Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Preterist Gap

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Preterist Gap

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    Right, we can dignify a certain interpretation by those who have gone before. But when there is more than one position dignified by history we must make a choice here. Is the 70 Weeks period a "countdown" to a certain event--a "timer," as such? Or, is it just tracking a particular history when certain circumstances apply? The latter makes no sense to me. And that's why, I think, the "Gap Theory" does not have even close to the historical confirmation that the "countdown" theory does.

    To decide if the 70 Weeks is a "countdown" to a certain event, we must identify if there is a particular event to count down to! And we have that in the form of the 6 things listed in vs. 24. These things appear to align perfectly with the account of the 70 Weeks itself, which appears to draw down to the cutting off of the Messiah after the 69th Week. He it is, then, who fulfills the 6 things listed in vs. 24. And his death appears to be the event that produces the terminal point for the 70 Weeks. Therefore, in my position the 70th Week ends in the middle of the Week, when Christ is cut off, and the 6 things associated with his 1st Coming are fulfilled.
    Here's the way I tend to reason it then. You would think the 70 weeks being fulfilled in it's entirety, that the very day the 70 weeks are finished, this would be a cause for celebration, a day to mark on the calendars. Yet no such thing ever happened in the first century. There is not one writer in the NT, such as Paul, etc, who ever claimed the entire 70 weeks have been fulfilled. So why didn't they if they thought it was? Even Peter apparently didn't think they were finished. You can deduce this by what he said in 2 Peter 3:13.

    2 Peter 3:13*Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

    and to bring in everlasting righteousness(Dan 9:24)


    Which logically comes first? I don't see how it can be the latter if Peter, at the time of him writing that, was still looking for a time and place, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


    But that's just me trying to be logical as usual. I can't seem to help being like that.

    Comment


    • Re: The Preterist Gap

      Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
      And then the mighty 70 weeks just fizzles out to an obscure conclusion sometime in late 34AD?
      I see the Holy Spirit being sent in the latter half of the week as an obvious confirmation that Jesus did in fact secure our redemption in the first half of the 70th week through his cross.
      This is the perfect conclusion and confirmation of what was to occur by the one anointed of the Holy Spirit to obtain the redemption of the sins of the whole world and baptize us in that same Holy Spirit.
      And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

      Comment


      • Re: The Preterist Gap

        Originally posted by divaD View Post
        In your view then, since 490 years obviously consist of a precise amount of days, how many days does it consist of then, and what formula are you using to arrive at the amount of days you deduce 490 years equal?

        If perhaps you think the amount of days are unimportant, why do you think that then? Obviously 490 years consists of days, a precise amount of days in order to end up where the end of the 69th week stops at. Obviously it has to end at something significant. Offhand I can't think of anything more significant than the cross.

        Its based on Lev 25, just like the 70 year captivity was based on Sabbath years missed. No gaps in the counting of sabbath cycles and then ending in the jubilee.
        The 69 weeks ends with the arrival and anointing of Jesus the Messiah , critical to him for the atoning for iniquity and obtaining eternal redemption in the 70th week.
        And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

        Comment


        • Re: The Preterist Gap

          Originally posted by David Taylor View Post
          All 70 sevens commenced.
          The fulfillment occurred Ďin the midstí the final 70 week.

          There was no need for the the fulfillment to wait to occur at 11:59pm on Dec 31 of the final weeks last year, to accomplish fulfillment.

          Good you mentioned the 70 year Babylonian captivity of Jeremiahís prophecy. It will help you understand the confused sticking point you are having on Danielís prophecy conclusion and fulfill.

          Did the final 70th year release and fulfillment of the Jeremiahís Babylonian 70th year prophecy require them to be held captive the full 12 months and 31 days of the final 70th year, or could they have been released anytime within the final 70th year period for the prophecy to be fulfilled?

          That answer will also tell you why Daniel didnít require the full completion of the last seven period either, only that the fullfillment has to occur anytime during the final 70th period.
          I don't even know why you think you have a valid argument to begin with? Before the 70th week begins we already undeniably know a full entire 69 weeks are obviously fulfilled. So how ever many days 69 weeks equal, every single day of it to the day have to be fulfilled before there can even be a 70th week. Especially if there are not supposed to be any gaps in the 70 weeks, such as some of you are claiming.

