Changing your mind about prophecy

[nolidad]

Since Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, appear to be invisible to you, your are requesting something which you refuse to see.


However, the rest of understand why you refuse to see it.
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant, the Two Peoples of God doctrine falls apart.



.

Once again creating a straw man and beating that instead of simply answering the question asked of you.

And then you go back to that smelly old red herring because you would rather obfuscate than simply and easily answer the oft repeated question.

YOu say teh New covenant is now fulfilled.

So here is the covenant once again:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Instead of tap dancing better than Gene Kelley and Fred Astaire, simply show when God fulfilled:

ful·fill
/fo͝olˈfil/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted).

Not pay teh price (His blood) which allows the covenant to go into effect, nor mediate teh covenant which He is now doing which means teh covenant is not fulfilled but being mediated.

If you would do that instead of your dance, we could close this thread and move on to other areas we disagree

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Hey nolidad. Thanks for your time discussing these things, but I'm tired of it. We're both just saying the same things over and over and over again. Let's just agree to disagree at this point. I'm not interested in repeating myself yet again. I have nothing to add to what I've already said.

 

[BABerean2]

Once again creating a straw man and beating that instead of simply answering the question asked of you.

And then you go back to that smelly old red herring because you would rather obfuscate than simply and easily answer the oft repeated question.

YOu say teh New covenant is now fulfilled.

So here is the covenant once again:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Instead of tap dancing better than Gene Kelley and Fred Astaire, simply show when God fulfilled:

ful·fill
/fo͝olˈfil/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted).

Not pay teh price (His blood) which allows the covenant to go into effect, nor mediate teh covenant which He is now doing which means teh covenant is not fulfilled but being mediated.

If you would do that instead of your dance, we could close this thread and move on to other areas we disagree

I did not say Jeremiah 31:31-34 is fulfilled. That was done by the author of the Book of Hebrews who quoted that text word-for-word in Hebrews 8:6-13, and quoted part of that text in Hebrews 10:16-18, along with the word "now".

What does the word "now" mean in your dictionary?

Everyone reading our conversation on this forum can see who is creating the "straw man" in an attempt to make their doctrine work.



.

 

[DavidPT]

Can you show me where in Daniel 9:24-27 that it even remotely indicates that there would be any gap within the 70 weeks at any point?

This is easily shown if the interpretation that it involves no gaps is supposed to be correct.

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.

Would anyone argue that some of this is meaning outside of the first 69 weeks?

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.

If no one would argue that Daniel 9:25 is involving anything outside of the first 69 weeks, why would that same person then argue in a different manner concerning verse 27?

And there is still verse 26 to consider.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and 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 unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself--this part fits with the first 69 weeks.

and 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 unto the end of the war desolations are determined---this part fits with the remaining week.

How can we know this about verse 26? Per the first 69 weeks, meaning verse 25, there is not a single mention of desolations, and neither is there in this portion of verse 26---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.

Per the 70th week, meaning verse 27, there is a mention of desolations, and so is there in this portion of verse 26 as well---and 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 unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Not to mention, the last subject mentioned in verse 26 is not Messiah, but is the prince that shall come. The prince that shall come has to be the one meant in verse 27. Something else I would like to point out, which doesn't necessarily prove anything, yet is very interesting---apparently the translators didn't take the prince to come to be meaning the Messiah either. How can we tell? In verse 25 they bothered to capitalize Prince. In verse 26 they didn't. That seems odd if they took the prince to come to be meaning the same Prince in verse 25, where it's plainly obvious that they took that Prince to be meaning Christ.

I submitted all of this to show that verse 27 only involves the 70th week, though I fully realize you likely won't find any of this convincing. For the sake of argument though, let's assume that you agreed with my analysis above. The fact there is this in verse 27---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---and assuming there are supposed to be no gaps in the 70 weeks, and assuming verse 27 only has the 70th week in view, and the fact it would be silly to apply the latter half of verse 27 to within 3.5 years of Christ's death, thus no one would do that, therefore they would have to apply the latter half of that verse to a later period in time, how would that not equal a gap in the 70 weeks, the fact this would place a gap in the middle of the 70th week?

Believe it or not, agree or not, it is impossible to interpret the 70 weeks correctly without it involving a gap somewhere, the fact verse 27 is only meaning the 70th week, and not anything outside of the 70th week. Even with the gap a position like yours causes, everything recorded in verse 27 would still be taking place in the 70th week, the fact, during any gap it would not be meaning during any of the 70 weeks themselves.

