The Rapture
- Thread starter gomerian
- Start date
Based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Romans 1:16, and Galatians 1:14-18, the Gospel was taken "first" to Daniel's people for a period of about 7 years before Paul began his ministry to the Gentiles.
Do the math.
These passages must be ignored by anyone claiming a future 70th week of Daniel, even though the summary of Daniel 9:24 is found fulfilled by Christ in Acts 10:38, and Hebrews 10:16-18.
The only way to get a future 70th week of Daniel is to add a "gap" of time, not mentioned by the angel Gabriel, and to claim the angel Gabriel failed to mention the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 12:22-24.
Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, who fulfilled the New Covenant with His Blood.
Daniel chapter 9: Dr. Kelly Varner
.
Upvote
0
seventysevens
Well-Known Member
that demonstrates your severe lack of understanding as even just looking at the screenshot of the bible shows your error
You are being ridiculous , They ask Jesus "what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
Jesus RETURNS at the end of the age , He did not return in 70 ad
Upvote
0
Douggg
anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
- May 28, 2009
- 28,777
- 3,419
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
The prophecy in Daniel 9:27 is that the covenant is confirmed for 7 years - not that the gospel is spread to the Jews for 7 years - by a large number of not just the 11 disciples but also what would have been hundred maybe thousands of disciples - which Jesus was not here, but in heaven - to be the "he" in verse 27.
The angel didn't mention a "new" covenant, but "the" covenant. The only covenant that can be referred back to in Daniel 9 is the one Daniel was talking about in verses 4-19. The only covenant that has a requirement to be confirmed on a 7 years cycle is Mt. Sinai covenant - 7 years right in the text of the bible.
Is there a "gap" between Jesus being cutoff and Jesus returning, to bring in everlasting righteousness on Jerusalem and Daniel's people?
Upvote
0
I have heard some strange logic on this forum by those who are attempting to make their doctrine work, but I will have to admit your claim that Jesus in not the New Covenant Messiah is one of the strangest.
We know Jesus told the woman at the well that He is the Messiah.
We know from Matthew 26:28, and Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and multiple other verses that Jesus fulfilled the New Covenant with His Blood.
Your attempts to disconnect the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 from the New Covenant come apart when viewed through the scripture found below.
Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—
Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
.
Upvote
0
seventysevens
Well-Known Member
i don't think that is what he meant , there has been about 6 covenants discussed/made since Israel was reborn in 1948 but none of them were confirmed which means they had drawn up the details into documents and discussed - but each time they were not confirmed - they have them shelved - so even though they have tried to make it happen - so far it has not been confirmed
Upvote
0
David Kent
Continuing Historicist
- Aug 24, 2017
- 2,173
- 663
- 86
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
- Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises (the covenants) made unto the fathers:
- Daniel 9:27 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.
- Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many.
You seem to be different from most futurists, you seem willing to discuss. Most, not all, I have come across will not. They state their point and walk away, usually shouting as they do.
In case you missed it, I will repeat. I was brought up under futurist dispensational teaching in the Brethren, so I am fully aware of the main tenets of the doctrine. As you probably know, the Brethren were the main group to spread the new teaching in England. It is completely alien to the teachings of the church before the 19th century.
This was taken to the USA by the Brethren in the late 19th century, and Philip Mauro was one of the early dispies in the US. He was a NY lawyer and said as far as he could trace the teaching was taken to NY by a Brethren man, just after 1900 or slightly before. Philip later came out of the dispie movement, and wrote a number of useful books. They can be found on the preterist site as well as others. Look for the Philip Mauro Archive, or something like that. The have his books wwhen he was still a dispie. (I don't consider him a preterist as he still believed the Antichrist is future. So I consider him a futurist.)
I would like to make it plain that I am NOT a preterist. Preterism comes from the same stable as futurism, the Jesuits. Both were invented to counter the true teaching that the pope is antichrist. They are bedfellows.
Dispensationalism has a different gospel, that the Jews and the Chuch are always separate, but \jesus said he would have one flock, one fold.
Futurism is a Roman Catholic teaching and Jesus said of that church, "Come out of her my people."
Upvote
0
David Kent
Continuing Historicist
- Aug 24, 2017
- 2,173
- 663
- 86
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
You are adding to scripture again, douggg. Nothing is said to connect Jesus bringing in everlasting righteousness and His return. If you look at the beginning of Daniel 12, you will see that Daniel's people spoken of are those whose names are written in the book, Chrstians.
