some insist on interpreting Daniel 9:26-27, would not make any sense whatsoever.

8And 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:
9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, - 2 Thess 2:8-9

Look at verse 8. It ends with the phrase "his coming" which we should understand as referring to the coming of Christ since Christ consumes "that Wicked" with the spirit of his mouth and destroys that Wicked with the brightness of His coming. Then the next verse says "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan". So, by using the method of those who believe Daniel 9:27 is speaking of antichrist, we would conclude that the "him" of 2 Thess 2:9 is speaking of Christ. :eek: That would mean that Christ comes after the working of Satan! :eek: Of course, we know that is not the case. We know that "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan" is referring to "that Wicked" and not to Christ. We know that by keeping everything in context, which is what we should do when interpreting Daniel 9:26-27 as well.

Jesus Admirer
Feb 22nd 2007, 10:46 PM
Actually, I am not really trying to place specifically Jesus at any location or time, other than being crucified 'in the midst' of the 70th week, which is the natural reading of Daniel 9:25-27.

I don't think I tried to get down into the nitty-gritty of exactly when the 69th week ended and the 70th began in relation to what Jesus was doing....

I'm just accepting that Jesus was cut off in the midst of the 70th week somewhere within it, as the text naturally says.
[/COLOR]


O.K. The reason I asked, is because Seventh Day Adventists say the 70th week started at the Baptism of Jesus, which also started his ministry, and then he was crucified 31/2 years into his ministry. (Middle of a seven year prophetic week.)

But if we say the 69th week ended at the Triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, then that would mean the the 70th week couldn't start until the passover week in which he was crucified. (It would poke a hole in your theory.) Because there would be a 31/2 year difference in timing between his baptism and his entry into Jerusalem on a donkey. (Palm Sunday)

If we start calculating years from the time the order to rebuild Jerusalem was given, and just add on 483 years, then we can probably calculate to the day, when the 69th week ended.

The problem is: Different Historians give different dates as to when the order to rebuild Jerusalem was, but Jack Van Impe has it calulated right down to Palm Sunday, when Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey. If he is right then it would spoil your theory of the 70th week starting when Jesus started his ministry.

You see! If Jesus was crucified in the middle of the 70th week, then the beginning of that week had to start 31/2 years before he was crucified. (Time of his baptism!)

That's why I asked you, because it makes a difference. But I'm still observing here, and I won't be dogmatic about anything, because I really do want to get Daniel 9:27 right! (Very Important!)

I'll be observing various interpretations of Daniel 9:26 too, because that too makes a big difference, and I just can't conclude anything yet, until I have thoroughly considered both sides of the debate.

But when that 69th week ended, can be just as important as when the 70th week begins or began, when interpreting Daniel 9:27. I will say your theory seems plausible, but so does the other at this point. I'm not completely convince that the 40 year gap doesn't occur between the 69th and the 70th.

I also noticed that the 70th weeks are divided into groups. 7 + 62+ 1 more. Why the division between the 69th and 70th. Yes! It could mean 69 up until the Messiah comes, so your theory is still plausible.

But what does it mean when the Messiah comes? (His Baptism or Palm Sunday?) It would have to mean his Baptism for your theory to be correct, andthat's probably why the Seventh Day Adventists put it at his baptism.

But if Jack Van Impe is right about it starting Palm Sunday, then your theory about the 70th week starting with Jesus needs some more explaining, because we can't get 31/2 years between Palm Sunday and the crucifixion. Perhaps 31/2 days, but not 31/2 years.

I will continue to observe here, and hopefully there will be more input from both sides of the debate. I hope one or the other will help settle it once and for all, because Daniel 9:27 is either Jesus Christ or the antichrist, and if we have Christians preaching both, then someone is preaching blasphemy, and that's why it's so important to get this one right!

David Taylor
Feb 22nd 2007, 11:16 PM
O.K. The reason I asked, is because Seventh Day Adventists say the 70th week started at the Baptism of Jesus, which also started his ministry, and then he was crucified 31/2 years into his ministry. (Middle of a seven year prophetic week.)

But if we say the 69th week ended at the Triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, then that would mean the the 70th week couldn't start until the passover week in which he was crucified. (It would poke a hole in your theory.) Because there would be a 31/2 year difference in timing between his baptism and his entry into Jerusalem on a donkey. (Palm Sunday)


I didn't say the 70th week started with Jesus' ministry.
I didn't say the 70th week started at the Triumphant entry.

Listen carefully JA....I didn't say specifically when the 70th week started....other than the most natural starting point is adjacent to and immediately following week 69 like all of the other weeks did (without unstated gaps between any of them).

(And I don't really care what Jack Van Impe's theory is, or SDA's either).
Rather...what does the text itself say?

What I did say, is that the text of Daniel 9:24-27 shows that Jesus was cut off 'in the midst' (which doesn't mean extactly middle either), of the 70th week.

After the (7 + 62) 69th means....within the 70th.

Gabriel wasn't giving out a 71 week prophecy.
Gabriel wasn't giving out a 72 week prophecy.
Gabriel wasn't giving out a 348 week prophecy.

No, Gabriel gave Daniel a 70 week prophecy, and it says Messiah the Prince would be 'cut off", 'after' the 7-62 weeks, which places His crucifixion somewhere 'in the midst' of the final week of the prophecy.

John146
Feb 22nd 2007, 11:23 PM
O.K. The reason I asked, is because Seventh Day Adventists say the 70th week started at the Baptism of Jesus, which also started his ministry, and then he was crucified 31/2 years into his ministry. (Middle of a seven year prophetic week.)

I think there are several problems with Seventh Day Adventism. But their interpretation of Daniel's 70-week prophecy is not one of them. Their view on this particular prophecy is not unique to them, unlike some of their other teachings.



But if we say the 69th week ended at the Triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, then that would mean the the 70th week couldn't start until the passover week in which he was crucified. (It would poke a hole in your theory.) Because there would be a 31/2 year difference in timing between his baptism and his entry into Jerusalem on a donkey. (Palm Sunday)

If we start calculating years from the time the order to rebuild Jerusalem was given, and just add on 483 years, then we can probably calculate to the day, when the 69th week ended.

The problem is: Different Historians give different dates as to when the order to rebuild Jerusalem was, but Jack Van Impe has it calulated right down to Palm Sunday, when Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey. If he is right then it would spoil your theory of the 70th week starting when Jesus started his ministry.

Jack Van Impe is a pre-trib dispensationalist. Is that the view that you hold? If not, do you think it's wise to think that he has this right?

Jesus Admirer
Feb 23rd 2007, 12:22 AM
I didn't say the 70th week started with Jesus' ministry.
I didn't say the 70th week started at the Triumphant entry.

I didn't say you did. I said The Seventh Day Adventists and Jack Vam Impe had their theories about it. That's why I asked for yours.





Listen carefully JA....I didn't say specifically when the 70th week started....other than the most natural starting point is adjacent to and immediately following week 69 like all of the other weeks did (without unstated gaps between any of them).

Your statement here has logic to it, and is very plausible. I stated that! Didn't I?




(And I don't really care what Jack Van Impe's theory is, or SDA's either).
Rather...what does the text itself say?

I do care what they think! Scripture is of no private interpretation. Jack Van Impe is very knowledgeable about scriptures, and he probably is more aware of the building blocks of your theory than you are. Yet he still disgrees with it.

Both him and SDA completely disgree with each other! Both have reason! Both are quite aware of your theory! Both can give much input to this topic! So I will consider what both have to say including you! But I don't swallow anything, until I chew on it for a while.)



What I did say, is that the text of Daniel 9:24-27 shows that Jesus was cut off 'in the midst' (which doesn't mean extactly middle either), of the 70th week.

After the (7 + 62) 69th means....within the 70th.

Gabriel wasn't giving out a 71 week prophecy.
Gabriel wasn't giving out a 72 week prophecy.
Gabriel wasn't giving out a 348 week prophecy.

No, Gabriel gave Daniel a 70 week prophecy, and it says Messiah the Prince would be 'cut off", 'after' the 7-62 weeks, which places His crucifixion somewhere 'in the midst' of the final week of the prophecy.

Then you do place the 70th week at the time of Jesus. There's an old saying that hind-sight is 20/20. So some believe we can undestand Daniel 9:27 better, if we go forward to determine the exact time of prophecy, and then looking back on it.

Example! Looking at the cross itself helps understand Isaiah 53 better! But there wouldn't be much understanding of Isaiah 53 without the cross. That's why most Jews don't understand it now, because they reject Jesus and the cross.

So we can understand Daniel 9:25-27 better, if we can pin point exactly when the 69th week ended. Some would interpret midst as meaning middle, whether you do are not. It's also still plausible for the 70th week to take place during the crucifixion, if we do interpret midst as middle.

Bottom Line: Others have theories about this! Not just you! So I will mention what others believe as well. Because I want as much information as I can get about this. (Not just your input alone!)

Quite Honestly! I disgree with Jack Van Impe about the timing of the rapture. But it doesn't mean Jack Van Impe is wrong about everything. He has taught me much, which I wouldn't have known without him.

His theories about the timing when the 483 years ended on palm Sunday are 100% mathematically possible and plausible as well. You would do well to study some of his input, whether you agree with him about everything or not. (I do! And I don't agree with him about everything.)

Has it ever occurred to you that each sect might have a piece of the thruth, and neither will ever arrive at the whole truth if all ignore each other?

John146
Feb 23rd 2007, 12:28 AM
I didn't say you did. I said The Seventh Day Adventists and Jack Vam Impe had their theories about it. That's why I asked for yours.






Your statement here has logic to it, and is very plausible. I stated that! Didn't I?



I do care what they think! Scripture is of no private interpretation. Jack Van Impe is very knowledgeable about scriptures, and he probably is more aware of the building blocks of your theory than you are. Yet he still disgrees with it.

Both him and SDA completely disgree with each other! Both have reason! Both are quite aware of your theory! Both can give much input to this topic! So I will consider what both have to say including you! But I don't swallow anything, until I chew on it for a while.)




Then you do place the 70th week at the time of Jesus. There's an old saying that hind-sight is 20/20. So some believe we can undestand Daniel 9:27 better, if we go forward to determine the exact time of prophecy, and then looking back on it.

Example! Looking at the cross itself helps understand Isaiah 53 better! But there wouldn't be much understanding of Isaiah 53 without the cross. That's why most Jews don't understand it now, because they reject Jesus and the cross.

So we can understand Daniel 9:25-27 better, if we can pin point exactly when the 69th week ended. Some would interpret midst as meaning middle, whether you do are not. It's also still plausible for the 70th week to take place during the crucifixion, if we do interpret midst as middle.

Bottom Line: Others have theories about this! Not just you! So I will mention what others believe as well. Because I want as much information as I can get about this. (Not just your input alone!)

Quite Honestly! I disgree with Jack Van Impe about the timing of the rapture. But it doesn't mean Jack Van Impe is wrong about everything. He has taught me much, which I wouldn't have known without him.

His theories about the timing when the 483 years ended on palm Sunday are 100% mathematically possible and plausible as well. You would do well to study some of his input, whether you agree with him about everything or not. (I do! And I don't agree with him about everything.)

Has it ever occurred to you that each sect might have a piece of the thruth, and neither will ever arrive at the whole truth if all ignore each other?

How about Daniel 9:24? Everything listed in that verse was to be completed within the 70 weeks. I believe I can show that those things were fulfilled with the ministry, death and resurrrection of Christ. I don't have time to do it now, but a couple of the passages that I use in doing so include Isaiah 53 and Hebrews 8-10.

Mograce2U
Feb 23rd 2007, 03:02 AM
Jesus Admirer,
I just want to throw in my 2 cents here. Dan 9:25 says from the time that the command went forth to build Jersalem. This puts the count beginning with Nehemiah and not Ezra, who was sent to build the temple. The temple restoration was stopped and then restarted. Cyrus gave the command first then Artaxeres stopped it, then Darius researched what Cyrus had ordered and started it up again. Some 20 yrs later Artexeres gives Nehemiah the permission to rebuild the city. Darius' command is given in the 2nd year of his reign. The interesting thing to note here is that Daniel receives this prophecy during the 1st yr of his reign. So Daniel receives this info before the temple restoration is resumed and before the order to rebuild the city is given. But where ever you begin counting, the 70 yrs is definitely continuous. The chapters we have in the book of Daniel are not in order chronologically which adds a bit of confusion already. It may be (IMO) Daniel didn't write it down until he saw the prophecy in play and realized it had begun when Darius gave the command for the temple.

Another interesting tidbit is that in Dan 9:24, the last thing the 70 weeks is to accomplish is to "anoint the most holy". Some say that since Messiah means "the anointed" that it is Jesus' anointing that is in view. However, the most holy place is in the holiest of holies - it is the mercy seat itself, where God appeared to meet with the people. It was anointed with the blood of the sacrifices - in this case with Jesus' own blood. I think this puts the cross right in the middle of the 70th week as the text says and puts a stop to the need for further sacrifice. God the Father anointed Jesus Himself at His baptism when the dove/Holy Spirit came on Him. This is when the new covenant is confirmed as John the Baptist announces Jesus as the Lamb of God - the One who would baptize with the Holy Spirit. This is what the new covenant was to bring.

In ch 12 Daniel is given 3 time periods in response to his question about when the end of these things are going to be. 3 1/2 years, 1290 days and 1335 days are given to him. 3 1/2 years accomplishes the scattering of the holy people; 1290 days is counted from the cross - but which direction? And a special blessing comes at 1335 days - what is that? The angel I believe has established the cross as the marker: 1290 days prior to that we see Jesus begin His ministry; 1335 days from His baptism (45 days past the cross) we see Pentecost week begin and the arrival of the Holy Spirit; and 3 1/2 years after the cross the scattering of the remnant is accomplished (thru persecutions). What Gabriel has done is given us the way to identify Jesus as THE Messiah.

David Taylor
Feb 23rd 2007, 03:07 AM
Has it ever occurred to you that each sect might have a piece of the thruth, and neither will ever arrive at the whole truth if all ignore each other?


12 years ago or so, I agreed with Jack Van Impe's teaching on Daniel's 70th week.

But I've come to know a teacher that is even greater than JVI.....who helped me see that his view, was a modernly popularized myth dressed up to sound and appear locktight.

(Except for the gap thingys.....and the unnatural additions into the text he does.....and the combover:bounce: that Rexella sprays him down with before each episode!):lol:

Jesus Admirer
Feb 23rd 2007, 03:48 AM
Jesus Admirer,
I just want to throw in my 2 cents here. Dan 9:25 says from the time that the command went forth to build Jersalem. This puts the count beginning with Nehemiah and not Ezra, who was sent to build the temple. The temple restoration was stopped and then restarted. Cyrus gave the command first then Artaxeres stopped it, then Darius researched what Cyrus had ordered and started it up again. Some 20 yrs later Artexeres gives Nehemiah the permission to rebuild the city. Darius' command is given in the 2nd year of his reign. The interesting thing to note here is that Daniel receives this prophecy during the 1st yr of his reign. So Daniel receives this info before the temple restoration is resumed and before the order to rebuild the city is given. But where ever you begin counting, the 70 yrs is definitely continuous. The chapters we have in the book of Daniel are not in order chronologically which adds a bit of confusion already. It may be (IMO) Daniel didn't write it down until he saw the prophecy in play and realized it had begun when Darius gave the command for the temple.

Another interesting tidbit is that in Dan 9:24, the last thing the 70 weeks is to accomplish is to "anoint the most holy". Some say that since Messiah means "the anointed" that it is Jesus' anointing that is in view. However, the most holy place is in the holiest of holies - it is the mercy seat itself, where God appeared to meet with the people. It was anointed with the blood of the sacrifices - in this case with Jesus' own blood. I think this puts the cross right in the middle of the 70th week as the text says and puts a stop to the need for further sacrifice. God the Father anointed Jesus Himself at His baptism when the dove/Holy Spirit came on Him. This is when the new covenant is confirmed as John the Baptist announces Jesus as the Lamb of God - the One who would baptize with the Holy Spirit. This is what the new covenant was to bring.

In ch 12 Daniel is given 3 time periods in response to his question about when the end of these things are going to be. 3 1/2 years, 1290 days and 1335 days are given to him. 3 1/2 years accomplishes the scattering of the holy people; 1290 days is counted from the cross - but which direction? And a special blessing comes at 1335 days - what is that? The angel I believe has established the cross as the marker: 1290 days prior to that we see Jesus begin His ministry; 1335 days from His baptism (45 days past the cross) we see Pentecost week begin and the arrival of the Holy Spirit; and 3 1/2 years after the cross the scattering of the remnant is accomplished (thru persecutions). What Gabriel has done is given us the way to identify Jesus as THE Messiah.

I really enjoyed your input here, and I'm going to really meditate on the scriptures and comments you made on them. I never considered there being 45 days between the cross and pentecost before! I always wondered about those 1335 days, but then I was trying to apply it to end times, but your comments seem very interesting.

I too! Struggle with the idea of the 70th week being broken apart from the other 69. It would make more sense to run them all together. I always had a hard time seing a pretrib rapture. (Just isn't scriptural!) But I did believe in a Great Tribulation at the end!

Bottom Line Here: I really like what you said about the 45 days or the 1335 days. It really makes since when we apply the midst of the 70th week to the cross. Yes! Imagine the 70th week starting at the Baptism or anointing of Jesus. Then 31/2 years to his crucifixion, and an extended 45 days to pentcost. It really makes sense! Thank You!

I will have to see it challenged first! But it's really looking good! So it just might be right! I actually like it better than any I heard before!

Romulus
Feb 23rd 2007, 04:13 AM
I just want to throw in my 2 cents here. Dan 9:25 says from the time that the command went forth to build Jersalem. This puts the count beginning with Nehemiah and not Ezra, who was sent to build the temple. The temple restoration was stopped and then restarted. Cyrus gave the command first then Artaxeres stopped it, then Darius researched what Cyrus had ordered and started it up again.


Let me know what you think about this. The starting point of the prophecy is generally agreed upon as starting in 458 (no year 0) unless I am off by my count by Artaxerxes. It is also generally known that King Cyrus was the first to make the decree to restore the temple. I read a great interpretation by Philip Mauro that gives the starting point by King Cyrus instead. King Cyrus always made more sense to me because he was the first to make the decree. Artaxerxes is usually agreed upon because the year he made the decree leads up to Christ exactly 483 years later. I used to believe this as well but that nagging thought, that Cyrus made the decree first and naturally speaking if I was living at that time and waiting for the prophecy to begin I would naturally assume it would be the first person to make it. There would be no reason whatsoever to wait for the 4th person to make the decree to start the prophecy. Does scripture support this? I believe it does.

Isaiah 45

1 "This is what the LORD says to his anointed,
to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of
to subdue nations before him
and to strip kings of their armor,
to open doors before him
so that gates will not be shut:

13 I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness:
I will make all his ways straight.
He will rebuild my city
and set my exiles free,
but not for a price or reward,
says the LORD Almighty."

Scripture warrants that Cyrus was the one to make the decree and I believe that he was the one referenced in Daniel 9:25. Here we come with a problem. Cyrus made the decree in 539 b.c. This was too early for the prophecy to start and lead to the Messiah, Jesus. Philip Mauro stated it correctly when He said, that when it comes to a discrepency between the Bible and History, the Bible must win out. If the Bible says the decree was to be made by Cyrus (Isaiah prophecied many years before Cyrus was born) then Cyrus is the starting point. The reason why most scholars come up with incorrect person is that they are using a flawed canon, mainly Ptolemy. Ptolemy himself admitted that he did not know the exact reign of the persian kings. Most interpreters are using his writings for King Cyrus's decree and that is where we get the eroneous date of 538 b.c. If we use a Bible Chronology, Mauro uses Martin Anstay's "the romance of Bible Chronology" which calculates dates based on scripture we get the correct starting point of Cyrus's decree in 458 b.c. 483 years later we lead to 26 a.d. which is the point referenced by Daniel to lead to Messiah, the prince. This is the year that most believe He was anointed at His baptism. The Messiah had to be annointed by God the Father, not man. Jesus during the triumphal entry was hailed as the messiah but this is usually dated at around 30 a.d. This is too late. Anyway God, had to be the one to proclaim Jesus the Messiah. This happened at Christ's baptism:

Matthew 3:16-17


16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."


This is the first time that Jesus became publicly known as the Messiah. I believe this is the point that is referenced in Daniel and the beginning of His ministry and the end of the 69 weeks. Please let me know your thoughts.