An example. A person goes before a judge and is sentenced to 8 days in jail. Except this person doesn't have to do 8 days in a row, he has to spend 2 days each weekend for a month straight. Obviously, when he is not in jail none of that is being applied to his 8 day sentence. The same would be true if there is a gap somewhere in the 70 weeks.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This is easily shown if the interpretation that it involves no gaps is supposed to be correct.

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.

Would anyone argue that some of this is meaning outside of the first 69 weeks?

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.

If no one would argue that Daniel 9:25 is involving anything outside of the first 69 weeks, why would that same person then argue in a different manner concerning verse 27?

And there is still verse 26 to consider.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and 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 unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself--this part fits with the first 69 weeks.

and 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 unto the end of the war desolations are determined---this part fits with the remaining week.

How can we know this about verse 26? Per the first 69 weeks, meaning verse 25, there is not a single mention of desolations, and neither is there in this portion of verse 26---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.

Per the 70th week, meaning verse 27, there is a mention of desolations, and so is there in this portion of verse 26 as well---and 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 unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Not to mention, the last subject mentioned in verse 26 is not Messiah, but is the prince that shall come. The prince that shall come has to be the one meant in verse 27. Something else I would like to point out, which doesn't necessarily prove anything, yet is very interesting---apparently the translators didn't take the prince to come to be meaning the Messiah either. How can we tell? In verse 25 they bothered to capitalize Prince. In verse 26 they didn't. That seems odd if they took the prince to come to be meaning the same Prince in verse 25, where it's plainly obvious that they took that Prince to be meaning Christ.

I submitted all of this to show that verse 27 only involves the 70th week, though I fully realize you likely won't find any of this convincing. For the sake of argument though, let's assume that you agreed with my analysis above. The fact there is this in verse 27---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---and assuming there are supposed to be no gaps in the 70 weeks, and assuming verse 27 only has the 70th week in view, and the fact it would be silly to apply the latter half of verse 27 to within 3.5 years of Christ's death, thus no one would do that, therefore they would have to apply the latter half of that verse to a later period in time, how would that not equal a gap in the 70 weeks, the fact this would place a gap in the middle of the 70th week?

Believe it or not, agree or not, it is impossible to interpret the 70 weeks correctly without it involving a gap somewhere, the fact verse 27 is only meaning the 70th week, and not anything outside of the 70th week. Even with the gap a position like yours causes, everything recorded in verse 27 would still be taking place in the 70th week, the fact, during any gap it would not be meaning during any of the 70 weeks themselves.

An example. A person goes before a judge and is sentenced to 8 days in jail. Except this person doesn't have to do 8 days in a row, he has to spend 2 days each weekend for a month straight. Obviously, when he is not in jail none of that is being applied to his 8 day sentence. The same would be true if there is a gap somewhere in the 70 weeks.

Sorry, David, but I could not follow what you're saying here. It doesn't make any sense to me. So, I stand by what I said before in post #330.

 

[jgr]

Not to mention, the last subject mentioned in verse 26 is not Messiah, but is the prince that shall come. The prince that shall come has to be the one meant in verse 27. Something else I would like to point out, which doesn't necessarily prove anything, yet is very interesting---apparently the translators didn't take the prince to come to be meaning the Messiah either. How can we tell? In verse 25 they bothered to capitalize Prince. In verse 26 they didn't. That seems odd if they took the prince to come to be meaning the same Prince in verse 25, where it's plainly obvious that they took that Prince to be meaning Christ.

Original KJV 1611 Version

Daniel 9

25Know therefore and vnderstand, that from the going foorth of the commandement to restore and to build Ierusalem, vnto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seuen weekes; and threescore and two weekes, the street shall be built againe, and the wall, euen in troublous times.

26And after threescore and two weekes, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himselfe, and the people of the Prince that shall come, shall destroy the citie, and the Sanctuarie, and the ende thereof shall be with a flood, and vnto the ende of the warre desolations are determined.

Young's Literal Translation

Daniel 9

25 And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader [is] seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks: the broad place hath been built again, and the rampart, even in the distress of the times.

26 And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations.

 

[BABerean2]

This is easily shown if the interpretation that it involves no gaps is supposed to be correct.

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.

Would anyone argue that some of this is meaning outside of the first 69 weeks?

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.

