The Ones Who Are Left…

[Truth7t7]

Davy, here is your clue, and it's all you need to understand that the 70th week IS NOT MISSING.

Daniel 9[25] Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
.
[27] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Now, the ONLY help that I will give you is this- who is confirming the covenant, and which covenant is he confirming?
Don't be afraid of the thoughts that shall enter your mind. They will be contrary to the beliefs of "church-ianity".

Oh Such Suspense, Please Tell Us!

 

[Earburner]

Jesus is gonna return and build a temple?

Is he gonna be the general contractor, or pick the hammer back up and be a carpenter?

There are only THREE understandings about the "sanctuary" (temple) that was in Jerusalem:
1. It was re-built, but then destroyed 70AD
2. It is being built right NOW.
3. It will never be re-built again.
Which temple am I talking about, and in which Jerusalem?

 

[Earburner]

Oh Such Suspense, Please Tell Us!

I gave the principals of HOW one can know that the 70th week is not missing.
Only the Lord understands His own "thoughts and ways" better than we do, or any biblical scholar!
When you can abide in His instruction of Proverbs 3:5, He will deliver His promise in John 16:13

 

[Waiting on him]

I gave the principals of HOW one can know that the 70th week is not missing.
Only the Lord understands His own "thoughts and ways" better than we do, or any biblical scholar!
When you can abide in His instruction of Proverbs 3:5, He will deliver His promise in John 16:13

What exactly is being said here,,,,,, did Jesus not have the power to resurrect the temple?

 

[Earburner]

What exactly is being said here,,,,,, did Jesus not have the power to resurrect the temple?

For you it is given!
Matt.13[11] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

 

[Earburner]

^ John.2[21] But he spake of the temple of his body- [specifically in 3 days].

 

[Earburner]

"The book of Daniel was for Israel, as the book of Revelation is for Christ's born again church."- Earburner

 

[Timtofly]

Sigh.
I am not…and neither is Peter…trying to make a point about how God created time, and how he therefore must dwell, in either a philosophical or scientific, within it.
Let’s quickly remember how we can use some linguistic tactics when discussing things:

“Symbolism: symbolic meaning attributed to natural objects or facts”
“Metaphor: a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else“

So a ‘symbol’ is something that can still represent ‘natural’ objects or facts. And a ‘metaphor’ can likewise be representative of something else. In this case, we would say that Peter is using the natural passing of time for us to explain and point out that such time passing is not so for God. He is not using a single day opposed to 1000 years as factual and needfully evidential in his point. He is throwing both of those figures out, as vast opposites in time (as we would see them) and saying to us that for God…someone outside of time…creator of time…they may as well be the same.

So, in that sense, yes…the ‘numbers’ Peter used are symbolic. They are symbolic in the context of what the Apostle is saying.

Neither is Peter making a useless point, which Amil tend to make this verse out to be. Peter never claimed a 24 hour day, so neither should amil. The "day with the Lord" is the symbolism that needs a literal application. The "day with the Lord" is not a 24 hour day, so Peter was not comparing 24 hours with 1000 years. Peter was comparing a symbolic phrase to 1000 years. Peter was making a point about the symbolic term compared with a literal 1000 years. That was the point of the verse.

Even the literal Greek term used for "day" (which does not indicate Peter was being symbolic, as symbolism comes with context and not literal word definitions) means only the hours of daylight, not even 24 hours, like modern people use the term. Unless your point is the verse only applies to modern culture, I would point out Peter was establishing a difference between symbolism and a literal fact.

In context Peter and those in the first century would only understand it as being daylight, not a literal 24 hours. So no reader ever should see this verse how amil want it interpreted, as only useless comparisons of specific time frames. The symbolism is pointing to God's longsuffering and patience.

 

[Naomi25]

Neither is Peter making a useless point, which Amil tend to make this verse out to be. Peter never claimed a 24 hour day, so neither should amil. The "day with the Lord" is the symbolism that needs a literal application. The "day with the Lord" is not a 24 hour day, so Peter was not comparing 24 hours with 1000 years. Peter was comparing a symbolic phrase to 1000 years. Peter was making a point about the symbolic term compared with a literal 1000 years. That was the point of the verse.

Even the literal Greek term used for "day" (which does not indicate Peter was being symbolic, as symbolism comes with context and not literal word definitions) means only the hours of daylight, not even 24 hours, like modern people use the term. Unless your point is the verse only applies to modern culture, I would point out Peter was establishing a difference between symbolism and a literal fact.

In context Peter and those in the first century would only understand it as being daylight, not a literal 24 hours. So no reader ever should see this verse how amil want it interpreted, as only useless comparisons of specific time frames. The symbolism is pointing to God's longsuffering and patience.