Jesus Admirer
Feb 23rd 2007, 04:36 AM
Romulus,

It makes sense to me! What really is starting to sink in, is the anointing of the Messiah, which Mograce2U pointed out from Daniel 9:24. I'm really enjoying this: But if the Messiah wasn't aniointed at His baptism, then when was he anointed?

Yes! His baptism is the most likely time of His anointing, so therefore the most likely time for the 69th week to be fulfilled, which also would start the 70th week with His ministry!

Gods Child
Feb 23rd 2007, 04:55 AM
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.

Daniel 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

(Per - Dan 11) The one who makes the covenant is a “Vile Person”. I would not say that this is Jesus. This does not describe our Savior, as he is not a “VILE PERSON” as Dan 11 says the Prince of the Covenant is a "vile person".

Daniel 11 is the time of the end;'
11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

So this vile person who makes a covenant is at the time of the end.

Mograce2U
Feb 23rd 2007, 05:12 AM
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.

Daniel 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

(Per - Dan 11) The one who makes the covenant is a “Vile Person”. I would not say that this is Jesus. This does not describe our Savior, as he is not a “VILE PERSON” as Dan 11 says the Prince of the Covenant is a "vile person".

Daniel 11 is the time of the end;'
11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

So this vile person who makes a covenant is at the time of the end.Should we assume that the end in view here is the end of the world? Especially since another end was coming first which would be marked by the arrival of Messiah. Also 3 times in ch 11 it mentions that the vile prince (and his covenant) are against the HOLY covenant. Now to figure out which prince is which in ch 9 ... :hmm:

Romulus
Feb 23rd 2007, 05:27 AM
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.

Daniel 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. 22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

(Per - Dan 11) The one who makes the covenant is a “Vile Person”. I would not say that this is Jesus. This does not describe our Savior, as he is not a “VILE PERSON” as Dan 11 says the Prince of the Covenant is a "vile person".

Daniel 11 is the time of the end;'
11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

So this vile person who makes a covenant is at the time of the end.

I don't agree. If we go in succession from king to king in jewish history we come up with Antiochus Epiphanes as the vile person, not a future (to the 21st century) beast or antichrist. Even most futurists agree on this point. Regardless it still does not explain

What Covenant does antichrist confirm? Only Jesus confirmed a covenant and we have scriptural support for this view. Antichrist in the futurist interpretation may create a covenant but he does not confirm one. It must be a confirming as Daniel writes. Again it is also ignoring the succession of years that are to be completed within a 490 year time frame. Any break in the prophecy destroys the prophecy.

Mograce2U
Feb 23rd 2007, 06:18 PM
Romulus,
Establishing the exact days are confusing, which is really a moot point now since Christ has come and fulfilled what Daniel prophecied of Him. That is why I think in Dan 12 it is establishing the cross itself as what we can count from to find the fulfillment of the other prophetic details. It seems the dates are most important for the people to whom the prophecy comes. We may not be able to pinpoint the Babylon Captivity exactly, but those who were in it surely could and it gave them hope.

In Ezra, I ran across this verse in trying to figure this out:

(Ezra 6:14 KJV) And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

Also in 2 Chron it seems to establish what marked the beginning of the 70 yrs of captivity. This is difficult too because Jersalem & the temple did not fall until later.

Jehoiachin King of Judah

(2 Chr 36:9-10 KJV) Jehoiachin was eight [s/b eighteen] years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. {10} And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

Several places point to the capitivity of Jehoiachin and this seems to mark when the 70 yrs begins rather than when Jerusalem falls which was 12 yrs later. (see 2 Kings 24; 2 Chron 36; Jer 52:31; Ezek 1:1-2). At that time the temple was plundered of its gold. In Ezekiel, the prophecy he receives (5yrs into the captivity) is about the fall of Jerusalem during Zedekiah (before he rebels against Neb. in the 9th yr of his reign, 2 Kings 25). It is not until Ezek 24 that we see the fall of Jerusalem is about to come.

(Ezek 24:1-2 KJV) Again in the ninth year, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, {2} Son of man, write thee the name of the day, even of this same day: the king of Babylon set himself against Jerusalem this same day.

Continuing in Ezekiel we can find several time markers in the prophecies he received that were related to this time, even unto the vision of the temple at about the 20th yr of captivity - after the 1st temple had been destroyed. It seems most likely that his vision of the temple was not for some far future time but for when the 70yrs would be finished and Cyrus would send Ezra to lay the foundation for the 2nd temple. That would be the temple to which the glory of the Lord would appear in the person of Jesus, from whom the living waters flow. It was a humble structure in comparison to Solomon's, but with a far greater glory than his.

Anyway, tying all these things together is fascinating as it shows us the detail with which the Lord brought His Promise to pass. I think we really miss a blessing in not seeing the fulfillment of the things that concern Jesus and His first coming when we try and put them at His 2nd instead. After all that HAS happened, modern Israel is still looking for the wrong Messiah, having missed their Hope in His first coming, they think it is yet future. How ironic is it that the Church who knows He has come, doesn't know what He has accomplished and is looking forward to things to happen that are already past? It makes me wonder how we who say we "know" the Lord Jesus, is any different than Israel who says they "know" YHWH... (1 John 2:23)

The testimony of Jesus IS the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10) We are to have this testimony, else how can we ever hope to understand the book of Revelation and the hope that He is bringing to us? Israel's hope in another Messiah is a false one as is their hope in a kingdom reign or in the resurrection of the just. You'd think if anybody would be able to grasp the prophecies it would have been them. But unbelief kept it from them.

Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief! Mark 9:24

Romulus
Feb 23rd 2007, 07:07 PM
Romulus,
Establishing the exact days are confusing, which is really a moot point now since Christ has come and fulfilled what Daniel prophecied of Him. That is why I think in Dan 12 it is establishing the cross itself as what we can count from to find the fulfillment of the other prophetic details. It seems the dates are most important for the people to whom the prophecy comes. We may not be able to pinpoint the Babylon Captivity exactly, but those who were in it surely could and it gave them hope.


You are correct that it is difficult. We are looking at it from a 21st century persepective. The Babylonian captivety and the reign of the persian kings is questionable, but I believe that scripture is what we must hold onto. The point I was making before was that when it comes to a discrepancy between the Bible and History, the Bible wins out. I never looked at it that way until it was pointed out to me in my studies. The summary I wrote before showing the error in Ptolemy's canon was simply some proof reconciling in secular writings what the Bible already said is true. That should be enough. The Bible did indeed give hope to the audience it was written to. If I was living in captivety I would eagerly await the first decree to restore my homeland and the temple within it. I believe that as scripture foretold Cyrus as restoring Israel to her homeland when he arrived on the scene, my spirits would be lifted up at the prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled with the proclamation of Cyrus as King. I would be joyful and ecstatic that I now know that soon this King would bring back my people to the land we were taken from.



Continuing in Ezekiel we can find several time markers in the prophecies he received that were related to this time, even unto the vision of the temple at about the 20th yr of captivity - after the 1st temple had been destroyed. It seems most likely that his vision of the temple was not for some far future time but for when the 70yrs would be finished and Cyrus would send Ezra to lay the foundation for the 2nd temple. That would be the temple to which the glory of the Lord would appear in the person of Jesus, from whom the living waters flow. It was a humble structure in comparison to Solomon's, but with a far greater glory than his.


Exactly. Ezekial's temple I believe was God's plan for Israel after the captivety. For some reason it was never built. It is not a temple that must be built but only a plan that God had for Israel when they were restored to Israel after the Babylonian captivity. Notice how Ezekial's temple has rooms for making sacrifices. That is how we know that it will not be rebuilt today. It would be an absolute insult to Christ if sacrifices need to be made again in light of His glorious atonement on the Cross. He made the final sacrifice for our sins. Nothing is needed anymore.



Anyway, tying all these things together is fascinating as it shows us the detail with which the Lord brought His Promise to pass. I think we really miss a blessing in not seeing the fulfillment of the things that concern Jesus and His first coming when we try and put them at His 2nd instead. After all that HAS happened, modern Israel is still looking for the wrong Messiah, having missed their Hope in His first coming, they think it is yet future. How ironic is it that the Church who knows He has come, doesn't know what He has accomplished and is looking forward to things to happen that are already past? It makes me wonder how we who say we "know" the Lord Jesus, is any different than Israel who says they "know" YHWH... (1 John 2:23)


God's promises are yes and amen. And on time. Not one thing was delayed as a result of rejection. The Kingdom came and was given to all who believe in His son. All who call upon His name will be saved, wether Jew or gentile, slave or free, man or woman. All are one in Christ. There is no distinction anymore. We are either in Christ or not. Praise God.



The testimony of Jesus IS the spirit of prophecy (Rev 19:10) We are to have this testimony, else how can we ever hope to understand the book of Revelation and the hope that He is bringing to us? Israel's hope in another Messiah is a false one as is their hope in a kingdom reign or in the resurrection of the just. You'd think if anybody would be able to grasp the prophecies it would have been them. But unbelief kept it from them.

Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief! Mark 9:24


We must be careful to. If unbelieving Israel was broken off why should we boast. We can also be broken off as well if we turn from Him. Our hope is in Christ Jesus, not in his return but the plain fact that Jesus is within us now, and will never leave us or forsake us.

Prophecy Man
Feb 23rd 2007, 07:19 PM
What started this discussion on the 70 weeks in the first place was my question :

Did you know that there were four decrees/ commandments that could have kicked started the 70 weeks?

David, you just by passed that altogether, and from what I have judged,
you just dismissed it as if it does not mean anything.

I was challenged by a seventh day believer to study them to see which one fit the prophecy. This person rejected Artaxerxies and the papers with his royal seal to restore and rebuild Jerusalem through Neamiah the prophet.

I took each one and compared them with the wording of the 70week prophecy. I knew that the start of the 70 weeks was very important
because all of Christiandom is arguing as to when it ends. So when the prophecy begins is of prime importance.

Three involved rebuilding the Temple and the return of the Exiles. Only one involved a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem which was exactly Daniel's Prophecy .

This started the count down of the seventy weeks. The sixty-ninth week ended exactly on the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem (also a fulfillement of Zac 9 : 9 ) on the foal of an ass.

You can deny the ending of the 69 TH week but you cannot deny the
Zec 9 : 9 prophecy of " behole your king cometh riding on an ass, the foal of a donkey, meek and lowly , He is just having salvation". The word said to rejoice but the Jewish leaders in that day did not rejoice in Him but told Jesus to rebuke your disciples. You know Jesus's reply, that If they keep quiet the very stones around them would cry out ---- Why?

Because this is " the day the Lord has made, we should rejoice and be
glad in it." This day was significant to those people then and it should be significant to people today. It was the day the Lord had made, his entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey as king.

I'm going to surprise you --- you deny can that day now by saying the seventy weeks have been fulfilled. The Jewish leaders denied it then and they paid a high price for it. They lost their temple and was booted out of Jerusalem into all the world.

Glory be to God they are promised they would return --- they have returned and people deny it.

If you want to see the math then check out sir Robert Anderson's obversations about it. He calculated it to the day, the 69 Th week.

This leaves one more week to be fulfilled --- but go ahead -- deny it.

I know you will.

Doug

Mograce2U
Feb 23rd 2007, 08:04 PM
Doug, #155 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1166973&postcount=155)
Even if the 69th week ended on the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem it still puts the cross in the 70th week.

Romulus
Feb 23rd 2007, 08:21 PM
You can deny the ending of the 69 TH week but you cannot deny the
Zec 9 : 9 prophecy of " behole your king cometh riding on an ass, the foal of a donkey, meek and lowly , He is just having salvation". The word said to rejoice but the Jewish leaders in that day did not rejoice in Him but told Jesus to rebuke your disciples. You know Jesus's reply, that If they keep quiet the very stones around them would cry out ---- Why?

Because this is " the day the Lord has made, we should rejoice and be
glad in it." This day was significant to those people then and it should be significant to people today. It was the day the Lord had made, his entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey as king.


Jesus did ride on a donkey and came as King to Jerusalem but this was not the event that declared Jesus the Messiah (or the prince in Daniel). Man cannot proclaim the messiah, only God can. That happened in 26 A.D. before the triumphant entry at Christ's baptism:

MATTHEW 3:16-17

16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

God the Father had to make the proclamation that Messiah had come, not man. Jesus was revealed publicly by God as the Messiah (God's Son) at the baptism by John. This event marked the beginning of Christ's ministry and the fulfillment of the first 69 weeks. The final week (70th) began immediately after the 69 weeks starting in 26 a.d. and ending in 33 a.d. The fulfillment at the confirming of the Old Covenenat through the New Covenant in the blood of Christ.

ShirleyFord
Feb 23rd 2007, 08:24 PM
What started this discussion on the 70 weeks in the first place was my question :

Did you know that there were four decrees/ commandments that could have kicked started the 70 weeks?

David, you just by passed that altogether, and from what I have judged,
you just dismissed it as if it does not mean anything.

I was challenged by a seventh day believer to study them to see which one fit the prophecy. This person rejected Artaxerxies and the papers with his royal seal to restore and rebuild Jerusalem through Neamiah the prophet.

I took each one and compared them with the wording of the 70week prophecy. I knew that the start of the 70 weeks was very important
because all of Christiandom is arguing as to when it ends. So when the prophecy begins is of prime importance.

Three involved rebuilding the Temple and the return of the Exiles. Only one involved a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem which was exactly Daniel's Prophecy .

This started the count down of the seventy weeks. The sixty-ninth week ended exactly on the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem (also a fulfillement of Zac 9 : 9 ) on the foal of an ass.

You can deny the ending of the 69 TH week but you cannot deny the
Zec 9 : 9 prophecy of " behole your king cometh riding on an ass, the foal of a donkey, meek and lowly , He is just having salvation". The word said to rejoice but the Jewish leaders in that day did not rejoice in Him but told Jesus to rebuke your disciples. You know Jesus's reply, that If they keep quiet the very stones around them would cry out ---- Why?

Because this is " the day the Lord has made, we should rejoice and be
glad in it." This day was significant to those people then and it should be significant to people today. It was the day the Lord had made, his entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey as king.

I'm going to surprise you --- you deny can that day now by saying the seventy weeks have been fulfilled. The Jewish leaders denied it then and they paid a high price for it. They lost their temple and was booted out of Jerusalem into all the world.

Glory be to God they are promised they would return --- they have returned and people deny it.

If you want to see the math then check out sir Robert Anderson's obversations about it. He calculated it to the day, the 69 Th week.

This leaves one more week to be fulfilled --- but go ahead -- deny it.

I know you will.

Doug

Hi Doug,

Jesus fulfilled these 6 things in Daniel 9:24 during the 70th week.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,

(1) to finish the transgression,
(2) and to make an end of sins,
(3) and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
(4) and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
(5) and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
(6)and to anoint the most Holy.

Jesus fulfilled 1-5 in His death, burial and resurrection. He fulfilled 6 at the beginning of His ministry at the beginning of the 70th week, How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)




Daniel 9:25 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.

The 69th year ended with the birth of Christ.


Daniel 9:26 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.

Jesus was crucified after the 69th week. So He couldn't have been crucified during or at the end of the 69th year.

There is no way to have Jesus crucified during the 69th week and be consistant with what Scripture literally says.

Shirley

Romulus
Feb 23rd 2007, 08:38 PM
Daniel 9:25 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.

The 69th year ended with the birth of Christ.



Hi Shirley,

I know you and I agree with the conclusion that Christ fulfilled the prophecy through His blood shed on the cross. I am a little confused as to how you come up with the end of the 69 weeks at Christ's birth.

I believe the decree was given by King Cyrus in 458 b.c. Even if you believe it was Artaxerxes, it was still the same year. Going forward 483 years leads to 26 a.d. and not around 3 or 4 a.d

Jesus Admirer
Feb 23rd 2007, 08:45 PM
Should we assume that the end in view here is the end of the world? Especially since another end was coming first which would be marked by the arrival of Messiah. Also 3 times in ch 11 it mentions that the vile prince (and his covenant) are against the HOLY covenant. Now to figure out which prince is which in ch 9 ... :hmm:

Mograce2U,

I have a question for you: If Daniel's prophecies were all fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus Christ, then what did Jesus mean, when he said: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place" in Matthew 24:15?

If you start reading Matthew 24:1, and then continue reading trough verse 15, then you will clearly see, that end times are mentioned, and Jesus refers to the abominations spoken by Daniel as in future tense, (Not Present.)

See scripture below, and start with verse 1, and then read to verse 15 for context, and then tell me what you think of verse 15.

Matthew 24:1 *And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 *And Jesus said unto them, 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.
3 *And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 *And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 *For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 *And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 *For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 *All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 *Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 *And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 *And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 *And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 *But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 *And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 *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

David Taylor
Feb 23rd 2007, 08:51 PM
Mograce2U,

I have a question for you: If Daniel's prophecies were all fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus Christ, then what did Jesus mean, when he said: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place" in Matthew 24:15?

If you start reading Matthew 24:1, and then continue reading trough verse 15, then you will clearly see, that end times are mentioned, and Jesus refers to the abominations spoken by Daniel as in future tense, (Not Present.)


JA,

Go back a half-dozen verses or so into chapter 23, and start forward.

Notice that when we get to 24:3, Jesus has been in and talking about the destrcution of the present 'Herod Temple'.

Notice that in verse 24:3, Jesus is asked "2" questions.

Q1) When will the destruction of Herod's Temple be?
Q2) When will your coming and the end of the world be?

Chapter 24 then has Jesus explaining and answering 'both' of the two questions....but He tends to spend a little time on each one of them, kinda back and forth throughout the chapter. By the latter part of the chapter and into chapter 25 though....He is solely focused on describing the 2nd Coming Q2 question.

ShirleyFord
Feb 23rd 2007, 09:29 PM
Hi Shirley,

I know you and I agree with the conclusion that Christ fulfilled the prophecy through His blood shed on the cross. I am a little confused as to how you come up with the end of the 69 weeks at Christ's birth.

I believe the decree was given by King Cyrus in 458 b.c. Even if you believe it was Artaxerxes, it was still the same year. Going forward 483 years leads to 26 a.d. and not around 3 or 4 a.d



Hi Romulus,

I simply take what Daniel 9:25 says, "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...."

69 weeks of years......

The going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem begins the 69 weeks of years.

And the First Coming of Messiah ends the 69 weeks of years.

I further believe that the anointing of Jesus by His Father God at His baptism at the beginning of His earthly ministry begins the 70th week. Verse 26 says that the Messiah would be cut off after the 69th week.



Shirley

Jesus Admirer
Feb 23rd 2007, 10:27 PM
Mograce2U,

I have a question for you: If Daniel's prophecies were all fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus Christ, then what did Jesus mean, when he said: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place" in Matthew 24:15?

If you start reading Matthew 24:1, and then continue reading trough verse 15, then you will clearly see, that end times are mentioned, and Jesus refers to the abominations spoken by Daniel as in future tense, (Not Present.)

See scripture below, and start with verse 1, and then read to verse 15 for context, and then tell me what you think of verse 15.

Matthew 24:1 *And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 *And Jesus said unto them, 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.
3 *And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 *And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 *For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 *And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 *For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 *All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 *Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 *And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 *And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 *And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 *But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 *And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 *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

I'm replying to my own post, because I have one more question for Mograce2U to add to it. I also noticed in Matthew 24:34, that Jesus said: This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

One of those things is listed in verse 31, where he said: He shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

So I'll asked you what generation he is referring to, because I believe it has to be the end time generation, because I believe verse 31 is referring to what we call the rapture, and hasn't happened yet!.

The thing is: Jesus said that in the same context when he spoke about the abomination of Daniel, which means the abomination spoken of by Daniel is ones of those things, that this generation will see before it passes.

So it appears like Jesus is applying the abomination spoken of by Daniel to the end times right before the rapture, or gathering of His people. See Scripture below!

Matthew 24:31 *And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 *So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 *Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

John146
Feb 23rd 2007, 10:54 PM
Jesus did ride on a donkey and came as King to Jerusalem but this was not the event that declared Jesus the Messiah (or the prince in Daniel). Man cannot proclaim the messiah, only God can. That happened in 26 A.D. before the triumphant entry at Christ's baptism:

MATTHEW 3:16-17

16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

God the Father had to make the proclamation that Messiah had come, not man. Jesus was revealed publicly by God as the Messiah (God's Son) at the baptism by John. This event marked the beginning of Christ's ministry and the fulfillment of the first 69 weeks. The final week (70th) began immediately after the 69 weeks starting in 26 a.d. and ending in 33 a.d. The fulfillment at the confirming of the Old Covenenat through the New Covenant in the blood of Christ.

Exactly. Well said.

