ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 6,056
- 1,232
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
2 answers to 2 questions on the O.D.
- Thread starter Randy Kluth
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I'm amil.
There's no bad guy in Daniel 9:27.
df claims a bad guy in Daniel 9:27.
Messiah the Prince in Daniel 9:25 is the grammatical antecedent of df's bad guy in Daniel 9:27.
Do you think that Messiah the Prince is a bad guy?
Last edited:
Truth7t7
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2014
- 10,870
- 3,281
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I'm saying Jesus Christ isn't the "He" in Daniel 9::27 below
Daniel 9:27KJV
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.
Two of the defining characteristics of df are denial and disbelief.
They accompany its fallacies and fantasies.
All are abundantly present in your ravings here.
Last edited:
To assist in the understanding of dispensational futurism's Matthew 24, I'm quoting several of its verses from its df bible. I trust this will be helpful:
4 And Jesus answered and said unto not them, Take heed that no man deceive not you.
5 For many shall not yet come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall not yet deceive many.
6 And not ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that not ye be not troubled: for all these things must not yet come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall not yet rise against nation, and kingdom not yet against kingdom: and there shall not yet be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are not yet the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver not you up to be afflicted, and shall kill not you: and not ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And not yet then shall many be offended, and shall not yet betray one another, and shall not yet hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall not yet rise, and shall not yet deceive many.
Last edited:
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Some Amil think the prince is a bad guy. That is not a df thing. That is why tossing labels around is just being child like. Obviously you hate df in your childish compassion. Df are not the bad guys. Satan is the bad guy. Paul was a df because he is the one who declared dispensations. You think Paul is a bad guy, correct? Dispensations are not just about eschatology. They are about the entire span of human history.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
It is the full Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus was 100% God the first time. Jesus as Prince will be 100% God at the Second Coming. And those on earth will also see the Father sitting on His throne as well.
Now explain that one to those who deny the Trinity. Most on earth will be easily deceived, even seeing God face to face.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
And your posts just continue the thoughts of a babbling lunatic, no matter how much I try to have a decent conversation.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I agree that He was asked two different questions about two different things, but I disagree with some other things you said here.This is so critical to understand that I wish to post my own thread on 2 distinct answers to 2 distinct questions in Jesus' Olivet Discourse. First, I wish to say that I was raised in Reform Theology, and never even heard of Dispensationalism. But then, I adopted my new Christian friends' Dispensationalist views back in the early 70s, and became a Pretribber by default. All the teachings I heard were Pretrib and Dispensationalist.
I became acquainted with Hal Lindsey, and began to read the Olivet Discourse from his pov. The generation to see the rebirth of the state of Israel would see the Return of Christ.
Well obviously that didn't work out. But I turned against Pretrib well before that. My brother convinced me to memorize Scripture back in 1972, I think. I memorized, among other passages, 2 Thessalonians. In doing so, I was compelled to shift my belief to Postrib, since that is precisely what it seemed Paul was teaching there!
Yet I had trouble for many years understanding the Olivet Discourse. I continued to believe that Jesus was talking about his Coming, and about signs of the last generation, or signs of the endtimes.
Somewhere along the way I came to understand that even many schools of thoughts that I disagreed with had elements of truth in them that were important to lay hold of, including Dispensationalist thought. I found in Preterism, which I disagree with, one of the answers to this puzzle.
Preterism teaches that the Olivet Discourse is all about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Although Preterism goes much farther than this, this important point drove me to consider what the Church Fathers believed, which was very much in line with what Preterism was teaching, absent other points of disagreement.
So I came to believe that even though I believe in a future Antichrist and in a future restoration of Israel, I think that the Olivet Discourse is largely about the fall of Jerusalem. After all, that was the main point Jesus raised at the temple, at the beginning of the Olivet Discourse. And as Jesus dismissed the importance of the temple, walking up the Mt. of Olives, he continued to assert that the temple would be destroyed, along with the city of Jerusalem.
With that in mind, the Olivet Discourse provided an answer to 2 separates questions.
1) When would the fall of Jerusalem and the temple happen?
2) When would his Coming with the Kingdom take place?
Finally, I put the confusion behind me and came to understand that Jesus was giving 2 distinct answers to 2 distinct questions.
1) Jesus said that "birth pang" signs would happen that would lead up to the fall of Jerusalem. These signs would indicate Israel's backslidden state, the Jewish people hiding evil with religious works, and persecuting true Christian saints.