If no one would argue that Daniel 9:25 is involving anything outside of the first 69 weeks, why would that same person then argue in a different manner concerning verse 27?

And there is still verse 26 to consider.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and 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 unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself--this part fits with the first 69 weeks.

and 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 unto the end of the war desolations are determined---this part fits with the remaining week.

How can we know this about verse 26? Per the first 69 weeks, meaning verse 25, there is not a single mention of desolations, and neither is there in this portion of verse 26---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.

Per the 70th week, meaning verse 27, there is a mention of desolations, and so is there in this portion of verse 26 as well---and 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 unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Not to mention, the last subject mentioned in verse 26 is not Messiah, but is the prince that shall come. The prince that shall come has to be the one meant in verse 27. Something else I would like to point out, which doesn't necessarily prove anything, yet is very interesting---apparently the translators didn't take the prince to come to be meaning the Messiah either. How can we tell? In verse 25 they bothered to capitalize Prince. In verse 26 they didn't. That seems odd if they took the prince to come to be meaning the same Prince in verse 25, where it's plainly obvious that they took that Prince to be meaning Christ.

I submitted all of this to show that verse 27 only involves the 70th week, though I fully realize you likely won't find any of this convincing. For the sake of argument though, let's assume that you agreed with my analysis above. The fact there is this in verse 27---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---and assuming there are supposed to be no gaps in the 70 weeks, and assuming verse 27 only has the 70th week in view, and the fact it would be silly to apply the latter half of verse 27 to within 3.5 years of Christ's death, thus no one would do that, therefore they would have to apply the latter half of that verse to a later period in time, how would that not equal a gap in the 70 weeks, the fact this would place a gap in the middle of the 70th week?

Believe it or not, agree or not, it is impossible to interpret the 70 weeks correctly without it involving a gap somewhere, the fact verse 27 is only meaning the 70th week, and not anything outside of the 70th week. Even with the gap a position like yours causes, everything recorded in verse 27 would still be taking place in the 70th week, the fact, during any gap it would not be meaning during any of the 70 weeks themselves.

An example. A person goes before a judge and is sentenced to 8 days in jail. Except this person doesn't have to do 8 days in a row, he has to spend 2 days each weekend for a month straight. Obviously, when he is not in jail none of that is being applied to his 8 day sentence. The same would be true if there is a gap somewhere in the 70 weeks.

You are completely ignoring the fact that Christ was "cut off" to fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, as proven by the verse below.


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.


Do you think the angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel to give the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then the angel failed to even mention the New Covenant?

Or, is the covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28?

.

 

[DavidPT]

Sorry, David, but I could not follow what you're saying here. It doesn't make any sense to me. So, I stand by what I said before in post #330.

If you could only grasp that verse 27 is the 70th week, meaning every single thing mentioned in that verse, you would then be able to see, that if you have Christ fulfilling the midst of the 70th week, there would have to be a gap in that week in order to fulfill the remainder of that week, since no one with good sense would be applying the part about abominations to that of anything within 3.5 years of Christ's death, thus a gap after the middle of the week.

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.


The following is how I think the verse should basically be understood.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week during the 70th week: and in the midst of the 70th week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate for 3.5 years, the remainder of the 70th week, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

If Christ is meant per this part---and in the midst of the 70th week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease---a gap is required before we get to this part---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate for 3.5 years, the remainder of the 70th week, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

It is impossible to correctly interpret the 70 weeks without it involving a gap somewhere. Either there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week, like some of us conclude, or there is a gap bewteen the first half and 2nd half of the 70th week. There is no way of getting around this unless one is twisting verse 27 to make it appear it works with their position, by wrongly insisting some of verse 27 is meaning outside of the 70th week. But what if it isn't? How could I possibly be incorrect in that case?

 

[DavidPT]

You are completely ignoring the fact that Christ was "cut off" to fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, as proven by the verse below.


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.


Do you think the angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel to give the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then the angel failed to even mention the New Covenant?

Or, is the covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28?

.

What you are completely ignoring is that there are 2 comings. Some of Daniel 9:24 has already been fulfilled at the first coming, such as what you submitted here, so you are wrong to claim I'm completely ignoring what you claimed I was completely ignoring. The remainder is fulfilled at the 2nd coming, such as bringing in everlasting righteousness, such as sealing up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

The last thing mentioned is anointing the most Holy, yet a lot of you have that already happening, per your interpretations, before you even have Christ dying on the cross, per your interpretations.