John146
Feb 23rd 2007, 11:06 PM
I'm replying to my own post, because I have one more question for Mograce2U to add to it. I also noticed in Matthew 24:34, that Jesus said: This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

One of those things is listed in verse 31, where he said: He shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

So I'll asked you what generation he is referring to, because I believe it has to be the end time generation, because I believe verse 31 is referring to what we call the rapture, and hasn't happened yet!.

The thing is: Jesus said that in the same context when he spoke about the abomination of Daniel, which means the abomination spoken of by Daniel is ones of those things, that this generation will see before it passes.

So it appears like Jesus is applying the abomination spoken of by Daniel to the end times right before the rapture, or gathering of His people. See Scripture below!

Matthew 24:31 *And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 *So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 *Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Where then does Jesus answer the question regarding the destruction of Herod's temple("When shall these things be?"), which was destroyed in 70 AD? I would say He answered it within Matthew 24:15-22. When you look at that passage and compare it to Luke 21:20-24 and then read about what happened in 70 AD in Jerusalem, you should see a lot of similarities. I think both the futurist and preterist views of Matthew 24 are mistaken. One puts the whole thing in the past and once puts the whole thing in the future. I believe it speaks of 70 AD as well as the second coming in the future. Jesus was asked two questions, not one.

Mograce2U
Feb 24th 2007, 04:04 PM
Hi Doug,

Jesus fulfilled these 6 things in Daniel 9:24 during the 70th week.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,

(1) to finish the transgression,
(2) and to make an end of sins,
(3) and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
(4) and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
(5) and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
(6)and to anoint the most Holy.

Jesus fulfilled 1-5 in His death, burial and resurrection. He fulfilled 6 at the beginning of His ministry at the beginning of the 70th week, How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38) Actually all 6 were fulfilled by the same event. Jesus was born into this world as The Anointed One, having been ordained by the oath of God (Ps 110:4; Heb 5:6, 7:17,21) after the order of Melchiseldek and not Aaron. It is this word of the oath that consecrated Him for evermore (Heb 7:28). Jesus is the Holy One of God, who came as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, to be our high Priest and offer His own blood that only could atone for our sins.

Moses was instructed in the law to pattern the tabernacle after the heavenly things and the temple made without hands. These shadowy things served for the present time until the time of reformation arrived. (Heb 9:8) The Levitical high priest entered into the holy of holies once each year to offer up blood from animals first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people - which only sanctified their flesh and not their conscience. The pattern of the heavenly needed to be consecrated with blood under the law. The 2nd veil that blocked the way into the holiest of holies symbolized Jesus body that would be broken in order to open the way - not into the earthly shadow, but heaven itself. Only the One who possessed Eternal Life could perform this task.

At His baptism, God signified that this was the One Israel was waiting for. We have already been given a glimpse that even at the age of 12, Jesus had the anointing of the Holy Spirit. But it was His baptism that revealed Him as the Messiah to Israel, as the One ordained by God to redeem our sins and open the way to Eternal Life. He did not need to be anointed for this role under the law (born of the tribe of Judah - Heb 7:13-14), rather He is the One who came to consecrate us forevermore with His own blood. Jesus thus fulfilled the law by bringing the atonement once for all.

For the Levitical priesthood to continue offering animal sacrifices after God had done this work for them, would truly be an abomination in His sight. Their actions would bring desolation upon their heads, their temple and their city. Jesus refers to Daniel and calls the transgression of desolation (Dan 8:13; also for the overspeading of abominations he shall make it desolate - Dan 9:27), an abomination of desolation which equates it to idolatry. Jesus cleansed the way into the heavenly sanctuary first with His own blood and then destroyed the earthly shadow with fire.

If we are to see a gap in the 70th week it is to tie the two 3 1/2 year periods that precede each of these events together. The gap thus giving the remnant in that day opportunity to hear the gospel and be saved and the transgressors time to fill up their sins so that judgment could be brought against them. Which of course is only my opinion.

Romulus
Feb 26th 2007, 05:10 PM
Hi Romulus,

I simply take what Daniel 9:25 says, "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...."

69 weeks of years......

The going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem begins the 69 weeks of years.

And the First Coming of Messiah ends the 69 weeks of years.

I further believe that the anointing of Jesus by His Father God at His baptism at the beginning of His earthly ministry begins the 70th week. Verse 26 says that the Messiah would be cut off after the 69th week.



Shirley

Gotcha, I had thought you said the 69 weeks ended at Christ's birth, so I was mistaken. I agree as well, the annointing was at Christ's baptism and the cutting off was in the 70th week.

Prophecy Man
Feb 27th 2007, 03:35 PM
King Cyrus did not start the count down of the 70 weeks because of the componants of the prophecy. It states that " from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem untill Messiah the Prince shall be -----Ect! "

The prophecy calls Jerusalem into play, not the Exiles and the rebuilding of the temple. When you use this decree or commandment it puts the 70 weeks to end even before Jesus was born.

You need to stick with the words of the prophecy, and that is the rebuilding of Jerusalem (not the temple Nor the return of the Exiles)


Shirley,
The belief that the seventy weeks prophecy Is fulfilled has to fit the prophecy.

The Prophecy calls for the end of sins
People are still sinning
to make reconciliation for iniquety
This could be the Crucifiction--it seems like it
To bring in everlasting Righteousness
You can't believe everything around you is in a righteous state
To seal up the Vision and Prophecy
It is sealed--never to be changed-- some think it has changed
To Anoint the Most Holy
If Jesus is the Most Holy then He has been Anointed--if it is a
reference to The Holies of Holies then there is not a Most
Holy--Yet!

Any way you look at it, not all of the Prophecy has been fulfilled.
I have a question--Just what does it mean " to finish the transgression?"

Doug

Stick with the prophecy and we will agree. Spiritualize it and you move into error.

Romulus
Feb 27th 2007, 05:07 PM
King Cyrus did not start the count down of the 70 weeks because of the componants of the prophecy. It states that " from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem untill Messiah the Prince shall be -----Ect! "

The prophecy calls Jerusalem into play, not the Exiles and the rebuilding of the temple. When you use this decree or commandment it puts the 70 weeks to end even before Jesus was born.

You need to stick with the words of the prophecy, and that is the rebuilding of Jerusalem (not the temple Nor the return of the Exiles)


King Cyrus included Jerusalem in his decree. Why would he restore the temple only and not the city? That would be pretty pointless. Anyway Isaiah makes it clearer in his prophecy about Cyrus:

[Esaias (Isaiah)]

44:28 Who bids Cyrus be wise, and he shall perform all my will: who says to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and I will lay the foundation of my holy house.

[Esaias (Isaiah)]

45:13 I have raised him up [to be] a king with righteousness, and all his ways are right: he shall build my city, and shall turn the captivity of my people, not for ransoms, nor for rewards, saith the Lord of hosts.

Scripture is clear on what King Cyrus was to do. He was to restore Jerusalem and the temple. I don't think it could be any clearer. Even Historical records show that the city was being restored in the time of Cyrus. They needed buildings to live in while they rebuilt, correct. Now if you read my posts earlier, all scholars are following Ptolemy's canon for the reigns of the persian kings. His canon was flawed, even he stated he was not sure as to the exact dates. Ptolomy put's King Cyrus's decree in 538 b.c. Most who interpret this date, do so based on Ptolemy. The Bible is clear that Cyrus was to make the decree to restore Jerusalem starting the "seventy sevens" prophecy but if that isn't enough then using Martin Anstay's Romance of Bible Chronology we come up with 458 b.c. for the decree using the Bible rather then an outside source. Bible chronology is more trustworthy. Scripture is clear that King Cyrus started the prophecy and if history is in conflict, the Bible wins out.

69 weeks were "unto messiah" or 483 years so from 458 b.c. we come to 26 a.d.(no year zero) which is the accepted date for Jesus' baptism.

John146
Feb 27th 2007, 05:28 PM
King Cyrus did not start the count down of the 70 weeks because of the componants of the prophecy. It states that " from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem untill Messiah the Prince shall be -----Ect! "

The prophecy calls Jerusalem into play, not the Exiles and the rebuilding of the temple. When you use this decree or commandment it puts the 70 weeks to end even before Jesus was born.

You need to stick with the words of the prophecy, and that is the rebuilding of Jerusalem (not the temple Nor the return of the Exiles)


Shirley,
The belief that the seventy weeks prophecy Is fulfilled has to fit the prophecy.

The Prophecy calls for the end of sins
People are still sinning
to make reconciliation for iniquety
This could be the Crucifiction--it seems like it
To bring in everlasting Righteousness
You can't believe everything around you is in a righteous state
To seal up the Vision and Prophecy
It is sealed--never to be changed-- some think it has changed
To Anoint the Most Holy
If Jesus is the Most Holy then He has been Anointed--if it is a
reference to The Holies of Holies then there is not a Most
Holy--Yet!

Any way you look at it, not all of the Prophecy has been fulfilled.
I have a question--Just what does it mean " to finish the transgression?"

Doug

Stick with the prophecy and we will agree. Spiritualize it and you move into error.

Doug, I want you to consider something. You believe in a 7-year tribulation period just prior to the Lord's return, right? And you believe this supposed 7-year period is Daniel's 70th week, correct? Now, it's clear that you insist that the meaning of "to make an end of sins" means a literal end of sins. There's a huge problem with your theory. According to your view, sin continues on for over a thousand years after Christ's return! So, "to make an end of sins" cannot possibly mean the literal end of sin occurs by the end of the 70 weeks. Unless the 70 weeks ended after Satan's little season, but we know that is not the case.

So, we need to consider what "to make an end of sins" really means. Let's look at some Scripture and see if we can determine the meaning of that phrase:

20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - Romans 6:20-22

Before Christ came, everyone was under the death penalty with no hope of eternal life. But Jesus came to make us free from sin ("to make an end of sins") so that we could have eternal life. The effects of sin (death) were taken away by the death and resurrection of Christ.

20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. - 2 Corinthians 5:20-21

Christ took our sins upon Himself. He made an end to the effects of sin (eternal death) for those who believe in Him.

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. - John 1:29

This is what "to make an end of sins" means. It's referring to Jesus taking "away the sin of the world".

Another thing you should realize is that you are acknowledging that "to make reconciliation for iniquity" is probably referring to the crucifixion. There's no doubt in my mind that it is. But the prophecy says that the Messiah would be cut off (crucified) AFTER the 69 weeks were completed. That places the crucifixion within the 70th week, which means it is not in the future.

Jesus made the way for everlasting righteousness. He brought it in. He made it possible for people to have everlasting life through Him.

You asked what "finish the transgression" means. Here's what I believe it means. This is a prophecy about Jesus from Isaiah 53:

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

To finish the transgression is similar to what it means to make an end of sins. He became one of us and took our transgressions upon Himself. He finished the transgression. To finish the transgression, to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity are all directly related. Christ fulfilled all of the things prophesied in Daniel 9:24 within the 70th week.

ShirleyFord
Feb 27th 2007, 06:08 PM
King Cyrus did not start the count down of the 70 weeks because of the componants of the prophecy. It states that " from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem untill Messiah the Prince shall be -----Ect! "

The prophecy calls Jerusalem into play, not the Exiles and the rebuilding of the temple. When you use this decree or commandment it puts the 70 weeks to end even before Jesus was born.

You need to stick with the words of the prophecy, and that is the rebuilding of Jerusalem (not the temple Nor the return of the Exiles)


Shirley,
The belief that the seventy weeks prophecy Is fulfilled has to fit the prophecy.

The Prophecy calls for the end of sins
People are still sinning
to make reconciliation for iniquety
This could be the Crucifiction--it seems like it
To bring in everlasting Righteousness
You can't believe everything around you is in a righteous state
To seal up the Vision and Prophecy
It is sealed--never to be changed-- some think it has changed
To Anoint the Most Holy
If Jesus is the Most Holy then He has been Anointed--if it is a
reference to The Holies of Holies then there is not a Most
Holy--Yet!

Any way you look at it, not all of the Prophecy has been fulfilled.
I have a question--Just what does it mean " to finish the transgression?"

Doug

Stick with the prophecy and we will agree. Spiritualize it and you move into error.

Doug,

Don't know quite what you mean when you say, "Spiritualize it and you move into error."

The entire prophecy is focused on Israel's promised Messiah, the Prince and that He would fulfill Daniel 9, v. 24 during the 70th week. If we stick with the prophecy, that is how it comes out.

You have to do a lot of "spiritualizing" of this prophecy to make the "he" in v. 27, a future antichrist. Also, you have to do a lot of spiritualizing in order to see antichrist signing a 7 yr. peace treaty with Israel, see a rebuilt temple with antichrist sitting in the holy of holies breaking the peace treaty after 3 1/2 yrs and causing the Levitical priesthood to stop offering the blood of animal sacrifices up to God.

Shirley

Mograce2U
Feb 27th 2007, 06:39 PM
...Any way you look at it, not all of the Prophecy has been fulfilled.
I have a question--Just what does it mean " to finish the transgression?"

Stick with the prophecy and we will agree. Spiritualize it and you move into error.The transgression here is rebellion against God which is what causes them to sin. Their rebellion is what led them time and time again into idolatry. Jesus' first coming put an end to the rebellion for the remnant who repented and turned to faith in Christ.

wpm
Feb 27th 2007, 07:37 PM
Any way you look at it, not all of the Prophecy has been fulfilled.
I have a question--Just what does it mean " to finish the transgression?"

This statement is made from a divine perspective, not an earthly temporal perspective. Moreover, it is referring to an event rather than an ongoing process. That event is Calvary. It was there that Christ finished transgression for His people – both Old and New Testament believers. It was at the Cross were our transgression was placed upon the Saviour in order that there would never again have to be an unsatisfactory atonement for sin. By taken upon Himself our punishment, He was becoming a substitutionary sacrifice for man. Never again will there ever be an end made for transgression. Never again will there ever be another Calvary. Those who project this prophecy far into the future totally nullify one of the greatest Messianic prophecies ever made in the Old Testament. They totally render it useless and meaningless.

Isaiah 53:5-12 predicated, “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment : and who shall declare his generation?For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

Again, this was an event, and that event is the Cross. In these great prophetic words we see the complete fulfilment of the heavenly transaction for sin and transgression. This was totally perfected in Christ’s sinless life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection.

I John 3:4-5 explains, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know tha the (Christ) was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”

Christ came to take away that awful curse that afflicted man from the Garden. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “for he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

Our sin was imputed to Christ; His righteousness was imputed to us. Christ’s perfect once all-sufficient self sacrifice secured a full, real and perfect redemption for his own, whether Old or New Testament saints. He was made a curse for us (Gal 3:13). The shedding of the blood satisfied the Father and reconciled the sinner to God, securing eternal redemption. Christ the sinless Lamb of God was made sin on the sinner’s behalf.

Christ met all the just demands of the Law by his vicarious atonement, ensuring no legal charges can justly be brought against those for whom he paid the price.

As Jesus was dying, he cried: "It is finished." At Calvary, Jesus finished transgression by becoming sin for us. No future sacrifice can or will ever finish transgression; it was completely and perfectly finished at Calvary.

The once all-sufficient satisfactory sacrifice occurred through Christ at Calvary. The old system of repeated sacrifices (types) where thus terminated (in God’s economy) when God’s only begotten Son became the final sacrifice for sin. Whilst the Jews continued their divinely abolished temple sacrifices for forty more years, God did not recognize them. Such imperfect sacrifices would never again appease the wrath of Almighty God, as the death of Christ perfectly satisfied the one all-sufficient, final atoning sacrifice for sin forever.

Hebrews 9:13-15 declares, “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

The Old Testament saints received their “eternal inheritance” looking forward to the new covenant. The old could not have achieved this of it as it was only a temporal shadow and type of the real and eternal.

Ephesians 2:13-16 says, “in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.”

Colossians 2:14-15 plainly declares, speaking of Calvary, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”


Stick with the prophecy and we will agree. Spiritualize it and you move into error.

Calvary was a literal event that fulfilled this prophecy literally.

Paul

Prophecy Man
Feb 28th 2007, 05:27 PM
I thank all of you for being respectful to me. It means a lot.

Yes, I believe there is yet one more week left of the prophecy. It does not mean the Crucifiction happnened in the middle of the seventieth week.

Just after Christ entered Jerusalem on The Colt of and Ass, the Jewish leaders rejected Him, Jesus entered the temple and over threw the money
changers and their tables. The Jews conspired to kill Jesus and a week later after Jesus entered Jerusalem , Jesus was crucified. Not three and one half years later, which would have made it in the middle of the seventieth week.

There is still one more week of years left on the prophecy time table. One more proof of that is what Jesus said in Mathew 24 : 15 --

" When ye ( Jesus is speaking to a Jewish Church ) therefore see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet ( 9 : 27 ; 11 : 21-31 ) stand in the Holy place --whoso readeth let him understand.
Then let them which be in Judeah flee( vs 16 )

understand----Antiochus had already come by the time Jesus gave the warning see and flee. Dan 11 : 21-31 has double reference because it describes Antiochus who desecrates the temple and wrecks havoc on Jerusalem. Antiochus is the type of Antichrist yet to come and is also an Antichrist all by himself.

Jesus refered to the Abomination as yet future so Jesus could not have been talking about himself. " the abomination that makes desolate ". The big word is " when" so it is future.

Now those who ascribe all this to 70 AD is just plain wrong. The antiChrist at that time was Nero and He died 3 years before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army. Jesus said even before " the abomination that makes desolate there had to be deception as to who Christ is, ( the Church knows but the Jew still is in blindness ) there was to be famins, earthquakes, wars and rumors of war , nation against nation ---vs 8 --all these are the beggining of sorrows.

Think cronologicly and you arrive at the Antichrist being future. Also another point.

JEus's crucifiction was not the fulfillment of all prophecy. Where did you get that? Our salvation was made possible but we have to trust Him for it.

Yes there will be sin in the 1000 years of peace--this is not the eternity
with Christ where there will be no more sin, no more tears, no more sorrow but HE will be our light.

This is when ( eternity ) we live wothout death and sin.

The transgression I mentioned is also ( not exclusively) the very reason Israel went into CAptivity--to finish the transgression--the other transgressons of course is our sin against God.

Doug

third hero
Feb 28th 2007, 06:13 PM
Ther are some things that I see is being ignored. Who was the 70 weeks proclaimed for? What was the purpose of the Seventy Weeks? Why should we care? In this post, I will answer them all, and in case anyone has not known by now, just like in the "Reason why there wil be no Davidic Kingdom" thread, the Amils will go nuts, because the scriptures will again disprove the idea that Israel was tossed out as God's chosen. (Although Roman 11 does an effective job by itself).

Daniel 9:24
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end for sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to annoint the Most Holy.

First of all, we have to realize who Daniel is, becauise the angel told him that the seventy weeks applied to his people, who are Israelites. So, the seventy weeks are for Israel. The results of the seventy weeks are to affect Israel. If these things happen around the world, and does not happen in Israel, then they are either still in effect, or daniel is not a prophet at all, for the angel told him that the seventy weks are determined for not only his people, who are Israel, but also for their holy city, Jerusalem.

This means that all of you who would love to say that everything that was listed here has happened, if it has not happened to Jerusalem, then it has not happened yet. So, to list what the seventy weeks are to accomplish, here they are:

-To finish transgression
-to make an end of sins
-to make reconciliation for iniquity
-to seal up vision and prophecy
-to bring in everlasting righteousness
-to annoint the Most Holy

Now, these things must be applied to Israel and Jerusalem.

Now, let's see what actually happened up to now.

Christ's sacrifice is to make reconciliation for iniquity, because nothing else can, but has Daniel's people benn given reconciliation for iniquity? Well, those who believe have, and the rest are blinded, due to their unbelief.

The seventy weeks are to finish transgressions for whom? Israel and Jerusalem. Has Jerusalem finished transgressing against God? Simply NO. Islam has a foothold in Jerusalem, as well as the unbelievers still holding to the laws of Moses without the light of Christ. They are still sinning, therefore this has not happened yet.

One of the other purposes of the seventy weeks are to make an end of sins. John the baptist stated at Christ's baptism that He is the one who will take away the sins of us all. Christ paid the price for our sins, and to those who believe, sin will be ended, but has it ended yet? Well, CHristians still sin. Sinners stil sin. Sin is still around, and it is still around in Israel as well. Well, sin is still here, and John the Baptist stated that Christ will take away sin, therefore it has to be a future event. Because sin is still here. And remember, those who say they are without sin are liars, and the truth is not in them. (1John 1:8)

Another one is to seal upo prophecy and vision. Remember, this is to happen to Israel and the city of Jerusalem. According to Revelation, two prophets are going to show up, and will miinister to Jerusalem and the world for 42 months, and afterwards, the beast will kill them, only to rise in 3 1/2 days and go to heaven, with Jerusalem being split into thirds by a massive earthquake that kills 7000 people. This definitely has not happened yet, therefore, vision and prphecy has not been sealed yet.

