Search results

We will stay in a quagmire until the fertilizer and oil and gas shortages destroy the western economies. You can’t get to “You’ll own nothing and be happy” until the old systems are torn down.

I assume that in your view, our spirit goes to heaven and there is no body for our spirit while in heaven until the future resurrection. Am I representing your understanding correctly?

Let me restate my position, because I muddied it earlier. I actually agree with you that the consummation is the physical destruction of the city and sanctuary in AD 70. What I was trying to say was I don't think that destruction falls inside the seventy weeks. I think the weeks ended at...

There have to be two princes here. Verse 26 says "the people of the prince that shall come" destroyed the city and the sanctuary. If that's the same prince as verse 25, then it's saying Jesus' people destroyed Jerusalem and the temple which can't be right. His people didn't do that. It was...

Where does the idea of a temporary spiritual body come from? When I look at Scripture, it seems to give two states: being "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord", I don't see a temporary body described in between — it looks more like when we're with Christ, we are in the resurrection...

I think you're coming from a futurist view, so I understand why you'd read Hebrews 9:28 as the second coming. I see it differently though. I take that verse as Christ appearing to the believer when it's their time to leave this world, coming for them at death. Whether or not you believe Christ...

Since John said Zechariah was fulfilled at the cross, what makes you think there will be another fulfillment in the future?

Most Christians will think Noahide laws are a good thing until they’re enforced.

I can’t go with that interpretation because John said Zechariah 12:10 was fulfilled at the cross.

Of course I do. But the question I asked you was - Do you agree that "They shall look on him whom they pierced." happened at the cross?

You're calling my view symbolic, but it's the exact opposite. I'm saying this all really happened. Jesus really left this world, really went into the grave, really beat death, and really came back in power and glory when He rose. That's history, not a symbol. I'm not spiritualizing anything, I'm...

My point wasn't that seven sevens can't symbolize years. My point was that everywhere else the word shabu'a refers to a literal seven-day week.

You're criticizing my interpretive key, but you haven't identified a single aspect of the resurrection that contradicts it. What about the resurrection prevents it from being Christ's return in power and glory?

I'm very familiar with that interpretation because I used to believe it myself but I did some research and found that every where "week" is used throughout the bible, it is always literally seven days.

But I asked if Jesus returned in all power and glory at the resurrection. You know that phrase is one of the keys of understanding when Christ returns.

I agree that John came preaching repentance and preparing the way for Christ. My point is that this preparation was itself part of the restoration work that was prophesied. Jesus Himself said, "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things" (Matthew 17:11). Then He explained that Elijah...

The way I see it, the timeline does not point to rebuilding the earthly city or temple. It begins with the command to restore and to build Jerusalem. The question is: restore what? What was the purpose of Elijah, who came in the form of John the Baptist? To restore all things. Why did Jesus...

Did Jesus return in all power and great glory at the resurrection?

That's because you believe the seventy weeks of years are tied to the command to rebuild the earthly temple, and that this timeline points to the coming of the Messiah. I believe the command is not about rebuilding the earthly temple, but about the establishment of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Truth7t7 said that the KJV translators didn't capitalize "Prince" in verse 26, and I thought the same at first. So I checked an original copy of the KJV and found that it actually is capitalized there. That said, capitalization doesn't prove anything one way or the other anyway.