You're stuck in a Historicist-Preterist view which has failed to update its understanding about the events leading up to Christ's return. The Rev.12:6-17 events have not happenned yet. The pope is not the Antichrist of Revelation 13, nor was it the old Roman empire. You might as well believe the false doctrines of Full Preterism also, since they think Christ's second coming already happenned back in the days of His Apostles, or at least by 70 A.D. And then you might as well believe that what you see on earth today is Christ's Kingdom already established over the whole earth, when it's actually the coming forth of a final beast kingdom over all nations in prep for the coming antichrist.
Daniel's 70Th Week: Warnings
- Thread starter veteran
- 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!
My reply is you is you refuse to see what happened at the cross.
Romans 8:1 So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus
John 12:31Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Rev 12:[sup]10[/sup] Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.
Rev 12 is an over view of the church with the events that follow Jesus accention.
Everyone of these events were fulfilled during the time of Christ.
Danial 9: [sup]24[/sup] “ Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.
I didn't say the Pope was the AC but I will point out that the first beast fits the RCC. What the RCC teaches does fit the teaching of AC.
This is a C/P from the RCC
Now John defines the AC plural and their teachings, he says.
1 John 4
[sup]1[/sup] Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. [sup]2[/sup] By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, [sup]3[/sup] and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
Now you determine for yourself. Jesus had no earthly Father, Just an adopted one in Joesph. He had a mother Mary. Now from the official statements from the RCC did Jesus come in the flesh of men. Its seems rather impossible considering the Mary "of the RCC" never shared in the original sin or condition of mankind. She was also sinless. Forever a virgin ect. The Mary of the RCC can not qualify as the seed of Eve from the original promise in Gen 3 if she was preserved from original sin and its stain. That is the DOGMA of the RCC, it is required by all its members.
Paul tells us in Hebrews.
Heb 2:[sup]14[/sup] Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, [sup]15[/sup] and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. [sup]16[/sup] For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. [sup]17[/sup] Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. [sup]18[/sup] For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.
4:[sup]15[/sup] For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
5:[sup]1[/sup] For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. [sup]2[/sup] He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray, since he himself is also subject to weakness. [sup]3[/sup] Because of this he is required as for the people, so also for himself, to offer sacrifices for sins. [sup]4[/sup] And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was.
As you can see, Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, It is quite impossible for Jesus to have these qualities if His mother never shared in the same flesh as the rest of mankind. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, [sup]3[/sup] and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
John 14:30
30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me.
(KJV)
Maybe you forgot that John 14 verse which appears later in the Book of John? What time was our Lord Jesus referring to with, "Hereafter I will not talk much with you"? He was speaking of His coming crucifixion and thereafter.
I Jn 2:18
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
(KJV)
There's 2 clauses in that verse using the word antichrist. The first clause is singular, about a singular antichrist John showed they had already heard that shall come. John changed nothing about the coming of a specific antichrist when he taught further there were "many antichrists" already at work. Those given eyes to see and ears to hear well know he was speaking of the "workers of iniquity" of the OT that serve the devil that have been on earth from the beginning (i.e., "crept in unawares" of Jude 1). That's the same idea Paul mentioned with the mystery of iniquity. Men's traditions don't cover that idea much because their spiritual eyes have been closed to matters like that within God's Word.
The Rev.12:10 verse you've taken totally out of the context it is written in. From Rev.12:6 to 12:17, all that is within the same context and timing for the end of this world.
Rev 12:6-17
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
That 1260 days is NOT years. The only time God in His Word tells us to apply a day=year timing is only WHERE He shows us to do that. Nothing in the Rev.12 Scripture tells us to apply that kind of formula. But in Daniel and Ezekiel there is. The mad looseness of arbitrarily applying a day=year formula to everywhere else in God's Word is confusion, and it's a favorite practice of numerologists and occultists that practice mysticism with God's Word.
That first mention of a 1260 days period represents the first half of Daniel's final "one week" (Dan.9:27). That is for the very end of this world, not back at Christ's crucifixion, and certainly not back at Satan's original rebellion. Nor does it represent a 1260 YEAR Church Age.
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
That war in Heaven and Satan's casting down to the earth with his angels is for the last days just prior to Christ's coming, our times. We are even given a type marker with, "which deceiveth the whole world", which connects to events about that dragon in the next chapter of Rev.13. In that 9th verse Christ is even giving us the very identity of the 'dragon' of Rev.13 as being Satan himself.
Moreover, the idea of Satan and his angels being cast to the earth, with their place no more being found in Heaven means they are cast to only one other possible dimension of existence, this earthly dimension. They're coming here to this earthly dimension we are in for the last days, which is what causes the greatest tribulation the earth has ever known, or ever will know.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
When that war happens sometime in our near future, Satan will no longer be able to appear before God's Throne like he did in the Book of Job to accuse us before God. That's why those Salvation and rejoicing events will happen in Heaven after his casting out in our near future. This is why we're also given another time marker immediately after that event in the next verse, with those who overcome that dragon by the Blood of The Lamb Jesus Christ by their Testimony. That has nothing to do with Satan's original time of casting out nor the time of Christ's crucifixion. That's about tribulation timing of those who are to be delivered up to give a Testimony for Christ during the coming tribulation. It's one of the 7 signs our Lord Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse about the very end of this world just prior to His return.
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
And there's yet another great tribulation time marker with that "short time", linked with the "short space" about the beast king of Rev.17. The devil and his angels are going to be literally cast down to this earth for the coming tribulation. Daniel 12:1 gives a parallel account of this war in Heaven when the Archangel Michael stands up (makes a stand). Right after Michael does that, a tribulation marker is given in Dan.12:1 also. And I don't think our Lord Jesus could make it any more plain with this Woe warning.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
Well, that can't be about Satan first casting out in the time of old, because that "woman" which represents Israel didn't exist yet, and nor was her "man child" (Christ Jesus) born through woman's womb yet. Can't say this started only after Pentecost either, since Satan has been persecuting God's people from the beginning all the way back to Genesis, when God said He would put 'emnity' between the two seeds. This event of the war in Heaven and Satan being cast to the earth is a marker for the middle of Daniel's "one week". That "one week" is for the end of days, not the time back at Christ's crucifixion. Christ is not that 'he' of Dan.9:27.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
There's that 1260 days period again, given as "a time, and times, and half a time". That's the last half of the coming tribulation timing. The Dan.9:27 "one week" is equal to a period of 7 years per the 70 weeks prophecy. Two times 1260 days equals a period of 7 years, for those who can't figure numbers very well. That's the time period of Dan.7:25 that the saints are given to be persecuted in the last days prior to Christ's coming. It is not about a whole 2,000 years Church Age prophecy. This is for the very end of this age, a final period of the last generation upon this earth. That's also the 1260 days time when God will send His two witnesses to Jerusalem to prophesy against the final beast kingdom (Rev.11). That's 1260 + 3.5 literal days prior to Christ's coming on the 7th trumpet - 3rd woe period.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
(KJV)
Ah, the flood. Wonder what that is?
Afraid not!
The 70 weeks prophecy was given about the children of Israel and Jerusalem. So let's be specific like the Daniel prophecy is.
Has Jerusalem's transgression finished yet today? What about Israel's transgressions? Of course not, especially if one takes an honest look at what's happenning with the orthodox Jews in Israel getting ready to start up abominations of Old Covenant style worship in Jerusalem again! One must be very blind to think that shows Israel's and Jerusalem's transgressions are finished today!
