Is the land restoration to the nation of Israel found in the new covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then I'll be waiting for that third party to present itself.

Sure. In the meantime, I've demonstrated grammatically via antecedents that "he" in Daniel 9:27 refers to Messiah.

Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate grammatically that "he" in Daniel 9:27 refers to Antichrist.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How could the earthly ministry of Jesus continue for another three years if it had only lasted three and a half years? That just doesn’t make any sense.

It makes perfect sense if you understand the fulfillment of the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which was fulfilled at Calvary.
Also remember that Daniel was reading from the Book of Jeremiah when the angel Gabriel appeared.


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

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Already explained.

But if you're not able or willing to understand, then leave it for those who are.


No you haven’t. In fact we are warned against declaring as doctrine what the scriptures have not. (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6) That is why I cannot declare the earthly promises as they pertain to Israel cancelled.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sure. In the meantime, I've demonstrated grammatically via antecedents that "he" in Daniel 9:27 refers to Messiah.

Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate grammatically that "he" in Daniel 9:27 refers to Antichrist.


There is nothing within the context of Daniel 9:27 that identifies the one confirming a covenant with the many for seven years as being the Messiah. The Covenant established by the Messiah is an everlasting Covenant without need of renewal and is not a pre-existing covenant. The covenant of the Anti-Christ is a temporary pre-existing covenant which he breaks half way through its tenure. That is what the context of that passage reflects and that should be enough.

If it is not enough, that is because you reject its plain sense meaning.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: keras
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is nothing within the context of Daniel 9:27 that identifies the one confirming a covenant with the many for seven years as being the Messiah. The Covenant established by the Messiah is an everlasting Covenant without need of renewal and is not a pre-existing covenant. The covenant of the Anti-Christ is a temporary pre-existing covenant which he breaks half way through its tenure. That is what the context of that passage reflects and that should be enough.

If it is not enough, that is because you reject its plain sense meaning.

Sorry, but that's not a grammatical argument.

Grammar is objective, encapsulating the rules associated with every language.

Because of grammar's objectivity, its rules must be applied before context is considered.

Context is subjective, relating to interpretation.

It cannot be considered until grammar's rules are applied first.

Grammar provides essential clarification for the proper interpretation of context.

Awaiting your grammatical argument.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No you haven’t. In fact we are warned against declaring as doctrine what the scriptures have not. (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6) That is why I cannot declare the earthly promises as they pertain to Israel cancelled.

Haven't for you.

Have for anyone able and willing to understand the meaning and significance of the New Testament in Christ's Blood.

Hebrews 8
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The earthly promises are in an old covenant which is decayed and vanished.

They are nowhere found in the New Covenant.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Covenant made in Christ is an everlasting covenant.

The false messiah gives recognition to a covenant that already appears to be in existence and is temporary. The true Messiah replaces an inferior Covenant with a Superior Covenant that lasts for eternity.
The inferior OC Mosaic Priesthood was replaced by the NC Priesthood in Christ at the Cross and 70ad................

OC Mosaic Priesthood cursed forever?

Malachi 2

1 “And now, O priests, this command is for you. 2 If you will not listen, if you will not take it to heart to give honor to my name, says the Lord of hosts, then I will send the curse<3994> upon you and I will curse your blessings.
Indeed, I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart.
3 Behold, I will rebuke your offspring and spread dung on your faces, the dung of your offerings,
and you shall be taken away with it

Luke 21
:
11 “And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven.
23 “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great Distress in the land and Wrath<3709> upon this people.

Rev 18:8

“Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges[fn] her.

Hebrews 7:12
For being translated the Priesthood
, out of necessity also, of Law a translation is becoming.

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

.........The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover. At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country, and from distant parts, to keep the festival and the city was at this time crowded with Jewish strangers,...........

Meanwhile the horrors of famine grew still more melancholy and afflictive.
The Jews, for of food were at length compelled to eat their belts, their sandals, the skins of their shields, dried grass, and even the ordure of oxen.

