Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 113

Thread: 2nd Coming backdrop

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,610
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I believe that Dan 9.26-27 is referencing both things, the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the AoD in 70 AD. They are the *same thing.* And I believe the Church Fathers largely believed the *same thing.* The reason I mention the Church Fathers at all is because I regularly get trashed for my views, as if I personally made my views up. I'm pointing out that if you wish to trash me as silly, uneducated, or dishonest, you will be doing the same thing to the Church Fathers. If you wish to call me a Preterist, you will be calling the Church Fathers Preterists!

    No, you don't accept something just because a particular Church Father believes it. But it does help to know what many of them believed by consensus. And if they are wrong by consensus, we should search in their time frame to discover why. In this case, my view is credible and enjoys historical depth in its interpretation. A majority of the Church Fathers believed, I think, that the 70th Week of Daniel was fulfilled in Christ's time, and thus, the 70 Weeks were exhausted in the generation of Christ. Thus, I believe they then interpreted the AoD to immediately follow Christ in 70 AD, interpreting it as the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, or some kind of sacrilege in this time frame.
    As I said before, unlike you, I don't hold every view of the ECF as holy writ. I give them credit for many, but also recognise that they got others wrong as well. So your absolute reliance on their views is subjective and moot. This should suffice.

    I don't know where the thrashing and name calling came from? If you’re referring to what I said that you’re on a free-fall; my point is that having misinterpreted those core elements of the discourse, the only possible outcome is that your conclusion will be awry. It’s about your view, not your person. So I think you're overreacting because I haven't called you names. It's one thing to attack one's argument and another, to attack his person. I have no reason to attack your person since that's what the "silly, uneducated, dishonest and thrashing" is, in my book and that’s far from what I know you to be.

    That aside, I disagree that Dan 9:26 and 27 are the same. If you see them as one continues event, then it means they are chronological. But the problem you must deal with is the fact that after the temple is destroyed in v-26, we are told that BEFORE the sacrifice and oblation ceased in v-27, the AC (or whoever you think it is) FIRST confirms a covenant for one week. So I'll ask you this, was there a break in the fighting and destruction of the temple in 70 AD when the COVENANT for ONE WEEK was made before the destruction continued?
    Don't tell me this is not the context because there's no other way to interpret Dan 9:26-27.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,610
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    All you do here is assert that I'm wrong--terribly wrong. You don't prove a single point wrong. So believe as you will...
    I don't need to prove anything because I share the view of the many brothers you've been arguing with over the course of time. If you didn't believe them, why should you believe me?

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    As I said before, unlike you, I don't hold every view of the ECF as holy writ. I give them credit for many, but also recognise that they got others wrong as well. So your absolute reliance on their views is subjective and moot. This should suffice.

    I don't know where the thrashing and name calling came from? If you’re referring to what I said that you’re on a free-fall; my point is that having misinterpreted those core elements of the discourse, the only possible outcome is that your conclusion will be awry. It’s about your view, not your person. So I think you're overreacting because I haven't called you names. It's one thing to attack one's argument and another, to attack his person. I have no reason to attack your person since that's what the "silly, uneducated, dishonest and thrashing" is, in my book and that’s far from what I know you to be.
    Brother, did you even read what I just said? I hardly said I rely on the Church Fathers as sacred Scripture. I said they are helpful.

    No, I'm not suggesting you are trashing me--just treating my views as if they are not worth consideration. So it is a hypothetical: *if* you want to treat me as unworthy, then you're going to have to treat the Church Fathers and many historical Church Scholars as unworthy of your consideration as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    That aside, I disagree that Dan 9:26 and 27 are the same. If you see them as one continues event, then it means they are chronological. But the problem you must deal with is the fact that after the temple is destroyed in v-26, we are told that BEFORE the sacrifice and oblation ceased in v-27, the AC (or whoever you think it is) FIRST confirms a covenant for one week. So I'll ask you this, was there a break in the fighting and destruction of the temple in 70 AD when the COVENANT for ONE WEEK was made before the destruction continued?
    Don't tell me this is not the context because there's no other way to interpret Dan 9:26-27.
    Like many of the problems in prophetic interpretation there is the chronology to examine. So often there is imposed a chronology that is not really established in the passage.

    So there really is no strict chronology from vs 26 to vs 27. They are parallel statements, which is so often the case in biblical writing. A statement is made twice.

    Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. [Jesus will die.] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. [Jerusalem and the temple will fall.]…

    27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ [Jesus will complete the 6 items in vs 24.] In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. [Jesus will end sacrifice at the cross.] And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." [The Roman ruler will set up his Army as the Abomination of Desolation to destroy Jerusalem and the temple.]

    This is, in Hebrew poetry, a parallelism--a statement made twice for emphasis. And it is very, very common in the Scriptures.

    And may I add: this is how the Church Fathers seem to have interpreted it. So if you're going to view my arguments as "awry," you'll be viewing their arguments in the same way. No, the Church Fathers are not "holy writ." But they are well worth your time and consideration!

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I don't need to prove anything because I share the view of the many brothers you've been arguing with over the course of time. If you didn't believe them, why should you believe me?
    I don't believe anybody simply because there is a group who experience "group think." I listen to the arguments, and consider whether the views expressed are simply a modern phenomenon, or something rooted in history. Some things, like the modern rise of Israel, are in fact a modern phenomenon. But much of the Scriptures is rooted in history. I'm more of an historical person than someone who wants to be on the edge. Cutting edge has its values, but often not.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,610
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't believe anybody simply because there is a group who experience "group think." I listen to the arguments, and consider whether the views expressed are simply a modern phenomenon, or something rooted in history. Some things, like the modern rise of Israel, are in fact a modern phenomenon. But much of the Scriptures is rooted in history. I'm more of an historical person than someone who wants to be on the edge. Cutting edge has its values, but often not.
    If you are referring to the OD, I would say the only historical event so far is 70 AD. The majority of the prophecies still remain future and unfulfilled.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,132
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    So there really is no strict chronology from vs 26 to vs 27. They are parallel statements, which is so often the case in biblical writing. A statement is made twice.
    Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. [Jesus will die.] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. [Jerusalem and the temple will fall.]…
    27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ [Jesus will complete the 6 items in vs 24.] In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. [Jesus will end sacrifice at the cross.] And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." [The Roman ruler will set up his Army as the Abomination of Desolation to destroy Jerusalem and the temple.]
    A serious problem for you and noted by at least one ECF is the FACT that verse 27 speaks about the 70th week.
    Yet are you seriously splitting the 70th week in half and having half occur in 30 AD and the other half occur more than 40 years later in 70 AD?

    Or are you saying that Jesus sets up an abomination that causes desolation? Who is the He in verse 27?
    You put Jesus for the first two "he"s but are you doing the same for the third?
    And at the temple he [Jesus] will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him [Jesus]."

    You seem to be arguing that somehow the pronoun switches to a Roman ruler with no link in the prophecy for this.
    It is the SAME individual throughout verse 27 and ALL of it occurs in ONE week (of years).

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,132
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    My remark is based on the fact that there was no judgment of destruction passed on the temple in Antiochusí time.
    Really? Then why did God allow this to happen? Was God pleased with the Priests?
    When you say no destruction are you meaning the temple itself wasn't destroyed?
    That is an irrelevance, the key is was it an Abomination of Desolation? The clear answer is yes it was.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,610
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Brother, did you even read what I just said? I hardly said I rely on the Church Fathers as sacred Scripture. I said they are helpful.

    No, I'm not suggesting you are trashing me--just treating my views as if they are not worth consideration. So it is a hypothetical: *if* you want to treat me as unworthy, then you're going to have to treat the Church Fathers and many historical Church Scholars as unworthy of your consideration as well.
    Your position on the views of the ECFs is almost borderline infallible. I can quote several statements you made in the past using the ECFs as the backdrop to your position on several subjects and you get upset when challenged. I'm not sure what happened, but you weren't like this before. "Helpful" is certainly not the way you have used the interpretation of the Church Fathers in the past. But since everyone is entitled to change their mind, so yes, I'd say 'helpful' is appropriate.

    Only a fool rejects an argument out of hand without reviewing it first. I have thoroughly considered your argument and found it is not in harmony with what Jesus taught at the OD.


    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Like many of the problems in prophetic interpretation there is the chronology to examine. So often there is imposed a chronology that is not really established in the passage.

    So there really is no strict chronology from vs 26 to vs 27. They are parallel statements, which is so often the case in biblical writing. A statement is made twice.

    Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. [Jesus will die.] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. [Jerusalem and the temple will fall.]…

    27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ [Jesus will complete the 6 items in vs 24.] In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. [Jesus will end sacrifice at the cross.] And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." [The Roman ruler will set up his Army as the Abomination of Desolation to destroy Jerusalem and the temple.]

