The Ten Horns from a Preterist view point.

[LittleLambofJesus]

GW: I am a partial pret, and I get that you see a direct link between Revelation and Daniel.

Hi. Don't partial preterists put a 2000 yr gap in Matt 24/Olivet Discourse somewhere? At least that is what I think I heard.

http://www.preteristsite.com/

Welcome to the PreteristSite! So exactly what is all this for? The purpose of this page is to list references and sources for orthodox preterist study and research. Over the past several years, I got really tired of often having to send people to heretically-based sites (which unfortunately dominate this subject on the Internet) for certain useful articles, so I decided to compile a list of alternate locations for these works. What do I mean by "heretical"?

There is a relatively recent wind of false doctrine that goes by the name of "full preterism" or attempts to co-opt the word "preterism" which teaches that ALL eschatological prophecy has come to pass, including the resurrection, the Great White Throne Judgment, the destruction of satan, and the Second Coming of Christ. This is outside the historic Christian faith, and in my view, is the making of another "Christian" cult (in the theological sense, not the brainwashing or sociological sense). Although this site is intended to be more of a referral site to other resources, I do host selected articles onsite as well.

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenend.html
Cyber-Commentary on Matthew 24

 

[Nilloc]

To summarize the Diadochi, Daniel 8:8-9 specifically mentions the dividing of Alexander's empire into four parts (Macedonia, Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor)---and then Little Horn Antiochus Epiphanies comes from these divisions (8:9). We learn that Antiochus Epiphanies arises out of these four divisions towards the end of their period (8:21-24). Chapter 11 picks up on the same history of these four divisions of Alexander's kingdom (11:3-7) and zeros in on the rival between the North kings (Syria's Seleucid line) and the South kings (Egypt's Ptolemy line) (11:11-20). As Daniel shows, these are the many kings who arise in succession to each other and battle it out as the fourth, divided kingdom. Finally, from this line of horns comes the Little Horn who profanes Israel and the Temple (11:31-35).

I will take a closer look at the Diadochi (hopefully) in the near future, but, if I can't, I am taking a class next year on ancient history that will almost certainly cover the Diadochi.

I am a partial pret, and I get that you see a direct link between Revelation and Daniel. I believe the link between Revelation's images and the O.T. is one of *typology.* I believe Jesus' citation of Daniel 11:31 is typological, and I believe Revelation's use of O.T. images and events is typological. I try to interpret Daniel in the light that Daniel himself provides through his parallelisms. Though I used to hold your view, I became convinced that Antiochus' story is tracked and followed from chapters 7 through 12 as a united whole.

Okay. But you do believe that Rome is the Sea Beast in Revelation, right?

God bless you, too, Nilloc. I understand if you don't have time to continue. I don't have much time either.

Thanks for understanding.

You have been very helpful and informative, and I appreciate that.

Thank you. Your posts have been very interesting, and (although I still disagree) I see your view more possible than before.

May God's peace and care be with you during your surgery.

I appreciate your concern GW. I'll be having my wisdom teeth removed, so theres no real danger in the operation itself, but my gums will extermely sore the days following, so I'll probaly try and sleep much of the time.

God Bless.

 

[HarrisonS]

Agreed that the exact dates are yet unknown, and it is agreed that the new covenant was never terminated to the jewish or or other peoples. It is the final and everlasting kingdom of all peoples, nations and languages spoken of in Dan 7:14.

The context of Daniel 7 is political. If you think that “all peoples, nations and languages” are now obeying Christ, think again! They will not do so until they are forced to do so (Psalm 2:8-12).

This brings us to another point, and that being that the futurists rendering of a delayed final week do not fit into the introductory theme of Dan 9:24 where all those things are said to be accomplished within the next 490 yrs.

It is obvious to any rational person that not all of the six items listed in verse 24 have ever beer accomplished. For example, if you think that “everlasting righteousness” has been brought in, I suggest that you pick a copy of the latest newspaper! If you think that the “most holy” has been anointed (the Jews would immediately recognize this as a reference to the temple mount), you must then ask why the Al Aksah Mosque is standing there! All of this is further proof that there has to be a gap between the 69th and 70th “weeks”.

"; those who hope for a second visitiation to the earth seem to deny the importance and the finished work Christ accomplished during his first (and I believe only) physical (in the flesh; humbling himself in the form of a man) visitation to the earth. Thus the verses in first and second John that tell of "the anti-christ" seem to be the verses that speak against a second "in the flesh" coming. In fact in the olivet discourse, his second coming is said to be (or have been) "in the clouds", which may contrast with "in the flesh".