For five days after the destruction of the Temple, the priests who had escaped, sat, pining with hunger, on the top of one of its broken walls; at length, they came down, and humbly asked the pardon of Titus, which, however, he refused to grant them, saying, that,
"as the Temple, for the sake of which he would have spared them, was destroyed, it was but fit that its priests should perish also:" -whereupon he commanded that they should be put to death. .........
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is nothing within the context of Daniel 9:27 that identifies the one confirming a covenant with the many for seven years as being the Messiah. The Covenant established by the Messiah is an everlasting Covenant without need of renewal and is not a pre-existing covenant. The covenant of the Anti-Christ is a temporary pre-existing covenant which he breaks half way through its tenure. That is what the context of that passage reflects and that should be enough.

Are you claiming the angel Gabriel came to reveal the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then Gabriel forgot to even mention the New Covenant?

Is the context of Daniel 9 about the fulfillment of the New Covenant found in Matthew 26:28?




.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sorry, but that's not a grammatical argument.

Grammar is objective, encapsulating the rules associated with every language.

Because of grammar's objectivity, its rules must be applied before context is considered.

Context is subjective, relating to interpretation.

It cannot be considered until grammar's rules are applied first.

Grammar provides essential clarification for the proper interpretation of context.

Awaiting your grammatical argument.



Grammar has to do with proper communication and goes hand in hand with context. The two can never be made separate. Context is not subjective but is designed to reveal intended meaning to which there is a finality.

If context is subjective, then so is interpretation and if interpretation is subjective, then there can be no certainty of the intended meaning with the context and is then made to say whatever the reader desires it to say.


“Grammar provides essential clarification for the proper interpretation of context.”


that statement running contrary to the those preceding it:


“its rules must be applied before context is considered.”
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Haven't for you.

Have for anyone able and willing to understand the meaning and significance of the New Testament in Christ's Blood.

Hebrews 8
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The earthly promises are in an old covenant which is decayed and vanished.

They are nowhere found in the New Covenant.


“The earthly promises are in an old covenant which is decayed and vanished. They are nowhere found in the New Covenant.”


The New Covenant does not say that they were cancelled out as it pertains to Israel.
 
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

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The burden of proof is just as much on you to provide NT scriptures that those things pertaining to Israel have been cancelled out.

I have provided scripture that clearly and specifically states the old covenant has been made obsolete and was taken away (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9).

You, however, have stated that land restoration from the old covenant is still in effect, even through you agree the old covenant is no longer in effect. Thus, the burden of proof is on you to provide NT evidence that land restoration is still in effect.

. I’ve already provided scriptures that at the very least imply that the foretelling of land restoration to the Jewish people was still in effect, but you have rejected them as even evidence pointing to such

You have provided "your interpretation" of NT scripture. I disagree with your interpretation. You have not provided even one NT scripture that clearly and specifically mentions land restoration. Since we disagree on "interpretations", scripture that is less debatable should be employed.

for example: Notice Hebrews 8 clearly and specifically says the first was made obsolete.
Hebrews 8:13 By speaking of a new, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

So, can you provide NT scripture that clearly and specifically mentions land restoration?

You have put forth nothing that explicitly states or even implies that land restoration no longer applies to the nation of Israel.

There is no NT scripture that even mentions land restoration, so how can I put forth scripture that explicitly states the land restoration no longer applies to the nation of Israel?

What the NT does mention, however, is that the old covenant was made obsolete and was taken away (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9).

We need to understand that there are unconditional promises (adam, Noah, Abraham, David) and there are conditional promises (old covenant with nation of Israel).

For example. The Abrahamic covenant is unconditional. God made several promises to Abraham that didn't require righteous works by Abraham. God alone passed through the animals to seal the covenant (genesis 15). Thus, Abraham did not need to perform anything on his side in order for God to act on His part to fulfill the promises. And as Paul states, the promises (PLURAL) are to Abraham and his offspring, who is Jesus.

galatians 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,”g meaning One, who is Christ.

But the old covenant is not like the Abrahamic covenant. The old covenant required Israel to act (obey all of the law) in order to receive the promises of God. Unlike Abraham, blood was sprinkled on the people of Israel to seal the covenant (exodus 24). Thus, for God to fulfill his part of the agreement of the old covenant, Israel had to fulfill their part of the agreement. That is the agreement of both parties. If Israel would obey, God would bless. If Israel would disobey, God would curse. After the curses were poured, if Israel repented God would restore.

But God found fault in the 1st covenant on the part of the people, for they could not uphold their part of the agreement.