Some of you appear, per your interpretations, to have everything listed in Daniel 9:24 as entirely fulfilled within 69 and 1/2 weeks, thus ignoring the fact the text indicates 70 weeks are determined, not 69 and 1/2 weeks are determined in order to fulfill every single thing mentioned in this verse. You would think something mentioned in verse 24 is not fulfilled until a full 70 weeks has occurred first.

 

[DavidPT]

....

 

[Spiritual Jew]

What you are completely ignoring is that there are 2 comings. Some of Daniel 9:24 has already been fulfilled at the first coming, such as what you submitted here, so you are wrong to claim I'm completely ignoring what you claimed I was completely ignoring. The remainder is fulfilled at the 2nd coming, such as bringing in everlasting righteousness, such as sealing up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

The last thing mentioned is anointing the most Holy, yet a lot of you have that already happening, per your interpretations, before you even have Christ dying on the cross, per your interpretations.

Some of you appear, per your interpretations, to have everything listed in Daniel 9:24 as entirely fulfilled within 69 and 1/2 weeks, thus ignoring the fact the text indicates 70 weeks are determined, not 69 and 1/2 weeks are determined in order to fulfill every single thing mentioned in this verse. You would think something mentioned in verse 24 is not fulfilled until a full 70 weeks has occurred first.

Why does that have to be the case? You're always creating your own rules for how scripture has to be interpreted. It only says those things would have to be fulfilled within that time period. It doesn't say any of those things have to be fulfilled up to the very end of that time period.

The only thing that I believe gets fulfilled at the end of the 70th week is the confirming of the covenant, which I believe is the new covenant. I believe Christ was cut off (died) and caused the animal sacrifices and offerings to cease having any meaning in the middle of the 70th week. The new covenant was then confirmed throughout Israel through the preaching of the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit in the rest of the 70th week.

Can you tell me what, if any, of the six things listed in Daniel 9:24 you believe are already fulfilled? You indicated that you at least don't believe bringing in everlasting righteousness, sealing up the vision and prophecy, and anointing the most Holy are yet fulfilled.

Here is my understanding of the fulfillment of the things listed in Daniel 9:24. Please tell me what you disagree with from this:

Fulfillment of Daniel 9:24

1. To Finish Transgression

Isaiah 53 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Hebrews 9:15 "That is why he is the one who mediates the new covenant between God and people, so that all who are invited can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant."

John 4:34 "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

Romans 4:15 "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace".

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

2. To Put an End to Sin

Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

1 John 3:5 "And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not"

2 Cor 5:21 "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Hebrews 10 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

3. To Make Reconciliation for Iniquity

Hebrews 2:17 "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."

2 Corin 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them"


4. To Bring In Everlasting Righteousness

Matthew 3:15 "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."

Romans 5:21 "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


5. To Seal Up the Vision and Prophecy

Luke 18:31 "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished."

Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Matt 26:56 "But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."


6. To Anoint The Most Holy

Acts 10:38 "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."

Acts 4:27 "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed"

Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel"

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you could only grasp that verse 27 is the 70th week, meaning every single thing mentioned in that verse, you would then be able to see, that if you have Christ fulfilling the midst of the 70th week, there would have to be a gap in that week in order to fulfill the remainder of that week, since no one with good sense would be applying the part about abominations to that of anything within 3.5 years of Christ's death, thus a gap after the middle of the week.

Why do I have to follow your rules for interpreting verse 27? I don't. I see no reason why every single thing mentioned in verse 27 has to be fulfilled within the 70th week. I already explained to you how I understand it in post #330, so please go back and read that post and then address what I said there.

The following is how I think the verse should basically be understood.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week during the 70th week: and in the midst of the 70th week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate for 3.5 years, the remainder of the 70th week, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Why would it have to be made desolate for only 3.5 years? That temple was made spiritually desolate by Christ almost 2,000 years ago (Matt 23:37-38) and has been physically desolate since 70 AD.

If Christ is meant per this part---and in the midst of the 70th week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease---a gap is required before we get to this part---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate for 3.5 years, the remainder of the 70th week, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Not a gap in the 70th week, though. That is just talking about the eventual end result of what Christ did during the 70th week, which is that the city and the temple standing back then were destroyed in 70 AD. But, in a spiritual sense, Christ already made the temple desolate with His death and resurrection and that is what happened during the 70th week.

