Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I am starting off with the rider on the white horse given a crown, made the King of Israel coming in his own name, the Antichrist.I believe your starting point is off making the clear passages of scripture bow to the symbols of Revelation.
There are too many interpretations of Revelation that make more sense. The oldest commentary found to date was of the recapitulation view endorsed by Beale and others. This in an Amillennial setting hits home for me.I am starting off with the rider on the white horse given a crown, made the King of Israel coming in his own name, the Antichrist.
There are no interpretations of the rider on the white horse that make no more sense than the person being the Antichrist.There are too many interpretations of Revelation that make more sense. The oldest commentary found to date was of the recapitulation view endorsed by Beale and others. This in an Amillennial setting hits home for me.
Antichrist is there for certain, but not in wholly futuristic sense. He already appeared and will appear again, probably in Islam.There are no interpretations of the rider on the white horse that make no more sense than the person being the Antichrist.
Our early church didn't even have Bibles until centuries later (please don't misunderstand that - I'm not dismissing the importance of the Bible, I'm merely pointing out that we can't divorce the interpretation of the biblical text from the understanding and teaching of the early church).My commitment is to the ageless truth of the Bible.
Thank you Keras, great post....Paul in 1Thessalonians 5:2-4, wrote that the "day of the Lord" will come like a thief in the night Only for those who are in darkness BUT NOT to those who are in the in the light, we anticipate and know that "day" is near....My commitment is to the ageless truth of the Bible.
All the ECF's, the commentators and todays scholars have the same drawback; It has been impossible for them to properly understand Bible prophecy. Jesus said: It is your will, Father to hide these things from the wise and learned..... Matthew 11:25 and Daniel 12:4 & 10 says; the Book [of prophecy] is to be kept sealed until the time of the end and only then, just a few will understand.
So, no matter how qualified, in worldly terms, the support is that you have for a fulfilled Seventh 'week', I reject them and I do it because Revelation is so clear about the last half of that 'week', the final 3 1/2 years, or 42 months, or 1260 days, that culminate in the Return of Jesus for His Millennium reign.
My commitment is to the ageless truth of the Bible.
All the ECF's, the commentators and todays scholars have the same drawback; It has been impossible for them to properly understand Bible prophecy. Jesus said: It is your will, Father to hide these things from the wise and learned..... Matthew 11:25 and Daniel 12:4 & 10 says; the Book [of prophecy] is to be kept sealed until the time of the end and only then, just a few will understand.
So, no matter how qualified, in worldly terms, the support is that you have for a fulfilled Seventh 'week', I reject them and I do it because Revelation is so clear about the last half of that 'week', the final 3 1/2 years, or 42 months, or 1260 days, that culminate in the Return of Jesus for His Millennium reign.
Luke 24:45 - Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.All the ECF's, the commentators and todays scholars have the same drawback; It has been impossible for them to properly understand Bible prophecy. Jesus said: It is your will, Father to hide these things from the wise and learned..... Matthew 11:25 and Daniel 12:4 & 10 says; the Book [of prophecy] is to be kept sealed until the time of the end and only then, just a few will understand.
Nice try, jgr!I have found your own prophetic understanding regarding the identity of the true Chosen People of God, i.e. those who are in Christ; to be scholarly and consistent with that of the ECFs, and all of the historical commentators and defenders of the true faith.
Yet you deny that today's scholars, of which you are one, can understand Bible prophecy.
How do you reconcile your own scholarly prophetic understanding, with your denial of your own scholarly prophetic understanding?
Quite sure He has opened your mind, are you? Many scriptures say that God does darken the minds of those who choose to believe false teachings.Luke 24:45 - Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.
Revelation 22:10 - Then he instructed me, “Do not seal up the prophetic words in this book, for the time is near.
So we are now under no Covenant?The prophet Daniel tell us with absolute precision when the Old Covenant would end! “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city …” (Daniel 9:24) He didn’t say 69 weeks; he didn’t say 69½ weeks; he said 70 weeks. That’s 490 years. So, the Old Covenant fully ended in AD 34, including the last half of the 70th week. (See diagram post #1)
The early church was Jewish. Part of the church wanted Gentile coverts circumcised and taught to observe the laws of Moses. Paul circumcised Timothy as Paul was teaching the Gospel in synagogues and wanted to be included by the Jews. At some point Paul decided Gentiles should not be made to obey the entire Jewish law. He took his ideas to the apostles. Peter and the apostles decided the Gentiles should not be made to obey the entire law, however they should abstain from fornication, should remember to help the poor, and something like not eat blood or sacrifice to idols (Acts 15). Roman law was against theft and murder. That was already in the Gentile's system.The opening post is my response to a common assumption that the Old Covenant ended when the Jewish temple was destroyed in AD 70.