Hebrews 8:7-8 For if that first covenant had been without fault, no place would have been sought for a second. But God found fault with the people and said:

So God made the old covenant obsolete. Thus the nation of Israel, nor God are required to uphold their end of the deal as it pertains to the old covenant. The nation of Israel no longer needs to obey all the laws of Moses in order to receive earthly blessings of the covenant. God no longer has to fulfill the earthly blessings to those who follow all of laws of moses.

The old covenant has been superseded by the new covenant, where our sins have been forgiven and all the righteous standards of the law have been fulfilled in us through Christ when we put our faith in Him. We are no free to love God and love our neighbor. We now receive better promises than the old covenant.



But nonetheless, if you agree that the Hasmonean dynasty was not the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37, then perhaps you will consider that the reestablishment of Israel as a nation once more in 1948 may be setting the stage for that eventual fulfillment.

Right, my position is consistent, in that I do not believe Israel being recognized by other nations as an independent country fulfills prophecy. Thus I believe neither the Hasmonean dynasty nor 1948 is a fulfillment of prophecy. You, however, draw an imaginary line and state the Hasmonean dynasty does not fulfill prophecy, while 1948 does. This type of logic is inconsistent.

When did Israel, the country established in 1948, repent and turn to God so that he would gather them back to Israel? This is the first requirement, under the old covenant before they woul be brought back into the land (Deuteronomy 30:2).

As we can see Deuteronomy 30:1-5 was fulfilled upon Israel's return from Babylonian exile. Jeremiah confirms that after the 70 years of Babylonian exile, when Israel would call upon the name of the Lord, He would restore their fortunes, and gather them from where they had been scattered to. This does not require Israel to be recognized as an independent nation.

Deuteronomy 30:1-5 When all these things come upon you—the blessings and curses I have set before you—and you call them to mind in all the nations to which the LORD your God has banished you, 2and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey His voice with all your heart and all your soul according to everything I am giving you today, then He will restore you from captivitya and have compassion on you and gather you from all the nations to which the LORD your God has scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the ends of the earth, He will gather you and return you from there. And the LORD your God will bring you into the land your fathers possessed, and you will take possession of it. He will cause you to prosper and multiply more than your fathers.

Jeremiah 29:10-14 For this is what the LORD says: “When Babylon’s seventy years are complete, I will attend to you and confirm My promise to restore you to this place. For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore you from captivity and gather you from all the nations and places to which I have banished you, declares the LORD. I will restore you to the place from which I sent you into exile.”

The author of Chronicles confirms that the words of Jeremiah were fulfilled upon Israel's return from the 70 year Babylonian exile. This does not require that Israel be labeled as an independent nation by the Persian empire.

2 chronicles 36:20-22 He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years. Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing.


I believe that God dwells in us through the Holy Spirit, but Ezekiel and Paul are not talking about the same form of God’s presence. Paul is speaking of God’s presence through the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Ezekiel foretells of God coming to dwell among His people directly.

Per Jesus, God is spirit. I hold to the Trinitarian doctrine. I believe Jesus is God. I believe the Spirit is God. I believe the Father is God. I believe all 3 are one.

John 4:23-24 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Paul quotes from Ezekiel 37, which has its foundation in the law (Leviticus 26), as being fulfilled in the 1st century.
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You have yet to provide scriptural evidence from Deuteronomy 30:1-6 that such was one-time fulfillment and not an ongoing fulfillment until their ultimate reconciliation with God through Christ when He returns to reign.

The old covenant is no longer in effect (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9), thus Deuteronomy 30:1-5, which is part of the old covenant, is no longer in effect.

That may be the case in the world of men, but this is not necessarily the case with God. God’s promissory clauses could only be made null and void if the new contract which He has instated has not expressly cancelled them out. If they are not expressly cancelled out, they are still in effect and in this case, land restoration for the Jews. Furthermore, He has continued to leave the door open for the Jews to experience all the blessings He has promised them, which they will experience, along with the promises we have in Christ, if they no longer remain in unbelief but embrace Christ, which they eventually are destined to do.

Scripture clearly state the old covenant was taken away and made obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9).

I believe that Jesus is Shepherd over all who come to Him, and as far as the fulfillment of the cited passage goes, (Ezek. 34:23) I believe it is possible that it is in reference to Christ. But because this is speaking of a time that has not yet come to pass, we cannot yet know how its fulfillment will play out. We do know Christ will be ruling over all the earth when it is fulfilled.