Upvote
0
that demonstrates your severe lack of understanding as even just looking at the screenshot of the bible shows your error
You are being ridiculous , They ask Jesus "what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
Jesus RETURNS at the end of the age , He did not return in 70 ad
Matthew 24:3
Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?”
Three questions posed by the disciples:
1. When will these things happen?
2. What will be the sign of your coming?
3. (What will be the sign of) the end of the age?
The time when 3 occurs is different from the time when 2 occurs. The time when 3, the end of the age of the old covenant and everything associated with it, occurs; is 70 AD.
You really shouldn't get so excited. It could trigger undesirable or fatal physiological phenomena.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Douggg
anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
- May 28, 2009
- 28,777
- 3,419
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
BAB2, when Jesus was crucified, cutoff, as the messiah in Daniel 9:26 is said to be cutoff, this is what Christ meant - the King of Israel.
Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
The prince who shall come, who confirms the covenant with many will be the Anti - Christ the King of Israel (illegitimate).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You keep saying the above, even though there is no singular antecedent in the passage for an antichrist.
Then you object to the fact that Jesus is the New Covenant Messiah.
Then you try to ignore any period of time when the Gospel was taken "first" (Romans 1:16) to the Israelites, in order to produce a future 70th week of Daniel.
Then you believe the angel Gabriel came to reveal the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant in His Blood (Matthew 26:28), and then Gabriel failed to mention the New Covenant.
Do not ask the rest of us to believe it.
.
Upvote
0
J,17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Upvote
0
It's better read "the abomination that causes desolation". Which could be any number of things, including Gentiles in the Temple, eating frogs in the Temple, or the Temple itself. The fact is that the against-Christ will set up a sacrificial system, as though the sacrifice of the Son wasn't good enough; and then, because the followers of the abomination will not keep the Law, the abomination will stop the sacrificial means of purification. Not a stretch of the imagination, given the hands full of bribes scenario, along with the drunkards of Ephriam... who will probably be the chief priests of such a system.
"Behold, ye [are] of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination [is he that] chooseth you."--Isiaih 41
The Abomination appears to be The Against-Christ.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That's not what Jesus says... this is:
M,21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the Son, they said among themselves, "This is the heir; come, let us kill Him, and let us seize on His inheritance." 39 And they caught Him, and cast Him out of the vineyard, and slew Him. ...
21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard His parables, they perceived that He spake of them.
If you force someone to do your dirty work for you, you are still held to blame; Pilate tells you this, and so does Jesus.
The Romans were tools in the hands of the Chief Priests and Pharisees (which shows you what kind of power they had), and for which Jesus never blames them; but He never stops blaming the Pharisees, en masse.
NOW, as for Jesus being crucified in Rome, what utter nonsense. No wonder people think Rome is that great city, with that sort of logic floating around.
Jesus tells us not only who to blame... but exactly where they live.
M,23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
And this isn't the only place He tells you it's fitting that prophets go to Jerusalem to be martyred. She is that faithless harlot, who acts like she's never been married to the God of Heaven. She is the one who teaches harlotry. When she was born, covered in blood, God cleansed her, covered her with jewels... and she took them to decorate her Idols. Yes, she did teach Rome to do these things; but Rome is a derivative, not the causation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers diaspora throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Strong's 1290 - diaspora; dispersion, i.e. (specially and concretely) the (converted) Israelite resident in Gentile countries:--(which are) scattered (abroad).
IMHO, this means Israelites, period.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
David Kent
Continuing Historicist
- Aug 24, 2017
- 2,173
- 663
- 86
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
Upvote
0
Mikael is the prince of Israel, not the prince of a whole bunch of other nations. And they haven't fled yet. "Come out of her, My people" won't be said until right before the plagues of the wrath are poured out, full strength (rather than the thirds in the trumpets). Babylon hasn't fallen yet, and it's upon Babylon/Jerusalem (which will have become the capital of the world), that the vials will be emptied out.
Upvote
0
I wish I could see the Gospel of the Kingdom being preached... right now, all I see is something else being taught by Nicolaitanes.
The fig tree is in Jerusalem. And what's happening there, these days? Aren't they getting ready to make Jerusalem (with whom they already hold a special covenant) the capital of the United Nations?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I'm saying that Peter wrote to the Israelites of the diaspora... which is what he said. Reading someone else's mail, and attempting to carry out what the author said to the addressee is not a wise move.
IMHO, the function of the church of Jesus is to be the stammering lips of another tongue, in Isaiah 28:1-21... unless Jesus really DID speak in Greek. In which case, our job is to be salt and light to a dying world.
Upvote
0