You know…I have to thank you. Not many replies have caused me to actually laugh out loud. But this…this is a gem!
I mean…I’m not sure I’ve really ever come across such twisty reasoning before. You…DO realise that in your attempt to dismiss my point about symbolism you’ve argued that the passage uses….symbolism.

 

[Timtofly]

You know…I have to thank you. Not many replies have caused me to actually laugh out loud. But this…this is a gem!
I mean…I’m not sure I’ve really ever come across such twisty reasoning before. You…DO realise that in your attempt to dismiss my point about symbolism you’ve argued that the passage uses….symbolism.

Who claimed the lack of symbolism? There is a literal meaning behind every symbolism. Symbolism is not to keep explaining more symbolism. Peter gave us both the symbolism and the literal application.

I have heard from Amil that this is just a literal way to say time does not matter to God. Of course time matters to God. He created it along with us when He created the heavens and earth. Peter was just showing us how time is with the Lord.

 

[Curtis]

That..was being brief?!
And once again, someone has taken what is a simple and obvious answer from scripture, and tangled it up so tightly, that it has well and truly lost it’s meaning and what we need to take away from it.

It’s not about the law, or about being Jewish, or even trespasses strictly (and I disagree that ‘trespass is only man against man - Rom 5:17 tells us that it was ‘the trespass’ that saw mankind fall…and that was undoubtably against God). This passage is purely about forgiveness.
If we want to look back at the OT for some perspective and understanding, then we look at Job 33:29-30 and Amos 1:3; 2:6…from which Jewish tradition bases the idea that 3 times was sufficient to show a forgiving spirit. Peter clearly believes that asking if he forgives 7 times means he is showing great generosity of spirit, above and beyond what the religious culture required.

When Jesus responds ‘not 7, but 70x7!’ He is basically dismissing notions of numerical value. When we look at the parable Jesus tells after the “70x7”, we can see what he is speaking of. The master forgives a much greater debt. But then that servant turns around and refuses to forgive a debt owed to him…a much smaller debt.
The inference is clear. God has forgiven us our cosmic treason. Therefore we have no reason not to forgive those who sin against or offend us…comparatively speaking, those hurts are nothing.
Thus, when Jesus tells us ‘70x7’ he tells us to “keep on forgiving”.

So…the answer to my original question is: the numbers Christ used are symbolic of a greater truth. Extend forgiveness as long as God has extended grace to you; eternally.

And everything Jesus ever taught and said applies to the new covenant.

 

[Naomi25]

Who claimed the lack of symbolism? There is a literal meaning behind every symbolism. Symbolism is not to keep explaining more symbolism. Peter gave us both the symbolism and the literal application.

I have heard from Amil that this is just a literal way to say time does not matter to God. Of course time matters to God. He created it along with us when He created the heavens and earth. Peter was just showing us how time is with the Lord.

….?
Where have I claimed that symbolism does not have real and true meanings behind the imagery? Where have I tried to claim, prove or argue that “time does not matter to God”?

I have never claimed that symbolism does not represent true things. In fact…that’s sort of the point of symbolism….as in, the very definition of “symbolism” is that it represents factual things.

So, accusing Amil’s of stretching symbolism too far is not entirely fair based upon the label of “Amil” alone. Do some? Sure, I’ve no doubt, but I’ve also seen “literalists” push symbolism past the breaking point of reality. How far you can “push” symbolism is based entirely on the text in question. Using symbolism is not a license to draw a unicorn in the sky and make up whatever story you want. The author had a specific purpose in mind when he employed the imagery he did, and, somewhat ironically, he often used imagery to make his point easier to grasp.

 

[Naomi25]

And everything Jesus ever taught and said applies to the new covenant.

This is an interesting and important point. It’s true that Jesus pointed back at the old…quoted it, fulfilled it, etc. But yes…his mission and intent was firmly focused on bringing in the new, and that has weighty implications for everything he said…even when he was referring to the old, I think.
Good point, thanks.

 

[Earburner]

It’s kind of like…if you asked me what we did when my aunt came to visit and I said, well, let’s see…we went to Bob Evans for breakfast, and then we also went to the farmers market, and then we visited with other family here, and then we had a nice dinner.

that sounds like a very full day. Except my aunt was here for 4 days and we did each of those things on different days, and not in the order I listed them.

I think that KJV Luke 17:29-30 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 wraps it up rather nicely as a sudden, simultaneous event. Please notice the word "when".

Luke 17:[29] But [in] the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
[30] Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

2Thessalonians 1[7] And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
[8] In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
[9] Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
[10] When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.