It is impossible to correctly interpret the 70 weeks without it involving a gap somewhere.

Wrong.

Either there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week, like some of us conclude, or there is a gap bewteen the first half and 2nd half of the 70th week.

Wrong. That's only if you assume everything written in there has to happen during the 70th week, which I believe is a baseless claim.

There is no way of getting around this unless one is twisting verse 27 to make it appear it works with their position, by wrongly insisting some of verse 27 is meaning outside of the 70th week. But what if it isn't? How could I possibly be incorrect in that case?

Because it simply makes no sense whatsoever to think that the first 486.5 years of the prophecy was consecutive and then the last 3.5 years happens thousands of years later.

 

[BABerean2]

The last thing mentioned is anointing the most Holy, yet a lot of you have that already happening, per your interpretations, before you even have Christ dying on the cross, per your interpretations.

It was Luke who recorded the verse below, instead of me.

Act 10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.


.

 

[nolidad]

I did not say Jeremiah 31:31-34 is fulfilled. That was done by the author of the Book of Hebrews who quoted that text word-for-word in Hebrews 8:6-13, and quoted part of that text in Hebrews 10:16-18, along with the word "now".

What does the word "now" mean in your dictionary?

Everyone reading our conversation on this forum can see who is creating the "straw man" in an attempt to make their doctrine work.



.

Hebrews 8:6-13
King James Version

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Hebrews 10:16-18
King James Version

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.



10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

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.

Hebrews 10:16-18
King James Version

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

I knoe I am a little thick and slow, so can you point out the verse that says teh new covenant is fulfilled?

Once again fulfilled means the terms are full met and completed.

Well you should look up the word now here. It is not a description of time (like right now) but a conjunction which connects verse 18 to 17 in Hebrews 10 and connects verse 13b to verse 13a in Hebrews 8!

now

conjunction
Definition of now (Entry 2 of 5)

: in view of the fact that : SINCE —often followed by thatnow that we are here

It can be just as correctly translates as "so" or "since". If it was a noun I would agree with you but it isn't so your conjecture is ioncorrect.

But anyway- as you still demand that teh New Covenant is fulfilled (now you are just accusing the writers of scripture) please answer this question you keep on dodging!

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

1. when were those days so that God performed His promises "after those days."

2. God says HE WILL put His laws in all the house of Israel and Judah! WHEN did this happen!

3. God says they SHALL no more teach- for every one SHALL know th eLord in Israel, from teh least to the greatest! When did this happen.

If yu would simply answer the question and simply show the fulfilment you say happened, we would be done! But instead you do your dance all around the issue and do not answer the when. If He fulfilled the New Covenant as spelled out in Jeremiah 31 as you say He has, you should be able to point to a time when these things happened to fulfill the terms of the Covenant!

 

[DavidPT]

It was Luke who recorded the verse below, instead of me.

Act 10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.


.

How do you even know for 100% certain the most Holy is meaning a person rather than a place?

Exodus 26:33 And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.
34 And thou shalt put the mercy seat upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place.

What does it mean in this random passage?

Ezekiel 41:4 So he measured the length thereof, twenty cubits; and the breadth, twenty cubits, before the temple: and he said unto me, This is the most holy place.

What does it mean in this random verse?

Can you perhaps submit a passage from either the OT or NT, where the exact phrase 'most holy' is used, and that it is meaning a person? Not including Daniel 9:24, since we are trying to determine, based on other Scriptures, whether or not the exact phrase 'most holy' can sometimes mean a person.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

How do you even know for 100% certain the most Holy is meaning a person rather than a place?

Exodus 26:33 And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.
34 And thou shalt put the mercy seat upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place.

What does it mean in this random passage?

Ezekiel 41:4 So he measured the length thereof, twenty cubits; and the breadth, twenty cubits, before the temple: and he said unto me, This is the most holy place.

What does it mean in this random verse?

Can you perhaps submit a passage from either the OT or NT, where the exact phrase 'most holy' is used, and that it is meaning a person? Not including Daniel 9:24, since we are trying to determine, based on other Scriptures, whether or not the exact phrase 'most holy' can sometimes mean a person.

Even it it said "most holy place", implying a temple, instead of just "most holy", implying a person, that can still apply to Jesus.

John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

 

[BABerean2]

How do you even know for 100% certain the most Holy is meaning a person rather than a place?

Exodus 26:33 And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.
34 And thou shalt put the mercy seat upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place.