    This is, in Hebrew poetry, a parallelism--a statement made twice for emphasis. And it is very, very common in the Scriptures.

    And may I add: this is how the Church Fathers seem to have interpreted it. So if you're going to view my arguments as "awry," you'll be viewing their arguments in the same way. No, the Church Fathers are not "holy writ." But they are well worth your time and consideration!
    If the Church Fathers believed that v26-27 is a repetition of the same event and you believe them, I certainly don't. God's discernment to unravel the hidden secrets of scripture is not limited to the Church Fathers; modern believers truly in Christ also have it. Dan 9:26-27 has millenniums between them, that's the way I see it. Stop waving the ECF in my face, I won't accept a falsehood because some people erred in interpreting some texts a thousand years ago.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,610
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Really? Then why did God allow this to happen? Was God pleased with the Priests?
    When you say no destruction are you meaning the temple itself wasn't destroyed?
    That is an irrelevance, the key is was it an Abomination of Desolation? The clear answer is yes it was.
    You are obviously conflating two separate events and failing to recognise the difference between them. In Matt 24:2 Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and it was fulfilled in 70 AD. That is the judgment I referred to. I'm not sure there was a divine judgment on the temple before that. However, the AoD in v-15 is still in the future. Unless you have a scripture that I haven't seen, otherwise I maintain that there was no judgment on the temple when Antiochus defied it.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    A serious problem for you and noted by at least one ECF is the FACT that verse 27 speaks about the 70th week.
    Yet are you seriously splitting the 70th week in half and having half occur in 30 AD and the other half occur more than 40 years later in 70 AD?

    Or are you saying that Jesus sets up an abomination that causes desolation? Who is the He in verse 27?
    You put Jesus for the first two "he"s but are you doing the same for the third?
    And at the temple he [Jesus] will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him [Jesus]."

    You seem to be arguing that somehow the pronoun switches to a Roman ruler with no link in the prophecy for this.
    It is the SAME individual throughout verse 27 and ALL of it occurs in ONE week (of years).
    This is debatable. As I said, I believe the same things are said twice in two different ways. The Messiah had already been introduced, and so he is mentioned in both verse 26 and 27...
    Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary…
    27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

    The "Prince to Come" is also referred to in both verses, and so is mentioned twice...
    Dan 9.26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary...
    27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

    And so, yes, it can appear to be confusing as to which pronoun means what. But if we begin with the assumption that this is a parallelism, then we can properly place 2 characters who are already placed in view, so that they may properly correspond, in context, to their appropriate roles. The Messiah experiences/accomplishes the following...
    1) He is put to death
    2) He confirms a covenant for the 70th Week
    3) He ends sacrifice and offering

    On the other hand, the Ruler accomplishes the following...
    1) He destroys Jerusalem and the temple
    2) He sets up the AoD

    As for the chronology of the 70th Week, as compared to the Destruction of the temple in 70 AD, I do *not* find that this passage in Dan 9 indicates that the destruction of the temple takes place *within* the 70th Week! On the contrary, for me the passage indicates that the 70th Week finishes off the 70 Weeks 1st, and only after that the temple is destroyed. What is clear to me is that all these things take place within the same time frame, ie within the generation of Christ's death.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,132
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This is debatable.
    Not at all. Verse 27 is clearly about the 70th week.
    Further verse 27 is NOT about the Messiah OR is ONLY about the Messiah.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,132
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    You are obviously conflating two separate events and failing to recognise the difference between them. In Matt 24:2 Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and it was fulfilled in 70 AD. That is the judgment I referred to. I'm not sure there was a divine judgment on the temple before that. However, the AoD in v-15 is still in the future. Unless you have a scripture that I haven't seen, otherwise I maintain that there was no judgment on the temple when Antiochus defied it.
    Why did God allow many to die at the time of Antiochus? Why were sacrifices stopped for 3 years?
    Matt 24:2 is NOT about Antiochus' time obviously.

    So there was divine judgement in 587 BC and 168 BC and 70 AD.

    Dan 11:31* Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.*
    Dan 11:32* He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action.*
    Dan 11:33* And the wise among the people shall make many understand, though for some days they shall stumble by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder.*
    Dan 11:34* When they stumble, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery,*
    Dan 11:35* and some of the wise shall stumble, so that they may be refined, purified, and made white, until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time.*

    Are you really arguing this isn't about 168 BC?
    Are you saying that this is NOT divine judgement against those who violate the covenant?