Has Israel and Jerusalem quit sinning today? NOPE! Most of the Jews in Israel STILL believe Jesus of Nazareth was a seditionist come to overthrow the law of Moses and the leadership of Israel. Their sins are NOT covered still.
Has Christ made a reconciliation for the iniquity of Israel and Jerusalem today? Again NOPE, for that would mean He covers their sin even WHILE the unbelieving Jews still refuse Him as The Saviour! That would be idiotic to think their sins are covered, especially when those Jews think they still need to build another temple and do animal sacrifices again!
What about everlasting righteousness? Has Christ brought that for Israel and Jerusalem today? Again a BIG NO. Let's not be stupid, for the Jews and Jerusalem rejected Christ Jesus AND HAD HIM CRUCIFIED! They would do it again today if they had opportunity. The OT prophets declare when that everlasting righteousness for Israel and Jerusalem will occur. It will happen only AFTER Christ's future LITERAL return to Jerusalem when He takes reign with a rod of iron.
The vision and prophecy for Israel and Jerusalem thus is not yet sealed up (finished). It should be very obvious.
The anointing of the Most Holy involves Christ's future thousand years temple of Ezekiel 40 forward. Afterall, the prophecy is about Israel and Jerusalem specifically.
So like I said before, if you believe all that was fulfilled back at Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, or sometime after like 70 A.D., then you might as well join in the one world government hosts today that want you to think all that is fulfilled. You might as well practice bowing now to the coming false king of the world they're planning to setup on earth at Jerusalem in our near future.
If you can't fathom how the false doctrines you're on come from Satan's camp to get your attention off the coming events upon this earth with a great tribulation, then you deserve to be deceived.
Did I say that the one anti-christ had come? NO
Did I say that he is yet to come? YES
My point was that AC teaching was already at work AT THE TIME John wrote 1 John.
If you don't believe that they went out from us as John said, and instead try to apply his statement to another time I believe you are mistaken.
I beg to differ but as I showed you he meaning Satan was judged after the resurrection.
John 12 [sup]29[/sup]The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
[sup]30[/sup]Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.[sup]
31[/sup]Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
But If you insist on ignoring the words of Jesus then that's your choice.
He then continues in John to speak of the darkness to come. Just as it is stated in Rev 12.
So you are saying that this did not take place at the cross?
Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come,
Don't you think that is denying Jesus work at the cross and look forward to its fulfillment? If thats the case we have no hope NOW. Were still looking forward to salvation and strength, I do believe I have that now. Do you? To say it is yet to come is to ignore the whole message of the NT.
I'll answer your question with a question. If they accept Jesus and His word today is there transgression? NO
Let me say the transgression is the continued rejection of Christ. The provision to forever take away transgression was made 2000 years ago. Apparently you are still looking forward to that day.
Yes, lets not be stupid< Jesus completed the work of salvation, everlasting righteousness 2000 years ago. All the have to do is accept it. Again you look to the future for salvation that has already been offered.
I never said that in the last days the Lord would not call the children of Israel back, you are implying that. Your confusing "combining" the gift of salvation with the time that salvation is recognized by Israel. They are 2 separate events.
I have never said ALL was completed at Christ crucifixion. But you insist on making that presumption. I admit futurist have a lot to pack into a 7 year period. I'm trying to make you realize that mistake. Like I said and have never said, I DONT BELIEVE ALL WAS FULFILLED BY 70 AD. So please quit implicating that. You waste to much time and space commenting about things I never said.Deal with what I said not what you would like me to say.
Your a real piece of work yourself. After you place all those words in my mouth you finish with.
Oh, I understand well the idea of those who went out from Christ's disciples that were not of them, and how that applies to the "many antichrists" phrase. I also understand its link back to Old Testament events, which some instead think that working was something new that only began after Christ's first coming. And I also understand how you failed to be specific about the antichrist vs. the many antichrists.
I'm not the one who is ignoring things in God's Word. You apparently haven't read or understood enough of God's Word to know what I'm talking about.
Ezekiel 28 shows Satan had already been judged and sentenced to perish at his original casting out (see Ezek.28:18). What our Lord Jesus did at His first coming was to defeat the devil by defeating death for us upon the cross (Heb.2:14). The real meaning of our Lord Jesus' words in John 12 & 14 is how His defeat of death completed that original judgment against Satan. For not until our Lord Jesus died on the cross and was raised from the dead was death defeated for us.
Satan even showing up in God's Garden of Eden as the temptor already revealed he had been judged and sentenced to perish. That's when the spiritual battle for this world age actually began, sides already having been chosen. Look at Isaiah 30:31-33 too, for God used the title of "the Assyrian" as a symbolic name for Satan in some places (Isaiah 10; Isaiah 31).
Of course Christ defeated the devil at His crucifixion. But He did not yet DESTROY the devil, nor his working. That should be obvious.
You can't just take that Rev.12:10 verse out of the context of the Rev.12:6 - 17 verses which is about tribulation timing for the end of days. You're simply rambling and clearly don't care to apply that Rev.12 verse where it is given.
I wish they would accept Jesus of Nazareth as The Christ. But you know most of them still don't today. I'm not going to argue silliness with you about the orthodox Jews who still refuse Christ, for you well know that's not fulfilled yet. Those Dan.9:24 requirements are for Daniel's people and Jerusalem, not the Gentiles that have believed on Christ Jesus as The Saviour. So your ploy to try and connect that prophecy to Christians like myself is really silly. I stand in Christ Jesus.
Well, I can see you're still being sottish by trying to infer the sins of the unbelieving Jews and Jerusalem is now covered by our Lord Jesus Christ, even while they still refuse Him. What is it they call that false doctrine, Universalism? Per that view, you might as well believe that ALL the world is saved now WITHOUT CONFESSING CHRIST JESUS AS THEIR SAVIOUR.
I'm confusing nothing, but you definitely are. Sounds like you need to read and heed much of the OT prophets that reveals believing Israel's gathering at the same time along with believing Gentiles. Isaiah 49 might be a good start. Or maybe you don't really believe Gentile believers on Christ represent the saints too?
Well you're wrong, because your taking Rev.12:6-17 out of its given time context reveals a Historicist/Preterist approach. And with your idea that Dan.9:24 requirements of the 70 weeks prophecy has all been fulfilled, that is the Historicist-Preterist approach. No sense in trying to hide your adhereance to those ideas, too late for that now.
my mistake The text says he was cast out. NOW not latter. I did have it underlined and bold.
Rev 12 is speaking of the accuser, I won't argue the point about his destiny. He was thrown out so he could no longer accuse the Lords saints.
The reason being that Jesus bore our sins but remained sinless. See how he still had access to accuse men before the work of Christ was done. Him being to no longer accuse is the point.
The next time he tangles with an Angel he will be bound. But you knew that right, I suppose that happens right after your interpretation of this event, or with in 7 years anyway.
Your right I dont see the 7 year trib in those verses, and what makes you think they are. I don't know about you but most futurist believe that the believers are gone at the beginning of chapter 4. So they have to pack 18 chapters into 7 years. Are you using a broad brush thinking that the most of Rev is the 7 year trib?
I beg to differ with you again. Salvation is of the Jews. Without the fulfillment of Danial 9:24 their would be no salvation for the gentiles.
[sup]24[/sup] “ Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.
[sup]John 4:21[/sup] Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. [sup]22[/sup] You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.[sup]21[/sup] Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. [sup]22[/sup] You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.
Jesus did His part and kept the promise. No body can force them to be saved. Now God can speak to their heart but He won't force them or give them salvation just because they are Jews. If He did or does He has 2 types of salvation, one for Jews and one for Gentiles.
Huge miss communication here, I never said that. I even reread what I wrote. I don't know how you came up with this reply. My reply was to your implication that salvation has not yet come to the nation of Israel. As you continue to repeat and imply in other places, this means that the Jews don't have salvation. I completly agree with you, it was done 2000 years ago all they have to do is believe it.
This is what I said
and your reply
enough said........ except you are implying again. I most certainly do believe we are graphed into the root of Abraham.
I make it very clear that Danial 9:27 is Jesus and not AC and yes it has been fulfilled. The rest of the nonsense you try to drag me into is you and you alone.
And yes Rev 12 is not futuristic. By the way who said I was hiding. No sence in hiding the fact that the futuristic approach was first taught by a catholic Jesuit.
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:
A note from me bud02......he taught all this below is yet to come, sound familiar. Sounds a bit like you.
- Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
- Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
- Abolish the Christian religion.
- Deny Jesus Christ.
- Be received by the Jews.
- Pretend to be God.
- Kill the two witnesses of God.
- Conquer the world.
So, according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism. A 1591 edition and a 1602 edition of his commentary are now online.
.
Dan. 9:24 is where Preterists all lose perspective. It is a matter of transferrence of a meaning, which they take from the English rendering, and locking into an interpretation that may not necessarily be the precise meaning in the Bible manuscripts. Of course, if one narrowly views the emboldened wording within the quote above, one could get the impression that the 70 weeks have already concluded. With that acknowledgement of the English rendering, it is important to also acknowledge that the Bible manuscripts were not written in English. Accordingly, before an honest evaluator can agree with the Preterist position, an examination of the manuscripts is in order first.
In examining the emboldened words 'annoint' and 'Holy', which Preterists base their religion upon, one sees from Strong's that there are multiple meanings -
First, the word rendered 'annoint' -
H4886
משׁח
mâshach
A primitive root; to rub with oil, that is, to anoint; by implication to consecrate; also to paint: - anoint, paint.
Here, we can see that the literal meaning would be to annoint with oil. But, the word has an implied meaning to 'consecrate'.
The word rendered 'Holy' -
H6944
קדשׁ
qôdesh
From H6942; a sacred place or thing; rarely abstractly sanctity: - consecrated (thing), dedicated (thing), hallowed (thing), holiness, (X most) holy (X day, portion, thing), saint, sanctuary
Here we see that it means a 'sacred place or thing' or 'to sanctify'. Preterists' religion starts to break down at this point. There is nothing in the meaning of the word rendered 'Holy' to warrant an interpretation that it is referring to Christ. If one further examines the etymology of this word [H6942], we see -
H6942
קדשׁ
qâdash
A primitive root; to be (causatively make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally): - appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy (-er, place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify (-ied one, self), X wholly.
Here, we see a complete breakdown in Preterists' logic. As the etymology of the word entails 'making clean', it cannot refer to Christ, who was and always is 'clean' [unless Preterists believe Jesus was a sinner and needed to be made clean].
Accordingly, the word rendered "Holy" in the KJV cannot mean Jesus Christ. It is definitely referring to a 'sacred place or thing'. Furthermore, the KJV, thereby, erred in translation of the word rendered 'annoint'. The other meaning of 'consecrate' should have been the rendering as that which this verb acted upon is a 'place or thing' -- not a person -- specificaly Jesus.
Thus, it is fair to conclude that the Preterists' religion is entirely based upon a bastardization of scripture. Preterists simply took their preferred meaning of the English rendering, without due respect for the manuscripts, and made a religion out of it.
It's really interesting how the church has usurped God and thus the sheep are believing according to their earthly teachers. We have the most common assumption that the 70 weeks are consecutive. However, when reading scirpture, and even in the passage which states the 70 weeks, it is clear that there are periods of time between the 62 weeks, the 7 weeks, and the 1 week. If this simple enumeration is overlooked in the wordage, then all the ensuing beliefs that are arrived at are faulty. Christ Himself stated that there were time periods between these things. The disciples asked Him 3 questions, yet in the form of their question we see that they assumed all three things to be concurrent. Christ debunked that belief, yet the church tends to still hold to it. Sad.
It seems that people can't count. We have good Friday which negates 3 days and 3 nights. We have Benjamin as a lad with the cup in the grain sack incident, when in fact scripture states that Benjamin had 10 sons by that time. And yet those things are simple math that any 4 year-old can do, and will do, if we don't teach them to believe our pet beliefs which do not add up to the most simple statements of the word of God. If we can't even do simple addition, which takes absolutely no spiritual wisdom, how is it that everyone purports to know the number of the beast meaning, the times of the prophecies in Daniel and elsewhere, when scripture states that some of that clearly takes spiritual wisdom?
Do the math: if we can't get the most basic things correct, such as good Friday or Benjamin, we are flat out delusional to believe that we have prophecies correct. And then to foist our beliefs upon others? Scripture speaks of this, saying, "being teachers of that which they do not know". And what's the end result? "They shall both fall into the pit and perish."
We argue over sin, adultery, homosexuality, baptism, speaking in tongues, prophecies, etc.. We can't even serve two masters, let alone have two masters as most assert by stating that we have two natures. We can't even understand the scriptures on the very basics, let alone do simple kindergarten math. This concerns me.
God doesn't lie. But we don't seem to really care about that. We much prefer our personal beliefs, no matter what the facts show to the contrary.
I just wish that people would humble themselves and learn the basics of the word of God before they purport to teach others on deeper things. The scriptures use a word for such people: hypocrites. I will use a softer word: charlatans.
The proof is in the pudding.
O how I wish that people would just start at the very basics and learn to do simple math and be taught of God instead of man.
How refreshing that would be to see.
The world rightly mocks us. And the name of God is blasphemed among them because of US. Yes, us. And we persist in arguing over that which we do not understand.
It is shameful.
God will judge. As the psalmist stated, who had the heart of God: "How long, O Lord?"
O, that the judgment would start soon!
And it will start at the house of God, which house we claim to be.
Sobering.
It seems that people can't count. We have good Friday which negates 3 days and 3 nights. We have Benjamin as a lad with the cup in the grain sack incident, when in fact scripture states that Benjamin had 10 sons by that time. And yet those things are simple math that any 4 year-old can do, and will do, if we don't teach them to believe our pet beliefs which do not add up to the most simple statements of the word of God. If we can't even do simple addition, which takes absolutely no spiritual wisdom, how is it that everyone purports to know the number of the beast meaning, the times of the prophecies in Daniel and elsewhere, when scripture states that some of that clearly takes spiritual wisdom?
Do the math: if we can't get the most basic things correct, such as good Friday or Benjamin, we are flat out delusional to believe that we have prophecies correct. And then to foist our beliefs upon others? Scripture speaks of this, saying, "being teachers of that which they do not know". And what's the end result? "They shall both fall into the pit and perish."
We argue over sin, adultery, homosexuality, baptism, speaking in tongues, prophecies, etc.. We can't even serve two masters, let alone have two masters as most assert by stating that we have two natures. We can't even understand the scriptures on the very basics, let alone do simple kindergarten math. This concerns me.
God doesn't lie. But we don't seem to really care about that. We much prefer our personal beliefs, no matter what the facts show to the contrary.
I just wish that people would humble themselves and learn the basics of the word of God before they purport to teach others on deeper things. The scriptures use a word for such people: hypocrites. I will use a softer word: charlatans.
The proof is in the pudding.
O how I wish that people would just start at the very basics and learn to do simple math and be taught of God instead of man.
How refreshing that would be to see.
The world rightly mocks us. And the name of God is blasphemed among them because of US. Yes, us. And we persist in arguing over that which we do not understand.
It is shameful.
God will judge. As the psalmist stated, who had the heart of God: "How long, O Lord?"
O, that the judgment would start soon!
And it will start at the house of God, which house we claim to be.
Sobering.
Some intersting statements, such as Rev. 12:1-6 not yet having happened. Intersting how the baptist said that the axe was even then laid to the trees, etc.. Right at that time when the Baptist lived and Christ did His thing. Interesting. Doesn't fit a lot of our beliefs. Just like Joel doesn't fit our beliefs, even though Peter said, being filled with the Spirit, that that was happening right then/had happened with Christ. Interesting how we still can't accept the word of God on these things, but insist on our own beliefs that our teaches have given to us after they rightly divided the word of truth for us.
Try interpreting scripture with scriptures. We are fully remiss, and even contrary to the express injunctions of the word of God, to sit and try to interpret scripture with only the passage that we are looking at. Most foolish. Try plugging this into the Rev. 12:1-6 verses: (Luk 10:17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us through Your name.
(Luk 10:18) And He said to them, I saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightning.
(Luk 10:19) Behold, I give to you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the authority of the enemy. And nothing shall by any means hurt you.
(Luk 10:20) Yet do not rejoice in this, that the evil spirits are subject to you, rather rejoice because your names are written in Heaven.
(Luk 10:21) In that hour Jesus rejoiced in Spirit and said, I thank You, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the sophisticated and cunning, and have revealed them to babes. Yes, Father, for so it was pleasing before You.
(Luk 10:22) All things are delivered to Me by My Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him.
(Luk 10:23) And He turned to His disciples and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that you see.
(Luk 10:24) For I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see what you see, and have not seen them, and to hear what you hear, and have not heard them.
Christ Himself stated that Satan was at that time cast down to earth. But we say that that is a lie. Did Christ lie? NO, but "let every man be a liar, and God be true". If we contradict the most simple, straightforward statements of the word of God, how is it that we think that we know something spiritual? "He who thinks that he knows something, knows nothing at all." Perhaps Paul was possibly speaking of us? It seems to fit quite perfectly.
How is it that we can state with straight faces that Rev. 12:1-6 is futuristic, when Christ said that Satan was cast down to the earth some 2000 years ago?
Who corrects Christ?
Who contradicts Him?
Surely not those who have His Spirit!
"Test the spirits".
If you have the light, you can't hide it. If you don't have it, no matter how much you say that you have it, you can't hide that fact, either.
Or was Christ lying on that one, too?
I'll take Christ at His word.
And then Christ stated that He had given all authority to the diciples. And don't we read in Rev. about the 12 (and others) having authority, having thrones? Christ gave them authority over ALL THE ENEMY. Ring a bell with "more than conquerors in Christ"? But we don't believe that, either, for we state that we are sinners just like everyone else -- it's just that we have forgiveness and know God. Right. Uh-huh. What else are you peddling? And then they turn right around and deny most of 1 and 2 John and it's simple statements such as "he who is born of God does not sin", etc.. If they can't even do simple math, can't even accept simple statements in the word of God, how on earth can they understand the statements in 1 John that contradict their personal lives? Impossible! And they prove it, too. Yet they insist on teaching others. Tragic. It just breaks my heart, and it angers me to see so many who are trying to enter into the kingdom of heaven being duped and made into twice the sons of hell than their teachers.
And we see by these passages that Satan was before the throne of God and accusing the brethren, as stated in Rev. and exampled in Job, and we see that he no longer can do that, since that time of Christ. And because of our radically skewed beliefs which contract simple statements of the word of God, we go around firmly believing that Satan stand even now before the throne of God accusing us! But as the word states elsewhere, who accuses us of anything? Nobody! And if we are hid in Christ, how can Satan stand before God and accuse us? Such silly beliefs that we have, and they contradict the simple word of God. We can't even get these basics right, and yet we still insist on teaching on Revelation? Or Daniel? Or any of the prophecies, when we can't even accept what Christ said, and what Peter said about the great and terrible day of the Lord having already happened?
Strong enough words fail me here.
I'll take Christ at His word.
Simple, really. Like a child. Of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Try interpreting scripture with scriptures. We are fully remiss, and even contrary to the express injunctions of the word of God, to sit and try to interpret scripture with only the passage that we are looking at. Most foolish. Try plugging this into the Rev. 12:1-6 verses: (Luk 10:17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us through Your name.
(Luk 10:18) And He said to them, I saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightning.
(Luk 10:19) Behold, I give to you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the authority of the enemy. And nothing shall by any means hurt you.
(Luk 10:20) Yet do not rejoice in this, that the evil spirits are subject to you, rather rejoice because your names are written in Heaven.
(Luk 10:21) In that hour Jesus rejoiced in Spirit and said, I thank You, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the sophisticated and cunning, and have revealed them to babes. Yes, Father, for so it was pleasing before You.
(Luk 10:22) All things are delivered to Me by My Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him.
(Luk 10:23) And He turned to His disciples and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that you see.
(Luk 10:24) For I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see what you see, and have not seen them, and to hear what you hear, and have not heard them.
Christ Himself stated that Satan was at that time cast down to earth. But we say that that is a lie. Did Christ lie? NO, but "let every man be a liar, and God be true". If we contradict the most simple, straightforward statements of the word of God, how is it that we think that we know something spiritual? "He who thinks that he knows something, knows nothing at all." Perhaps Paul was possibly speaking of us? It seems to fit quite perfectly.
How is it that we can state with straight faces that Rev. 12:1-6 is futuristic, when Christ said that Satan was cast down to the earth some 2000 years ago?
Who corrects Christ?
Who contradicts Him?
Surely not those who have His Spirit!
"Test the spirits".
If you have the light, you can't hide it. If you don't have it, no matter how much you say that you have it, you can't hide that fact, either.
Or was Christ lying on that one, too?
I'll take Christ at His word.
And then Christ stated that He had given all authority to the diciples. And don't we read in Rev. about the 12 (and others) having authority, having thrones? Christ gave them authority over ALL THE ENEMY. Ring a bell with "more than conquerors in Christ"? But we don't believe that, either, for we state that we are sinners just like everyone else -- it's just that we have forgiveness and know God. Right. Uh-huh. What else are you peddling? And then they turn right around and deny most of 1 and 2 John and it's simple statements such as "he who is born of God does not sin", etc.. If they can't even do simple math, can't even accept simple statements in the word of God, how on earth can they understand the statements in 1 John that contradict their personal lives? Impossible! And they prove it, too. Yet they insist on teaching others. Tragic. It just breaks my heart, and it angers me to see so many who are trying to enter into the kingdom of heaven being duped and made into twice the sons of hell than their teachers.
And we see by these passages that Satan was before the throne of God and accusing the brethren, as stated in Rev. and exampled in Job, and we see that he no longer can do that, since that time of Christ. And because of our radically skewed beliefs which contract simple statements of the word of God, we go around firmly believing that Satan stand even now before the throne of God accusing us! But as the word states elsewhere, who accuses us of anything? Nobody! And if we are hid in Christ, how can Satan stand before God and accuse us? Such silly beliefs that we have, and they contradict the simple word of God. We can't even get these basics right, and yet we still insist on teaching on Revelation? Or Daniel? Or any of the prophecies, when we can't even accept what Christ said, and what Peter said about the great and terrible day of the Lord having already happened?
Strong enough words fail me here.
I'll take Christ at His word.
Simple, really. Like a child. Of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Post like yours amuse me in that you simply tear down and don't offer your view.
Because of that I will presume you mean it is to be applied to the 3rd temple. In that you have a very big problem with your futurist point of view. First the temple will be rebuilt by Jews that have not yet accepted Jesus. Next the offer sacrifices of bulls and lambs. The the AC comes in and causes an up roar. My question is, just how could this ever be considered the Holy of Holys? Do you really think that is Gods plan. Secondly Jesus left the temple to the Jewish Priest desolate, with an added condition regarding Himself.
Mt 23:[sup]38[/sup] See! Your house is left to you desolate; [sup]39[/sup] for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!
Next as we can see from the verses that this is about Messiah, He is the one that is to accomplish verse 24 would you agree? Or are you expecting someone else?
Messiah in Hebrew means the anointed one.
Messiah = 4899 mashiyach maw-shee'-akh from 4886; anointed; usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint); specifically, the Messiah:--anointed, Messiah.
I challenge you to show evidence of a third temple. I'm already in a discussion in another thread, that person is also into the deep mistries of the true meaning by search the original language. From reading those threads about the 3 earth ages I will open say you may end up anywhere on the map.
So please dispense with the smoke and mirrors, and say what you believe the verse means. By the way I consider myself as a Historicists.
The problem for futurist is that you have to have the gap between the 69 and 70 week. Where you find that I don't know and never have. Next you need a temple that is not mentioned in 9-27 but is presumed to be simple because you interpret that verse to be the AC. The outline Gabriel gives in 24 does not indicate any AC. It all Messianic.
With out the gap all of futurism tumbles into a heap. By seeing that 9-27 HE is Jesus and not AC is the key your whole interpretation and even your understanding of events in the new testament hinge entirely on this one verse. The differences in many protestant beliefs can be traced back to this verse its that's important. Why do you suppose Gabriel was seen to deliver it. Just as He was sent to herald in the birth of Jesus. He appeared twice in the bible old and new testaments. Both times bring very clear details about the Messiah, not the AC. Without the gap away goes the AC. without the third temple the AC can't be considered. I'm of the opinion that futurest are falling for a big let down and surprise, by miss handling Gabriel's message.
It may amuse you; however, my post adequately debunked Preterism The underlying premise for the Preterist religion is a bastardization of scripture in that they presume the word rendered 'Holy' is Christ, which it is not.
Actually, you have presumed incorrectly. The temple [the structure] will not be rebuilt.
No argument -- it speaks to the return of Christ.
Good point -- the word 'Messiah' exists in the Hebrew language. Hence, if the word rendered as 'Holy' [KJV] was supposed to be the 'Messiah', it was certainly within the capability of the Hebrew language to use H4899. Since Gabriel did not say 'Messiah', you should agree that the phrase " anoint the most Holy" is not speaking of the Messiah.
No smoke and mirrors -- Preterism is a false religion as I demonstrated in my prior post. So, in evaluating Dan. 9:24, the Bible student can summarily dismiss, without further consideration, Preterism as a viable meaning.
I already addressed the temple issue [above]. As for the 3 ages, I can edify you on that topic as well.
Dan. 9:24 speaks of the return of Christ.
O.K. -- I am a Christian.
Well, since it is proven that 9:24 cannot be the 'anointing of Christ', the preterist view is disproven. In addition to the manuscript error that Preterists make, the Bible timeline doesn't work itself out with the Preterist position that the 70th week was completed in 70 A.D. Subtracting 490 years [70 weeks x 7 years/week], we get the commencement of this timeline to be 421 B.C., with the completion of the reconstruction of the temple in 379 B.C. The Bible timeline that I use places the rebuilt temple to be 405 B.C. -- some 26 years earlier.
However, if one considers a gap in time between the 69th and 70th week, the Bible timeline gets itself closer to the time frame of 'the cutting off the daily oblation' with the crucifixion of Christ. Taking 62 weeks from 405 BC, one gets 30 A.D., which is in the range of years scholars state for the crucifixion year.
Hence, by default, we are left with a futurist 'gap' explanation between the 69th and 70th weeks as the only viable interpretation.
I don't need a rebuilt temple. In Dan. 8, we see a 'cleansing' in Joshua's time, wherein there was no temple structure at all. I don't agree with the rest of your conclusion here as well. I can address in future posts.
seventh year of Artaxerxes 457 B.C. to 27 AD 69 weeks no gaps.
[sup]25[/sup] “ Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street shall be built again, and the wall,
Even in troublesome times.
But please go right ahead and point out the gap between the first 7 and 62.
You are absolutely right what comes after 69?
It is in two parts the first part 7 and 62 are to begin with Artaxerxes 457, we know this because of the time Jesus came He was anointed by the Father and became the Messiah in 27 AD. the first part rebuilding the temple added to the 62 = 69 and as you say "It seems that people can't count." the 70th week begins with Jesus ministry. 7+62 = temple and time. Last 7 = Jesus.
Danial 9-26
Danial 9-27
I see Jesus everywhere I look, but most of you see the anti-christ.
And where, bud02, did "they" get those numbers? The date for Christ's birth and death is assumed, based almost exclusively upon an assumption regarding astronomy and eclipses. Many scholars have serious issues with the pervasive assumption. And how did they get the date for some things, like the temple decree? By using the same method as evolutionists: the fossil is dated by the strata it is in. So how is the strata dated? By the fossil that is in it. It is a wholly circular reasoning that is self imploding and cannot stand up to even the most simple cross examination, let alone the rigors of actual documentation and research or exegesis.
If it weren't so sad, it would be humerours. Few indeed actually research these things out, but merely accept the published dates as if they are fact. Just like with evolution. And you can find all sorts of maps in the back of bibles, some of which have the Egyptian army drowning in 6 inches of water. Novel. There is just so much stuff that is garbage that is swallowed as if it is the truth. So why are there conflicting maps? They can't all be right, if they conflict each other!
Christendom has a smorgasboard of lies and teachings of men from which they daintily pick and choose according to their spiritually sensitive palatte. What a cess pool of confusion and misbelief.
And then they speak on prophcies as if they know and understand them, and they still can't add regarding Easter, Benjamin, and the weeks. If you won't even do the requisite research, but merely look up numbers that change from bible encyclopedia to bible encyclopedia, and change as time goes on as seen by perusing older encyclopedias and dictionaries, it's fully futile to even discuss things with you. If you don't do the homework, but simply swallow the selective things in print that you read, it is a hopeless case.
And there are a plethora of translations of the bible in English. Why? Each set of "scholars" has their own beliefs, and so being dissatisfied with the beliefs set forth in the previous versions, they make their own version that fits their personal beliefs and "insights" into the word of God. There is no other reason for various translations other than dissatisfaction with the beliefs set forth in other translations.
You cannot tell me that when Christendom does this with even the word of God itself, it doesn't do it with the "data" that is presented as historical fact.
People need to wake up and smell the spiritual coffee.
Ignorance is not bliss: it is ignorance -- no matter how much of it there is.
Please educate yourself before typing about something. Actually do the hard labor of rigorous research. Do you even know where to start on something like that? Did you even know that there are different dates given for Christ's birth? And that among those who even hold the same date for His birth, their compatriots vary as to the date of His death? The majority of the Christian peoples don't even understand how that can be possible, to agree on the year of His birth but not agree on the year of His death, or even His age at death -- and when sticking with the scriptures only or by using secular resources also. By your response, the answer is a resounding NO!
Dialogue with such is futile. For obvious reasons.
Fare thee well.
If it weren't so sad, it would be humerours. Few indeed actually research these things out, but merely accept the published dates as if they are fact. Just like with evolution. And you can find all sorts of maps in the back of bibles, some of which have the Egyptian army drowning in 6 inches of water. Novel. There is just so much stuff that is garbage that is swallowed as if it is the truth. So why are there conflicting maps? They can't all be right, if they conflict each other!
Christendom has a smorgasboard of lies and teachings of men from which they daintily pick and choose according to their spiritually sensitive palatte. What a cess pool of confusion and misbelief.
And then they speak on prophcies as if they know and understand them, and they still can't add regarding Easter, Benjamin, and the weeks. If you won't even do the requisite research, but merely look up numbers that change from bible encyclopedia to bible encyclopedia, and change as time goes on as seen by perusing older encyclopedias and dictionaries, it's fully futile to even discuss things with you. If you don't do the homework, but simply swallow the selective things in print that you read, it is a hopeless case.
And there are a plethora of translations of the bible in English. Why? Each set of "scholars" has their own beliefs, and so being dissatisfied with the beliefs set forth in the previous versions, they make their own version that fits their personal beliefs and "insights" into the word of God. There is no other reason for various translations other than dissatisfaction with the beliefs set forth in other translations.
You cannot tell me that when Christendom does this with even the word of God itself, it doesn't do it with the "data" that is presented as historical fact.
People need to wake up and smell the spiritual coffee.
Ignorance is not bliss: it is ignorance -- no matter how much of it there is.
Please educate yourself before typing about something. Actually do the hard labor of rigorous research. Do you even know where to start on something like that? Did you even know that there are different dates given for Christ's birth? And that among those who even hold the same date for His birth, their compatriots vary as to the date of His death? The majority of the Christian peoples don't even understand how that can be possible, to agree on the year of His birth but not agree on the year of His death, or even His age at death -- and when sticking with the scriptures only or by using secular resources also. By your response, the answer is a resounding NO!
Dialogue with such is futile. For obvious reasons.
Fare thee well.
The prophesy says nothing about His birth it says the coming of the Messiah (the anointed one). 27 AD Jesus goes to John at the Jordain river. Thats when He becomes the Messiah. He was born Immanuel (God is with us) Mt 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14.
End of Understanding the Bible 101.
The three decrees to rebuild to the Jews
1 decree of Cyrus the Great
2 in the seventh year of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C.
3 King Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 446 B.C.
These three date are well documented, a matter of history accepted by both Christian theologians and secular historians for years.
Book of Ezra for the details and dates if it complies with your accepted resources.
You seem to imply that you will only accept a notarized signed letter of authenticity from Jesus Himself, when you release it from your private collection of resources, I'll be the first to purchase a copy. :lol:
It is very clear you have no clue about the where to start, or even understand when Jesus became the Messiah, as I noted above. Simply from the holy days recorded in the New test, years of office by officials it is easy for anyone to determine the time of Jesus ministry including the date or near date of His baptismal of the HS (anointing from the Father). Lets just say within a few weeks. As to the date of Jesus birth, yes it is unclear, just for the record, I like the date Sept 29 2 BC. But were not speaking about when Jesus was born, its completely irrelevant to the prophesy. When He started "Messiah" and the number of years to His death is important. Lets not get off track with the 2 year differance that some people have. Its clear in one historical records the reign of Kings, one Kings reign of 2 years was counted twice.
My reply to your post over all.
People on forums like yourself are a dime a dozen. Nothing but smart A%% remarks, and when they do say something as you did above, you remove all doubt about your limited understanding of basic theology. When you figure out when the prophesy is speaking of, maybe you will understand more.
[sup]25[/sup] “ Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince, ......................................................no birthday here, or it would say Immanuel
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street shall be built again, and the wall,
Even in troublesome times.
From here we can ask where is the temple to day. Where is the temple that Jesus is now High Priest of? The temple in Heaven, the true tabernacle, not the earthly reflection.
Rev 12 supports this when read in its proper context. That this struggle between Michael and Satan happened at the time of Christ ascension to the throne in heaven. This is not the binding Of Satan prior to the millennium.
As you can see the heavenly realm is cleansed and made Holy, and Woe to the inhabitants of the earth. Its not hard for me to understand that when Jesus was victorious that His first act in office was to forever remove the accuser from going before the Father. Jesus with both the power and authority to forgive mens sins, put and end to any accusations of sins found in the saints from Satan. The Father no longer "by His own Law" has to listen to the accusations. Very important concept here that is over looked.
LOL same here, but if you insist on labels I wanted to clarify.
Your forcing the time. Gabriel clearly defines the last week and verse 26 is not it. Verse 26 is stating Messiah will be cut off, and the result of it.
Now he defines the last week in detail these details are first outlined in 26, The detail from 26 "cut off " becomes clear now, you have to include both because 26 gives details about, the 70th week and the destruction of the temple. and makes that distinction by saying so "no time it just says after the 62 AKA 69th. Then he "JESUS" shall confirm a covenant with many for one week
What did you do the 7 & 62, did you stick the 7 in your pocket
just funing, I enjoy your good manners in-spite of our differences thank you.Look dude I already addressed this with veteran, Job and Peter.
I'm not going to recap it with you, I also addressed part of it again with watchman whom by the way is gentlemen enough to have a conversion with.
(Luk 10:18) And He said to them, I saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightning.
Jesus saw him fall, but I already pointed out that Satan still went to ACCUSE the elect.
John 12:[sup]30[/sup] Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. [sup]31[/sup] Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. [sup]32[/sup] And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” [sup]33[/sup] This He said, signifying by what death He would die.
Here Jesus says he will be cast out, permanently, as it says in Rev12 Rev does not say he was removed as he was in the fall.
Here in Rev 12 he is identified as the the ACCUSER, even though he has previously been removed from his first home, he still comes back to accuse the saints from Abram to Jesus. After Jesus over came and now absolved us of all sins, the ACCUSER has no grounds to go before the throne. A very sobering day for Satan indeed, when Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father and ordered Satan the ACCUSER thrown out FOREVER.
I can see that you are struggling with understanding the three ages. If you compare Rev. 12:3 to 13:1, you should pick up on a major discrepancy. 12:3 identifies "seven crowns"; whereas, 13:1 identifies "ten crowns". If you agree with me that the "red dragon" of 12:3 and the "beast" of 13:1 are both speaking of Satan, then the accompanying descriptions of Satan's one-world rule in 12:3 and 13:1 are speaking of different time frames. Since there was not a one-world gov't at the time of Christ, one can dismiss the point of view that the struggle happened at the time of Christ's ascension. The rule of Satan addressed in Rev. 12:3-4 took place in the previous [first] age.
Rev. 12:7-12 addresses future events.
I have not independently verified the veracity of the Bible timeline that I use. If you know of a Bible timeline that shows the completion of the reconstructed temple in 379 B.C. [to support Preterist views], please let me know.
Agreed -- 9:26 discusses that which takes place at the end and after the 69th week. The 70th week of this vision is only addressed in 9:27 and is unrelated to the 69th week.
9:26 clearly calls for a gap in time between the end of the 69th week and the 70th week, if one looks at the historical record. The crucifixion year is argued to have occurred between 29 - 33 A.D. Jerusalem, and the temple, were destroyed in 70 A.D. Yet, both are addressed in 9:26. Logic dictates that, if the 70th week immediately followed the 69th week, all aspects of the vision, including the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, would have taken place between 36 - 40 A.D.
You are inconsistent in your argument. Just above, you claim that 9:26 has nothing whatsoever to do with the 70th week [to which I agreed]. Now, you are claiming that 9:26 gives details about the 70th week. Please see my comments directly above. If the 9:26 details were in the 70th week, then the destruction of the temple would have had to taken place no later than 40 A.D.
Since the gap of time between the 69th and 70th week has already been established [proven], then one cannot link the succeeding events in 9:26 to the 70th week. The 70th week in this vision stands alone in 9:27
LOL..it took 49 years from the time the order was given to complete the reconstruction of the temple.What did you do the 7 & 62, did you stick the 7 in your pocket
You are applying Rev 12:3 instead of Rev 12:7-12 which I was speaking of.
Rev 12:1- 6 begins with.
This is speaking of the birth of the woman which would be Jacob Israel. It also speaks about the fall of Satan and the 1/3. The woman Israel, from Jacob to Joseph "both Josephs NT & OT " was about to give birth to Jesus.
The only place we find the sun moon and stars is in Josephs dream, Jacob surly interpreted it to mean he was the sun, Rachel was the moon and his 11 star brothers, This is the history from beginning to end, from Gen to Rev which we now read. I'll point out how the woman and stars are also the Apostles in the NT.
From Rev 7-12 we see a closer look. he zooms in from here
Jesus caught up to His throne, the woman flees the war breaks out. We see the result of the battle and the announcement is. Now note that this is in heaven not the victory on earth. Those that did not love themselves unto death is surly speaking of all of Johns fellow disciples.
Next comes the warning to the earth Woe the dragon has come down to you. See my previous post about the accuser that was his name after the fist fall, and BTW I din't believe that any Angel cast Satan out like lightning. I think it happened in a moment, in the blink of an eye, a flash of light and the Father evicted him from his first home. Read the verses of the prophets for yourself.
Now read the next "paragraph"
and compare it to this, verse 5 and 6
It recaps everything above with yet a closer view of the pursuit. Jacobs 11 sons now become the 11 disciples less John. they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony.
Summery verse 1-6 history of Israel threw Jesus accention to the prosecution of the of the woman
verse 7-12 the war at the broke out when, her Child was caught up to God and His throne.
verse 13-17 the pursuit of the woman fails, the dragon now turns his attention on her children. woman = Israel the nation / Children = offspring, who keep the commandments of
Its not the temple complete, its the order to rebuilt. I have already given you the information read back or finish reading what I have written.
“ Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The street[sup][c][/sup] shall be built again, and the wall,
Even in troublesome times.
It is not a gap it is simply a statement setting up the next verse as I have also shown you in Rev. on paragraph sets up the next. Verse 26 states that after that 62nd week yes, but that includes all time from the end of the 69th "as I call it", to eternity. Two statements are made, the Messiah will be cut off and the temple destroyed. The destroyed temple falls outside the last week, that's why its stated the way it is. And just as in Rev, Danial 26 sets the stage for the close up view in verse 27 of the 70th week, which Jesus fulfilled. The outline is in verse 24 [sup]24[/sup] “ Seventy weeks[sup][a][/sup] are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
The 1 week, the 70th is marked separate "NOT CUT " because it is entirely about Christ, from His baptism to His sitting in heaven.
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
Then when Stephen stands this marks the end of the 70th week and we soon see the call to Paul and the Gentiles. And I am sorry I don't have a notarized copy of the dates to provide. 69 weeks to the Messiah the 70th week is the Messiahs, not the AC. I dont know how much more scripture I have to reference. I have already given the 7 70s that Peter and Jesus spoke of. I have already pointed you or veteran to the 1 ch of Mark. Where Jesus says the time has been fulfilled. The 69 weeks were up welcome the week of the Messiah. Mark 1:15. The kingdom of God.
I am not going to address your 7 and 10 crowned dragon. It certainly cant help in making Rev ch 12 clear. Read it for what it is a history that reaches 1260 days = years forward from the pursuit of the woman. And there are two being persuaded the woman and her offspring. And yes the next verse 13 is a description of the beast not the dragon but the dragon has picked up some kingdoms along the way, just as Danial saw the future kingdoms, in more than one vision.
Like I said in this post above. 26 just says after the 7+62 that includes the immediate 70th week, and time into eternity.
27 clearly defines its self as the week.
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week
Get that it does not include the temple destruction
Messiah comes and He confirms the covenant the last week
LOL I can see your having trouble following what Gabriel said. Like I mentioned before Its not the completion but the order to start is where the time starts.
[sup]25[/sup] “ Know therefore and understand, ................................................did you read this part? This is important that's why he says it.
That from the going forth of the command.....................................................................................Now read the underlined part
To restore and build Jerusalem .............................................................................................................................this identify s the command
Until Messiah the Prince, ...........................................................from the command to Messiah
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; ...................................there will be a total of 69 weeks, 7+62 = 69
Commanded in the seventh year of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C.
now add 7 weeks + 62 weeks = 69 weeks which is = 7 x 69 = 483 days, which = 483 years
now take 457 BC + 483 years, you get 27 AD
that wasn't hard at all. and it's found in Esra
The completion of the temple has nothing to do with setting the start time,
BTW isn't this what they said to Jesus
LOL..it took 49 years from the time the order was given to complete the reconstruction of the temple.
[sup]20[/sup] Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
You gave a good example, bud02, of just what I had posted.
Let me nominally elucidate.....
Depending on which encyclopedia one looks in, we have Herod's temple started in Jan. of 19 BC, or in 20 BC, or in 21 BC. Why the discrepencies? If in encyclopedias, surely the statements are correct, right? But then how do we have at least three different years given in different encyclopedias for the year that the temple was started? Why can't the "scholars" agree with each other? Simply due to the fact that the year is assumed, and they have individually chosen one over the other, for whatever reason. God does not teach His children conflicting "truths"! Only one year can be correct. Remember that the fosils date the strata, but the strata dates the fossils? This is done in Christendom, too. And it's pathetic.
So how did you know that the year that you picked was correct? What source did you use to determine that it was actually the correct year? Please let us know how you arrived at the year of your choice. Thank- you
Also, "46 years to build". And that was stated for when John was doing his ministry. Good and correct, as it is scripture. Yet who determines what year that it was started?
And remember, the first year of it's being started was year one in the calendar of reckoning. We westerners count a child to be one year old AFTER it has had it's first birthday on the first year anniversary of it's birth. Not so in the eastern cultures, and this is common knowlege.
They say that Tiberius was emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD. And Pilate governor from 26 AD to 36 AD. Cool.
That would give us, for the "15th year of Tiberius", 28 AD. Basic math. So how did you arrive at 27 AD? Special revelation? Or miscounting? What source did you use, and how did that source arrive at it's numbers? Pick one. There's at least three that are in print in various encyclopedias.
If it was in 28 AD, then it was in the third year of Pilate. If it was in 27 AD, then it was in the second year of Pilate. Pick a number. Any number.
As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but we do not have any archeological findings that actually date the decree of note. Thus, it was "reverse engineered", so to speak. Yet by who's standard? Who determined the date of Christ's birth? We have at least three different years given in encyclopedias, with side notes for two more. Pick one. But upon what basis do you pick it? Eclipses are used for some of this determination. But which one? What was the weather like then --- was it cloudy on the other years, so they didn't see it? Very possible. Yet all readings that I have seen on this, assume that every year that there was one, it was seen -- they assume that the weather was perfect each and every year. And at that time of year? Highly, highly unlikely. But assumptions seem to rule the day with us wise and learned Christians.
And we have the ministry of Christ. There are various positions on the duration of it. Some hold that it was three years, when they have gone through the gospels and tried to see all the different things in it that might lend insight into it. Yet they ignore what was stated in the very start of Luke: Luke was written in an orderly layout, and the others weren't. Luke was written to straighten the confusion out regarding chronology due to the ones previously written not being in correct order throughout the whole of them. Otherwise that statement in Luke is fully foolish, actually being a lie. Yet how many writers have you ever read that have noted this as stated in Luke, and that they have actually used this for their base of their synopsis of the gospels and the determining of the length of ministry of Christ? If you have it in print that this has been done by any writer, I'd love to see it and read his work. Until then, upon what basis do you accept their writings about it all?
Pick a number. Any number. Pick a "scholar". Any "scholar". We have a whole plethora of options to pick from, on this basis alone.
Others state that it was the "year of the Lord" in a number of prophecies, and thus the ministry length was only 1 year. So who's correct? It's really no different than the various years given by "reliable" sources in encyclopedias regarding the differences of dates for Christ's birth, Christ's death and resurrection, and the building of Herod's temple.
So pick a number. Any number. You're the next contestant on "the bible numbers game".
Yet we have people insisting on their own personal preferences for dates. Wise indeed. And we have those same people, who can't even determine that Benjamin was a man with 10 sons, as the scriptures unilaterally state, believing that Benjamin was a boy at that time, yet they insist on giving their personal take on bible numbers for the decree and the temple temple and Christ, telling us wise things about prophecy. Amazing.
And they can't even add to 3 regarding Good Friday, and believe in Good Friday, and yet insist that the numbers they give regarding Herod's temple are correct, and regarding Christ's life are correct, and the decreed to rebuild are correct. Amazing.
And what is even more amazing, is that they use scriptures without dates to support their beliefs! Cool. They pick their own personal preference of "reliable" soureces. Their own personal preferences of "scholars". Cool.
It is truly a smorgasboard of beliefs, with each insisting on telling everyone else that they themselves have it correct, and the rest don't. And the different numbers are there for all to see. Amazing.
It seems that few can actually do research. It seems that fewer still can actually state that they don't know, and that it really doesn't matter one whit that they don't know and need to keep their mouth shut and not pretend to teach others on such things.
Why can't they? It is a state of the heart.
And it can't be hidden.
So, bud02, did you believe that Benjamin was a boy, as taught in bible pictures and in church? Did you know that by counting to 3, Good Friday is a myth? Did you know that if one takes the law of Moses, Good Friday is a myth?
If you cannot say before God with a pure conscience "yes" to these, then upon what basis do you teach others about numbers regarding prophecy?
Thanks. Have a great week.
Let me nominally elucidate.....
Depending on which encyclopedia one looks in, we have Herod's temple started in Jan. of 19 BC, or in 20 BC, or in 21 BC. Why the discrepencies? If in encyclopedias, surely the statements are correct, right? But then how do we have at least three different years given in different encyclopedias for the year that the temple was started? Why can't the "scholars" agree with each other? Simply due to the fact that the year is assumed, and they have individually chosen one over the other, for whatever reason. God does not teach His children conflicting "truths"! Only one year can be correct. Remember that the fosils date the strata, but the strata dates the fossils? This is done in Christendom, too. And it's pathetic.
So how did you know that the year that you picked was correct? What source did you use to determine that it was actually the correct year? Please let us know how you arrived at the year of your choice. Thank- you
Also, "46 years to build". And that was stated for when John was doing his ministry. Good and correct, as it is scripture. Yet who determines what year that it was started?
And remember, the first year of it's being started was year one in the calendar of reckoning. We westerners count a child to be one year old AFTER it has had it's first birthday on the first year anniversary of it's birth. Not so in the eastern cultures, and this is common knowlege.
They say that Tiberius was emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD. And Pilate governor from 26 AD to 36 AD. Cool.
That would give us, for the "15th year of Tiberius", 28 AD. Basic math. So how did you arrive at 27 AD? Special revelation? Or miscounting? What source did you use, and how did that source arrive at it's numbers? Pick one. There's at least three that are in print in various encyclopedias.
If it was in 28 AD, then it was in the third year of Pilate. If it was in 27 AD, then it was in the second year of Pilate. Pick a number. Any number.
As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but we do not have any archeological findings that actually date the decree of note. Thus, it was "reverse engineered", so to speak. Yet by who's standard? Who determined the date of Christ's birth? We have at least three different years given in encyclopedias, with side notes for two more. Pick one. But upon what basis do you pick it? Eclipses are used for some of this determination. But which one? What was the weather like then --- was it cloudy on the other years, so they didn't see it? Very possible. Yet all readings that I have seen on this, assume that every year that there was one, it was seen -- they assume that the weather was perfect each and every year. And at that time of year? Highly, highly unlikely. But assumptions seem to rule the day with us wise and learned Christians.
And we have the ministry of Christ. There are various positions on the duration of it. Some hold that it was three years, when they have gone through the gospels and tried to see all the different things in it that might lend insight into it. Yet they ignore what was stated in the very start of Luke: Luke was written in an orderly layout, and the others weren't. Luke was written to straighten the confusion out regarding chronology due to the ones previously written not being in correct order throughout the whole of them. Otherwise that statement in Luke is fully foolish, actually being a lie. Yet how many writers have you ever read that have noted this as stated in Luke, and that they have actually used this for their base of their synopsis of the gospels and the determining of the length of ministry of Christ? If you have it in print that this has been done by any writer, I'd love to see it and read his work. Until then, upon what basis do you accept their writings about it all?
Pick a number. Any number. Pick a "scholar". Any "scholar". We have a whole plethora of options to pick from, on this basis alone.
Others state that it was the "year of the Lord" in a number of prophecies, and thus the ministry length was only 1 year. So who's correct? It's really no different than the various years given by "reliable" sources in encyclopedias regarding the differences of dates for Christ's birth, Christ's death and resurrection, and the building of Herod's temple.
So pick a number. Any number. You're the next contestant on "the bible numbers game".
Yet we have people insisting on their own personal preferences for dates. Wise indeed. And we have those same people, who can't even determine that Benjamin was a man with 10 sons, as the scriptures unilaterally state, believing that Benjamin was a boy at that time, yet they insist on giving their personal take on bible numbers for the decree and the temple temple and Christ, telling us wise things about prophecy. Amazing.
And they can't even add to 3 regarding Good Friday, and believe in Good Friday, and yet insist that the numbers they give regarding Herod's temple are correct, and regarding Christ's life are correct, and the decreed to rebuild are correct. Amazing.
And what is even more amazing, is that they use scriptures without dates to support their beliefs! Cool. They pick their own personal preference of "reliable" soureces. Their own personal preferences of "scholars". Cool.
It is truly a smorgasboard of beliefs, with each insisting on telling everyone else that they themselves have it correct, and the rest don't. And the different numbers are there for all to see. Amazing.
It seems that few can actually do research. It seems that fewer still can actually state that they don't know, and that it really doesn't matter one whit that they don't know and need to keep their mouth shut and not pretend to teach others on such things.
Why can't they? It is a state of the heart.
And it can't be hidden.
So, bud02, did you believe that Benjamin was a boy, as taught in bible pictures and in church? Did you know that by counting to 3, Good Friday is a myth? Did you know that if one takes the law of Moses, Good Friday is a myth?
If you cannot say before God with a pure conscience "yes" to these, then upon what basis do you teach others about numbers regarding prophecy?
Thanks. Have a great week.
Similar threads