This would result in natural disasters, indicating God's displeasure with the Jews. The Jewish People would hear rumblings of war from the Roman armies, that would eventually overtake the Jews in their rebellion against God.
All this would take place, according to Jesus, in "this generation." And so, Jesus answered the 1st question: when would the fall of Jerusalem take place? It would be in "this generation." Jesus said "all these things," ie the birth pang signs, would take place, along with the fall of Jerusalem itself, in "this generation," ie in the generation of Jesus' disciples.
2) Jesus said that his Coming with his Kingdom would take place long after the events of his generation. At least, this was the obvious implication, since Jesus said that the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD) would lead to an age-long Jewish dispersion among the nations until he would return only at the end of the age. Clearly, Jesus separated the 2 questions about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and his Coming at the end of the age into 2 distinct answers.
This means that Jesus did *not* mean to include his own Coming as one of the events to take place in his own generation. He said his Coming would *end* this age, and that all of the birth pains would alone take place in his own generation, leading up to an age-long dispersion of the Jewish People.
I truly hope this helps somebody! It sure did me!Try reading it this way and see if it doesn't make sense? Let me know.
I disagree that the birth pain signs (wars, earthquakes, famines, etc.) would all occur before the fall of Jerusalem. Jesus indicated that those would be signs of the end of the age, not the end of the city of Jerusalem (as they knew it) and the temple buildings.
He said that when people saw those things happening it would indicate that the end was approaching, but not yet. The end of what? The end of the age. So, the birth pains needs to be associated with His coming at the end of the age and not the fall of Jerusalem. I know you associate it with the fall of Jerusalem because of your understanding of what "this generation" means, but it just doesn't fit the context.
In Matthew 24:14 Jesus said the gospel would first be preached throughout the world and then the end would come. The end of what? The end of the age. Not the end of Jerusalem and the temple. So, that verse relates to His coming at the end of the age, not the fall of Jerusalem.
Another thing is that the gathering of the elect occurs before "this generation" passes away. The gathering of the elect is the gathering of Christ's people to Himself at His coming and that has not yet occurred. So, I just can't agree with you that most, but not all, of the Olivet Discourse relates to the fall of Jerusalem and the rest relates to His coming at the end of the age. Instead, I believe most of the Olivet Discoursre relates to His coming at the end of the age, and some relates to the fall of Jerusalem.
Name one.
Name, date, verbatim quote, link.
Some actual evidence.
Impossible for df, I know.
It is virtually exclusively a df thing, integral and essential to the f in df, spawned in the Jesuit counterfeit counter-reformation of the historical apostasized papacy.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Truth7t7 is Amil. Keep arguing with him about it. I agree with you this is Jesus Christ, even though you constantly attack posters in childish fashion. You can convince him there is no AC. He will kindly call you out, since he is one who seems to not get as emotional as some posters here.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Why do you have such an insatiable appetite for this alledged body of text? It seems it is you who has gone over the deep end of online postings.
I'm okay with a difference of opinion on this. I'll just let you hear how I see it, and then you may understand my reasoning better. For what it's worth, your logic is fine, and I agree, if things were framed the way you're framing it. But my picture is a little different from this. Let me explain.
Matt 24.3 “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Please note that Jesus was asked about 2 things:
1) when will this [the fall of the temple] happen?
2) when will be your coming and the end of the age?
So the context is, as you suggested, the *end of the age.* We both agree on that.
So when we get down to verse 8, "all these are the beginning of birth pains," Jesus is essentially saying, "the end is not yet." That is, the *end of the age* is not yet.*
The way I see it, Jesus answered the 1st question, "When will the fall of the temple take place?," by saying that the birth pains leading up to the invasion of the Roman armies will take place in the then-present generation.
But the "end is not yet." In other words, these things to happen in "this generation" will not be the *end of the age.* It will be just the beginning of a long age of Jewish Punishment, which we call "the Jewish Diaspora." It will be at the end of this Jewish Tribulation that Christ will Come Back, to defeat Israel's enemies and to restore Israel.
So Jesus wasn't saying that the end of the temple is not yet--we agree on that. Rather, he is saying *the end of the age* is not yet.
Finally, Jesus says that the Gospel testimony, not just to Israel but to the whole world, will be preached as a warning of the *end of the age.* And that will be very different from the things to happen in Jesus' generation, namely the fall of the temple.