What does it mean in this random passage?

Ezekiel 41:4 So he measured the length thereof, twenty cubits; and the breadth, twenty cubits, before the temple: and he said unto me, This is the most holy place.

What does it mean in this random verse?

Can you perhaps submit a passage from either the OT or NT, where the exact phrase 'most holy' is used, and that it is meaning a person? Not including Daniel 9:24, since we are trying to determine, based on other Scriptures, whether or not the exact phrase 'most holy' can sometimes mean a person.

Do you understand the difference between the Old Covenant temple, and the New Covenant temple.

The building where my church body meets does not become a church until a Spirit filled believer walks into it.

Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Joh 2:20 Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"
Joh 2:21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
Joh 2:22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.


See also the temple in 1 Peter 2:4-10.

.

 

[BABerean2]

1. when were those days so that God performed His promises "after those days."

2. God says HE WILL put His laws in all the house of Israel and Judah! WHEN did this happen!

3. God says they SHALL no more teach- for every one SHALL know th eLord in Israel, from teh least to the greatest! When did this happen.

If yu would simply answer the question and simply show the fulfilment you say happened, we would be done! But instead you do your dance all around the issue and do not answer the when. If He fulfilled the New Covenant as spelled out in Jeremiah 31 as you say He has, you should be able to point to a time when these things happened to fulfill the terms of the Covenant!

1.

Joh 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

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.


2.

Act 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
Act 2:40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation."
Act 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.


3.

Joh 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.


.

 

[GooFYone]

Ahh glad to know. Hey, did you know water is wet?

You’d be surprised.

 

[Ki Won]

Well being complimented for being entertaining is a surprise.

You think God's Word is fiction? Point to my post that does not come from God's Word. At least I do not use God's Word as a battering ram, or at least have not been accused of that yet. Do I put it in modern terms? Maybe; I have set in front of too many movies and it colors the way my post come out. Who knows? I am not a Pastor nor a college professor. Are some posters here such people? This forum is not a college classroom. It is an exchange of ideas between a wide variety of humanity. You get what is here, not what you think an online forum should be.

It's not God's Word that's the fiction, it's the colourful interpretations both you and Doug apply to it that's the fiction. You should both write novels, you've shown a natural ability to create unusual storylines..

The word Parousia doesn't just mean arrival but also presence, so for pre wrath, we don't see the second coming as a single, 1 day event, but rather a series of events, that begins with the rapture and lasts into eternity, it's all the "second coming". Pre trib and post trib both see the second coming as a single 24 hour (or less) period, being literal about "the day of the Lord" being 1 single day. Post trib sees that as a single day at the end of "the tribulations" which they call all the wrath of God events "tribulations" instead of the wrath of God, while pre trib sees the rapture as being a separate event from the second coming, but still sees the second coming as being Jesus coming on a white horse in Revelation 19. Pre wrath views it as there are 2 events of Jesus coming down to earth (one in the clouds, and one on a horse, one to harvest the earth, one to come back with His armies to fight Armageddon and claim His kingdom). It's just that all of that is "the second coming"
The reasons are because we separate the wrath of God and tribulations into being 2 different things, and are not literal about the "day of the Lord" being a single 1 24 hour period but rather "the day" is a figure of speech like when you say "the day is at hand" or "the hour is nigh" it doesn't necessarily mean an actual chronological day or hour, but just that this is the time being referred to where these things will happen. The 5th trumpet judgement is shown to last 5 months all by itself. We also look at things like Isaiah 34:8

Where a day and a year are used interchangeably

The second thing is on imminence. Pretrib think the rapture is imminent, it can happen at any time with no conditions to be met. Post trib and pre wrath, view that there are conditions that have to be met. 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 24 explain things that happen before the second coming of Christ, to those two groups, the rapture CANNOT happen until these conditions are met, and yet no man knows the day or the hour, that means, after those conditions are met, it doesn't make the rapture happen right after that last event happens. With a post trib position, you could actually calculate the day if you know what day to start from. When the abomination of desolation happens, you'd say "the rapture will happen 1290 days from now, mark your calendars!", so for post trib, the rapture isn't ever "imminent" they know when it will happen. Which does not fit how Jesus talked about it.
With pre wrath, we know the last specific event that will happen prior to Christ's return is the Abomination of Desolation, after that, while the beast is given 42 months and the Great Tribulations begin, we also know that Jesus said those days (the Great Tribulation) will be cut short so that some of us will survive. He was not specific about how those days would be cut short, but to us... it means that yeah, we can have conditions that need to be fulfilled, but once those conditions are fulfilled.. it could be any day within a 42 month window. It be comes an imminent event at the Abomination of desolation because the prophetic conditions have been met, and Jesus is going to cut the tribulations short. So at that point we look up for our redemption draws near.