Your statement here is blatantly unbiblical, and could be considered to be cultic if not outrightly heretical. I never would have expected to hear this from anyone who is supposedly an orthodox Christian! A denial of the physical second coming of Christ bodily to the earth is a denial of a cardinal doctrine of orthodox Christianity.
You need to reread Acts 1:9-11 and note that the angel told the disciples that He “shall return in like manner as you have seen Him go into heaven.” The sequel to this passage is found in Zechariah 14:4 where it states “His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives … and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west…” That sounds like physical contact with the earth to me! Also, when did the Mount of Olives ever split in two? This has to be future!

I have heard of the two Messiah ideas but it seems more of a non-believing Jewish/talmudic centered teaching. I also disagree with your assesment and what you've been taught about Isaiah 61. The Isaiah 61 passage which Jesus reads is another perfect example of Hebrew Parallelism. Consider the similarity of the two (or 3) lines color coded together below.

The identity as to who it was that held the two-Messiah doctrine is really irrelevant. My only point is that the OT did not make a clear delineation between the first and second comings and this led to some confusion among the Jews. Your discussion of Isaiah 61 is all well and good; but again, my only point here is simply that some of the items listed in this passage pertain to the first coming of Christ and some to the second; and again they are not separated or distinguished, and as elsewhere, there is no mention of a time interval between the two events.

The phrase “the day of vengeance of out God” was omitted in the Luke 4 reading because it definitely pertains to the second coming (cf. Isaiah 11:4; II Thessalonians 1:7-10). To associate this with any event in the past is simply nonsense.

Although this may remain in debate, Anderson used ptolemy's chronology which the two men below and others say are off by some 80 yrs. Ptolemy was said to be a secular historian which in itself would not be wrong, but that he is claimed to be erroneous in those dates. Thus Andersons work is not such a 'classic' to other persons as some have found faults with not only his system, but other aspects of the work.

The work of Dr. Martin Anstey (The Romance of Bible Chronology) and Philip Mauro (The Wonders of Bible Chronology) stand out in other peoples minds and date the command from the one in Ezra 1:1-4 which is seemingly ampliphied for effect even in the text. This date is found by these men to be 457.3 BC. which places the crucifiction smack in the middle of the 70th week.

You seem to be a bit confused about the chronology in the post-exilic period covered in Ezra and Nehemiah. The 457 date you mentioned does not pertain to the command to “restore and to build Jerusalem” (Dan. 9:25) at all. 457 BC was the date when Ezra and his companions were allowed by the king to emigrate to Jerusalem. You can read the king’s decree yourself in Ezra 7:1-26. As you will see, there is not one scintilla of a mention about rebuilding anything. If you read this passage, Ezra was commissioned simply to return to Jerusalem with gold and silver to buy sacrifices and to perform the service of the temple. Any arguments that attempt to associate this event with the command to restore and build Jerusalem are flat out bogus.

The book of Ezra consists of two distinct parts. The first of these is an historical background dealing with the first emigration and the rebuilding of the temple, and it covers the period from about 538 to 515 BC. If you reread Ezra 1:1-4 yourself, you will immediately see that the decree issued by Cyrus pertains only to the rebuilding of the temple itself, not to the city of Jerusalem. This occurred around 538 BC.

The chronology given in your first link flies in the face of every history textbook (secular and Christian) and all modern archaeology. It starts with the antiquated dating by Ussher for the creation, and later continues with a whole series of bogus dates. Every Jew knows that the first temple was destroyed in 586 BC, not in 478! No Bible encyclopedia or dictionary I have ever heard of, regardless of the authors’ theological perspective, would give these dates! It all goes to show you that it is true that “you can’t trust everything you read on the internet”! Frankly, any historian or archaeologist today would laugh at this chronology. Honestly, I would have expected to see something more sensible from you!

The second part of Ezra is found in chapters 7 – 10, and deals with his own journey to Jerusalem and the apostasy which he encountered after his arrival. This brings us to Nehemiah. Nehemiah 2:1-8 gives the details of the actual command to “restore and to build Jerusalem” mentioned in Daniel 9:25. In Neh. 2:5, Nehemiah asks the king “… that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchers, that I may build it.” In verses 7 and 8 he asks for official letters documenting an official decree by the king. And then in verse 8, “… and the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.” Only this event can be identified as the decree to “restore and build to Jerusalem”, and this happened in 445 or 444 BC.

Modern archaeology shows that Anderson’s chronology was only off by one year. You should pick up a copy of the book, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ by Harold W. Hoehner. In it, the author demonstrates that, using modern dating, Anderson’s dating for the end of the 69th “week” still holds up!