Another result of the seventy weeks is for the people Israel to bring about everlasting righteousness. We know that no human can bring that about, but Christ can. We see at the end of the Great Tribulation where Christ returns and brings everlasting righteousness with Him. This has not happened yet.

The last one is to annoint the Most Holy. Many may disagree, but Christ was annointed before He was captured by a woman who used expensive oil and tears to annoint the Lord. This definitely has happened.

Therefore, out of the six things that are to happen as a result of the seventy weeks, only one can definitely be said to be done, and maybe one more can be argued, [Annoint the Most Holy,(definite); to make reconciliation for iniquity and to make an end of sin (probable)]. To seal up vision and prophecy, to finish transgression for the people of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, and to bring in everlasting righteousness has definitely not happened yet. Neither has prophecy and vision been sealed up yet. Therefore, the seventy weeks are stil in effect, or else Daniel is not a prophet, or if he is, then God is a liar.

What people tend to conveniently forget is that the purpose of the seventy weeks are to afftect Jerusalem and the people Israel. Daniel was an Israelite, under the law of Moses, and the angel clearly stated that this is to happen to "his" people and "his" holy city. Many would debate the timing of the fulfillment of the weeks without taking into account the purpose of the seventy weeks, and when we look at what the seventy weeks are to avccomplish, we have no choice but to say that some of them has happened, and the rest has not yet happened, therefore the 70 weeeks are still in effect.

John146
Feb 28th 2007, 06:24 PM
One of the other purposes of the seventy weeks are to make an end of sins. John the baptist stated at Christ's baptism that He is the one who will take away the sins of us all. Christ paid the price for our sins, and to those who believe, sin will be ended, but has it ended yet? Well, CHristians still sin. Sinners stil sin. Sin is still around, and it is still around in Israel as well. Well, sin is still here, and John the Baptist stated that Christ will take away sin, therefore it has to be a future event. Because sin is still here. And remember, those who say they are without sin are liars, and the truth is not in them. (1John 1:8)

When do you believe the 70th week occurs? Probably just before Christ's return, right? According to premillenialism, does sin end at the return of Christ? No! Therefore, your view of the 70th week is clearly flawed. If "to make an end of sin" had something to do with the literal end of sin forever, then the 70th week would occur during the last 7 years of Satan's little season. I highly doubt that you or anyone else believes that.

third hero
Feb 28th 2007, 06:54 PM
When do you believe the 70th week occurs? Probably just before Christ's return, right? According to premillenialism, does sin end at the return of Christ? No! Therefore, your view of the 70th week is clearly flawed. If "to make an end of sin" had something to do with the literal end of sin forever, then the 70th week would occur during the last 7 years of Satan's little season. I highly doubt that you or anyone else believes that.

Your view of the "ending of sin" is flawed. Like I said, all of the events of the seventy weeks are to affect who? Israel. When Christ returns, He will make an end to sin, in Israel. No longer will Israelites sin against God. What you fail to realize is that all of the things that are suppose to happen are suppose to happen to Israel. According to you, Satan is not controlling the nations and setting up for his representative to rule over it, when the signs that Christ said for us to watch out for are happening in the order that He said they would happen, including the resurrection of the nation of Israel.

Israel is still sinning against God. This is the truth. God has not reconciled Israel to Himself yet. This too is fact. Jerusalem has not finished transgression against God yet. This too is truth. No matter what you try to use to argue against this, the truth is still the truth, and the seventy weeks have not been totally fulfilled yet.

I do not require that all prophecy must be fulfilled, you do. I require that all prophecy must have concrete evidence of fulfillment that we all can see. If that has not happened, then it has not happened yet. I am not going to blindly say that all prophecy has been fiulfilled and sealed when there are clearly prophecies in both the Ot and the NT that has not been fulfilled yet. Did Christ die for our sins? Yes! Evidence? The testimonies of His disciples, the Gospels. Is Christ reigning in heaven? Yes. Evidence? Again, Christ words recorded by the disciples, the Gospels. Did Christ take David's throne? No. Evidence? Again, he did not make a claim to Israel, which is David's Kingdom. Has the seventy weeks ben fulfilled? No. Evidence? The things that are suppose to happen to Israel and Jeruslaem has not been completed yet. This is my interpretation of scripture. I do not interpret it, I look for evidence to determine if the worded prophecies have or have not been fulfilled. This is called, testing the spirits, testing the evidence, testing and questioning everything. Daniel's prophecies in chapters 10-1 have been fulfilled, and we have absolute evidence of it being fulfilled. Many prophecies in the Ot have been fulfilled, and we have proof of their fulfillment, and it is not subject to interpretation. This is the style in which God has always fulfilled prophecies, and God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. The fulfillment of God's prophecy to Daniel will be fulfilled in the same manner that all other prophecies have been fulfilled. In a way that is not subject to interpretation.

Romulus
Feb 28th 2007, 07:21 PM
Just after Christ entered Jerusalem on The Colt of and Ass, the Jewish leaders rejected Him, Jesus entered the temple and over threw the money
changers and their tables. The Jews conspired to kill Jesus and a week later after Jesus entered Jerusalem , Jesus was crucified. Not three and one half years later, which would have made it in the middle of the seventieth week.


This would be true if the triumphant entry was the event "unto Messiah the Prince". I don't believe it was. Only God can annoint or proclaim the Messiah, not man. The Old Testament did prophecy this event but the prophecy of the "seventy sevens" is speaking of an event that proclaims Jesus as the Messiah. It also must be the first event that proclaims it. There was an event before the triumphant entry that fulfills just this.

1) God annointing or proclaiming the Messiah
2) The first time that Jesus is publicly referenced as the Messiah, Prince, God

Matthew 3:16

16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Both of these requirements were fulfilled at His baptism in 26 A.D. If from the decree prolaimed by King Cyrus in 458 B.C. we count 483 years(69 weeks) we arrive at 26 A.D.(no year zero). Then the 70th and final week begins as the scripture very precisely says

Daniel 9 (Septuagint into English Version)

9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: 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.

We have the crucifixion happening in the 70th week. After states that within 7 years Messiah will be cut off. This translation is more accurate then most in stating this. Jesus and the apostles did quote scripture from the Septuagint Version.

There is still one more week of years left on the prophecy time table. One more proof of that is what Jesus said in Mathew 24 : 15 --



" When ye ( Jesus is speaking to a Jewish Church ) therefore see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet ( 9 : 27 ; 11 : 21-31 ) stand in the Holy place --whoso readeth let him understand.
Then let them which be in Judeah flee( vs 16 )

understand----Antiochus had already come by the time Jesus gave the warning see and flee. Dan 11 : 21-31 has double reference because it describes Antiochus who desecrates the temple and wrecks havoc on Jerusalem. Antiochus is the type of Antichrist yet to come and is also an Antichrist all by himself.

Jesus refered to the Abomination as yet future so Jesus could not have been talking about himself. " the abomination that makes desolate ". The big word is " when" so it is future.


Future yes, NOT 2000+ years. Within a generation (40 years). As Jesus said

Matthew 24

34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.



Now those who ascribe all this to 70 AD is just plain wrong. The antiChrist at that time was Nero and He died 3 years before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army. Jesus said even before " the abomination that makes desolate there had to be deception as to who Christ is, ( the Church knows but the Jew still is in blindness ) there was to be famins, earthquakes, wars and rumors of war , nation against nation ---vs 8 --all these are the beggining of sorrows.


To understand the Abomination correctly we must go to scripture:

Matthew 24 (written to Jews)

15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Luke 21 (written to Gentiles)

20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

Comparing scripture we clearly see that the abomination is not someone going into a temple and desecrating the alter but the Roman Armies who surrounded Jerusalem before destroying it in 70 A.D. Notice also how the Tribulation is ONLY in Jerusalem and not the entire world. If it was why would Jesus say "let those who are in Judea, flee to the Mountains". It was only in Jerusalem. He was giving a warning to the faithful to flee the coming wrath.

Since the abomination in scripture are heathan armies there is no reason whatsoever to interpret the following as anything else either:

Daniel 11 (Septuagint into English Version)

11:31 And seeds shall spring up out of him, and they shall profane the sanctuary of strength, and they shall remove the perpetual [sacrifice], and make the abomination desolate.

Antiochus Epiphanes is who this prophecy is talking about but it was not him sacrificing a pig on the alter that was the abomination. Comparing scripture with scripture we have the abomination as heathan armies. Did Antiochus Epiphanes gather his armies against Israel. History records that he did in 167 B.C.



Think cronologicly and you arrive at the Antichrist being future. Also another point.


Can't be, it would destroy the prophecy and the time period God said it would be fulfilled. Any gap of years and we cannot in good conscience call this the prophecy of the "seventy sevens". God gave the time frame as 490 years and it was fulfilled in exactly that time frame. If our interpretation does not fit the time given we must change our interpretation and sometimes the nature of it.



JEus's crucifiction was not the fulfillment of all prophecy. Where did you get that? Our salvation was made possible but we have to trust Him for it.

Yes there will be sin in the 1000 years of peace--this is not the eternity
with Christ where there will be no more sin, no more tears, no more sorrow but HE will be our light.

This is when ( eternity ) we live wothout death and sin.



I must disagree, Jesus is with me now and will never leave me or forsake me. There is no more sin "in Christ" His blood has washed it all away. He is my light and my salvation. There is no more sorrow or tears because now He is with me and His Kingdom is within me. I have been restored to God himself. Death and sin are no more through the atoning work of Christ. It does not have a hold on me anymore.

Prophecy Man
Mar 1st 2007, 03:47 PM
Antiocus was a type of the Antichrist --not the antichrist--yet he was a antichrist al by himself.

Luke 21 : 32 " this Generation "

Vs thirty two comes after Jesus describes signs in the heavens
in the moon
and in the stars
and upon the earth distress of nations( Gentiles ) with perplexity
the sea roaring
Mens hearts failing them for fear
and for after looking those things which are coming upon the earth:
for ---- the powers of heaven shall be shaken

THEN

shall ye see the son of man coming in a cloud with power and Great
Glory.

" when these things begin to happen,
then look up , for your redemption
draweth nigh.( Jesus )

vs 29
Jesus begain to speak of the fig tree--
Israel
when ye see it's leaves start to shoot forth
ye see and know summer is near ( the 1000
year regin of Christ )

so likewise

when ye see these things come to pass :
know ye that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand ( again, the 1000 year regin of Christ)

vs 32 (this generation )

This generation shall not pass away untill all
be fulfilled ( this generation is connected to the kingdom of heaven )

if it is the generation in 70 AD then why does not the scripture agree with your statement--
for it says
after these things which is to happen at the second
advent of Christ

none of the things in luke 25-33 has happened yet or has it and I missed it?

third Hero is right on the money, it is all about Israel--this Generation

God bless

Doug

David Taylor
Mar 1st 2007, 04:11 PM
third Hero is right on the money, it is all about Israel




And all this time, I thought :idea: it was all about :bible:Jesus :bible:

Romulus
Mar 1st 2007, 07:06 PM
Antiocus was a type of the Antichrist --not the antichrist--yet he was a antichrist al by himself.


I agree he was a type, but scripture is clear that antichrist is anyone who has rejected Christ. There is no "THE" antichrist or one personification.



Luke 21 : 32 " this Generation "

Vs thirty two comes after Jesus describes signs in the heavens
in the moon
and in the stars
and upon the earth distress of nations( Gentiles ) with perplexity
the sea roaring
Mens hearts failing them for fear
and for after looking those things which are coming upon the earth:
for ---- the powers of heaven shall be shaken

THEN

shall ye see the son of man coming in a cloud with power and Great
Glory.

" when these things begin to happen,
then look up , for your redemption
draweth nigh.( Jesus )

vs 29
Jesus begain to speak of the fig tree--
Israel
when ye see it's leaves start to shoot forth
ye see and know summer is near ( the 1000
year regin of Christ )

so likewise

when ye see these things come to pass :
know ye that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand ( again, the 1000 year regin of Christ)

vs 32 (this generation )

This generation shall not pass away untill all
be fulfilled ( this generation is connected to the kingdom of heaven )

if it is the generation in 70 AD then why does not the scripture agree with your statement--
for it says
after these things which is to happen at the second
advent of Christ

none of the things in luke 25-33 has happened yet or has it and I missed it?

third Hero is right on the money, it is all about Israel--this Generation

God bless

Doug


I agree that all are connected. This scripture can be applied entirely to the Judgment coming of Christ in 70 A.D. All did happen within a generation. The application of a generation 2000+ years later is disregarding the meaning of the word "generation". Everywhere in the New Testament where generation is used is always meant "a people then living". Why does it suddenly mean a future generation not then living? A biblical generation is 40 years. The word "generation" used here in Luke 21, and Matthew 24 is "Genea". To make it fit a future generation the original greek word "genea" would have to be changed to "genos". Genos is not used in the original text, genea is. Jesus himself said to the pharises when he was on trial:

Matthew 26


63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&verse=63&end_verse=65&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-24115a)] the Son of God."
64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

Jesus was not talking to the pharises in the 21 st century, He was talking to the pharises who were putting Him on trial. He told them that they would see Him coming on the clouds of heaven. Jesus did not lie, He came in Judgment against them in the destruction of the temple. The judgement cloud imagery is from the Old Testament. The same imagery used there never literally happened but the judgment did. Does the scripture below sound familiar?

Esaias (Isaiah)] 13:1 THE VISION WHICH ESAIASSON OF AMOSSAWAGAINST BABYLON. (Septuagint into English-Brentons Edition)

13:2 Lift up a standard on the mountain of the plain, exalt the voice to them, beckon with the hand, open [the gates], ye rulers.
13:3 I give command, and I bring them: giants are coming to fulfil my wrath, rejoicing at the same time and insulting.
13:4 A voice of many nations on the mountains, [even] like [to that] of many nations; a voice of kings and nations gathered together: the Lord of hosts has given command to a war-like nation,
13:5 to come from a land afar off, from the utmost foundation of heaven; the Lord and his warriors [are coming] to destroy all the world.
13:6 Howl ye, for the day of the Lord is near, and destruction from God shall arrive.
13:7 Therefore every hand shall become powerless, and every soul of man shall be dismayed.
13:8 The elders shall be troubled, and pangs shall seize them, as of a woman in travail: and they shall mourn one to another, and shall be amazed, and shall change their countenance as a flame.
13:9 For behold! the day of the Lord is coming which cannot be escaped, [a day] of wrath and anger, to make the world desolate, and to destroy sinners out of it.
13:10 For the stars of heaven, and Orion, and all the host of heaven, shall not give their light; and it shall be dark at sunrise, and the moon shall not give her light.
13:11 And I will command evils for the whole world, and [will visit] their sins on the ungodly: and I will destroy the pride of transgressors, and will bring low the pride of the haughty.

This prophecy in Isaiah was fulfilled when King Cyrus took Babylon (between 458-457 B.C. Not using Ptolemy' cannon) . NONE of the celestial events ever happened, but the prophecy was fulfilled.


Esaias (Isaiah)] 19:1 THE VISION OF EGYPT. (Septuagint into English-Brenton's Edition)

Behold, the Lord sits on a swift cloud, and shall come to Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and their heart shall faint within them.
19:2 And the Egyptians shall be stirred up against the Egyptians: and a man shall fight against his brother, and a man against his neighbor, city against city, and law against law.
19:3 And the spirit of the Egyptians shall be troubled within them; and I will frustrate their counsel: and they shall enquire of their gods and their images, and them that speak out of the earth, and them that have in them a divining spirit.

This was fulfilled when Esarhaddan of Assyria, attacked Egypt in 671 B.C. Did Jesus come on a cloud to Egypt? NO he didn't, but the prophecy was fulfilled.

These are just example of what was understood about the Old Testament and especially to Jews who knew the scriptures backwards and forwards. We don't. The Jews understood judgment language when they heard it. This is scripture interpreting scripture. Using the Old Testment is our guide there is NO reason whatsoever to think that the celestial events in Matthew and Luke were to ever visibly happen if they didn't happen in the Old Testment.

The prophecies in Matthew and Luke were about the coming of Christ to establish the Kingdom. I believe to be in agreement with other Amillenials that the 1000 years was not literal and started in the 1st century and has been going on for the past 2000 years and will never end. Jesus has all dominion in heaven and on earth now. The end of the (Old Testament)age occurred in the destruction of the last sign of the Old Covenant, the Temple in Jerusalem.

third hero
Mar 1st 2007, 07:24 PM
And all this time, I thought :idea: it was all about :bible:Jesus :bible:

To all of the world, it IS all about Jesus. As far as the seventy weeks are concerned, it IS all about Israel. People tend to forget about that fact. If everything that is stated to happen to Israel happens to all of the world, and not to Israel, then the prophecy has not been fulfilled. Daniel was not a Christian. He was an Israelite. Christianity does not have an earthly Holy City, for our Holy city is New Jerusalem. Israel has a holy city, and that is Jerusalem. The seventy weeks were to be applied to Daniel's people and their holy city for the things described in chapter 9 verse 24.

Where we come in is the fact that after the 69th week, the Messiah would be cut off, but not for His own. He was cut off for all of us. This statement shows that Christ died for our sins, and theirs too, but because they would not accept that, the ones that were not His becomes His by virtue of faith in the death and resurrection of the Messiah. This is the only place where the gentile nations have any say about the 70 weeks in Daniel.

Like I said, if everything in Daniel 7:24 hapens to the rest of the world, and it does not happen to Israel, then the prophecy has not been fulfilled, because the wording of verse 24 is specific in the fact that the things that are suppose to happen at the end of the seventy weeks is suppose to happen to Israel, and their holy city of Jerusalem.

third hero
Mar 1st 2007, 07:54 PM
Esaias (Isaiah)] 13:1 THE VISION WHICH ESAIASSON OF AMOSSAWAGAINST BABYLON. (Septuagint into English-Brentons Edition)

13:2 Lift up a standard on the mountain of the plain, exalt the voice to them, beckon with the hand, open [the gates], ye rulers.
13:3 I give command, and I bring them: giants are coming to fulfil my wrath, rejoicing at the same time and insulting.
13:4 A voice of many nations on the mountains, [even] like [to that] of many nations; a voice of kings and nations gathered together: the Lord of hosts has given command to a war-like nation,
13:5 to come from a land afar off, from the utmost foundation of heaven; the Lord and his warriors [are coming] to destroy all the world.
13:6 Howl ye, for the day of the Lord is near, and destruction from God shall arrive.
13:7 Therefore every hand shall become powerless, and every soul of man shall be dismayed.
13:8 The elders shall be troubled, and pangs shall seize them, as of a woman in travail: and they shall mourn one to another, and shall be amazed, and shall change their countenance as a flame.
13:9 For behold! the day of the Lord is coming which cannot be escaped, [a day] of wrath and anger, to make the world desolate, and to destroy sinners out of it.
13:10 For the stars of heaven, and Orion, and all the host of heaven, shall not give their light; and it shall be dark at sunrise, and the moon shall not give her light.
13:11 And I will command evils for the whole world, and [will visit] their sins on the ungodly: and I will destroy the pride of transgressors, and will bring low the pride of the haughty.

This prophecy in Isaiah was fulfilled when King Cyrus took Babylon (between 458-457 B.C. Not using Ptolemy' cannon) . NONE of the celestial events ever happened, but the prophecy was fulfilled.

One thing that you fail to see Romulus, is that the entire chapter is a judgment against Babylon. IN case you did not notice, the city in which will be the center of the great evil when the Lord returns is called Babylon. I would venture to say that this Judgment that is proclaimed against babylon is a three parter.

1. These first verses that you mention sounds very familiar. In fact, Jesus restated allthese things would happen when He returns.

2. The actual dethroning of Babylon by the Medes starts at verse 14 and it's completion at verse 18.

3. The last judgment against Babylon that makes the literal city a wilderness, where only animals would inhabit it.

Here is why I say this as such. First of all, the Medes did not bring the wrath of God in the terms described above. They did slaughter every man woman and child they saw when the gate was opened in the middle of the night as Isaiah described in verses 14-18. The Medes then took over Babylon, and the Persians after them. Babylon went on long after the Persians were overthrown by the Greeks.

It wasn't until after Christ's death and resurrection where Babylon became a wilderness, where it stays to this day. The only thing there in Babylon right now are heliopads and bases for tanks and other military supplies, effectively destroying anything that would have been left to excavate from Babylon. Even Sadaam's attempt to rebuilt and restore Babylon failed by means of the USA attacking Iraq.