I don't fall into any of your stereotypes. I believe a pre-wrath (after the sixth seal) "rapture" but I also believe that that coincides with the return of Christ to earth with power and great glory. I also don't believe x, y or z must happen for the rapture to happen. We're told the beast has 42 months so from the beast climbing out of the sea we have 42 months to endure before Christ returns, anything else that "must happen" will happen anyway during those 42 months.

One thing I believe you should think about is why there would be a huge gap between the first 69 1/2 weeks and the last half week? I believe that does not make any sense. There is certainly nothing within the prophecy itself to suggest that the 70 weeks would not be consecutive.

Agreed. I don't know is the answer or even if there should be one. My premise comes from attempting to reconcile the 42 months we know the beast is given with the rest of the Word. Like I have said, my position has changed largely due to the quite compelling arguments that Christ fulfilled the 70th week found in this forum but like others have said, I can't see how the Gospel being shared with first the Jews and then the gentiles fulfils the second half of the week. Give me some time to research the position further, it's likely to change several times before I settle on what I believe to be true.

I agree! Interesting enough it was actually a Christian forum that caused me to question my beliefs. I had joined one years ago, can't remember the name but I saw where someone had said the rapture was false and it really jarred me because I had been going through life secure with that belief because I had trusted what I had been taught sitting in a church pew all those years ago, along with my family teaching me. I never questioned it.
And it was because, even though I had called myself a Christian I had never read the Bible in it's entirety, never studied to show myself approved. This was on me. And that's when I made a change at that point in my life about really getting into his Word. Thank God for his patience. And no offense to many churches out there if you are getting fed properly but what does one or two verses leading into a "personal" written sermon get you in a lifetime? I learned more in the first five months of my own bible study than I did in the "years" of sitting in a church pew -again, no offense. But we have to be able to back up our beliefs in the Bible.

Thanks Julie. We should always be prepared to alter our erroneous beliefs when presented with compelling evidence that our position is a false one, a truly open mind will always accept correction. Digging your heels in, like so many are want to do on this forum, is likely to lead to dissension and should be avoided.

Pornography, including child pornography, is available at the click of a button

To be fair SJ, you only need to watch the ad breaks to view pornography..

so then why are you bothering trying ot teach me???? Why are you disobeying teh Scripture you allege to believe in? I don't need you to teach me, the Holy Spirit does, and He taught me what I believe!!! See I can play that juvenile game as well.

So now let us make some conclusions based on your declarations.

1. The office of Pastor teacher is no longer valid and Paul was wrong in Ephesians our when He said God gave teachers to the church.

2. Once again the actual written New Coenant:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more


SEEING AS YOU REFUSE TO SHOW WHEN TH ETERMS OF THE NEW COVENANT WERE FULFILLED, BUT JUST DEMAND THEY WERE FULFILLED THEN THE FOLLOWING MUST BE TRUE AS WELL:

1. As far as I can tell from teh spiritual tap dance you do to avoid simply ansering the question I have repeatedly asked over three threads now:

2. As you have emphatically declared the New Covenant as spelled out in Jeremiah 31 has been fuflfilled by Jesus.

Then:

A) Those days were when Jesus was alive . So that after those days must be after He died and rose.
B) All Israelis have had god write His laws in their inward parts- GOD said HE WILL do that.
C) Every Israeli knows teh Lord for God sais they ALL SHALL know Him, form the least to the greatest.

I remember once you falsely accused me of believing that every single Jew that lived was saved.

Seeing as you refuse to give specific answers to my questions- One can only logically conclude based on the terms of the New Covenant that it is you , that since the death of Jesus every Jew knows the Lord (saved) and we don't have to bother to tell them anything spiritual for they know it all already.

What concerns me Nolidad is that you're a pastor.. You have a flock, a congregation, who look to you for instruction from the Word and you don't even know or properly understand it yourself, how then can you teach others?

Nothing I am saying lines up with any of your understanding - and it shouldn't.

Couldn't agree more. Couldn't have said it better myself. Straight from the horse's mouth. Etc, etc..