One additional observation: even if the crucifixion did fall in the middle of the 70th “week” (and have proven that it does not) there are two additional problems. First there could have been no implementation of the New Covenant before the cross, i.e., during the first 3 ½ years. One reason is that the indwelling Holy Spirit is an essential part of the New Covenant (See Ezekiel 36-22-28) and note especially verse 27 “and I will put My Spirit within them…” Now notice in John 7:39 “… for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” Thus it would be IMPOSSIBLE that the New Covenant could be “confirmed” with anyone during the first 3 ½ years in your chronology!

The second problem is one which we have mentioned before. The idea that there was an exclusive implementation of the covenant with the Jews for exactly 3 ½ years following Pentecost is something of a fabrication and smacks of hyper-dispensationalism. It is true that the gospel did not extend to the Samaritans until Acts 8:5ff, and to the Gentiles in chapter 10, but we do not know exactly when these events took place, and there is no reason to suppose that there was any “special arrangement” with the Jews for the first 3 ½ years.

Now back to Daniel 9:27: Any attempt to make the Messiah the subject of the verbs in verse 27 is forced and twists the meaning of this scripture. First of all, the passive voice of the verb “shall be cut off” in verse 26, in contrast to the active voice of the verbs “shall confirm” and “shall stop” in verse 27 breaks the pattern of parallelism. I believe that this passage is straight prose, not poetry. Further, the natural reading makes “the prince who is to come” the subject of verse 27, because (1) it makes no sense to mention him at all without saying anything further about him in the context, and (2) he is closest to verse 27 in the text.

You need to ask, seek and knock to see if your statements stand true and if they glorify the words and works of Jesus ...

This works both ways! In areas where we disagree, you seem to be advocating what may be called a theology in search of Biblical support, rather than the other way around. Paul refers to this sort of thing as “handling the word of God deceitfully” in II Cor 4:2, and Peter speaks of “wresting the scriptures” in II Pet 3:16. We need always to keep in mind the hermeneutical principle “If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense”. In no case is it justified to twist the Scripture to force it into agreement with the dogmas of a particular denomination or tradition.

Honestly, I think we have pretty well exhausted this subject, and I am getting a bit tired of going around and around with you on this.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The book of Ezra consists of two distinct parts. The first of these is an historical background dealing with the first emigration and the rebuilding of the temple, and it covers the period from about 538 to 515 BC. If you reread Ezra 1:1-4 yourself, you will immediately see that the decree issued by Cyrus pertains only to the rebuilding of the temple itself, not to the city of Jerusalem. This occurred around 538 BC.

Has anyone seen the similar connection between that "great city" in Revelation and the event in Ezra 3:12, 13? Pretty fascinating!

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7164949&page=2

Reve 19:3 and a second time they have declared "Hallelujah and the Smoke of Her is ascending into the Ages of the Ages"
Reve 18:9 and shall be lamenting and shall be wailing over Her the kings of the land,

Ezra 3:12 And many of the priests, and the Levites, and the Chiefsof the fathers, the elders, who had seen the first House/bayith--in this house being founded before their eyes--are weeping with a loud voice, and many with a Shout, in Joy, lifting up the voice; 13 and the people are not discerning the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people, for the people are shouting--a great shout--and the noise hath been heard unto a distance.

 

[Notrash]

The context of Daniel 7 is political. If you think that “all peoples, nations and languages” are now obeying Christ, think again! They will not do so until they are forced to do so (Psalm 2:8-12).

Are you saying that the kingdom of he son of man discludes some peoples/nations and languages??? Thats what I believe Dan 7:13 is referring to; the kingdom of the saints of one like the son of man has gone out to all nations, people and languages.

It is obvious to any rational person that not all of the six items listed in verse 24 have ever beer accomplished. For example, if you think that “everlasting righteousness” has been brought in, I suggest that you pick a copy of the latest newspaper!

Did Jesus accomplish complete and final atonement for sin? If so, "everlasting" righteousness through faith HAS been established. What part of "everlasting righteousness" do you not have today? Are you not positionally righteous through faith? Is that position not secured eternally for you today? The crucifiction and resurection absolutely secured "everlasting righteousness" in eternal life, beginning at the point God calls a person to place faith in Him.

If you think that the “most holy” has been anointed (the Jews would immediately recognize this as a reference to the temple mount), you must then ask why the Al Aksah Mosque is standing there! All of this is further proof that there has to be a gap between the 69th and 70th “weeks”.

The second temple was annointed during the 490 years following the prophecy given to Danial. But in addition How "HOLY" did God view the temple when David told Him that he wanted to build him a temple. He basically laughed in David's face, but then said... ok, you want to build me a house to live in, this is how it will be.
God does not live in temples built by human hands (Acts 17). To annoint the most holy could include annointing Christ and his body of believers.