There have been several misconceptions concerning the forty-year period between the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans in AD 70. Both arise from competing interpretations of Daniel’s prophecy of the 70 weeks. (Daniel 9:24-27)
The answer is quite simple. The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple did not take place within the actual seventy weeks; the prophet was simply providing information of the aftermath to the weeks in order to explain what the eventual outcome would be.
- The first misconception comes from those who believe that Daniel’s 70th week was unhooked from the other weeks and sent to the future. In their argument with those who say that the weeks were contiguous they ask, “but how can the 70th week stretch over forty years to include the events of Christ’s ministry as well as the destruction of Jerusalem?” (verse 27)
View attachment 270805
I would like us to discuss this second point with any who are interested. In the meanwhile, please do the poll: (up to 3 answers allowed)
- The second misconception comes from those who wish to magnify the importance of the AD 70 event. Their reasoning is that sacrifice of animals completely stopped then. Therefore, that must have been when the Old Covenant completely ceased! Tied into this reasoning is their interpretation of the ‘last days.’ They are the days (in their view) that lead up to the termination of the Mosaic order in AD 70.
Nice try, jgr!
Make me out to be a scholar so Matthew 11:25 applies to me. But as I left school at age 15, after failing the school certificate exam and having never attended Bible College or any other higher education, I am one of the simple and unlearned.
My knowledge comes from extensive reading, incl the ECF's, but mainly intensive study of all the Bible over all my life, esp the last 15 years from the time I lived in the holy Land.
I write about what the Prophets said. How can anyone deny their plainly stated Words?
Thanks for the good poll response, and the many posts.I would now like to explain why I had 2 votes to the poll question, when did the Old Covenant COMPLETELY end?
My reason for these 2 responses is to rebut a wrong idea that the AD 70 event ended the Old Covenant. Hard core Preterists say the Old Covenant ended in AD 70, and moderate Partial Preterists suggest a gradual closing of the O.C. over 40 years following the Cross. Both groups speak of this period as the ‘last days’ and, in so doing, muddle the biblical understanding of ‘last days’ references to the events preceding Jesus’ (yet future) return.
- When Jesus said, “It is finished” and the temple curtain torn down (and)
- Over the full 7 years of the seventieth week, including the last half.
The prophet Daniel tell us with absolute precision when the Old Covenant would end! “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city …” (Daniel 9:24) He didn’t say 69 weeks; he didn’t say 69½ weeks; he said 70 weeks. That’s 490 years. So, the Old Covenant fully ended in AD 34, including the last half of the 70th week. (See diagram post #1)
The reason why most of us said it finished at the ‘temple curtain’ is because 4 of the 6 promises of Daniel were fulfilled at that grand climax – transgression finished; our sins taken away; reconciliation to God; Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. However, the last 2 clauses were fulfilled gradually over the seventieth week including the last 3½ years.
And the fact that animal sacrifice persisted until the temple’s destruction does not infer a transition between the Old and New Covenants! All it shows was the defiance of those who rejected Messiah. Daniel 9:27 describes it as an “overspreading abomination,” so we should not use the Jews disobedience as an argument to support our wish to magnify the significance of AD 70. (Im speaking to part prets)
More tomorrow after a sleep.
Right. That was the Council at Jerusalem. From church history, that was held around 50 AD (20ish years after the Cross). I love what Andy Stanley says about the decision - that these mandates are all about unity between the Jewish and Gentile converts - so they could "break bread together". I don't know if you've had any personal aversions to food - but maybe you're a cat or dog lover - just imagine how you'd feel being invited to a friend's home and find out the main course is an animal you'd have as a pet. I imagine it was similar for the Jews to get past their mind obstacles of what was clean vs unclean food. These decided mandates were all related to idolatry - something difficult for both Jews and Gentiles to remain distanced from in the early church era.The early church was Jewish. Part of the church wanted Gentile coverts circumcised and taught to observe the laws of Moses. Paul circumcised Timothy as Paul was teaching the Gospel in synagogues and wanted to be included by the Jews. At some point Paul decided Gentiles should not be made to obey the entire Jewish law. He took his ideas to the apostles. Peter and the apostles decided the Gentiles should not be made to obey the entire law, however they should abstain from fornication, should remember to help the poor, and something like not eat blood or sacrifice to idols (Acts 15). Roman law was against theft and murder. That was already in the Gentile's system
I'm quite sure God opened the minds of the disciples and the minds of the early church. That's why I value the interpretations from them over those who make claims contrary to early church teaching.... saying things like "the Bible simply says......".Quite sure He has opened your mind, are you?