          And then according to Dan 9:27, the text indicates that the one meant in verse 27 shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. This is simple math then. 69 weeks + 1 week = 70 weeks. 69 weeks + 1/2 week does not equal 70 weeks, it only equals 69.5 weeks. Not only does that contradict verse 27, it also contradicts verse 24.

          Comment


          • Re: The Preterist Gap

            Originally posted by divaD View Post
            Here's the way I tend to reason it then. You would think the 70 weeks being fulfilled in it's entirety, that the very day the 70 weeks are finished, this would be a cause for celebration, a day to mark on the calendars. Yet no such thing ever happened in the first century. There is not one writer in the NT, such as Paul, etc, who ever claimed the entire 70 weeks have been fulfilled. So why didn't they if they thought it was? Even Peter apparently didn't think they were finished. You can deduce this by what he said in 2 Peter 3:13.

            2 Peter 3:13*Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

            and to bring in everlasting righteousness(Dan 9:24)

            Which logically comes first? I don't see how it can be the latter if Peter, at the time of him writing that, was still looking for a time and place, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

            But that's just me trying to be logical as usual. I can't seem to help being like that.
            I don't mind you being logical, but the conclusion you're drawing is based on your own argument--not arguing against mine. That's fine, though. We're just stating our own positions.

            You started by questioning my own position, and I stated it. It is that all 6 things in Dan 9.24 were fulfilled in the 1st Coming of Christ, and in his redemptive death. That includes "eternal righteousness."

            You define "eternal righteousness" differently, and I get that. But we are just differing over how we interpret "eternal righteousness" in this context. You see the context as being "eternal righteousness" in an eschatological sense. And I see it in a legal sense, as when Christ produced eternal righteousness for us, redemptively.

            So as logical as you are, you don't resolve our differences. You just state your own position. And that's fine.

            As to whether the Early Church and Christians in history held to the idea that the 70 Weeks were completely fulfilled in Christ, I would state that that's exactly what many of them did. They just didn't always know what to do with the last half of the 70th Week, after everything had been completely fulfilled.

            In reality, I think the passage actually does give us an end note to the 70 Weeks prophecy, and it actually extends beyond the period of the 70 Weeks itself. It is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which happened 40 years after the expiration of the 70 Weeks prophecy.

            Since the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD was the endpoint of the prophecy, it shows that there was no need for us to deal with the last half of the 70th Week. The 70 Week prophecy was fulfilled in the middle of the 70th Week, and expired the remaining time. The prophecy that followed was what was important--the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

            Comment


            • Re: The Preterist Gap

              Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
              PS we agree on the date of the crucifixion, I knew it as spring/Passover 30 AD, but thanks for giving the actual date. I will remember that being my birthday month.
              Thanks. The 3 most widely held are:
              1. 7 April 30 This is the view of those who count from Artaxerxes decree in his 7th year.
              2. 28 March 31 This is the view of Adventist groups.
              3. 3 April 33 This is the view of those who use a 360-day calendar from Artaxerxes decree in his 20th year.


              Options #1 and #3 fit the phases of the moon on Passover of those particular years. But the weight of evidence points to the first option.
              "Your name and renown
              is the desire of our hearts."
              (Isaiah 26:8)

              Comment


              • Re: The Preterist Gap

                Originally posted by Cyberseeker View Post
                Thanks. The 3 most widely held are:
                1. 7 April 30 This is the view of those who count from Artaxerxes decree in his 7th year.
                2. 28 March 31 This is the view of Adventist groups.
                3. 3 April 33 This is the view of those who use a 360-day calendar from Artaxerxes decree in his 20th year.


                Options #1 and #3 fit the phases of the moon on Passover of those particular years. But the weight of evidence points to the first option.
                Oh really, I would have thought it would be based on historical analysis of the way they used the calendar and the manner in which they dated the Passover.

                In the past I preferred Artaxerxes decree, but more recently I thought the two other dates make more sense :
                1)The wording is to "issue the decree", could mean deliver it, the Artaxerxes decree was only issued to the local administrators of the region in autumn 458 BC

                2) the true restoration of Israel is their national repentance, on 17th Dec 458 BC Ezra issued a decree calling Israel to assemble for a day of repentance.

                I prefer the concept of repentance being the true restoration, but that is 2 months out. At least it's not 6 months out.

