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!
rare I'm sureTrekson said:This is one of those rare times that I agree with Vet.
Well, I've gone through the page, even printed it. (It's actually 42 pages in length printed!) He does present a rather scholarly view and I can't fault him at all on his Seven Clocks given by God. I believe that he rightly counts the years and Sevens and Yowveeliym (Jubilees).Saint said:I have encountered the following link in my study of Daniel chapter 9 regarding the the 70 weeks given by Gabriel to Daniel; I find this study quite interesting and I would like to post it on this forum hoping that others would give it an analytical study it and give their opinions. Please set your preconceived opinions aside and give this an honest appraisal, it could be very important to our understanding.
http://www.wake-up.org/Daniel/DanChap6.htm
In Yeshua Messiah,
Bob
Roy if you are still out there I would very much enjoy your inputs!
The "he" of Daniel 9:27 is NOT Christ Jesus. The very Daniel 11 verses that I quoted is direct proof.Saint said:The He of Daniel 9:27 is Yeshua who came to strengthen and reaffirm the Unilateral Blood Covenant that was made between Yahweh and Abraham; the same way that David and Jonathan reaffirmed at least twice the Blood Covenant between the two of them.
Confirm the covenant is correct for the phrase can only be translated: "to make a covenant firm" or "he shall cause the covenant to prevail." This cannot be said of the little horn if he was to break a covenant with the Jews in the middle of the week. Hence, it must be the prince of the covenant who confirms the covenant The implications are far reaching: It suggests the usual Messianic interpretation: that the death of the Anointed One confirms the covenant.
If you could just read the verse literally it is very clear. It was Yeshua who was cut off in the middle of the last week and it was Yeshua whom directed Rome to destroy the city of those who reject Him. The wings of abomination by the way are the uncircumcised armies of Rome who entered the Holy City and Temple which is considered an abomination by God and Israel.
"And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate." This, the KJV rendering of 9:26, suggests that because of the spreading around of abominations, desolations will come, or, in order that abominations may be spread everywhere, he makes desolate. These two ideas are linked together in Daniel grammatically. We have "the transgression that makes desolate" (8:13) and "the abomination that makes desolate" (11:31).
In Yeshua Messiah,
Bob
Talking without knowledge again I see, about the Gap theory of Gen.1.Rex said:rare I'm sure
I don't have much confidence in someones interpretations that sees a whole created world existing and be destroyed between gen verse 1 and 2
I've seen him mention it a couple of times.
to my knowledge 70 has always come after 69 but thats me and I certainly don't kid myself into believing I can change minds or hearts.
You're right that none of us has a clear picture of what will happen in the future, ESPECIALLY those who have their pet timelines to follow. Frankly, I don't believe that we live long enough to get the whole picture! However, it is important that we have discussions like these on this forum, because the Ruach haQodesh gives each of us different perspectives and leads us into different truths that He may not reveal to others right away. We all start from different points and learn at different rates, and sometimes our backgrounds and personal preferences get in the way of His attempts to reveal truth to us. Sometimes, I believe that He skips over some points and teaches us other points until we're ready for the points that He skipped over. It would be nice if we were all on the same page, so to speak, but where would be the Ruach's creativity in that? He knows best, after all.Saint said:Hi Roy, hope you have a blessed day. Thanks for taking the time to respond to this study. When I first posted the link the thing I was most taken by is the authors take on the “seven clocks” and their impact on our understanding of Gods time; maybe I should have make myself a little more clear on that.
Since that time I’ve read several of Wilson's different studies and like all scholars I find nuggets of understanding which give new insight and areas of differing views where I think he is mistaken in his perceptive. Seems to be a pattern in the study of Yahweh’s word; none of us have a clear pictures yet!
Regarding Wilsons comments of making Gentiles heirs of Abraham; yes I think he is on the wrong track and the whole misunderstanding is the meaning of the word Gentile. To me there are only two groups of people in the world; those who believe in the Word and those who don’t. To the Jews (tribe of Judah) it seems to be those who are circumcised (Torah believers) and those who are uncircumcised (unbelievers). I still believe that Yahweh people are the descendents of Jacob and Yeshua says those are the only ones that He came for. Because of this I think Gentiles reflect those decedents of Jacob which were dispersed into the world (lost ten tribes) and have forgotten their origin and purpose; in Hos 1 God says they are not His people and He is not their God, yet they will be like the sands of the sea which cannot be measured or numbered and the future He will call them Children of the living God (Children of Yeshua). These are the same decedents that God says will be the fullness of the nations in Genesis 48:19 “Melo ha”goyim”. Yahweh tells us that He will accept any unbeliever who lives by the laws of His covenant but still I think the principal children of God are the decedents of Jacob.
Regarding the Land; that was a unilateral Blood Covenant (unconditional) made by Yahweh and cannot be revoked as long as Yahweh lives which likely will be a long time J
I’m really going to have to think about your understanding of the decree to rebuild because in my mind it was made in 457BC and fits well with the “Sunday Year” teaching of Wilson.