Therefore, it took well over 700 years for Babylon to become what God proclaimed it to be, and yet, the first part of that judgment, where God will come and punish the world for their iniquities, has not happened yet.

If we go on to believe as you have, that the whole prophecy against Babylon was to happen when the Medes took over Babylon, then we would have no choice but to say that this prophecy is inacurate, and Isaiah spoke presumptuously. However, because the last part of that prophecy happened, then we have no choice but to say what history taught us. The Medes took over Babylon, and ransacked it, just as Isaiah proclaimed would happen. The city Babylon is now a wilderness. The time it took to make this happen was longer, a lot longer than one generation. Therefore, the first part has to be a prophecy all in itself as well.

Jesus proved that Isaiah 13:2-11 IS a separate prophecy that affects a "Babylon". It is the time when God comes and punishes the world, and the Lord comes and attacks the armies of the world that are mustered against Him. Matthew 24:29-51 matches Isaiah 13:2-11 almost exactly, even down to the very sign of the Lord's return, where neither the sun, moon or stars show any light. Jesus knew that this very scripture described His retrun, and then shows John the end by showing him a city that was called, "Babylon", which we know is not the actual city of Babylon, but a city whose majesty would be equaled to Babylon. I could go into detail, but I have to get to work, but this is the jist of what I am saying.

Romulus
Mar 2nd 2007, 02:59 PM
1. These first verses that you mention sounds very familiar. In fact, Jesus restated allthese things would happen when He returns.

2. The actual dethroning of Babylon by the Medes starts at verse 14 and it's completion at verse 18.

3. The last judgment against Babylon that makes the literal city a wilderness, where only animals would inhabit it.



It seems strange that Christ's return is noted first here and then the literal fulfillment thousands of years before. The city of Babylon was the center of the Babylonian Kingdom. The language used is biblical literature. It is describing God's judgment. Babylon did exist for hundreds of years more but as far as a world empire, no. It was conquered. It brings to mind the scripture in Daniel that describes the image that Nebuchadnessar saw in his dream.

Daniel

2:39 Thou art the head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, an a third kingdom which is the brass, which shall have dominion over all the earth;
2:40 and a fourth kingdom, which shall be strong as iron: as iron beats to powder and subdues all things, so shall it beat to powder and subdue.

The prophecy is about the empire, not just the actual city. The simple fact that the Medes and Persians are mentioned, means it was now the end of the first kingdom. For all extensive purposes, the Babylonian Empire was conquered and succeeded by the 2nd Kingdom, Medo-Persia.

The celestial images as well are just that, images. Describing the judgment God fulfilled to them in their invasion of Israel. If the sun would literally not give it's light, the earth would die.......literally in less then an hour. This was not to ever happen then or in the future. The Babylonian empire was no more after King Cyrus. Medo Persia would now reign until the 3rd empire (Greece).

wpm
Mar 3rd 2007, 01:26 AM
Israel is still sinning against God. This is the truth. God has not reconciled Israel to Himself yet. This too is fact. Jerusalem has not finished transgression against God yet. This too is truth. No matter what you try to use to argue against this, the truth is still the truth, and the seventy weeks have not been totally fulfilled yet.


They will continue to sin the Premil millennium on the new earth. Mortal Israelis will continue with innate sin. So your argument doesn't seem to add up.

Paul

third hero
Mar 3rd 2007, 03:10 AM
They will continue to sin the Premil millennium on the new earth. Mortal Israelis will continue with innate sin. So your argument doesn't seem to add up.

Paul

I see that you are now emboldened because of your relative victory over me earlier. If you can call it that. Mortal Israelites will not continue to sin, because Paul's prophecy seals it, whether you think you can take Israel's place or not.

Btw, The millennium called, he said that he is only 1000 years, not 2000. Thanks.

Doug, the Third Hero

ShirleyFord
Mar 3rd 2007, 10:35 PM
I thank all of you for being respectful to me. It means a lot.

Yes, I believe there is yet one more week left of the prophecy. It does not mean the Crucifiction happnened in the middle of the seventieth week.

Just after Christ entered Jerusalem on The Colt of and Ass, the Jewish leaders rejected Him, Jesus entered the temple and over threw the money
changers and their tables. The Jews conspired to kill Jesus and a week later after Jesus entered Jerusalem , Jesus was crucified. Not three and one half years later, which would have made it in the middle of the seventieth week.

Doug

Hi Doug,

Dispensationalist leaders taught me also for many years that Daniel 9:26 began when Jesus entered Jerusalem on the colt of a donkey on what we call "Palm Sunday" when Jesus presented Himself to the Jews as their promised Messiah. And they killed Jesus during the following week.

But the unbelieving Jews rejected Jesus at the beginning of His ministry and continued to reject Him and sought ways to kill Him from the very first sermon He preached in the synagogue in Nazareth at the beginning of His ministry in Luke 4.

They claimed that if "after" the 69 weeks in Daniel 9:26 meant the 70th week, it wouldn't make any difference since Jesus would have been crucified a few days into the 70th week. And a full 7 years would still be left to be fulfilled.

John the Baptist presented Jesus to Israel at His baptism and shortly afterward at the beginning of Jesus ministry.

John 1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

John 1:20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

John 1:22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

John 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

John 1:24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

John 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

John 1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

John 1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Jesus cleansed the temple twice, Doug. Once at the beginning of His ministry and once at the end of His ministry.

John records the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of His ministry:

John 2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

John 2:14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

John 2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

John 2:17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Shirley

Prophecy Man
Mar 5th 2007, 04:43 PM
To support a doctrine that denies a literal period of time in the scripture is a little unbelieveable. When Jesus said something about " this generation " he was talking about a specific time period. I forget where but the scripture also states " Death regined from Adam untill the Law" so it is pointing out a clear time period. Some people want to give it a name and call it " despensations". I prefer to call it a time period. It is the same anyway you look at it. It is a movement from one period of time to another.

In all of these time periods the only way we are saved is by grace. ( Noah found grace in the Eyes of the Lord".. Tell me you don't know about the " period of the Judges".

About the 70 Th week, it really does matter if Jesus was crucified even a day in the 70 TH week because the scriptures states ---

70 Weeks of years are determined upon your people( Jews) and the holy city ( Jerusalem ) ....ect!-----then ----vs 25 ---- know therefore and understand ( math 24 : 15 Jesus said let the reader understand ) from the
going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem UNTO THE MESSIAH SHALL BE ---

7 WEEKS ( IT HAPPNED , A TIME PERIOD )
3 SCORE AND TWO WEEKS ( ANOTHER TIME PERIOD )

ALL THIS IS 69 WEEKS NOT ONE MENTION OF AN ENTERENCE INTO A 70 TH WEEK.

VS 26 IT SAYS " AFTER 3 SCORE AND TWO WEEKS " SHALL MESSIAH
BE CUT OFF"

SHIRLEY,
HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU PUT THE MESSIAH IN THE 70 TH WEEK WHEN IT PLAINLY STATES AFTER THE " 3 SCORE AND 2 WEEKS " SHALL MESSIAH BE CUT OFF ---- 69 WEEKS . AFTER THIS JUST A WEEK OF SEVEN DAYS JESUS ENTERED INTO JERUSALEM, REJECTED OF THE JEWISH LEADERS AND DENONCED AS MESSAIH BY THE SAME. JESUS PRONONCED JUDGEMENT ON THE TEMPLE AND EVEN SAID " FROM HINCE FORTH YOU WON'T SEE ME AGAIN INTILL YOU SAY BLESSED IS HE THAT COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD". JESUS WAS TALKING TO THE JEWS.

THE JEWS WILL SAY " BLESSED IS HE THAT COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD". YOU AND ALL THOSE WHO HAVE HEARD THE GOSPEL HAVE ALREADY PROCLAIMED BLESSED IS HE THAT HAS COME IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.

SO IT IS ABOUT THE JEW BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURE SAYS SO AND THE JEW WON'T BE SAVED WITHOUT THEIR ( NOW OURS ALSO ) MASSIAH.

IS IT ALL ABOUT JESUS? IT IS ALL ABOUT JESUS SAVING THE JEWS AND US ( WE HAVE BEEN SAVED ALREADY).

THIRD HERO YOU DO A VERY GOOD JOB DEFENDING ISRAEL AND THE END TIMES.

GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU

DOUG

wpm
Mar 5th 2007, 05:11 PM
I see that you are now emboldened because of your relative victory over me earlier. If you can call it that. Mortal Israelites will not continue to sin, because Paul's prophecy seals it, whether you think you can take Israel's place or not.

Btw, The millennium called, he said that he is only 1000 years, not 2000. Thanks.

Doug, the Third Hero

On what grounds can a mortal Jew be sinless in the millennium when he hasn't yet been glorified?

Paul

third hero
Mar 5th 2007, 05:20 PM
On what grounds can a mortal Jew be sinless in the millennium when he hasn't yet been glorified?

Paul

Romans 11:1. whom Paul identifies as the twelves tribes, which he was one of. Romans 11:25-26. The blindness of the unbelieving Jews will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles be, and at that time all Israel shall be saved, for it is written, that the Deliverer will clean the House of Jacob of it's iniquities. Last time I checked, the House of Jacob is the twelves tribes, because Jacob's one son is responsible for having the Messiah come from him, not all 12 tribes.

BeOfGoodCourage
Mar 5th 2007, 05:43 PM
Romans 11:1. whom Paul identifies as the twelves tribes, which he was one of. Romans 11:25-26. The blindness of the unbelieving Jews will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles be, and at that time all Israel shall be saved, for it is written, that the Deliverer will clean the House of Jacob of it's iniquities. Last time I checked, the House of Jacob is the twelves tribes, because Jacob's one son is responsible for having the Messiah come from him, not all 12 tribes.
TH,
Is it your personal understanding that at some point in time every living Jew at that time will come to salvation?
Are these Jews Jews because of a bloodline or because of conversion to judeism or both?
If bloodline, then how much of Abraham's blood makes any single person, living at that time, a jew in God's sight? One molecule or more or even less?
In your opinion does faith need to play a role in salvation if you are a Jew and have not yet recognized Christ as Savior.
Will the athiest, Jew who will be living at the return of Christ, recognise that he or she is one who pierced Christ at the cross? How will he or she know or even care that there is a Son of God since they do not believe in God to start with?
Is there more advantage to a jew to remain blinded and in darkeness in that day then to be one who had accepted Christ as Savior prior to His return?

I would appreciate your response in how you understand the answers to these questions I have raised.

In Him

Prophecy Man
Mar 5th 2007, 05:44 PM
By Scripture " The Man Of Sin", "the Son Of Perdition" , The Lawless One" " The Man Of Dark Sentences " " The Beast" The Diverse King" . " The King That Does According To His Own Will"

Some Preachers Have Called Him " Big Mouth". Anyway You Look At Scripture There Is To Be A Man Of Sin That Will Oppose The Forces Of God Almighty And God Himself. Daniel Chapter 11 Describes This Guy And How Evil He Is.

Rom ,
You Seem To Know Your Stuff But You Got To Remember Us Little Guys Don't Need The Fancy Scripture You Show Us. I Go By The Understanding If It An't Plain Enough To Be Understood By The Kjv I Don't Need To Be Dassled By " Another Translation" Or By What It Says In The Greek. I Dont Read Greek So All I Have Is The Version Translated By Very Compenant People--70 Of Them To Be Exact.

I Base My Salvation On This Jesus They Have Presented Through Their Eforts And Skills. From What I Understand Each Person Of This " 70" Was An Expert In Their Own Field. They Believed In A Man Of Sin.

Doug

third hero
Mar 5th 2007, 06:04 PM
TH,
Is it your personal understanding that at some point in time every living Jew at that time will come to salvation?
Are these Jews Jews because of a bloodline or because of conversion to judeism or both?
If bloodline, then how much of Abraham's blood makes any single person, living at that time, a jew in God's sight? One molecule or more or even less?
In your opinion does faith need to play a role in salvation if you are a Jew and have not yet recognized Christ as Savior.
Will the athiest, Jew who will be living at the return of Christ, recognise that he or she is one who pierced Christ at the cross? How will he or she know or even care that there is a Son of God since they do not believe in God to start with?
Is there more advantage to a jew to remain blinded and in darkeness in that day then to be one who had accepted Christ as Savior prior to His return?

I would appreciate your response in how you understand the answers to these questions I have raised.

In Him

It is not the bloodline that saves Israel. It will be a future event. I have discovered that Zachariah 14:1-5 and Matthew 24:15-17 aqre indeed connected. Also, Zachariah 12:7-10 and Zachariah 14:1-6 are connected as well. It is my understanding that a major event will happen, and that event will take the blinders off of every Jew on the face of the earth. Remember, it was an event that caused Saul to see that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.

Yes, faith is required, but not much, since Revelation records that before all this happens, two prophets will prophesy for 42 months, with signs and wonders, terrorizing the earth while they are prophesying to Jerusalem. The people will still not believe them, as it is evident in Revelation 11. However, sometihng that they will prophesy will cause them to believe it once it happens, and I believe that the two prophets will proclaim that God is not in the house they built for Him, and the Enemy's representative will stand there to proclaim himself to be god. The Israelites, who like always, will not believe until it happens. When it happens, they will have no choice but to believe, for the Lord Himself will deliver them from their enemies who will be trying to wipe them off of the face of the earth. Remember, Thomas doubted until he seen. In so, the Israelites will all be doubting Toms until the time for doubt to be erased will happen, when the abomination that causes desolation comes into being. God's covenant, through Christ Jesus has not changed, and will not, even when this day comes. faith is still required, but what if someone says to you so and so wil happen and it does. How much faith would you need, although faith is still required?

NO. It is not better for a Jew to be in darkness blinded by their unbelief. It is not a promise that the Jews still living will see that day, and all who die in darkness will earn the reward of those who live in darkness, whether they be Jew or Gentile. One has to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for a shot at forgiveness of sin. Like I said, this will not change.

Atheists and others who take the mark, at His return, will earn the reward of those who bowed to the Antichrist and his false prophet. And that is torment. It is also mentioned that the wicked at the time of His establishing of His throne on earth will suffer from a most horrible plague and will die from it. Hence the wicked are destroyed in the most hideous of ways. A literal wasting away of their flesh, which will kill them.

I hope I have answered all of your questions.

ShirleyFord
Mar 5th 2007, 06:22 PM
To support a doctrine that denies a literal period of time in the scripture is a little unbelieveable. When Jesus said something about " this generation " he was talking about a specific time period. I forget where but the scripture also states " Death regined from Adam untill the Law" so it is pointing out a clear time period. Some people want to give it a name and call it " despensations". I prefer to call it a time period. It is the same anyway you look at it. It is a movement from one period of time to another.

In all of these time periods the only way we are saved is by grace. ( Noah found grace in the Eyes of the Lord".. Tell me you don't know about the " period of the Judges".

About the 70 Th week, it really does matter if Jesus was crucified even a day in the 70 TH week because the scriptures states ---

70 Weeks of years are determined upon your people( Jews) and the holy city ( Jerusalem ) ....ect!-----then ----vs 25 ---- know therefore and understand ( math 24 : 15 Jesus said let the reader understand ) from the
going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem UNTO THE MESSIAH SHALL BE ---

7 WEEKS ( IT HAPPNED , A TIME PERIOD )
3 SCORE AND TWO WEEKS ( ANOTHER TIME PERIOD )

ALL THIS IS 69 WEEKS NOT ONE MENTION OF AN ENTERENCE INTO A 70 TH WEEK.

VS 26 IT SAYS " AFTER 3 SCORE AND TWO WEEKS " SHALL MESSIAH
BE CUT OFF"

SHIRLEY,
HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU PUT THE MESSIAH IN THE 70 TH WEEK WHEN IT PLAINLY STATES AFTER THE " 3 SCORE AND 2 WEEKS " SHALL MESSIAH BE CUT OFF ---- 69 WEEKS . AFTER THIS JUST A WEEK OF SEVEN DAYS JESUS ENTERED INTO JERUSALEM, REJECTED OF THE JEWISH LEADERS AND DENONCED AS MESSAIH BY THE SAME. JESUS PRONONCED JUDGEMENT ON THE TEMPLE AND EVEN SAID " FROM HINCE FORTH YOU WON'T SEE ME AGAIN INTILL YOU SAY BLESSED IS HE THAT COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD". JESUS WAS TALKING TO THE JEWS.

THE JEWS WILL SAY " BLESSED IS HE THAT COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD". YOU AND ALL THOSE WHO HAVE HEARD THE GOSPEL HAVE ALREADY PROCLAIMED BLESSED IS HE THAT HAS COME IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.

SO IT IS ABOUT THE JEW BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURE SAYS SO AND THE JEW WON'T BE SAVED WITHOUT THEIR ( NOW OURS ALSO ) MASSIAH.

IS IT ALL ABOUT JESUS? IT IS ALL ABOUT JESUS SAVING THE JEWS AND US ( WE HAVE BEEN SAVED ALREADY).

THIRD HERO YOU DO A VERY GOOD JOB DEFENDING ISRAEL AND THE END TIMES.

GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU

DOUG

Thanks Doug for your reply.

The Jews Messiah already came and fulfilled the 70th week of Daniel. Multitudes of Jews already proclaimed of Him, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" during the earthly ministry of Christ, from Penticost onward throughout the first century until now.

The gospel went out first to the Jews before it ever went out to the Gentiles. In fact, the gospel went out to Israelites in the nation of Israel during the times of the Old Testament, while the Gentiles except for a handful plus the Gentile city of Ninevah sat in total and complete darkness.

The door of Salvation stands wide open today for all, regardless of who they are. God is no respecter of persons. He is not a segregationalist, isolating a group of people, the Jews, from His glorious gospel and marvelous salvation from sin. But this is what Dispensationalism does. It says that a certain race of people aren't good enough to be saved now and deems them second class citizens and claims that God has another day to deal with them when the Church is removed from their midst, since the Church and Jews can't mix.

But this is not what the Bible says in either OT or NT. I must stick with what the Bible literally says, Doug.

Your sister in Christ,

Shirley

BeOfGoodCourage
Mar 5th 2007, 06:33 PM
It is not the bloodline that saves Israel. It will be a future event. I have discovered that Zachariah 14:1-5 and Matthew 24:15-17 aqre indeed connected. Also, Zachariah 12:7-10 and Zachariah 14:1-6 are connected as well. It is my understanding that a major event will happen, and that event will take the blinders off of every Jew on the face of the earth. Remember, it was an event that caused Saul to see that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.

Yes, faith is required, but not much, since Revelation records that before all this happens, two prophets will prophesy for 42 months, with signs and wonders, terrorizing the earth while they are prophesying to Jerusalem. The people will still not believe them, as it is evident in Revelation 11. However, sometihng that they will prophesy will cause them to believe it once it happens, and I believe that the two prophets will proclaim that God is not in the house they built for Him, and the Enemy's representative will stand there to proclaim himself to be god. The Israelites, who like always, will not believe until it happens. When it happens, they will have no choice but to believe, for the Lord Himself will deliver them from their enemies who will be trying to wipe them off of the face of the earth. Remember, Thomas doubted until he seen. In so, the Israelites will all be doubting Toms until the time for doubt to be erased will happen, when the abomination that causes desolation comes into being. God's covenant, through Christ Jesus has not changed, and will not, even when this day comes. faith is still required, but what if someone says to you so and so wil happen and it does. How much faith would you need, although faith is still required?

NO. It is not better for a Jew to be in darkness blinded by their unbelief. It is not a promise that the Jews still living will see that day, and all who die in darkness will earn the reward of those who live in darkness, whether they be Jew or Gentile. One has to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for a shot at forgiveness of sin. Like I said, this will not change.

Atheists and others who take the mark, at His return, will earn the reward of those who bowed to the Antichrist and his false prophet. And that is torment. It is also mentioned that the wicked at the time of His establishing of His throne on earth will suffer from a most horrible plague and will die from it. Hence the wicked are destroyed in the most hideous of ways. A literal wasting away of their flesh, which will kill them.

I hope I have answered all of your questions.

So just so I get this straight, you believe that every Jew on earth at that time will be saved, and you believe that a Jew is not neccessarily a jew by bloodline but could be a gentile converted to the jewish faith? Furthermore if you are a jew by blood but are an atheist jew then you are out of luck and you are lost because of the mark of the beast.

So if every jew is saved in the end but some are not saved in the end because of the mark of the beast, then really not every jew in the end is saved? Is that about right?