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Your position on the views of the ECFs is almost borderline infallible. I can quote several statements you made in the past using the ECFs as the backdrop to your position on several subjects and you get upset when challenged. I'm not sure what happened, but you weren't like this before. "Helpful" is certainly not the way you have used the interpretation of the Church Fathers in the past. But since everyone is entitled to change their mind, so yes, I'd say 'helpful' is appropriate.

    Only a fool rejects an argument out of hand without reviewing it first. I have thoroughly considered your argument and found it is not in harmony with what Jesus taught at the OD.
    Okay. It isn't that people are always "foolish" for rejecting positions--they just don't always understand the opposing arguments. That's why I persist.
    How many times I've confronted friends who claim they understand my position, when the very next statement they make betrays a false understanding of my position!
    This is the nature of discussion. We hold onto hypotheticals until proven wrong. It is necessary, as we hold to our hypothetical position, to sacrifice a little of our objectivity.

    I don't worship the Church Fathers. I've just gained increasing confidence that they had a superior position to understand *some* of these things. I would rather trust in them than Hal Lindsey.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee
    If the Church Fathers believed that v26-27 is a repetition of the same event and you believe them, I certainly don't. God's discernment to unravel the hidden secrets of scripture is not limited to the Church Fathers; modern believers truly in Christ also have it. Dan 9:26-27 has millenniums between them, that's the way I see it. Stop waving the ECF in my face, I won't accept a falsehood because some people erred in interpreting some texts a thousand years ago.
    Since when is citing the ECFs "waving them in your face?" Citing good sources is a good thing, and not a bad thing, in my opinion. It is a necessary part of gathering evidence for a hypothetical position.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,511

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Not at all. Verse 27 is clearly about the 70th week.
    Further verse 27 is NOT about the Messiah OR is ONLY about the Messiah.
    You clearly don't understood what I wrote! I said vss. 26 and 27 are an example of a "Hebrew parallelism." Messiah is mentioned in both vs 26 and vs 27. The 70th Week, therefore, is inferred in both vs 26 and 27, where Messiah is mentioned, because he makes the covenant for the 70th Week.

    After each mention of Messiah, an event is mentioned that immediately follows the fulfillment of the 70 Weeks. This is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. And since Messiah is mentioned in both verses, together with the 70th Week, the event that follows the 70th Week is mentioned twice as well, which is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,132
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 2nd Coming backdrop

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    You clearly don't understood what I wrote! I said vss. 26 and 27 are an example of a "Hebrew parallelism." Messiah is mentioned in both vs 26 and vs 27. The 70th Week, therefore, is inferred in both vs 26 and 27, where Messiah is mentioned, because he makes the covenant for the 70th Week.
    I did read what you claimed.
    A nonsense for a number of reasons.
    1) This was a vision explained to Daniel, not Daniel giving some parallelism - can you provide any prophecy with this form of parallelism?
    2) Verse 26 speaks of the 62 weeks, yet you say it parallels verse 27 which clearly speaks of week 70.
    3) There is NO inference of week 70 in verse 26.
    4) Messiah is NOT mentioned anywhere in verse 27.
    5) The Messiah does NOT make a Covenant for one week in verse 27

    After each mention of Messiah, an event is mentioned that immediately follows the fulfillment of the 70 Weeks. This is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. And since Messiah is mentioned in both verses, together with the 70th Week, the event that follows the 70th Week is mentioned twice as well, which is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
    Huh? More nonsense.
    No event is mentioned as a occurring AFTER the 70 weeks.
    Did you not read verse 24 - the 70 weeks is the sum total,given after which is the end.
    When it mentions the Messiah in verse 25 there is no mention of an event after the 70 weeks.
    The 70 weeks are still not fulfilled.

    You also fail to deal with the problem that IF it is the Messiah as He in verse 27 at the start of the verse then the pronoun doesn't change throughout that verse.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jan 3rd 2018, 12:22 AM
  2. Is Jesus coming with Heaven at “His coming”?
    By Soldier_of_Faith in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct 24th 2017, 06:55 AM
  3. Changes coming up.
    By Old man in forum Prayer
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Mar 11th 2016, 11:57 PM
  4. Jesus 1st coming/2nd coming??
    By Joe King in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jul 19th 2009, 08:16 PM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jul 8th 2009, 11:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •