70 AD revisited

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes the Baptism of Jesus was the beginning of His being the Messiah, even though the Cross was the endpoint.


The same with coming as King. It is not until the 3.5 years are over during the Trumpets and Thunders, will the 7th Trumpet declare that Jesus is now King.


Your point that the Cross starts the 70th week has no endpoint until Jesus is declared King either. Yet your 7 years has no body nor substance. It does not even have a halfway point.

1. I never said the cross started the 70th week. So not sure why yuou would misrepresent me like that
2. My 7 years starts with a covenant confirmed by the prince for 1 week (7 years) and the middle of the week is found in the abomination of desolation which is placed in the holy place as jesus said in matt 24, after which their will be great tribulation, such as has never been seen before or after. so bad that no flesh would survive unless Jesus put and end to it. which he does for the sake of the elect. (those born again living at that time)

The 70th week could have ended in the first century. The Day of the Lord could have already been completed a thousand years ago. We could be in the NHNE by now. Yet we are still in the 70th week one way or the other. No where in the book of Revelation does it declare a full 7 years will happen in the future. No where in the NT does it declare the 70th week was finished in the first century.

If you accept that those 70 weeks are God dealing directly with His people Israel, then Jesus dealing directly with His people during His earthly ministry should count as just that. 69 weeks were over long before Jesus was even born. There was already a gap between the 7th week and the 8th week. That is why it is given in 7 weeks and 62 weeks. Otherwise it could have been written as 69 weeks, just as easily as 7 and 62 weeks. The only people who even remembered the promise given were Anna and Simeon. They were the only two left of the generation that ended the 69 weeks. They lived longer than most people of that time. Luke 2:25-38

"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem."

The verse states:

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city."

It does not say:

"Seventy weeks from now this will happen:"

yes, and it says after this 70 weeks. things will take place.

have those things taken place yet?

If not. the 70 weeks have not yet happened.

 

[covenantee]

This show's just how flawed your thinking is.

The abrahamic covenant included the clause, in you (literally your seed) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.

that is being fulfilled today as we speak, as the gospel is spread through all nations because of his seed (Christ)

The new covenant does not eclipse that, it is the fulfillment of PART of that

The rest, which just had to do with a specific seed (descendents) through the promised son. which had nothing to do with anyones salvation, is called an eternal promise through ALL generations.

Last I read, eternal and all have not yet ended



I will continue to yawn, That covenant does not negate the physical promise given to a chosen people.

Your hatred of those people will come back to bite you

Predictable dispensational confusion and delusion.

The OT promise in the Abrahamic covenant is explicitly referenced and literally fulfilled in Christ in the NT. The promise is eclipsed and transcended by Christ's NT literal fulfillment of it.

Compare that with the OT land promise for Israel, which is completely absent from the NT. There can be no literal fulfillment of a promise which no longer exists in a New Will and Testament.

Dispensationalism is like unto the ingrate son whose father promised and bequeathed him 100 ounces of silver in his will. Later, the father wrote a new will in which he changed the bequest to 100 ounces of gold. The father subsequently died. When the son realized the change that his father had made, he accused his father of being a liar and not keeping his promise. He took his gold and exchanged it directly for silver.

And that, folks, is dispensationalism.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Predictable dispensational confusion and delusion.

The OT promise in the Abrahamic covenant is explicitly referenced and literally fulfilled in Christ in the NT. The promise is eclipsed and transcended by Christ's NT literal fulfillment of it.

Compare that with the OT land promise for Israel, which is completely absent from the NT. There is no literal fulfillment of a promise which no longer exists in a New Will and Testament.

Dispensationalism is like unto the ingrate son whose father promised and bequeathed him 100 ounces of silver in his will. Later, the father wrote a new will in which he changed the bequest to 100 ounces of gold. The father subsequently died. When the son realized the change that his father had made, he accused his father of being a liar and not keeping his promise. He took his gold and exchanged it directly for silver.

You are stuck in your own thinking

You can not hear anyone else. now are you open to anything.

The land promise is eternal

Paul in romans 11 said that all of Gods gifts are irrevocable

we see in Rev 13 that God protects israel. and we see that CHrist sets up his kingdom.

I am done with trying to discuss this with you. you are too close minded and too proud. and have bought into what you have been taught.. you can;t even discuss properly.

 

[covenantee]

You are stuck in your own thinking

You can not hear anyone else. now are you open to anything.

The land promise is eternal

Paul in romans 11 said that all of Gods gifts are irrevocable

we see in Rev 13 that God protects israel. and we see that CHrist sets up his kingdom.

I am done with trying to discuss this with you. you are too close minded and too proud. and have bought into what you have been taught.. you can;t even discuss properly.

If the land promise was eternal, it would appear in God's New Will and Testament.

It doesn't.

You must have enjoyed my illustration. You didn't disagree.

The gifts and the calling are terms associated exclusively with those who have put their faith in Christ.

Upon whom does God bestow His gifts?

Romans 12:6
Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

1 Corinthians 12:1
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

1 Corinthians 12:4
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:9
To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:12
Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

God's gifts are bestowed exclusively upon His Beloved Election, His Holy Chosen People: His Church.

To them, and to no others, His gifts are irrevocable (without repentance).


To whom is God's calling directed?

1 Corinthians 1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

1 Corinthians 7:20
Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

Ephesians 1:18
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Ephesians 4:4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

2 Thessalonians 1:11
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

2 Timothy 1:9
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Hebrews 3:1
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2 Peter 1:10
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:


God's calling is directed exclusively to His Beloved Election, His Holy Chosen People: His Church.

To them, and to no others, His calling is irrevocable (without repentance).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Paul uses the term "Israel" twice in that passage. He speaks about the Patriarch Jacob and his descendants. Your interpretation adds a third.

Wrong. Don't try to tell me how I am interpreting it. I will tell you how I am interpreting it. My interpretation sees Paul as referring to the descendants of the nation of Israel and to spiritual Israel. That's two Israels. And I believe he indicated that not all of the descendants of Israel are part of Spiritual Israel. Only those who are the spiritual seed of Abraham and are the children of God and of the promise are part of Spiritual Israel.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Predictable dispensational confusion and delusion.

The OT promise in the Abrahamic covenant is explicitly referenced and literally fulfilled in Christ in the NT. The promise is eclipsed and transcended by Christ's NT literal fulfillment of it.

Compare that with the OT land promise for Israel, which is completely absent from the NT. There can be no literal fulfillment of a promise which no longer exists in a New Will and Testament.

Dispensationalism is like unto the ingrate son whose father promised and bequeathed him 100 ounces of silver in his will. Later, the father wrote a new will in which he changed the bequest to 100 ounces of gold. The father subsequently died. When the son realized the change that his father had made, he accused his father of being a liar and not keeping his promise. He took his gold and exchanged it directly for silver.

LOL. Exactly. Dispensationalists are so literal and carnal in their thinking that they can't even accept that God revealed something even better than what was originally revealed. As if God is not allowed to do that for some reason. "No, God. Sorry. You have to stick with the original promise as stated. You can't tell us that you have something even better in store for us. No, that will not do. That is not acceptable." This is how dispensationalists think. Good grief.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am not covenantee who demands numbers to make things sound more important.

We are showing how an event being the worst ever can be understood in different contexts (such as most people killed, highest percentage of people killed, worst types of atrocities occurring, etc.). But, you don't seem to want to even consider that.

I pointed out that you claim 8 billion people will walk through that fire you claim the church walks through.

I made no such claim. Not even close. Why do you misrepresent everything I say? Please tell me. You do it constantly. Let's get to the bottom of this. Please tell me, are you a habitual liar and purposely misrepresent what I say or do you just have horrible reading comprehension skills? Which is it? I think it's probably the latter, but I can't rule out the former since you do it so often.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your right.

That is salvation

but we are not talking about that. We are talking about Gods physical promise to a physical nation.

until you ignore that out.. you have nothing

Have you never read the following where His people came to realize that He promised them something even better, so, as a result, they started looking for something better?

Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. 11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Please look at this. The ones God made the promises to, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, came to realize that instead of looking for earthly land to inherit they should instead look "for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and make is God" and for "a better country, that is, an heavenly". So, why are you expecting them to inherit something besides what they themselves were looking to inherit?

You are trying to interpret the Old Testament as if the New Testament didn't exist. You should instead be using the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament for you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

2 things,

the sacrifices continued. they continued until 70 AD when the temple was destroyed and there was no more inner holy place

In Daniel 9:27, when it talks about the sacrifices and offerings ceasing, it is not talking about the literal end of sacrifices and offerings, it is talking about them being made obsolete (no longer in effect, no longer necessary). You do understand that Christ's sacrifice made the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings obsolete (no longer in effect, no longer necessary), don't you? They were no longer required after Christ's sacrifice. They were only continued because of people foolishly not acknowledging what Christ's sacrifice had accomplished.

I am curious about this Steven thing. where do you see this event in Dan 9?

What about the events Gabriel said would be fulfilled at the end of the 70 weeks?

“Seventy [e]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.


when did these things take place

You have already been shown that.

For example, to make an end of sins relates to this:

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

To make reconciliation for iniquity is something that only Jesus could do:

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

2 Cor 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

The most Holy was anointed long ago:

Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

You are not allowing the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament prophecies for you and that's why you misinterpret them.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Wrong. Don't try to tell me how I am interpreting it.

Why not?

I will tell you how I am interpreting it.

You already did.

My interpretation sees Paul as referring to the descendants of the nation of Israel and to spiritual Israel.

Of course. And the third Israel is the Patriarch, Jacob. I can count and that's three Israels.

That's two Israels.

I counted three.

And I believe he indicated that not all of the descendants of Israel are part of Spiritual Israel.

He didn't say "Spiritual Israel." You are adding that part.

Only those who are the spiritual seed of Abraham and are the children of God and of the promise are part of Spiritual Israel.

You said all this before, but you have a problem with your interpretation.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why not?

LOL. Because you're not me. Hello? I know how I interpret it. You don't need to be the one to determine that.

Of course. And the third Israel is the Patriarch, Jacob. I can count and that's three Israels.

Paul is not referencing the Patriarch Jacob in Romans 9:6. He said "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". That's two Israels that he referenced there. There could be 100 Israels for all I care, but he only referenced two of them in Romans 9:6-8.

I counted three.

You could say there are three Israels in a sense, but Paul did not reference three Israels in Romans 9:6-8. I count two Israels there. And so do you. You just are seeing the wrong Israels there.

He didn't say "Spiritual Israel." You are adding that part.

He didn't say Jacob, either. So, I guess I can say you are adding that part.

You said all this before, but you have a problem with your interpretation.

No, I don't. You certainly aren't showing any problem with it. All you're doing is showing that you interpret it differently than I do. How exactly do you interpret it, anyway? You think he's saying something obvious like that not all Israel descendants are the Patriarch Jacob or do you interpret it another way?

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL. Because you're not me. Hello? I know how I interpret it. You don't need to be the one to determine that.

Hello, communication is a two-way street. But you put an extra Israel into the text.

Paul is not referencing the Patriarch Jacob in Romans 9:6. He said "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel".

Yes he is. You are incorrect. No wonder you don't understand it.

You could say there are three Israels in a sense, but Paul did not reference three Israels in Romans 9:6-8.

I agree. Paul didn't mention three Israels. So why do you see a third?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hello, communication is a two-way street. But you put an extra Israel into the text.

No, I did not.

Yes he is. You are incorrect. No wonder you don't understand it.

The evidence you are providing to support your interpretation is overwhelming. No wonder you can make blanket statements like this.

I agree. Paul didn't mention three Israels. So why do you see a third?

I don't. Why are you blatantly misrepresenting my view? Do you not care about honesty and integrity? I already said I see a mention of the descendants of the nation of Israel (that's one Israel) and Spiritual Israel. That's two Israels. Maybe you have never learned basic math?

 

[covenantee]

I am not covenantee who demands numbers to make things sound more important.

Link to a/the post in which I demand numbers to make things sound more important.

Speaking of numbers, the number of times over recent times that I've challenged you to provide a link to something that you claim I've said, and which you've failed to provide because I've never said it, could sound important.

Maybe it could even be important.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am with you up to here.

The first 3.5 years are yet future, as are the last 3.5 years. the breaking point or event which will separate them is the Abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel.

I think one of the confusing parts is when is Messiah revealed.

Well one must remember the mystery. The suffering servant was supposed to take the sin not the messiah, He was to come and rule

Jesus was introduced as suffering servant when he was baptized. He was introduced as messiah when he rode on a donkey.

This is blatantly false. He was introduced as the Messiah when He was baptized, as can be clearly seen here:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. 35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

By calling Jesus "the Lamb of God" and "the Son of God" and saying "he was before me", John was declaring that Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No, I did not.

Obviously, you don't think you did, but you did.

1. Natural Israel
2. Spiritual Israel
3. The Patriarch Israel.

I don't. Why are you blatantly misrepresenting my view?

Your view has a major error, which until now you haven't seen. In case you didn't know, I am performing a critique, pointing out the error of your view. I'm not saying, as you seem to imply, that you actually believe this.

