Again, this is the discussion, not your flaggrant accusations,
Daniel was such an amazing forecaster wasn't he? Not only did he receive revelation from God when Christ would die to the day after the 62 weeks were fulfilled, but also accounted for what we have seen today in which the 70th week doesn't begin until consummation commences, the treaty is broken midweek that Israel will have with the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation ensues for 42 months. Then the desolations and end of sin for Israel will have been accomplished and Christ will appear on the mount of olives in Person to reign for 1000 years on earth from the temple in Jerusalem (while the New Jerusaelem in heaven comes down at the end of the millennium to the new earth); to reward some saints to return with Him over the nations. Let us keep watchful and prayerful to receive the hope of the church that we may escape these things which are to come upon the whole world by being rapture before the Tribulation, but not blame God that some believers may yet need to go through the time of testing of the Tribulation trumpets.
You are man who has a faith in his self that disagrees with this word of 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" (Dan. 9.27). Jesus didn't make any covenant for one week, nor did He cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, for it says in verse 26, "after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself". Since Jesus didn't make a covenant for one week, then who is this "he" if he is not the Antichrist? Jesus cut off occurs after the 69 weeks, but not the 70th week: "unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks" (v.25), otherwise it would have said at the 70th week. Messiah was not to be cutoff in the 70th week but at the time after the 69th week as it clearly says (7+62=69): "after the sixty-two weeks" (v.26). Then further events are described what takes place in the 70th week. Daniel actually describes the gap, since Jesus is not cut off in the 70th week, but was cut off after the 69th week. What glorious revelation!
From henceforth that point, wars will continue until the final week is to commence and complete for 7 years: "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined" (v.27). When are desolations to end? "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city" (v.24). Israel is now back in the land, so it won't be much longer now and could even be this century.
Since you can't disagree with this, yet still disagree anyway because of your system you belong to obligates you to accept their teaching, know your false fruit.
You are man who has a faith in his self that disagrees with this word of 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" (Dan. 9.27). Jesus didn't make any covenant for one week, nor did He cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, for it says in verse 26, "after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself". Since Jesus didn't make a covenant for one week, then who is this "he" if he is not the Antichrist? Jesus cut off occurs after the 69 weeks, but not the 70th week: "unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks" (v.25), otherwise it would have said at the 70th week. Messiah was not to be cutoff in the 70th week but at the time after the 69th week as it clearly says (7+62=69): "after the sixty-two weeks" (v.26). Then further events are described what takes place in the 70th week. Daniel actually describes the gap, since Jesus is not cut off in the 70th week, but was cut off after the 69th week. What glorious revelation!
From henceforth that point, wars will continue until the final week is to commence and complete for 7 years: "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined" (v.27). When are desolations to end? "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city" (v.24). Israel is now back in the land, so it won't be much longer now and could even be this century.
Since you can't disagree with this, yet still disagree anyway because of your system you belong to obligates you to accept their teaching, know your false fruit.
Hello again. Using the same rhetoric? Your obession with the end of war.
Originally Posted by spiritualman gwyn,
I think you can read the Gospels for yourself. I don't need to reproduce them here. Just pick up your Bible.
Don't let your imagination get the better of you by thinking you showed some verses that the Gentiles could not be saved. You would be worshipping some evil god. The time of the gospel is salvation of all, so the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace are the same. The kingdom begins with John the Baptist. Don't be an Ebionite. Jesus was present for the preaching of his word. Anyone who says they love war obviously don't asy "I love war" but they show they love war in ways, for example, you love war by rejecting Dan. 9.24-27 when you say the 70th week is done, even though there is still desolation and wars and Israel is still in sin that these verse say would not exist if the 70th week was done. What person who did not love war would reject these verses so adamantly as you do? Your idea is simply not Christian by the Holy Spirit in agreement with the Word. I think you know this too, but you also know you can't overpower your fleshly ideas so you give into them willingly and controlled by some force outside you not of God. You seem to like this.
Oh for the love of Pete, this is ridiculous; I had said "lack is synonomous with absense", and for some reason you questioned that fact. Webster's even lists "absence, dearth, want" as synonyms of "lack". It's in the Thesaurus, which I knew before I wasted time looking it up, so (thankfully) there is nothing more to debate on the issue.
If I were wrong I would certainly apologize, as I have done before during my many years on this forum.
In Christ,
Acts6:5
I think you are being absurd and ridiculous, for I have already explained your mistake, and you keep repeating your old self.
Since lack is not synonymous with absense as was shown, then to keep saying it is is you in your belligerency. You even misuse the context in Websters,
transitive verb : to stand in need of : suffer from the absence or deficiency of <lack the necessities of life>
There is still life there, but it is difficent; there is some parts missing, and those parts missing are absent, but that does not mean total absence of life.
In the book of synonyms, absence is not one of the direct words, but is placed in brackets to show it is similar, but not exactly as is more exactly explainly in Websters.
I understand you said you were "debating". Therein lies your problem; that is why you can't see lack is not absence as was said. I had said your faith in the Word is absent.
Obviously, you being wrong as shown, your claim you can apologize is just a false claim about your self which agrees with you placing your faith in yourself. You don't need to repent then. Notice you won't repent. I have never seen you repent once at least since I have been here and would never expect you to do so seeing what I have seen of you so far.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, Friend. I'm tired of going around in circles about this.
In Christ,
Acts6:5
That's your problem, going around in circles instead of seeing your two mistakes when they freely shown to you:
1) Saying you disagree, but you don't know why, so the question becomes, why be so overassuming? Don't you have any humility?
2) Because you you have this spirit of dissension, you necessarily deflect onto other things of your petty self instead of dealing with the subject matter of the thread which has the effect of obfuscating and stealing away from the discussion of the Word which you don't believe anyway.
Entry Word: lack
Function: noun
Text: 1 the fact or state of being absent ****e lack of news about the fate of the soldiers was frustrating> Synonyms absence, dearth, want
Are we clear now, Friend? Lack is synonomous with absense, as I had originally said. It says so right there in black and white.
In Christ,
Acts6:5
__________________ Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"
They replied,"You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."
And Jesus replied, "Huh?"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Hello again. Using the same rhetoric? Your obession with the end of war.
Let me get this right. This person agrees with me and you hate us for this because we agree with the Word of God, and as futurists, we know the end of war is coming to usher in the millennial kingdom? Jesus said He is coming to stop the Tribulation, which is an end of war, and you accuse Christians of being obsessed with this fact? That's demented. Is there nothing the reviling spirit in you won't accuse of? And the logical question to ask then is why do you love war so much to accuse Christians of knowing the Tribulation will be the last great war?
Entry Word: lack
Function: noun
Text: 1 the fact or state of being absent ****e lack of news about the fate of the soldiers was frustrating>
Synonyms absence, dearth, want
Are we clear now, Friend? Lack is synonomous with absense, as I had originally said. It says so right there in black and white.
In Christ,
Acts6:5
Again, you are missing the point, belligerently so I might add. A "lack of news" is not "no news", but a lack. That portion that is lacking is absent, but it does not demand there be no news at all. I have said this now several times, which you never address or discern. Why be a clanging bell? I responded to you, now you should respond to this fact. You seem unable to repent to your mistake.
Can you clearly now accept your misunderstanding, and realize what is meant in that your faith was absent, not merely lacking. It is in the specifics that you are misunderstanding by vaguely not seeing the distinction of these words more effectively.
May I add again, you are totally deflecting away from the topic of this thread that no doubt is quite cunning.
Linear Mode