When did the Old Covenant COMPLETELY end?
In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul seems to advise against eating the meat of animals sacrificed in the temple of an idol. They may have been trying to boycott these temples of false religion.Right. That was the Council at Jerusalem. From church history, that was held around 50 AD (20ish years after the Cross). I love what Andy Stanley says about the decision - that these mandates are all about unity between the Jewish and Gentile converts - so they could "break bread together". I don't know if you've had any personal aversions to food - but maybe you're a cat or dog lover - just imagine how you'd feel being invited to a friend's home and find out the main course is an animal you'd have as a pet. I imagine it was similar for the Jews to get past their mind obstacles of what was clean vs unclean food. These decided mandates were all related to idolatry - something difficult for both Jews and Gentiles to remain distanced from in the early church era.
Thanks for the good poll response, and the many posts.I would now like to explain why I had 2 votes to the poll question, when did the Old Covenant COMPLETELY end?
My reason for these 2 responses is to rebut a wrong idea that the AD 70 event ended the Old Covenant. Hard core Preterists say the Old Covenant ended in AD 70, and moderate Partial Preterists suggest a gradual closing of the O.C. over 40 years following the Cross. Both groups speak of this period as the ‘last days’ and, in so doing, muddle the biblical understanding of ‘last days’ references to the events preceding Jesus’ (yet future) return.
- When Jesus said, “It is finished” and the temple curtain torn down (and)
- Over the full 7 years of the seventieth week, including the last half.
The prophet Daniel tell us with absolute precision when the Old Covenant would end! “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city …” (Daniel 9:24) He didn’t say 69 weeks; he didn’t say 69½ weeks; he said 70 weeks. That’s 490 years. So, the Old Covenant fully ended in AD 34, including the last half of the 70th week. (See diagram post #1)
The reason why most of us said it finished at the ‘temple curtain’ is because 4 of the 6 promises of Daniel were fulfilled at that grand climax – transgression finished; our sins taken away; reconciliation to God; Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. However, the last 2 clauses were fulfilled gradually over the seventieth week including the last 3½ years.
And the fact that animal sacrifice persisted until the temple’s destruction does not infer a transition between the Old and New Covenants! All it shows was the defiance of those who rejected Messiah. Daniel 9:27 describes it as an “overspreading abomination,” so we should not use the Jews disobedience as an argument to support our wish to magnify the significance of AD 70. (Im speaking to part prets)
More tomorrow after a sleep.
The reason why most of us said the Old Covenant finished at the ‘temple curtain’ is because 4 of the 6 promises of Daniel were fulfilled at that grand climax – transgression finished; our sins taken away; reconciliation to God; Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. However, the last 2 clauses were fulfilled gradually over the seventieth week including the last 3½ years.
Here are the 6 clauses as Daniel said it:
“Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city,
Let’s look at #5 today, and #6 tomorrow.
- to finish the transgression,
- make an end of sins,
- to make reconciliation for iniquity,
- to bring in everlasting righteousness,
- to seal up vision and prophecy,
- and to anoint the Most Holy.”
To ‘seal up vision and prophecy’ is speaking of the authentication and completion of Messiah’s ministry. This is not meant to infer that prophecy (per se) has ended, or that nothing of future events can be anticipated in the sense that a Preterist might understand it. But ‘vision and prophecy’, in the context given, relates to the messianic purpose which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and sealed when the times in question – the 70 weeks - were completed.
A notable case is found in Joel 2:28:29.
“And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.”
This prophecy came to pass at the Jewish Pentecost, 50 days after the Cross and again 3½ years later at the Gentile Pentecost. (See diagram post #32)
Now, the point that I am trying to make, is that the New Covenant was confirmed over a period of 7 years! That is how long it took to complete! Sure, we must highlight the ‘torn curtain’, and we do.But without a precision counting of Daniel’s prophecy and its full significance, curly objections get put forward. Futurists ask, “What about the last 3½ years? why didn’t something of interest happen at the end of it? Preterists argue, “The temple was in operation until AD 70, so that must be when the O.C. ended”
That is why I ticked 3 answers in the poll.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?