Romulus
Mar 5th 2007, 07:27 PM
Some Preachers Have Called Him " Big Mouth". Anyway You Look At Scripture There Is To Be A Man Of Sin That Will Oppose The Forces Of God Almighty And God Himself. Daniel Chapter 11 Describes This Guy And How Evil He Is.


This man I don't believe to be the same person. Going through the different empires we find that this person "who sets up the abomination" in Daniel 11:31 really is Antiochus Epiphanes. If you mean the King of Daniel 11:36 I believe King Herod to be this person.



Rom ,
You Seem To Know Your Stuff But You Got To Remember Us Little Guys Don't Need The Fancy Scripture You Show Us. I Go By The Understanding If It An't Plain Enough To Be Understood By The Kjv I Don't Need To Be Dassled By " Another Translation" Or By What It Says In The Greek. I Dont Read Greek So All I Have Is The Version Translated By Very Compenant People--70 Of Them To Be Exact.


We are all "little guys" Doug, no one is better then another. Different translations have different meanings, which why it is good to see different renderings of a certain scripture. The Septuagint into English bv Brenton is very easy to read because it is in english, not Greek. I can't read Greek either. I found that this is more accurate for Old Testament scriptures and helps me in my research. If it does not help you, that's okay. I was "dazzled" in the translation that it excited me to see scripture from the original Greek and reconciled some problems I came up with. Sorry to hear it did not excite you.



I Base My Salvation On This Jesus They Have Presented Through Their Eforts And Skills. From What I Understand Each Person Of This " 70" Was An Expert In Their Own Field. They Believed In A Man Of Sin.

Doug


Most scholars are deemed experts but even experts can be wrong. It is the one that comes with an interpretation that is scripturally sound that is important. If it doesn't speak for you, then that's okay. Agree with the one that does. Coincidentally I do believe in a "Man of Sin". Just that he existed in the 1st Century and not today. I also believe that the 1) Man of Sin 2) Beast 3) Daniel 11's 2 Kings to be separate people.

God Bless

quiet dove
Mar 5th 2007, 08:42 PM
Forgive me for the interuption, I just wanted to present a quick thought.


The door of Salvation stands wide open today for all, regardless of who they are. God is no respecter of persons. He is not a segregationalist, isolating a group of people, the Jews, from His glorious gospel and marvelous salvation from sin.


The above statment in right on.

Below is what I wanted to comment on,


But this is what Dispensationalism does. It says that a certain race of people aren't good enough to be saved now and deems them second class citizens and claims that God has another day to deal with them when the Church is removed from their midst, since the Church and Jews can't mix.

It seems there is misunderstanding between the views in terms of what "dispensationalist" think or believe. I have never heard this taught by someone who would be considered a dispensationalist. It isnt a matter of anyone being better on account of nationality than another. As the first quote aboe says and in my opinion is 100% accurate. Of course Jews and Gentiles can mix and then the two, (all believeing individuals), become one Body of Christ, the Church. Jewish and Gentile believers together, as one.

Yes we do believe in the rapture and that the Church will be taken, all the Church, all who have excepted Christ, Jew and Gentile, together. During the tribulation, it wont be the Jewish people who are second class by any means as they ARE NOT second class now. God forbid that any thinks that way.

As Revelation tells us, especially the 144, will be sealed, they will believe in Jesus and know Him as the One promised, the Messiah. They will be protected, they will preach the gospel. This doesnt mean that the Jewish believers in our present time will get left to do this, heavens no, it means that after the rapture, all who will then except Jesus as the promised Son of God

To think anyone believes that someone of any nationality isnt good enough to be save is a very very sad thing to believe and as a "dispensationalist" I guess I am as I believe in the rapture (Shrily you know these "labels" confuse me:rolleyes: ) but God forbid, I should ever think of myself as more deserving, as God as my witness, that just isnt true. And that is why I felt the need to make this post so again, forgive me for interupting.

And I know that you didnt say this in a personal way toward anyone but I just wanted to make a statement so if there is someone out there who does feel that way, maybe they will understand from this that it is not Biblical to think we are better than someone else. Anyone else.

"All men have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God"

ShirleyFord
Mar 5th 2007, 10:46 PM
Forgive me for the interuption, I just wanted to present a quick thought.


The above statment in right on.

Below is what I wanted to comment on,



It seems there is misunderstanding between the views in terms of what "dispensationalist" think or believe. I have never heard this taught by someone who would be considered a dispensationalist. It isnt a matter of anyone being better on account of nationality than another. As the first quote aboe says and in my opinion is 100% accurate. Of course Jews and Gentiles can mix and then the two, (all believeing individuals), become one Body of Christ, the Church. Jewish and Gentile believers together, as one.

Yes we do believe in the rapture and that the Church will be taken, all the Church, all who have excepted Christ, Jew and Gentile, together. During the tribulation, it wont be the Jewish people who are second class by any means as they ARE NOT second class now. God forbid that any thinks that way.

As Revelation tells us, especially the 144, will be sealed, they will believe in Jesus and know Him as the One promised, the Messiah. They will be protected, they will preach the gospel. This doesnt mean that the Jewish believers in our present time will get left to do this, heavens no, it means that after the rapture, all who will then except Jesus as the promised Son of God

To think anyone believes that someone of any nationality isnt good enough to be save is a very very sad thing to believe and as a "dispensationalist" I guess I am as I believe in the rapture (Shrily you know these "labels" confuse me:rolleyes: ) but God forbid, I should ever think of myself as more deserving, as God as my witness, that just isnt true. And that is why I felt the need to make this post so again, forgive me for interupting.

And I know that you didnt say this in a personal way toward anyone but I just wanted to make a statement so if there is someone out there who does feel that way, maybe they will understand from this that it is not Biblical to think we are better than someone else. Anyone else.

"All men have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God"

Hi QD,

The Bible says that Today is the Day of Salvation and doesn't speak of another day of Salvation before or after Christ returns for the nation of Israel or for anyone else, that I can find.

I was Pretrib for 59 years. And a dispensationalist for 29 of those years. I was not only taught it by the greatest of the dispensationalist leaders but I turned around and taught many others for years and years what I had been taught.

No, dispensationalist leaders don't come right out and say what I said. But for them to say that the purpose of the GT is so God can turn back to Israel again and deal with her so she will accept her Messiah when He returns by punishing her so severly for rejecting Jesus the first time He came until He must kill 2/3 of them trying to get them to repent before the 1/3 who are left finally cries "uncle" and repents, is exactly what I finally saw that they meant.

Salvation by force without the Holy Spirit (since He was only in the Church and the Church was off the planet by this time) sent red flags flying every time I heard it and taught it. And these same leaders taught that Salvation from sin was God's free gift of grace to all who would receive it. But to all didn't really include all; not the unbelieving Jews, I learned early on. They had to wait until another day and then had to pay for their own sins with their own blood during the GT. They couldn't be a part of the "Church age" since God had a different plan and different destination for them.

Now this is what I was taught and believed and taught myself for so many years until I finally turned to God's Word and couldn't find it anywhere. I don't know what others have been taught. But I'm very familiar with the leaders who teach dispensationalism from Darby all the way up through today.

Don't feel bad Sister about confusing labels. I had never heard of any of these labels before until 2002.:)

Shirley

quiet dove
Mar 6th 2007, 04:32 AM
I was Pretrib for 59 years. And a dispensationalist for 29 of those years.

Just a note here, I thought if you were one it meant by default you were the other
I think that is why I tend to debate post by post and verse by verse. My memory is to short to remember who might be what. Life is to short. I sincerely want to know if I am wrong, not that I will like it, but its a need to know thing.




No, dispensationalist leaders don't come right out and say what I said. But for them to say that the purpose of the GT is so God can turn back to Israel again and deal with her so she will accept her Messiah when He returns by punishing her so severly for rejecting Jesus the first time He came until He must kill 2/3 of them trying to get them to repent before the 1/3 who are left finally cries "uncle" and repents, is exactly what I finally saw that they meant.

Salvation by force without the Holy Spirit (since He was only in the Church and the Church was off the planet by this time) sent red flags flying every time I heard it and taught it. And these same leaders taught that Salvation from sin was God's free gift of grace to all who would receive it. But to all didn't really include all; not the unbelieving Jews, I learned early on. They had to wait until another day and then had to pay for their own sins with their own blood during the GT. They couldn't be a part of the "Church age" since God had a different plan and different destination for them.



I think the thing I disagree with here is that, there is no reason for Israel to go through the tribulation. All people from all backgrounds and races, every one is being offered the free gift of salvation, there is no reason for any one Jewish or Gentile to go through it. I dont think that it is possible for Israel to pay for her sins anymore than you or I could have. I guess that is where I didnt get what they are teaching. I dont know why they would say Israel must wait. Or someone Jewish. Or anyone.

The verses that say "their blindess is in part" or like in the OT where it says "God hardened so and so's heart". Those verses are very hard for me to understand. I just have to believe He is just and knows what He is doing on that. I cant comprehend that He would harden or blind someone who would have otherwise said yes to Jesus. I just have to believe He is just and knows what He is doing, because I do not understand those verses.

I guess I dont look at it like God is forcing people to turn to Him and I believe that the Holy Spirit will be present during the GT even if the Church is raptured because the Holy Spirit, like God and Jesus is not dependent on the Church (His indwelling of the Church) to be present where He chooses. He doesnt need or have to have the believers to do anything. Wouldnt using force during the GT be the same as using force now. If God doesnt want to force us to love Him now why would He force anyone at any time. Like in Rev where it says people will want to hide "from the wrath of the Lamb". They know who is doing it but still refuse to acknowledge Him as God and themselves as sinners. That isnt an Israel thing but an everyone thing. Gentiles included.

I think the Church will and should be held accountable for the fact that we have been so blessed with His indwelling and then I look at how some of us, including my self, have behaved over the years. We are without excuse. Myself included. It just goes to show how far away, as a sinful creature, we really are from our God, ya know?

I think we flatter ourselves to think God "needs" us to accomplish His purpose. I believe we are privledged that He botheres to use us. It truly shows His love for all men that we are given opportunity to serve Him. Serving Him isnt something we do for Him it is something He does for us.

And peronally, it is totaly beyond me how anyone can consider themself better than another for any reason as we were all created the way God chose to create us. Jew or Gentile, black or white.

I am trying to sort through the reason for the GT in the first place in another thread, so I will leave that for the other thread. But I guess because I feel the way I do it was hard for me to understand why people get so upset with me at times. But in light of some people teaching what you were saying above I can understand their upset if they thought I felt that way.



Don't feel bad Sister about confusing labels. I had never heard of any of these labels before until 2002


I think the reason I am having so much trouble with the label business is I was raised and then as an adult agree, that people cant just be glopped in a pile due to their race or nationality or for any reason really. And labels are difficult for me.

wpm
Mar 6th 2007, 11:02 AM
Just a note here, I thought if you were one it meant by default you were the other
I think that is why I tend to debate post by post and verse by verse. My memory is to short to remember who might be what. Life is to short. I sincerely want to know if I am wrong, not that I will like it, but its a need to know thing.




I think the thing I disagree with here is that, there is no reason for Israel to go through the tribulation. All people from all backgrounds and races, every one is being offered the free gift of salvation, there is no reason for any one Jewish or Gentile to go through it. I dont think that it is possible for Israel to pay for her sins anymore than you or I could have. I guess that is where I didnt get what they are teaching. I dont know why they would say Israel must wait. Or someone Jewish. Or anyone.

The verses that say "their blindess is in part" or like in the OT where it says "God hardened so and so's heart". Those verses are very hard for me to understand. I just have to believe He is just and knows what He is doing on that. I cant comprehend that He would harden or blind someone who would have otherwise said yes to Jesus. I just have to believe He is just and knows what He is doing, because I do not understand those verses.

I guess I dont look at it like God is forcing people to turn to Him and I believe that the Holy Spirit will be present during the GT even if the Church is raptured because the Holy Spirit, like God and Jesus is not dependent on the Church (His indwelling of the Church) to be present where He chooses. He doesnt need or have to have the believers to do anything. Wouldnt using force during the GT be the same as using force now. If God doesnt want to force us to love Him now why would He force anyone at any time. Like in Rev where it says people will want to hide "from the wrath of the Lamb". They know who is doing it but still refuse to acknowledge Him as God and themselves as sinners. That isnt an Israel thing but an everyone thing. Gentiles included.

I think the Church will and should be held accountable for the fact that we have been so blessed with His indwelling and then I look at how some of us, including my self, have behaved over the years. We are without excuse. Myself included. It just goes to show how far away, as a sinful creature, we really are from our God, ya know?

I think we flatter ourselves to think God "needs" us to accomplish His purpose. I believe we are privledged that He botheres to use us. It truly shows His love for all men that we are given opportunity to serve Him. Serving Him isnt something we do for Him it is something He does for us.

And peronally, it is totaly beyond me how anyone can consider themself better than another for any reason as we were all created the way God chose to create us. Jew or Gentile, black or white.

I am trying to sort through the reason for the GT in the first place in another thread, so I will leave that for the other thread. But I guess because I feel the way I do it was hard for me to understand why people get so upset with me at times. But in light of some people teaching what you were saying above I can understand their upset if they thought I felt that way.



I think the reason I am having so much trouble with the label business is I was raised and then as an adult agree, that people cant just be glopped in a pile due to their race or nationality or for any reason really. And labels are difficult for me.

As a former Pretribber, a point I found amazing was that I couldn't actually find a 7yrs trib mentioned in Scripture. Also when I looked at "the GT" matter I found it wasn't what I thought. It is simply a 'TG' or tribulation great in the original - with no definite article.

Paul

ShirleyFord
Mar 6th 2007, 11:32 AM
I was Pretrib for 59 years. And a dispensationalist for 29 of those years. I was not only taught it by the greatest of the dispensationalist leaders but I turned around and taught many others for years and years what I had been taught.
Just a note here, I thought if you were one it meant by default you were the other

QD,

In a nutshell, Dispensationalism is based upon a separation between Israel and the church. I had never heard of such a thing until 1970 when I was 30 years old. And I had been in Church all my life.

I say that I was pretrib in that all I had ever heard about the endtimes until then from as long as I can remember was that God was coming back one day before the Great Tribulation of the Battle of Armageddon to take those who were ready back to heaven with Him to live forever. God would punish those left behind for their sins who were not ready at the Battle of Armageddon until their blood ran up to the horses bridles. No mention of a second chance for those left behind to get saved or the time that God would deal with national Israel so that she would receive her Messiah when He returned to restore the land and the kingdom of David back to her. I had never heard of a future 1000 year millennial reign on earth after the Second Coming until 1970.

Most likely those teaching this back then between the 1940s and 1970s were dispensationalist. Their focus seemed to be the Rapture and the consequences to those left behind and left it at that, or at least that is all I could comprehend growing up from hearing them and my mother explaining to me what they said.


Shirley

ShirleyFord
Mar 6th 2007, 01:45 PM
QD,

Many believe that dispensationalism means pretrib and that moving from pretrib to post-trib moves them completely away from dispensationalism. But I have found through many years of studying dispensationalism that that is not the case. Pretrib was the answer of those who came up with the idea in the 1800s for keeping the Church and unbelieving national Israel separated. They claimed that God has two different people, the Church and unbelieving national Israel, with two different plans who must be kept separated so that God could deal with national Israel with the Church out of the way so that she would finally repent and receive her Messiah when Jesus returned. And then God could fulfill the promises He made to Abraham for Israel during the thousand year millennial reign.

Then some dispensationalist leaders came up with another formula of how to still keep the view of two different peoples of God and move away from the pretrib rapture camp to pos-trib.

People really need to know what they believe and why they believe as they do. And find out everything and exactly what their leaders they follow teach and believe. Then compare it all to what the Bible literally says.

Shirley

Prophecy Man
Mar 6th 2007, 03:23 PM
is just what He said. Have you seen Jesus? No, has anyone else for that matter, no. The key word is " Again", Peter denied Christ three times but was given the oppertunity to confess Him and he did. JEsus told us in the upper room He is coming again. It is the same promise but as you know the Jew at this moment in time is still foggy as to who their messiah is.
Not so with us, the church, we know who Jesus is but later on when things get so bad world wide for the Jew they will gladly call on Him.

Shirley this is not an oppinion as some seem to think we are presenting to you. This is scripture through and through.

Ezek 20 describes it pretty good. The word says " they will loath themselves for all they have done". God has many times in scripture
said he is punishing them for their sins of Idolatry. They have gone astray but God will not altoghther leave them unpunished but will have mercy on them " and will save them from from afar".

Be of good comfort should know of these passages because these are the passages proclaiming God's love for Israel.

Third Hero explains it real good. Simply put God is not finished with " the whole house of Israel". WE are not the whold house of Israel, we are gentiles saved and grafted in to " the vine". The min we accept Jesus
we become Children of God " adopted sons and daughters".

The ones who have been born as Jews need saving just like we need it. How God is going about it is His buisness but God will save them. Also not all will accept Him, just like not all gentiles have accepted him but A small part ----

A third part will recieve Him---this is scripture. check it out and you will see.

Doug

quiet dove
Mar 6th 2007, 06:06 PM
wpm
As a former Pretribber, a point I found amazing was that I couldn't actually find a 7yrs trib mentioned in Scripture. Also when I looked at "the GT" matter I found it wasn't what I thought. It is simply a 'TG' or tribulation great in the original - with no definite article.


The word “great tribulation” may not be specifically stated, as through history we have developed terminology that’s describes our understanding of what scripture teaches. And we then tend to refer to the whole picture of something by the term or terms of our familiarity. And I believe it is evident through out prophesy, here and there, that prophesy indicates a definite time of escalated problems toward the end of “history” for lack of a better way of putting it. As far as the number seven goes, Daniel is the only place (that I know of that supports a 7 year trib) and there is no point in you and I going there ,ye? :hug:

But I do think within the Bible the number 7 is a significant number because it is used over and over and applied in many different situations, from visions to serving(like Jacob for Rachael) just examples of seven, not applying that to the trib.

quiet dove
Mar 6th 2007, 06:43 PM
Shirley
In a nutshell, Dispensationalism is based upon a separation between Israel and the church. I had never heard of such a thing until 1970 when I was 30 years old. And I had been in Church all my life
.
Unfortuntely, I think that there are plenty of teachers, claiming to be christian and with the next breath preching this separation. I don’t see a separation of any people Jew or Gentile, in terms of the Church and all who are “eligible” for salvation, which would be every person ever born.

When I speak of national Israel, it mean it in terms of during the trib and they also will be saved the same way as you and I, through Jesus. It is just refering to a plan that God has purposed that will happen yet in the future. It in no way means that there is any reason that all people should not be saved now and are certainly invited to be a part of the Body of Chirst, now. All men stand on equal ground and are offered the free gift of salvation, today. Waiting is a mistake for anyone who chooses to do so.

At least you were told He was coming back, I don’t even remember being told that much. Just be good, believe in Jesus or go to …. well you know.

People really need to know what they believe and why they believe as they do. And find out everything and exactly what their leaders they follow teach and believe. Then compare it all to what the Bible literally says.


I think this is where positive use of the forum comes in, with our different opinions we can then go search the scriptures on our own, without holding a book open and someone else telling us word for word what it says and we can learn to be dependent on the Holy Spirit more and more and day by day, like we should have been in the first place.

wpm
Mar 6th 2007, 07:25 PM
The word “great tribulation” may not be specifically stated, as through history we have developed terminology that’s describes our understanding of what scripture teaches. And we then tend to refer to the whole picture of something by the term or terms of our familiarity. And I believe it is evident through out prophesy, here and there, that prophesy indicates a definite time of escalated problems toward the end of “history” for lack of a better way of putting it. As far as the number seven goes, Daniel is the only place (that I know of that supports a 7 year trib) and there is no point in you and I going there ,ye? :hug:

But I do think within the Bible the number 7 is a significant number because it is used over and over and applied in many different situations, from visions to serving(like Jacob for Rachael) just examples of seven, not applying that to the trib.


Daniel 9 is the only place. The only problem for the Pretrib view is that there is no rapture mentioned, no 7yrs trib mentioned, or no third Coming mentioned. :)

Paul

ShirleyFord
Mar 6th 2007, 08:41 PM
is just what He said. Have you seen Jesus? No, has anyone else for that matter, no. The key word is " Again", Peter denied Christ three times but was given the oppertunity to confess Him and he did. JEsus told us in the upper room He is coming again. It is the same promise but as you know the Jew at this moment in time is still foggy as to who their messiah is.
Not so with us, the church, we know who Jesus is but later on when things get so bad world wide for the Jew they will gladly call on Him.