Stop acting overly offended.

Do you not care about honesty and integrity?

Deflection much?

I already said I see a mention of the descendants of the nation of Israel (that's one Israel) and Spiritual Israel. That's two Israels. Maybe you have never learned basic math?

I get it, you don't see the other Israel. Unfortunately, since you don't see it then you can't claim to understand the passage.

 

[Timtofly]

1. I never said the cross started the 70th week. So not sure why yuou would misrepresent me like that
2. My 7 years starts with a covenant confirmed by the prince for 1 week (7 years) and the middle of the week is found in the abomination of desolation which is placed in the holy place as jesus said in matt 24, after which their will be great tribulation, such as has never been seen before or after. so bad that no flesh would survive unless Jesus put and end to it. which he does for the sake of the elect. (those born again living at that time)



yes, and it says after this 70 weeks. things will take place.

have those things taken place yet?

If not. the 70 weeks have not yet happened.

That was my point. This 7 years has no body nor substance. Not even a halfway point. At least not in Scripture.

"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."

The Prince to come confirms the Covenant. The same Prince as in verses 25 and 26.

When you used the huge point "The Coming King" just prior to the point of the week of the Cross, I did think that was your point.

Until you state who this king or prince to come is, I was not correcting you, just pointing out I thought you were talking about Jesus.

Obviously I already made my point in the last post, you quoted.

Just pointing out that the King James does not define this week as years or days. I have seen both days and years in several translations. I accept that Daniel 9:27 is referring to the days of the 7th Trumpet. I am assuming that the days of the 7th Trumpet is also a week. I compare that event to the week Israel marched around Jericho to declare a victory in claiming the Promised Land. Also the week of the Cross in which Jesus is recognized as King. The 7th Trumpet is the third week that changes the world once again, forever.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. Exactly. Dispensationalists are so literal and carnal in their thinking that they can't even accept that God revealed something even better than what was originally revealed. As if God is not allowed to do that for some reason. "No, God. Sorry. You have to stick with the original promise as stated. You can't tell us that you have something even better in store for us. No, that will not do. That is not acceptable." This is how dispensationalists think. Good grief.

I have yet to meet one dispensationalist posting on this board. I am glad you two have defeated this invisible foe.

Now should we stop dividing Israel into two camps? There is only one Israel of God. The one called out of Egypt. The church is still called out of Egypt (symbolic of the world).

Should we start to complain that some posters are too symbolic and idealistic? "Obviously" the flip side of too literal and carnal minded. Is being an idealist that different from carnal minded as it still relies on the human mind?

Besides people who interpret Scripture literally are not automatically carnal minded. Should we call all idealist atheist and God deniers? Since obviously you use literal and carnal as derogatory accusations without knowing all the facts of every poster in this forum.

 

[Timtofly]

We are showing how an event being the worst ever can be understood in different contexts (such as most people killed, highest percentage of people killed, worst types of atrocities occurring, etc.). But, you don't seem to want to even consider that.


I made no such claim. Not even close. Why do you misrepresent everything I say? Please tell me. You do it constantly. Let's get to the bottom of this. Please tell me, are you a habitual liar and purposely misrepresent what I say or do you just have horrible reading comprehension skills? Which is it? I think it's probably the latter, but I can't rule out the former since you do it so often.

I have considered it, and there were Jews forced in concentration camps to abort their babies or hand them over to the German drug company Bayer for experimentation. There was forced cannibalism in some concentration camps. People were dying of starvation. But do I have to prove this to make a point? No I don't. Because if the poster really wanted the truth, they could look it up for themselves.

What do you think happens to 8 billion people when 2 Peter 3:10 happens?

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

Either they walk through the fire or are burned up. Since you have yet to be definitive, how would I know if I misrepresent your viewpoint if I don't even know it. You cannot even prove that fire destroys everything in Revelation 19. Should God be offended you are misrepresenting the point He made that birds will consume that flesh in Revelation 19, not fire? God was definitive:

"And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."

Or is that too literal and earthly minded? Is the fire in 2 Peter 3:10 not literal, only symbolic of birds? Or is the whole scene in Revelation 19 just symbolic of fire?

Or could it be that Revelation 19 and 2 Peter 3 are not even talking about the same moment in time?

 

[Timtofly]

You are not allowing the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament prophecies for you and that's why you misinterpret them.

How is that working out for you when you use the OT to interpret Revelation 20?