Jesus tells his disciple that he is the good shepherd. So there is no doubt that Ezekiel 34:23 is in regards to Christ. There is no other shepherd we are to look for.

John 10:14-16 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Christ is already the ruler of the kings of the earth.

revelation 1:5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

Creation itself also bears witness to the glory of God all over the world, but it takes the Gospel to open men’s eyes to that. Creation had been proclaiming the hope of the Gospel before men were sent out into the world to preach it, but not every nation or people had been exposed to the Gospel in Paul’s day.

Did the Gospel spread throughout of all of Africa in Paul’s day? Did his generation see it preached throughout all of Central Asia and the far east? Did any of the Apostles or Christ’s disciples of that first generation travel to Australia or the Americas to preach the Gospel? Did all of Europe hear the preaching of the Gospel from that first generation?

Paul is very clear that the gospel was preached to all the world in the 1st century.

Romans 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith

Colossians 1:23 indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.

Romans 10:18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”


When Christ meant the Gospel had to be preached throughout the entire world, He didn’t mean just the Roman empire, He meant the entire world.

The greek word for world in this passage is not kosmos, but oikoumené. Oikoumene refers to the inhabited land and not the whole literal planet of earth.

Matthew 25:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

STRONG'S CONCORDANCE
oikoumené (properly: the land that is being inhabited, the land in a state of habitation), the inhabited world, that is, the Roman world, for all outside it was regarded as of no account.

Why else would Jesus say that we cannot know the day nor the hour of His return?

Jesus stated day nor hour. He did not say year. If I am on a business trip and I tell my wife I will be home this week, but not sure which day or time, does that mean I will be home in next year or in 5 years? No

So it is with Jesus, he stated "THIS generation will no pass away until all these things take place", but only the Father new the exact day and hour.


Why else is it written that the coming of the Lord will be life a thief in the night?

How are you extrapolating this to mean several thousand years later?

Why else would Peter say, as it pertains to the Lord’s return that the Lord is not slow in keeping His promises as we understand slowness? (2 Pet. 3:9)?

God lives outside of time. to him a 1,000 years as a day, and a day as 1,000 years.

As for the part of the Jews, they have always had a central role in prophetic fulfillment and will continue to have their part until all things are fulfilled and that is why it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that their rejection of Christ has delayed the fulfillment of a number of things to come.

Please provide NT scripture that states because of their rejection, fulfillment of has been delayed. We should not build doctrines on speculation, but on concrete evidence in scripture.

King Josiah’s repentance delayed judgment upon Judah did it not? Ninevah’s repentance when Jonah pronounced a coming judgment upon them delayed their destruction didn’t it? Even king Ahab’s repentance over his murder of Naboth delayed the destruction of his household.

The lack of faith on the part of the Israelites delayed God's promise in fulfilling His declaration of the land promised them to be given into their possession. They had to wander around in the wilderness for 40 years. Had it not been for their lack of faith, they would have possessed the land promised to them sooner.

I agree that repentance can delay judgment. I agree that disobedience can result in judgment. We have to remember that the nation of Israel was never promised the land of Israel unconditionally. Only Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their offspring, who is Christ, was promised the land unconditionally.

What was the purpose of wandering in the wilderness for 40 years? To test the people of Israel , to humble them, and make a full end to the wicked generation that did not have faith.


Deuteronomy 8:2 And you shall remember the whole way that the Lord your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not.

Numbers 14:34-35 According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, a year for each day, you shall bear your iniquity forty years, and you shall know my displeasure.’ I, the Lord, have spoken. Surely this will I do to all this wicked congregation who are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall come to a full end, and there they shall die

I would argue this 40 years is the type of the 40 year period between the cross and the destruction of the temple and wicked generation who rejected Christ antitype.

I never called the Church a building.

I never stated you did. However, if my language inferred that you believed the church is a building, then I apologize.

Had the Church continued to take the Gospel to all four corners of the earth and maintained its own members, all thing might have been fulfilled sooner and perhaps Christ might already be reigning on the earth today.

More speculation. Please provide scripture to support this.

Peter was saying that what may seem like a long time to us is not a long time to God as it relates to Christ’s return.

No arguments here.