Shirley this is not an oppinion as some seem to think we are presenting to you. This is scripture through and through.

Ezek 20 describes it pretty good. The word says " they will loath themselves for all they have done". God has many times in scripture
said he is punishing them for their sins of Idolatry. They have gone astray but God will not altoghther leave them unpunished but will have mercy on them " and will save them from from afar".

Be of good comfort should know of these passages because these are the passages proclaiming God's love for Israel.

Third Hero explains it real good. Simply put God is not finished with " the whole house of Israel". WE are not the whold house of Israel, we are gentiles saved and grafted in to " the vine". The min we accept Jesus
we become Children of God " adopted sons and daughters".

The ones who have been born as Jews need saving just like we need it. How God is going about it is His buisness but God will save them. Also not all will accept Him, just like not all gentiles have accepted him but A small part ----

A third part will recieve Him---this is scripture. check it out and you will see.

Doug

Doug,

Do you have any Scripture which says that natural-born Jews must wait until the Church is out of the way before they can be saved?

How do you believe God will save them?

Many Jews believed on Jesus during His earthly ministry and the gospel went out to the Jews first and from the day of Penticost, we read in the book of Acts how thousands upon thousands believed the gospel preached to them and were saved just as we Gentiles are today.

I can't find a Scripture saying anything about God putting a stop to the gospel going out to the nation of Israel. I never read where God set aside until a future date the opportunity for any Jew or any other people to obey the gospel and come to Christ.

Shirley

Serpent Seed
Mar 7th 2007, 01:33 AM
It has gotten worse and worse over the last 5-10 years. At times is seems as if eveything demonic shows up in the churches from one person to the next they are captive by darkness and they don't even know it. Some of those demonic spirit are so strong, that it is best to stay away from them. Jesus said for us to agree with our advesary quickly. Those spirits will posess one person with the spirit of homosexuality, sorcery, self hate, suicide, and murder. If a pastor is a non-repentant homosexaul, he has several other dark spirits in and around him that are demonic. The spirits travel in packs. The Bible says that the legions are many. I'm sure more will be exposed as time goes by.

I very much agree with you about the fact that things [and people especially] are getting worse. You have your head in the sand if you think it's gonna get any better. Things are going back to seed now [which is why I chose my username, which I'll explain at a more convenient time]. The Bible says that the people who already belong to the Devil will get worse the closer we get to the end. But on the other hand, the Sons of God [or the true Christians] are becoming more mature and manifested, conforming to the image of Christ and coming to the stature of a perfect man. Sure, technology has improved greatly over the years, but people haven't. Even though we have goods and conveniences that have greatly improved and made the quality of life better, it's also made life more complicated. I know it's made MY life more complicated, in a way. Moreover, it seems like the more materially blessed we get, the further and further from God we're getting. I've noticed that [compared to now] things were rather innocent 5-10 years ago. I can count on all my fingers and toes the number of people [especially celebrities] who were once wholesome [or looked like saints compared to now], but have either thrown away their morals, or just gotten worse and gone to the dogs altogether. To be honest, some of those people are in my immediate family, especially my younger sister.

Back to the subject at hand. I do believe that the rapture will be hidden from a lot of people. Everyone has this big idea that everyone will know the rapture has taken place, which I believe is a terrible exaggeration. Everyone will NOT know the rapture has taken place, especially the ones who have never heard of such a thing. I'm pretty sure that most of you have heard of this 'Millions Are Missing' theory. Sure that may make for a good story, but I don't think it's how it's gonna be when rapture takes place. I believe that at the ressurection there is gonna be an event take place simultaneously that's gonna be so tragic [the Great -E-quake that Revelation talks about that will somehow impact the whole world.] that the world's gonna get it's eye on that and miss the rapture. Think about it; if you were an atheist [speaking hypothetically], the rapture would be the LAST thing on your mind, even if you've heard about it. In the day of Jesus, an earthquake in Jerusalem happened at the same time as the ressurection of the Old Testament saints. Since my time's short here, I'll later give more reasons why the people [the unrighteous, sinners, unsaved, and foolish virgins] won't know the rapture has taken place.

John146
Mar 7th 2007, 03:06 AM
I very much agree with you about the fact that things [and people especially] are getting worse. You have your head in the sand if you think it's gonna get any better. Things are going back to seed now [which is why I chose my username, which I'll explain at a more convenient time]. The Bible says that the people who already belong to the Devil will get worse the closer we get to the end. But on the other hand, the Sons of God [or the true Christians] are becoming more mature and manifested, conforming to the image of Christ and coming to the stature of a perfect man. Sure, technology has improved greatly over the years, but people haven't. Even though we have goods and conveniences that have greatly improved and made the quality of life better, it's also made life more complicated. I know it's made MY life more complicated, in a way. Moreover, it seems like the more materially blessed we get, the further and further from God we're getting. I've noticed that [compared to now] things were rather innocent 5-10 years ago. I can count on all my fingers and toes the number of people [especially celebrities] who were once wholesome [or looked like saints compared to now], but have either thrown away their morals, or just gotten worse and gone to the dogs altogether. To be honest, some of those people are in my immediate family, especially my younger sister.

Back to the subject at hand. I do believe that the rapture will be hidden from a lot of people. Everyone has this big idea that everyone will know the rapture has taken place, which I believe is a terrible exaggeration. Everyone will NOT know the rapture has taken place, especially the ones who have never heard of such a thing. I'm pretty sure that most of you have heard of this 'Millions Are Missing' theory. Sure that may make for a good story, but I don't think it's how it's gonna be when rapture takes place. I believe that at the ressurection there is gonna be an event take place simultaneously that's gonna be so tragic [the Great -E-quake that Revelation talks about that will somehow impact the whole world.] that the world's gonna get it's eye on that and miss the rapture. Think about it; if you were an atheist [speaking hypothetically], the rapture would be the LAST thing on your mind, even if you've heard about it. In the day of Jesus, an earthquake in Jerusalem happened at the same time as the ressurection of the Old Testament saints. Since my time's short here, I'll later give more reasons why the people [the unrighteous, sinners, unsaved, and foolish virgins] won't know the rapture has taken place.

Millions disappear and no one notices. Of course. I'm sure that's in the Bible somewhere, right? Or maybe not.

Prophecy Man
Mar 7th 2007, 04:25 PM
Shirley,
The bible very often speaks of things understood. They do not have to be
explained because they are understood. When Daniel was told as to who
the 70 weeks of years was determined upon and what city is the same,
this should be understood through out scripture. It is understood the church was not there in the first 69 weeks, why then , will the church be there during the 70 TH?

We do not have to " intrupret " anything we just have to understand.

Jesus before He departed opened the discipels understanding, in Mathew 24 : 15 Jesus said " let the reader understand ." He told the Pharasees and Sadducees " you search the scripture daily for salvation but it is they that testifiy about me". Do you, a believer, have to interpret scripture as to who Jesus is or do you understand who He is?

The church cannot be there if the 70 weeks of years are dependent upon the Jews and their city , Jerusalem.

Doug

PS I have no more time but will continue later

wpm
Mar 7th 2007, 05:23 PM
Shirley,
The bible very often speaks of things understood. They do not have to be
explained because they are understood. When Daniel was told as to who
the 70 weeks of years was determined upon and what city is the same,
this should be understood through out scripture. It is understood the church was not there in the first 69 weeks, why then , will the church be there during the 70 TH?

We do not have to " intrupret " anything we just have to understand.

Jesus before He departed opened the discipels understanding, in Mathew 24 : 15 Jesus said " let the reader understand ." He told the Pharasees and Sadducees " you search the scripture daily for salvation but it is they that testifiy about me". Do you, a believer, have to interpret scripture as to who Jesus is or do you understand who He is?

The church cannot be there if the 70 weeks of years are dependent upon the Jews and their city , Jerusalem.

Doug

PS I have no more time but will continue later

The word interpreted "Church" in our English language is actually the Greek word ecclesia. It simply means the assembly or congregation of God's people. It relates to the people of God as much in the OT as it does to us in the NT. That’s why Stephen could declare, in reference to the Old Testament saints, in Acts 7:36-38, “he (Moses) had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.”

Stephen locates the Old Testament saints in Acts 7:36-38 in the Church, even though he is describing OT Israel. There can be no doubt Israel is described as "the church in the wilderness." Nothing could be clearer. I feel that doo deny that is denying the clear emphasis of the reading.

The word ecclesia (Church) is found 77 times in the Greek Old Testament - Septuagint (LXX) – referring to Israel. This proves that the terms Church and Israel are interchanged. Christ and the Apostles employed and quoted extensively from the Septuagint during the early New Testament Church. The word is found 116 times in the New Testament. It was a term that they were very familiar with. The Septuagint was written about 200 years before Christ was born.

The ‘Church’ ekklesia -1577 is found throughout the Greek Old Testament – the Septuagint (LXX), in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, I Chroniciles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, Joel, and Micah. That is 16 of the Old Testament books, which is nearly half of them.

The writer of the Hebrews quotes and applies the word ecclesia, as it exactly reads in Psalm 22:22 in the Greek Septuagint, to the Old Testament saints, saying: “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee” (Hebrews 2:12).

Psalm 22:22 reads, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.”

This quote is taken directly from the Greek Septuagint, the bible that was used by Jesus, and Paul, and the disciples in the first century AD; tells us that the ekklesia (1577) the Church was alive, kicking, and written about throughout the Old Testament. Wherever people of faith were found and written about; the 'Church' was there to see.

Here is the original LXX - Psalms 22:22 (21:23) says, “dihghsomai {<1334> V-FMI-1S} to {<3588> T-ASN} onoma {<3686> N-ASN} sou {<4771> P-GS} toiv {<3588> T-DPM} adelfoiv {<80> N-DPM} mou {<1473> P-GS} en {<1722> PREP} mesw {<3319> A-DSM} ekklhsiav { (ekklesia-1577) N-GSF} umnhsw {<5214> V-FAI-1S} se {<4771> P-AS}.”

Ecclesia simply relates to the people of God throughout time.

Paul

Centurionoflight
Mar 7th 2007, 06:07 PM
wpm


The word interpreted "Church" in our English language is actually the Greek word ecclesia. It simply means the assembly or congregation of God's people. It relates to the people of God as much in the OT as it does to us in the NT. That’s why Stephen could declare, in reference to the Old Testament saints, in Acts 7:36-38, “he (Moses) had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mountSina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.”

Stephen locates the Old Testament saints in Acts 7:36-38 in the Church, even though he is describing OT Israel. There can be no doubt Israel is described as "the church in the wilderness." Nothing could be clearer. I feel that doo deny that is denying the clear emphasis of the reading.

The word ecclesia (Church) is found 77 times in the Greek Old Testament - Septuagint (LXX) – referring to Israel. This proves that the terms Church and Israel are interchanged. Christ and the Apostles employed and quoted extensively from the Septuagint during the early New Testament Church. The word is found 116 times in the New Testament. It was a term that they were very familiar with. The Septuagint was written about 200 years before Christ was born.

The ‘Church’ ekklesia -1577 is found throughout the Greek Old Testament – the Septuagint (LXX), in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, I Chroniciles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, Joel, and Micah. That is 16 of the Old Testament books, which is nearly half of them.

The writer of the Hebrews quotes and applies the word ecclesia, as it exactly reads in Psalm 22:22 in the Greek Septuagint, to the Old Testament saints, saying: “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee” (Hebrews 2:12).

Psalm 22:22 reads, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.”

This quote is taken directly from the Greek Septuagint, the bible that was used by Jesus, and Paul, and the disciples in the first century AD; tells us that the ekklesia (1577) the Church was alive, kicking, and written about throughout the Old Testament. Wherever people of faith were found and written about; the 'Church' was there to see.

Here is the original LXX - Psalms 22:22 (21:23) says, “dihghsomai {<1334> V-FMI-1S} to {<3588> T-ASN} onoma {<3686> N-ASN} sou {<4771> P-GS} toiv {<3588> T-DPM} adelfoiv {<80> N-DPM} mou {<1473> P-GS} en {<1722> PREP} mesw {<3319> A-DSM} ekklhsiav { (ekklesia-1577) N-GSF} umnhsw {<5214> V-FAI-1S} se {<4771> P-AS}.”

Ecclesia simply relates to the people of God throughout time.Semantics;

They miss the greater blessings and demand that we as believers have in Christ; that the believers of the OT never had.

When one gets tied up in semantics; they tend to miss the doctrines and applications.
Instead it becomes line upon line; here a little and there a little.

What makes the Church of today different than what was givin to old testament believers? Do you see a difference?

Todays Church was not started in Sarahs womb.

John146
Mar 7th 2007, 08:04 PM
wpm

Semantics;

They miss the greater blessings and demand that we as believers have in Christ; that the believers of the OT never had.

When one gets tied up in semantics; they tend to miss the doctrines and applications.
Instead it becomes line upon line; here a little and there a little.

What makes the Church of today different than what was givin to old testament believers? Do you see a difference?

Todays Church was not started in Sarahs womb.

I think the point is that the Church existed before Christ came. Do you disagree? Is there a difference between how one enters the Church today as opposed to in Old Testament times? No. And that's the main issue. The Church did not grow all that much before Christ came. Because it did not have the cornerstone it needed in place in order to flourish. It needed Christ to come and destroy the works of the devil and atone for sins once and for all and set people free. Once Christ came and provided the cornerstone that was needed, the Church grew exponentially.

7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. - Galatians 3:7-9

The Church is simply all of those with faith in God and His Son. Abraham had faith in the Messiah. Notice verse 8 above. The gospel was preached to Abraham. He believed in Christ. He knew Christ was going to come. He just didn't know when.

15Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. - Romans 4:15-17

The Church is made up of people with the faith of Abraham. Abraham was in the Church.

19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. - Ephesians 2:19-22

This passage is about the household of God, which is the Church, and it is saying that Gentiles are no longer strangers and foreigners to the Church, which had been made up almost exclusively of Israelites before. The Church has Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone and is built upon His unbreakable foundation along with the apostles and Old Testament prophets. The Old Testament prophets were the leaders of the Church in those days.

Naphal
Mar 7th 2007, 11:00 PM
The word interpreted "Church" in our English language is actually the Greek word ecclesia. It simply means the assembly or congregation of God's people.



Ecclesia simply relates to the people of God throughout time.

Paul


Not really.

Acts 19:32
32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.
KJV


Acts 19:39-41
39 But if ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
KJV

It isn't always used as you claim.

Naphal
Mar 7th 2007, 11:02 PM
The Church is simply all of those with faith in God and His Son. Abraham had faith in the Messiah.

So do today's Jews but they don't know the Messiah.

Centurionoflight
Mar 7th 2007, 11:22 PM
John146



I think the point is that the Church existed before Christ came. Do you disagree?
Is there a difference between how one enters the Church today as opposed to in Old Testament times? No.
And that's the main issue. The Church did not grow all that much before Christ came. Because it did not have the cornerstone it needed in place in order to flourish. It needed Christ to come and destroy the works of the devil and atone for sins once and for all and set people free. Once Christ came and provided the cornerstone that was needed, the Church grew exponentially.



The Church began at pentacost, nothing before that was the church.

In the OT saints there was a tribe of priests; today every believer is a priest.

In the OT saints there was limited filling of the spirit; today every believer is filled.



The Church is simply all of those with faith in God and His Son. Abraham had faith in the Messiah. Notice verse 8 above. The gospel was preached to Abraham. He believed in Christ. He knew Christ was going to come. He just didn't know when.


Again there is a huge difference of operation on both a spiritual level and life level.
The spiritual life we are to live by didnt not exist before Christ.

wpm
Mar 8th 2007, 01:03 AM
wpm

Semantics;

They miss the greater blessings and demand that we as believers have in Christ; that the believers of the OT never had.

When one gets tied up in semantics; they tend to miss the doctrines and applications.
Instead it becomes line upon line; here a little and there a little.

What makes the Church of today different than what was givin to old testament believers? Do you see a difference?

Todays Church was not started in Sarahs womb.

You totally avoided every argument I presented and ignored the several passages that I furnished which prove that the Church was alive and kicking in the OT.

Question: Do you deny that the Church was in the wilderness with Moses?

Paul

wpm
Mar 8th 2007, 01:06 AM
Not really.

Acts 19:32
32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.
KJV


Acts 19:39-41
39 But if ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
KJV

It isn't always used as you claim.

I am totally aware that the ecclesia simply refers to a congregation or assembly of people. I was speaking specifically of the passges I was quoting. I have noted that you circumvented every passge I presented that proved that the eclessia of God existed in the OT.

Paul

Naphal
Mar 8th 2007, 01:09 AM
I am totally aware that the ecclesia simply refers to a congregation or assembly of people. I was speaking specifically of the passges I was quoting. I have noted that you circumvented every passge I presented that proved that the eclessia of God existed in the OT.

Paul

I haven't been part of this thread until now so I have circumvented nothing lol

I believe a church existed, especially the foundations of today's church but the Christian church did not exist before Christ was born.

Centurionoflight
Mar 8th 2007, 01:13 AM
wpm


Do you deny that the Church was in the wilderness with Moses?

Uh yeah.,

They had a priesthood of levis; burning of animal flesh, and a dusty tent.

Humm maybe you are right.

At church the other week

We have a bunch of people in Levi's ; cooking a bunch of ribs; under a dusty tent.

Naphal
Mar 8th 2007, 01:16 AM
Man! I wish my church burned animals! Oh, and blood letting! I want that in church also! Nothing spells C-H-U-R-C-H like blood!

Just teasing now! :)


wpm




We have a bunch of people in Levi's ; cooking a bunch of ribs; under a dusty tent.

Hey, that was funny!

wpm
Mar 8th 2007, 01:20 AM
wpm



Uh yeah.,

They had a priesthood of levis; burning of animal flesh, and a dusty tent.

Humm maybe you are right.

At church the other week

We have a bunch of people in Levi's ; cooking a bunch of ribs; under a dusty tent.

Could you exegete Acts 7:36-38 and Hebrews 2:12 line by line?

Stephen said in Acts 7:36-38, “he (Moses) had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.”

The writer of the Hebrews said in Hebrews 2:12: “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.”

Paul

wpm
Mar 8th 2007, 01:23 AM
I haven't been part of this thread until now so I have circumvented nothing lol

I believe a church existed, especially the foundations of today's church but the Christian church did not exist before Christ was born.

Ok, we seem to have some sembance of agreement. There was an OT Church and a NT Church. This relates to the redeemed of God. Prior to the cross the OT took on a different form as it was obviously before the cross and the figure, type and shadow was still in operation. Since the cross the temporal ordinaces and sacrifices were removed. The NT Church is therefore different in appearance although no more the Church. The Old Testament Church has changed into the New Testament Church in the same way as the development/change occurs between the caterpillar and the butterfly. They are the same developing entity - only taking on a changing progressive appearance.

Paul

Naphal
Mar 8th 2007, 01:24 AM
Could you exegete Acts 7:36-38 and Hebrews 2:12 line by line?

Stephen said in Acts 7:36-38, “he (Moses) had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.”

Paul

This would be better translated "gathering" than Church really. The word "church" doesn't appear in the OT and for good reason IMO.

wpm
Mar 8th 2007, 01:27 AM
This would be better translated "gathering" than Church really. The word "church" doesn't appear in the OT and for good reason IMO.

That is where you are wrong. Yes the OT was written in Hebrew but it was also written in Greek. The word ecclesia (Church) is found 77 times in the Greek Old Testament - Septuagint (LXX) – referring to Israel. This proves that the terms Church and Israel are interchanged. Christ and the Apostles employed and quoted extensively from the Septuagint during the early New Testament Church. The word is found 116 times in the New Testament. It was a term that they were very familiar with. The Septuagint was written about 200 years before Christ was born.

The ‘Church’ ekklesia -1577 is found throughout the Greek Old Testament – the Septuagint (LXX), in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, I Chroniciles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, Joel, and Micah. That is 16 of the Old Testament books, which is nearly half of them.

Paul

Naphal
Mar 8th 2007, 01:27 AM
Ok, we seem to have some sembance of agreement. There was an OT Church and a NT Church. This relates to the redeemed of God. Prior to the cross the OT took on a different form as it was obviously before the cross and the figure, type and shadow was still in operation. Since the cross the temporal ordinaces and sacrifices were removed. The NT Church is therefore different in appearance although no more the Church. The Old Testament Church has changed into the New Testament Church in the same way as the development/change occurs between the caterpillar and the butterfly. They are the same developing entity - only taking on a changing progressive appearance.

Paul

I believe the OT "church" was made up of loyal believers just as the Christian church is/should be. But, the two churches are quite different and that is ok. What is more disturbing is the current existence of the former "church". May God open their eyes.