The one thing I’m really struggling with is Wilson's comments of Daniel 8:23 and the fact that the stern faced king is the end time antichrist and not Antiochus IV; as I remember it is your conclusion as well that Antiochus is in fact the one who rises up at the end of the kingdoms of the four that took power after Alexandra.
In Yeshua Messiah,
Bob
Since Christ Himself warned of a coming "abomination of desolation" in His Olivet discourse of Matt.24 and Mark 13, that's enough to disprove your theory against the idea of a coming final Antichrist for the end of this world.Retrobyter said:Regarding Dani'el 8:23, you're right that, if it is talking about the same time period as that of Medo-Persia (the two horns of the ram), Alexander the Great (the rough goat's prominent horn), and the four empires that arise out of Grecia (Macedonia), the Seleucid Empire, the Ptolemaic Empire, the Kingdom of Asia, and the Kingdom of Macedonia, then this person should indeed be Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The only way it could be some future "antichrist," is IF there is some remnant of these four empires still in existence today and IF the statement "in the latter time of their kingdom" is yet future to us. I don't believe that is a sensible viewpoint, based on what we know about 175-164 BC, when Antiochus reigned in the Seleucid Empire based in Syria.
It would seem that Jesus is guilty of the same offense you accuse Saint of.teleiosis said:Not only is it in the "temple" in 2Th 2:4, but Jesus said the abomination of Dan 9:27 would be set up in the Holy Place and that area is defined in the Bible as being inside the physical stone Temple of God in Jerusalem, in front of the curtain or veil that separates the Temple ministration area from the Holy of Holies.
In Rev 13:14-15, a physical talking image of the anti-Christ is erected by the false prophet of the "land" (who would be in charge of the Temple in Israel) as a peace offering to the conquering King of the North who rapidly (on wing - like a flood) invades the Holy Land.
Saint, since you have switched over to the dark side of figurativism and Preterism, you can "spiritualize" the Word all you want to make it say what you want, but a literal fulfillment is never negated by your opinions.
Holman Bible Dictionary
APOSTASY
(a pahss' tuh ssee) is the act of rebelling against, forsaking, abandoning, or falling away from what one has believed.
Old Testament The Old Testament speaks of “falling away” in terms of a person's deserting to a foreign king (2 Kings 25:11; Jeremiah 37:13-14; Jeremiah 39:9; Jeremiah 52:15). Associated ideas, however, include the concept of religious unfaithfulness: “rebellion” (Joshua 22:22); “cast away” (2 Chronicles 29:19); “trespass” (2 Chronicles 33:19); and “backslidings” (Jeremiah 2:19; Jeremiah 8:5). NAS uses “apostasy” in Jeremiah 8:5 and Hosea 14:4 with the plural in Jeremiah 2:19; Jeremiah 5:6; Jeremiah 14:7.
Ah, that would be a "no."Saint said:teleiosis are you a pre-triber?
Not at all. You're picking unrelated verses and attaching them to each other to render the interpretation you want, rather than allow for a literal, physical fulfillment of the end-time verses which have evil rise to be the norm, Christianity split into apostacy or martyrdom and nearly eliminated - before Jesus comes again to save the day.Rex said:It would seem that Jesus is guilty of the same offense you accuse Saint of.
An emotional rejection? Don't flatter yourself. All I said was that the Holy Place Jesus referenced with the abomination spoken about by Daniel - Dan 9:27 - was a physical place inside the Temple. Hebrews 9:2-3; Exodus 31:11.Saint said:teleiosis all I’ve heard from you so far has been an emotional rejection of what has been offered.
So looking at the two Greek words that denote into English "temple" and looking at verses that indicate temple in the NT in a discussion about the temple is picking unrelated verses? That's an intersesting observation. So how do you suppose we find out about the temple If we don't look at whats is said about it?teleiosis said:Not at all. You're picking unrelated verses and attaching them to each other to render the interpretation you want, rather than allow for a literal, physical fulfillment of the end-time verses which have evil rise to be the norm, Christianity split into apostacy or martyrdom and nearly eliminated - before Jesus comes again to save the day.
In 2Th 2:4, the anti-Christ, who is himself possessed by an evil spirit, cannot lay claim to our soul and "sit" in us.
If this were merely a building not containing the presents of God, Paul would have used the word "hieron" ,(whereas 3485 denotes the central sanctuary itself) The word Paul used "Naos" denotes the presents of God as opposed to "hieron" referring to the building.Trekson said:Hi Bob, Your words: "So all of this being said show me how Yahweh would recognize another temple and if He does not recognize it what good is it."
I don't think those of us who believe in a third temple believe that it will be recognized by God or that it does any good at all. It will simply be a platform for the a/c to demand the worship and adoration from the Israelites that is intended for God. The Jews may intend it for good but they will soon realize it was all for nought.
Now you want to act like I've insulted you. Your premise is flawed, so your agrument is void.Rex said:So looking at the two Greek words that denote into English "temple" and looking at verses that indicate temple in the NT in a discussion about the temple is picking unrelated verses? That's an intersesting observation. So how do you suppose we find out about the temple If we don't look at whats is said about it?