The Roman empire was said to extend as far north as Germany so the Germanic tribes probably were under the jurisdiction of Rome, as far as the Romans were concerned though not willingly. Due to Roman forces being stretched thin, they were not able to hold this area for long. The Parthians were an empire that was a rival to Rome, but even the wars involving the Roman empire are but a small fraction of all the wars and rivalry between nations and kingdoms that have taken place throughout history and what wars took place in the first century still do not compare to the number of wars that have taken place in more recent centuries.

So then it appears you agree, that wars and rumors of wars occurred in the 1st century.

Not all the things that He said would happen happened prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. There are still things He said would take place that have not yet taken place.

Like what?

What evidence do you have that they haven’t? I tried to keep a record of the number of earthquakes that happen each year, but the number of earthquakes that took place became more than I could keep up with, but that was alongside everything else I tried to keep track of.

This type of argument is a fallacy in informal logic.

But here is some evidence that they haven't.

Recorded Earthquake statistics for the last 28 years show that earthquakes have not increased in frequency in a statistically significant manner.

Earthquake Statistics
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Grammar has to do with proper communication and goes hand in hand with context. The two can never be made separate. Context is not subjective but is designed to reveal intended meaning to which there is a finality.

If context is subjective, then so is interpretation and if interpretation is subjective, then there can be no certainty of the intended meaning with the context and is then made to say whatever the reader desires it to say.


“Grammar provides essential clarification for the proper interpretation of context.”


that statement running contrary to the those preceding it:


“its rules must be applied before context is considered.”

Do you believe that grammar applies to Scripture?

If so, you should be able to provide a grammatical argument.

Still waiting.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: claninja
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
“The earthly promises are in an old covenant which is decayed and vanished. They are nowhere found in the New Covenant.”


The New Covenant does not say that they were cancelled out as it pertains to Israel.

A covenant/testament is the sum of its contents.

The contents of a covenant/testament which is decayed and vanished are also decayed and vanished.

Under the definition of a covenant/testament, they would need to be respecified in the new covenant/testament to be in force and effect.

They have not been respecified.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you believe that grammar applies to Scripture?

If so, you should be able to provide a grammatical argument.

Still waiting.


Grammar applies to scripture as it applies to any other writing. You yourself have not provided a so-called grammatical argument for your case as it pertains to the context of Daniel 9:27.
 
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

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A covenant/testament is the sum of its contents.

The contents of a covenant/testament which is decayed and vanished are also decayed and vanished.

Under the definition of a covenant/testament, they would need to be respecified in the new covenant/testament to be in force and effect.

They have not been respecified.


If that were the case, we would have no idea what the New Covenant has cancelled out and what it hasn't.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are you claiming the angel Gabriel came to reveal the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then Gabriel forgot to even mention the New Covenant?

Is the context of Daniel 9 about the fulfillment of the New Covenant found in Matthew 26:28?




.


Daniel chapter 9 is about a number of different events of which the first coming of the Messiah and His death are but one of a number events mentioned. (Dan. 9:25-26)
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If that were the case, we would have no idea what the New Covenant has cancelled out and what it hasn't.

So the writer of Hebrews was wrong, and it's not decayed and vanished after all?

The OT contains the historical record of the decayed and vanished promises. We have a complete idea of what they were.

Compare them to the NT to see the differences.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Grammar applies to scripture as it applies to any other writing. You yourself have not provided a so-called grammatical argument for your case as it pertains to the context of Daniel 9:27.

How soon we forget. Post 403.

Note that "antecedent" appears in multiple categories, of which one is "grammar":

"GRAMMAR
a word, phrase, clause, or sentence to which another word (especially a following relative pronoun) refers."
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
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

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So the writer of Hebrews was wrong, and it's not decayed and vanished after all?

The OT contains the historical record of the decayed and vanished promises. We have a complete idea of what they were.

Compare them to the NT to see the differences.


I never said the writer of Hebrews was wrong but it was your own statements that imply lack of clarity of what has been cancelled out and what hasn't:


"A covenant/testament is the sum of its contents....


Under the definition of a covenant/testament, they would need to be respecified in the new covenant/testament to be in force and effect.

They have not been respecified."


There is no doubt about what the New Testament has declared fulfilled and done away with, and what has been carried over but to claim that the contents of a previous covenant have not been respecified, as you put it would imply uncertainty about what is applied or not applied to the New Covenant.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.