Instead, at the end of the age Jesus will Come Again, to bring judgment down upon the world. The OT Prophets had spoken of the abuse Israel suffers in the times of her punishment. So Jesus is Coming Back to visit judgment upon the nations for the way they have treated Israel in her affliction. And he is also Coming Back to reward those few who have lived upstanding lives of service to God, faithfully declaring the Gospel of Christ.
We can look back now and see that far more can be applied in this message than Jesus applied at the time he gave this message to Israel. We now know that Jesus' intention was to apply the same message to the many nations who like Israel embraced covenant relationship with God.
In the same way Israel backslid leaving a rather small remnant of faithful believers, so now the Christian nations of the world have fallen into backsliding and sin, leaving small remnants in each nation declaring the Gospel of Christ's judgment. We may not agree on every verse, but I'm glad we share a lot in common in this regard. Thanks for speaking up--I don't mind the disagreement. Without it I would never believe what I do today, and I believe I've refined my views over many years precisely because I've been willing to listen--not just to men but to God speaking through those men.
Last edited:
GRACE ambassador
Well-Known Member
So, that has been the last 1980+ years (long age)?
What happened to God's Gospel Of GRACE (Romans-Philemon)? Is not
"Judgment" after "God's UNmerited Favor" (Dispensation Of GRACE),
According To "The Revelation Of The Mystery" has Ended, The Body Of
Christ ambassadors "Are Recalled/Removed" To Heaven, and Then, God
Resumes His prophetic program for Israel, Declaring War/Judgment on
an UNgodly world?:
Bible Answer For Confusing church Bewilderment!
GRACE And Peace...
Yes. I have a hard time understanding how many Christians today can read Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse and not see that Jesus defined the "Great Tribulation" as the Punishment of the Jewish People in the present age. Yes, a long 2000 year plus age.
I've had some difficulty in my own church and with my own pastors, who have preached Grace without Judgment. It's true that final judgment in this age happens at Armageddon, and at the resurrection. But it is *not* true that God has stopped judging in the present era.
Judgment was not just for the Law and for the OT era! God is the same today, yesterday, and forever. God is unchanging.
So when we say that God is gracious, that is just His character. He does not *want* to judge mankind. He does not want to send them away from His blessings and from Himself. But if they do not want to live with Him in the standards of holiness that He requires, then He has no choice.
In the course of our lives, we make eternal decisions. And judgment may come sooner or later. It doesn't await Judgment Day. It happens all the time. Sometimes judgment takes the form of a mild chastisement or correction. And sometimes it takes the form of a harsh rebuke. But sometimes it takes the form of death, after which Eternal Judgment takes place.
None of this requires we reach the end of the age for this judgment to take place. It is always part of our lives until the resurrection.
Even though judgment has afflicted the nation of Israel, certainly God still allows individuals to separate from the backslidden condition of the nation. The leaders in Judaism have prevailed against God, leading the Jewish People, generally, down the wrong path.
And God allows this process to continue, allowing people to influence others, to deceive them, to misdirect them. But He has people, as well, who strive to deliver people, to correct them, to enlighten them. And so, until it's time to bring all nations under judgment, the process goes on. All nations are given the same opportunity that Israel was given, to be nations belonging to God.
But even those nations who have assumed the name "Christian" ultimately fall away as nations, just as Israel did. Still, individuals come out from this sin and debauchery, and proclaim the Gospel of Christ.
Final judgment will not come until the process of rising and falling in nations has taken place throughout the world. And then final judgment will come. And so, the nations fall away, but many people continue to pursue righteousness and to try to direct the fallen back onto the right path. May these be us!
The issue is not whether or not amil, but whether or not futurist. Truth7t7 is a futurist, and thus believes that Daniel 9:26b-27 is about antichrist, not Christ.
But to follow up on your claim, I await a name, date, source, verbatim quote, and/or link to a recognized amil exegete who claims that Daniel 9:26b-27 is about antichrist, not Christ.
By "this", do you mean the "prince" and "he" in Daniel 9:26b-27?
If so, when did you change your mind?
Explain how an insatiable appetite for truth in the Word of God goes over the deep end.
Such an appetite can never be insatiable enough.
My posts are a fraction of those of Bros. SI and RK.
Please help me. I can't find "alledged" in any lexicon.
Last edited:
Similar threads