Naphal
Mar 8th 2007, 01:29 AM
That is where you are wrong. Yes the OT was written in Hebrew but it was also written in Greek. The word ecclesia (Church) is found 77 times in the Greek Old Testament - Septuagint (LXX) – referring to Israel.


That's merely a translation of the OT. The actual Hebrew language did not include "church".

wpm
Mar 8th 2007, 01:29 AM
I haven't been part of this thread until now so I have circumvented nothing lol

I believe a church existed, especially the foundations of today's church but the Christian church did not exist before Christ was born.

You seem to be unsure about what your definite position on this is. In one breath you are accepting there was an OT Church and in the next you are denying it. Which is it?

Paul

Naphal
Mar 8th 2007, 01:34 AM
You seem to be unsure about what your definite position on this is. In one breath you are accepting there was an OT Church and in the next you are denying it. Which is it?

Paul

How can I be unsure of something I have definite and strong feelings about? There was a kind of "church" but unlike the Christian church. Better?

wpm
Mar 8th 2007, 01:38 AM
[/size][/font][/font][/color][/size]


That's merely a translation of the OT. The actual Hebrew language did not include "church".



It does not have the word ecclesia you mean. That might have something to do with the fact that it was written in Hebrew. The NT passages that quote OT Scripture that interpret the people of God as "Church" prove that they are referring to the OT congregation / assembly in the Hebrew. The corresponding Septuagint readings prove that we are looking at the OT Church. The only difference was the OT Church was prior to the cross and therefore tied up with the old covenant requirements, whereas we are after.

Paul

wpm
Mar 8th 2007, 01:41 AM
How can I be unsure of something I have definite and strong feelings about? There was a kind of "church" but unlike the Christian church. Better?

I will not argue over semantics. A "kind of church" is still the Church - whether it is in the OT or the NT. At least we have agreement. :)

Paul

Naphal
Mar 8th 2007, 01:52 AM
It does not have the word ecclesia you mean. That might have something to do with the fact that it was written in Hebrew. The NT passages that quote OT Scripture that interpret the people of God as "Church" prove that they are referring to the OT congregation / assembly in the Hebrew. The corresponding Septuagint readings prove that we are looking at the OT Church. The only difference was the OT Church was prior to the cross and therefore tied up with the old covenant requirements, whereas we are after.

Paul

"church" would really be the wrong term to use for what existed in the OT.



Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This is when the actual church was built. The church clearly had yet to be built.

Prophecy Man
Mar 8th 2007, 06:22 PM
I decided to " look up " the word church since you think the " church " existed in the OT.

According to the word in the New testament
ekk-lesia is the word Jesus used to refer to the organization that He would build.

Jesus told Peter in mathew 16 : 13-20 ( after
questioning them as to who they, the discipels
, thought He was ) " blessed art though simon
Bar Jonah for flesh and blood has not revieled this unto thee but My father in heaven . ANd I say unto you thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church ".( future )

Help me here, Paul , how can Jesus build His Church, The ones that recieves the fact that
Jesus is the Messiah from the father. How
can Jesus build His church if It is already in existance as you say it is? This church has to know who Jesus is --- yes or no?

I did a search in the Greek and the hebrew
( you left out the Hebrew ) on the word
Ekk-lesia. Seems the word " EKK" means
called from amoung, or called out from amoung. Am I right, is the church called from among----? from among what? All this is the greek word.

You left out the word in the OT --K hal --.
This word is assembly. Without naming them all I discovered this word is used in some interesting places in scripture.

AN assembly specially invoked( Ez 38 : 7)
for civil affairs ( 1 kngs 12 : 3 ; prv 5 : 4 )

for war ( num 22 : 4 )

look at this , for the returning exiles ( Jeremiah 31 : 8) The Jews

It is without a doubt , this assembly is JEwish
in the OT. You call them the Church, did you not? Looks like the Church is Jewish. this falls in line with Jesus calling a special People unto Himself. Jesus was not revieled in the OT thus that revelation was future with the " church in the Wilderness".

This wilderness Church was disciplined by God
because that church rebelled against God and only a small part entered the promised Land.

Sound a little like something you have heard?

Thought you might like to know I studied Hebrew so we can dazzel each other with
" our knowledge". --Give me a break!

The 70 weeks of years still is Jewish because
that was the Church then. The church Jesus
rescues in the latter days will be Jewish.

Understand?

Doug

John146
Mar 8th 2007, 11:24 PM
"church" would really be the wrong term to use for what existed in the OT.



Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This is when the actual church was built. The church clearly had yet to be built.

Would that be the same church that has the foundation of the apostles and Old Testament prophets (Ephesians 2:20) or some other one? I believe Jesus was saying in that verse that He would build upon His existing Church. He would build His church up. At that point, it wasn't built very high because the Gentile nations had yet to hear the gospel. If we are Christ's, then we are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29). Does that not directly connect us with Abraham and the other Old Testament believers? I would say so. Therefore, Abraham was in Christ's church.

Naphal
Mar 8th 2007, 11:27 PM
Would that be the same church that has the foundation of the apostles and Old Testament prophets (Ephesians 2:20) or some other one?

It is a new one built on the earlier foundations.

wpm
Mar 8th 2007, 11:41 PM
"church" would really be the wrong term to use for what existed in the OT.



Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This is when the actual church was built. The church clearly had yet to be built.

Ok then, the ecclesia in the OT. I prefer the traslation congregation or assembly. Anyway, it was the congregation or assembly of God's people in the OT, we are the congregation or assembly of God's people in the NT. It is clear, one people of God seperated by time, but united by the cross.

Paul

Naphal
Mar 8th 2007, 11:46 PM
Ok then, the ecclesia in the OT. I prefare the traslation congregation or assembly. Anyway, it was the congregation or assembly of God's people in the OT, we are the congregation or assembly of God's people in the NT. It is clear, one peoploe of God seperated by time, but united by the cross.

Paul

This is fine as long as we agree that a new chrurch was built in the NT. Upon the foundations of something former is of no issue to me. I just see a world of difference between what was established under the old cov. as opposed to the new.

wpm
Mar 8th 2007, 11:56 PM
I decided to " look up " the word church since you think the " church " existed in the OT.

According to the word in the New testament
ekk-lesia is the word Jesus used to refer to the organization that He would build.

Jesus told Peter in mathew 16 : 13-20 ( after
questioning them as to who they, the discipels
, thought He was ) " blessed art though simon
Bar Jonah for flesh and blood has not revieled this unto thee but My father in heaven . ANd I say unto you thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church ".( future )

Help me here, Paul , how can Jesus build His Church, The ones that recieves the fact that
Jesus is the Messiah from the father. How
can Jesus build His church if It is already in existance as you say it is? This church has to know who Jesus is --- yes or no?

I did a search in the Greek and the hebrew
( you left out the Hebrew ) on the word
Ekk-lesia. Seems the word " EKK" means
called from amoung, or called out from amoung. Am I right, is the church called from among----? from among what? All this is the greek word.

You left out the word in the OT --K hal --.
This word is assembly. Without naming them all I discovered this word is used in some interesting places in scripture.

AN assembly specially invoked( Ez 38 : 7)
for civil affairs ( 1 kngs 12 : 3 ; prv 5 : 4 )

for war ( num 22 : 4 )

look at this , for the returning exiles ( Jeremiah 31 : 8) The Jews

It is without a doubt , this assembly is JEwish
in the OT. You call them the Church, did you not? Looks like the Church is Jewish. this falls in line with Jesus calling a special People unto Himself. Jesus was not revieled in the OT thus that revelation was future with the " church in the Wilderness".

This wilderness Church was disciplined by God
because that church rebelled against God and only a small part entered the promised Land.

Sound a little like something you have heard?

Thought you might like to know I studied Hebrew so we can dazzel each other with
" our knowledge". --Give me a break!

The 70 weeks of years still is Jewish because
that was the Church then. The church Jesus
rescues in the latter days will be Jewish.

Understand?

Doug

Christ's words did not signify that the building work had not started and was yet future, but that it was ongoing. This phrase was alluding to the complete construction of the assembly/congregation of God. Christ was simply testifying that the Church was being built upon Him, the Rock. This has been ongoing since Adam.

The word can refer to an assembly/congregation of non-believers as well.


Paul

wpm
Mar 9th 2007, 12:09 AM
This is fine as long as we agree that a new chrurch was built in the NT. Upon the foundations of something former is of no issue to me. I just see a world of difference between what was established under the old cov. as opposed to the new.

The NT congregation/assembly was built upon the foundation of the OT congregation/assembly, however, it is one inseperable harmonius ongoing spiritual organism. One Church purchased exclusively by the blood of Jesus embodying the redeemed of all ages.

Paul

Naphal
Mar 9th 2007, 12:44 AM
The NT congregation/assembly was built upon the foundation of the OT congregation/assembly, however, it is one inseperable harmonius ongoing spiritual organism. One Church purchased exclusively by the blood of Jesus embodying the redeemed of all ages.

Paul

The two are about as "inseperable harmonius ongoing spiritual organism" as a caterpillar is to a butterfly. But, we are almost in agreement and this is enough for me at this time.

Serpent Seed
Mar 9th 2007, 01:34 AM
Millions disappear and no one notices. Of course. I'm sure that's in the Bible somewhere, right? Or maybe not.

[Edit-removed personal insult_qbee] I didn't say that no one wouldn't notice. Some people [the ones who know about the rapture, but just didn't believe it or take it seriously] will know that people are missing. You must understand and bear in mind that most people aren't Christians. The 'Millions Are Missing' theory just doesn't make much sense to me, considering what I already know about what's gonna take place at the ressurection, which is the worst earthquake that's every happened since the earth was created. It's gonna be so bad that it's gonna inpact the entire world, including the area where I live. I'm sorry if that scares you, but it's in the Bible and it's gonna take place. I can prove it to you, 'cause I don't like being mocked b/c I see things differently. Oh, I forgot, since a lot of people don't have spiritual leaders who talk about prophecies, what the symbols in the book of Revelation really mean, etc., so I don't expect them to fully understand the rapture and what's happening in the last days, which is why a lot of church members and nominal Christians will be left behind when the rapture takes place.

People often get miffed when I bring this up, but the Bible doesn't go into details about many things, which is why God raises up phophets [the ones who He talks to and give his word] to interpret it and declare it to people. ['Surely, the Lord God will do nothing until he speaks to his servants, the prophets,' [Amos 3:7].] I didn't say that; God did. Sorry you don't like it. In fact, there's many people who think they got the Bible all figured out. The Bible says that people are like sheep [yes, it refers to Christians, also] who need a shepherd and that the Scriptures are of no private interpretation.

John146
Mar 9th 2007, 04:11 AM
[Edit-removed personal insult of asking John146 if he was stupid or something_qbee] I didn't say that no one wouldn't notice. Some people [the ones who know about the rapture, but just didn't believe it or take it seriously] will know that people are missing. You must understand and bear in mind that most people aren't Christians. The 'Millions Are Missing' theory just doesn't make much sense to me, considering what I already know about what's gonna take place at the ressurection, which is the worst earthquake that's every happened since the earth was created. It's gonna be so bad that it's gonna inpact the entire world, including the area where I live. I'm sorry if that scares you, but it's in the Bible and it's gonna take place. I can prove it to you, 'cause I don't like being mocked b/c I see things differently. Oh, I forgot, since a lot of people don't have spiritual leaders who talk about prophecies, what the symbols in the book of Revelation really mean, etc., so I don't expect them to fully understand the rapture and what's happening in the last days, which is why a lot of church members and nominal Christians will be left behind when the rapture takes place.

People often get miffed when I bring this up, but the Bible doesn't go into details about many things, which is why God raises up phophets [the ones who He talks to and give his word] to interpret it and declare it to people. ['Surely, the Lord God will do nothing until he speaks to his servants, the prophets,' [Amos 3:7].] I didn't say that; God did. Sorry you don't like it. In fact, there's many people who think they got the Bible all figured out. The Bible says that people are like sheep [yes, it refers to Christians, also] who need a shepherd and that the Scriptures are of no private interpretation.

Okay, so you didn't say no one at all would notice, but you did say the following:



I do believe that the rapture will be hidden from a lot of people. Everyone has this big idea that everyone will know the rapture has taken place, which I believe is a terrible exaggeration. Everyone will NOT know the rapture has taken place, especially the ones who have never heard of such a thing. I'm pretty sure that most of you have heard of this 'Millions Are Missing' theory. Sure that may make for a good story, but I don't think it's how it's gonna be when rapture takes place. I believe that at the ressurection there is gonna be an event take place simultaneously that's gonna be so tragic [the Great -E-quake that Revelation talks about that will somehow impact the whole world.] that the world's gonna get it's eye on that and miss the rapture. Think about it; if you were an atheist [speaking hypothetically], the rapture would be the LAST thing on your mind, even if you've heard about it. In the day of Jesus, an earthquake in Jerusalem happened at the same time as the ressurection of the Old Testament saints. Since my time's short here, I'll later give more reasons why the people [the unrighteous, sinners, unsaved, and foolish virgins] won't know the rapture has taken place.

And your Scripture to back up this scenario is? I see nothing but speculation from your post. I must be too stupid to find it so you'll have to help me. I also must be stupid for thinking that it is not very likely for anyone to miss people disappearing before their eyes, even if there was a huge earthquake going on at the same time. But you have the right to your opinions. I would much prefer if you backed them up with Scripture. And that you not ask if I am "stupid or something".

Prophecy Man
Mar 9th 2007, 03:31 PM
Peter said in His second letter that people in the day of the flood were " willingly ignorant". Jesus said that " the coming of the son of man will be like in the days of Noah, there will be eating and drinking and giving in marriage, they knew not untill the floods came and took them away".

I kinda printed the Quote from memory but you get the ideah. Those who turn their backs to the Gospel will certainly be caught by surprise. Also those who think they have plenty of time and start to hang out with the party goers (who think they are christians) will be caught by surprise. there are
plenty of people who fall in this frame of mind, Christ warns them not to be unaware.

IF you believe in a rapture or not these people won't know what has taken place untill it is too late. They will want to know what happened and when they learn the truth it may be too late but there still is the hope they will except Jesus.

We can discuss the rapture forever but we will find out any moment for that is what the rapture is, unknown. It is a little like waiting for a loved one coming home, you were contacted and told about the general time of their arrival but you won't see them untill their arriving.

Doug

Prophecy Man
Mar 9th 2007, 03:57 PM
what about the fact I said the assembly in the OT is :

Jewish and they were punished for Idolatry
and only a small portion was permitted to enter the land.

Just how can this assembly all be believers and be cut off as the word says " for all their sins they have done"? How can they all be part of Christ even through Abraham. Because of their sins they went into captivity did they not?

Christ did say He would build his church upon
Peters revelation and confession. This is how the church is still being built, the discovery Christ is Lord and savior. IT has to be revealed
from heaven from the father.

My point--not all of the assembly were believers yet they were part of that assembly!

How can this be?

Doug

ShirleyFord
Mar 9th 2007, 03:58 PM
Peter said in His second letter that people in the day of the flood were " willingly ignorant". Jesus said that " the coming of the son of man will be like in the days of Noah, there will be eating and drinking and giving in marriage, they knew not untill the floods came and took them away".

I kinda printed the Quote from memory but you get the ideah. Those who turn their backs to the Gospel will certainly be caught by surprise. Also those who think they have plenty of time and start to hang out with the party goers (who think they are christians) will be caught by surprise. there are
plenty of people who fall in this frame of mind, Christ warns them not to be unaware.

IF you believe in a rapture or not these people won't know what has taken place untill it is too late. They will want to know what happened and when they learn the truth it may be too late but there still is the hope they will except Jesus.

We can discuss the rapture forever but we will find out any moment for that is what the rapture is, unknown. It is a little like waiting for a loved one coming home, you were contacted and told about the general time of their arrival but you won't see them untill their arriving.

Doug

Doug,

How many unbelievers (all outside the ark) survived Noah's flood and was given another chance to believe the gospel which Noah preached before the flood came?

Shirley

Prophecy Man
Mar 9th 2007, 04:11 PM
I am finally getting to answere this thing about
" the man of sin".

When Jesus warned us about " the abomination of desolation " in the book of
mathew. He was speaking of a future person
from His moment of time. Antioucus could not have been the fulfillment of that prophecy. Antiocus had already lived and died when Jesus spoke those words.

There are some who say this is a reference
to the Roman Army. It could not have been
the Roman Army because from the time of
the " uprising of the Jews " ( I read Jeosephus) untill the destruction of the temple
it took years to do it.

It has to " ole big mouth " as Daniel spoke about, One Guy.

Doug

David Taylor
Mar 9th 2007, 04:27 PM
what about the fact I said the assembly in the OT is :

Jewish and they were punished for Idolatry
and only a small portion was permitted to enter the land.

Just how can this assembly all be believers and be cut off as the word says " for all their sins they have done"? How can they all be part of Christ even through Abraham. Because of their sins they went into captivity did they not?



Daniel and Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego also were Israelites who went into captivity; but not for 'their' sins.

On the contrary, they prior, during, and after the Captivity remained faithful to God and followed Him faithfully.

They are your examples of the OT members of the Body of Christ.

Those of Abraham who remained faithful, and who did not fall into idolatry and wickness, were the representation of the Church then.

That is why 'not all Israel is Israel', and that is also why 'the children of the flesh are not the Children of God, but rather the children of the promised seed of Abraham (Jesus Christ)...they are the Children of God.

Romulus
Mar 9th 2007, 04:28 PM
I am finally getting to answere this thing about
" the man of sin".

When Jesus warned us about " the abomination of desolation " in the book of
mathew. He was speaking of a future person
from His moment of time. Antioucus could not have been the fulfillment of that prophecy. Antiocus had already lived and died when Jesus spoke those words.



I agree but again, we should see that the "abomination" according to Luke are heathan armies, and not a person. Daniel was speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes armies that gathered (history confirms this) against Israel and Jesus using the same term is speaking of the Roman armies that would gather around Jerusalem before it's destruction.





There are some who say this is a reference
to the Roman Army. It could not have been
the Roman Army because from the time of
the " uprising of the Jews " ( I read Jeosephus) untill the destruction of the temple
it took years to do it.

It has to " ole big mouth " as Daniel spoke about, One Guy.

Doug


You are correct the Jewish War did last a specific time period until Jerusalem's destruction.........3 1/2 years.........42 months.........hmmmmm where have I heard that before?

Anyway the scripture is speaking of the abomination as a sign to flee Judea. The war may have lasted a few years but the warning came before the temple's destruction. The people who heeded this warning left Jerusalem when the Roman armies came to surround the city. Since you have read Josephus, you know that for an unknown reason, the armies after appearing left which gave the people enough time to flee the city before the famine, murdering, and ultimate destruction of the city happened. Not one Christian perished inside the city.

Prophecy Man
Mar 12th 2007, 02:36 PM
The assembly in the wilderness as I pointed out uses a word that is used in the OT which is not quite the same word used in the NT. (Part of that word , which is a compound word , is EKK ) To call out from amoung. This is where we get the ideah of Santification - to be seprate.

The ot word does not indicate being seperate but that rather of being an " assembly ". This assembly could be anything like " an assembly for war", or an assembly to just gather together.

Jesus's words ment He was building His church and it was a building upon the revelation that He was the Messiah.

There have been believers since Adam and even were looking for the " redeemer/anointed one ".
They did not have a revelation from the father
like Peter did. These believers were looking for the messiah not knowing who the messiah was. Their faith was in the coming one , not the one that has
come. This faith brought them to the Grace of God,
for without this Grace they could have not have been saved( Noah is one ).

David, this is why I hold to the words of Jesus. He acvocated understanding not interpretation. The
subject of any chapter and verse of scripture is
right before our eyes--the context.

God bless

Doug

wpm
Mar 12th 2007, 02:42 PM
what about the fact I said the assembly in the OT is :

Jewish and they were punished for Idolatry
and only a small portion was permitted to enter the land.

Just how can this assembly all be believers and be cut off as the word says " for all their sins they have done"? How can they all be part of Christ even through Abraham. Because of their sins they went into captivity did they not?

Christ did say He would build his church upon
Peters revelation and confession. This is how the church is still being built, the discovery Christ is Lord and savior. IT has to be revealed
from heaven from the father.

My point--not all of the assembly were believers yet they were part of that assembly!

How can this be?

Doug

There has always been the visible assembly and the invisible assembly. It is the same today. The visible congregation is all those that give outward adherence to the true God, the invisible congregation is all those that truly believe. That has always been the case.

Paul