                Artaxerxes decree issued in Babylon is also a possibility, all 3 dates being quite close together.

                Comment


                • Re: The Preterist Gap

                  Originally posted by jeffweeder View Post
                  I see the Holy Spirit being sent in the latter half of the week as an obvious confirmation that Jesus did in fact secure our redemption in the first half of the 70th week through his cross.
                  This is the perfect conclusion and confirmation of what was to occur by the one anointed of the Holy Spirit to obtain the redemption of the sins of the whole world and baptize us in that same Holy Spirit.
                  I have no issue with the logic of the Holy Spirit being the confirmation. I do have issues with dates and conclusive events.

                  If the Bible had dated a massive Pentecost event to autumn 34 AD then I would agree that it's a valid perspective. But the church is just going about their normal business then, with no significant event. God had determined 490 years for a reason, and a precise conclusion at that time.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Preterist Gap

                    Originally posted by divaD View Post
                    You're being illogical though. Pretty much everyone knows, thus agrees, 70 weeks equal 490 years. You have them meaning 486.5 years instead. You couldn't possibly be correct. The math doesn't work.
                    Jesus's ministry was 490 days,when you include the 40 day fast and the post resurrection ministry. Why does everyone force the days into years? All of the early church fathers (until eusibeus came along) stated Jesus' ministry was "about a year". In fact,Jesus Himself told us how long His ministry would be:

                    Lk 4:18-19 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

                    The only problem I see with it is Jn 6:4. However,that verse doesn't make sense at all. Jesus is feeding the 5000 with leavened bread, why would He do that if passover was close? Why weren't the Jesus males in Jerusalem if passover was close? Why did Jesus go to capernaum if passwover was close? All the rest of the gospels have Jesus going to the feast of tabernacles (just as John does in chapter 7)
                    Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Preterist Gap

                      Originally posted by randyk View Post
                      I don't mind you being logical, but the conclusion you're drawing is based on your own argument--not arguing against mine. That's fine, though. We're just stating our own positions.

                      You started by questioning my own position, and I stated it. It is that all 6 things in Dan 9.24 were fulfilled in the 1st Coming of Christ, and in his redemptive death. That includes "eternal righteousness."

                      You define "eternal righteousness" differently, and I get that. But we are just differing over how we interpret "eternal righteousness" in this context. You see the context as being "eternal righteousness" in an eschatological sense. And I see it in a legal sense, as when Christ produced eternal righteousness for us, redemptively.

                      So as logical as you are, you don't resolve our differences. You just state your own position. And that's fine.

                      As to whether the Early Church and Christians in history held to the idea that the 70 Weeks were completely fulfilled in Christ, I would state that that's exactly what many of them did. They just didn't always know what to do with the last half of the 70th Week, after everything had been completely fulfilled.

                      In reality, I think the passage actually does give us an end note to the 70 Weeks prophecy, and it actually extends beyond the period of the 70 Weeks itself. It is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which happened 40 years after the expiration of the 70 Weeks prophecy.

                      Since the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD was the endpoint of the prophecy, it shows that there was no need for us to deal with the last half of the 70th Week. The 70 Week prophecy was fulfilled in the middle of the 70th Week, and expired the remaining time. The prophecy that followed was what was important--the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

                      The following is a very brief article I found while Googling today. If you care to look at it, I'd be interested to know if there is anything in the article you might agree with. The following is from that article. So I don't see where it is a problem if it's not until the 2nd coming when everlasting righteousness has been fully brought in.



                      To bring in everlasting righteousness, God Himself came to earth as our Messiah, lived a righteous life, died for our sins, was resurrected and ascended back into Heaven. This makes it possible for the prophecy to be fulfilled in principle at Christ's first coming, it will be fulfilled in full at His return.(1)
                      http://jewishroots.net/library/proph...teousness.html

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Preterist Gap

                        Originally posted by shepherdsword View Post
                        Jesus's ministry was 490 days,when you include the 40 day fast and the post resurrection ministry. Why does everyone force the days into years? All of the early church fathers (until eusibeus came along) stated Jesus' ministry was "about a year". In fact,Jesus Himself told us how long His ministry would be:

                        Lk 4:18-19 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

                        The only problem I see with it is Jn 6:4. However,that verse doesn't make sense at all. Jesus is feeding the 5000 with leavened bread, why would He do that if passover was close? Why weren't the Jesus males in Jerusalem if passover was close? Why did Jesus go to capernaum if passwover was close? All the rest of the gospels have Jesus going to the feast of tabernacles (just as John does in chapter 7)
                        The reason why the claim exists that Jesus' ministry was 3.5 years long, is due to counting the various Passovers during his ministry. After some months of ministry the first one is the 20th year of Herods rebuilding (passover 27AD), the last one is 30 AD, the crucifixion. Thus his ministry is 3 years and some months long.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Preterist Gap

                          Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                          The reason why the claim exists that Jesus' ministry was 3.5 years long, is due to counting the various Passovers during his ministry. After some months of ministry the first one is the 20th year of Herods rebuilding (passover 27AD), the last one is 30 AD, the crucifixion. Thus his ministry is 3 years and some months long.
                          The synoptic gospels all record only one year. They record only two passovers. John records three, with the insertion of verse 6:4. That only accounts for two years...so let's count the various passovers and see if your theory is correct.
                          Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Preterist Gap

                            Originally posted by shepherdsword View Post
                            The synoptic gospels all record only one year. They record only two passovers. John records three, with the insertion of verse 6:4. That only accounts for two years...so let's count the various passovers and see if your theory is correct.
                            Interesting. I had never counted the Passovers before. I must look more into the 3.5 year assumption.

                            But Jesus did start his ministry some months before the first Passover, and as you said, John mentions 2 more.

                            That's at least, more than 2 years, not one year.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Preterist Gap

                              Originally posted by DurbanDude View Post
                              I have no issue with the logic of the Holy Spirit being the confirmation. I do have issues with dates and conclusive events.

                              If the Bible had dated a massive Pentecost event to autumn 34 AD then I would agree that it's a valid perspective. But the church is just going about their normal business then, with no significant event. God had determined 490 years for a reason, and a precise conclusion at that time.
                              Nothing trumps the Holy Spirit being sent , confirming what Jesus did for us by actually infilling us instead of a brick building. Couldn't be more finished as Jesus blood alone facilitates us being filled with the Spirit of God today.
                              And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Preterist Gap

                                Originally posted by divaD View Post
                                The following is a very brief article I found while Googling today. If you care to look at it, I'd be interested to know if there is anything in the article you might agree with. The following is from that article. So I don't see where it is a problem if it's not until the 2nd coming when everlasting righteousness has been fully brought in.

                                To bring in everlasting righteousness, God Himself came to earth as our Messiah, lived a righteous life, died for our sins, was resurrected and ascended back into Heaven. This makes it possible for the prophecy to be fulfilled in principle at Christ's first coming, it will be fulfilled in full at His return.(1)
                                http://jewishroots.net/library/proph...teousness.html
                                I agree that Christ brought in everlasting righteousness in the "legal sense." He enabled us to benefit from it by our exercising it and by our inheriting the eternal life that goes along with it. Of course, it will not be until we are raised from the dead and made immortal that our "everlasting righteousness" will be completed in a different sense.

                                But no, I don't think that is the fulfillment of the 70 Weeks. I believe the 70 Weeks was fulfilled at the *1st Coming* of Jesus, and at the Cross. That's where he legally appropriated his "everlasting righteousness" as a gift for us.

                                We can immediately begin to exercise his righteousness, which indeed will last forever. We are told that we already have eternal life, and will "never die." This refers to the fact that not only do we presently exercise his righteousness and have eternal life, but at the end of our mortal lives will will continue on in this righteousness, and continue to express it in immortal bodies, after the resurrection.

                                So I certainly do believe in the Age to Come, the Messianic Age, or the Millennial Age. This will be the time when those of us who have received "everlasting righteousness" will be raised from the dead and be given immortal bodies to continue to express this righteousness for all time.

                                The 70 Weeks, again, only prophesy of the 1st Coming of Jesus, when he appropriated this gift of righteousness for us, which will last forever. There are other, separate prophecies, that speak of the resurrection and of our adoption of immortal bodies. That will be yet another stage of our experience of "everlasting righteousness."

                                But the "everlasting righteousness" and "anointing of the Most Holy" refers to Jesus' sanctioning the New Covenant through the Cross. This is not only my opinion, but the consensus view in the Early Church.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X