You need to reread Acts 1:9-11 and note that the angel told the disciples that He “shall return in like manner as you have seen Him go into heaven.” The sequel to this passage is found in Zechariah 14:4 where it states “His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives … and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west…” That sounds like physical contact with the earth to me! Also, when did the Mount of Olives ever split in two? This has to be future!

Although there is a second descent mentioned, I dont' believe that there it will be for a "in the flesh" millenial reign. The earth is reserved for cleansing by fire, and there will or may be a descent for the elect at that time.
Zech is filled with symbolic language. But to place Zech as a sequel to that event to nationalistic Israel is invoking commentary. Will Jesus do a split when the earth cleaves? Did not Jesus stand "in that day" upon the mount of Olives? What about the Olivet discourse?

The phrase “the day of vengeance of out God” was omitted in the Luke 4 reading because it definitely pertains to the second coming (cf. Isaiah 11:4; II Thessalonians 1:7-10). To associate this with any event in the past is simply nonsense.

Every unbeliever who rejects and opposes Christ's salvation remains in wrath (apart from God) (John 3:18 and 36 again) This is in addition to the day of veangeance and wrath that was invoked up those in Jerusalem of that generation who opossed and did not recieve Christ and the New Covenant.
I don't believe that items ommited from Isaiah 61 refer to the "second coming" despite the insistance of the word "definately". Furthermore, your words of bogus, insensible, nonsense etc begin to show the weakness of the defense of your arguments. Rather instead, you belittle alternate views with derogatory comments of superiority. It is the typical attituedes that I've found with dispensationalists who struggle to support their indoctrination.

The book of Ezra consists of two distinct parts. The first of these is an historical background dealing with the first emigration and the rebuilding of the temple, and it covers the period from about 538 to 515 BC. If you reread Ezra 1:1-4 yourself, you will immediately see that the decree issued by Cyrus pertains only to the rebuilding of the temple itself, not to the city of Jerusalem. This occurred around 538 BC.

The second part of Ezra is found in chapters 7 – 10, and deals with his own journey to Jerusalem and the apostasy which he encountered after his arrival. This brings us to Nehemiah. Nehemiah 2:1-8 gives the details of the actual command to “restore and to build Jerusalem” mentioned in Daniel 9:25. In Neh. 2:5, Nehemiah asks the king “… that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchers, that I may build it.” In verses 7 and 8 he asks for official letters documenting an official decree by the king. And then in verse 8, “… and the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.” Only this event can be identified as the decree to “restore and build to Jerusalem”, and this happened in 445 or 444 BC.

Perhaps the most important rebutal to this is the prophecy of Isaiah in chapter 44:vs 28 that Cyrus would give the commandment to rebuild the city. vs 28:

That saith of Cyrus, [He is] my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

In Ezra 4, before the Israelites are shut down from building, the rest of the nations in the area made protest against the Israelites building the city and eventually cause the building of the city and temple to cease.

4:13 Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls set up [again, then] will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and [so] thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings.

Then ceased the work of the house of God which [is] at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Thus Cyrus' decree in Ezra 1:1-4 seems to assume and include that the building of the temple also includes the building of the city, and that is a logical presumption for it would be illogical to build a temple in the middle of nowhere for the people of Isreal without rebuilding the city.

Nehimiah was simply requesting to be excused from his duties to the king in order to help the building of the city and possibly to re-start the building of the city. Artexerxes not only granted his excuse from duties, but supported it. But I believe that the building of the city is still based on Cyrus' decree, not Artexerxes. Comparing Ezra 4:21 with 24, it seems that to stop building the city, was carried out by ceasing to build the temple.

21. Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until [another] commandment shall be given from me.
24. Then ceased the work of the house of God which [is] at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

Furthermore, Josephus also gives a copy of a letter written by Cyrus to the governors that were in Syria, which letter begins as follows:

"King Cyrus to Sisinnes and Sathrabuzzanes, sendeth greeting.
I have given leave to as many of the Jews that dwell in my country as please [to do so) to return to their own country, and TO REBUILD THE CITY, AND TO REBUILD THE TEMPLE, OF GOD AT JERUSALEM on the same place where it was before" (Ant. Bk. XI, Ch. 1, sec. I & 3).

I'd invite anyone reading this to read chapter II of Mauro's 70 weeks and the great tribulation:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1921_mauro_seventy-weeks.html

Modern archaeology shows that Anderson’s chronology was only off by one year. You should pick up a copy of the book, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ by Harold W. Hoehner. In it, the author demonstrates that, using modern dating, Anderson’s dating for the end of the 69th “week” still holds up!

NOT ACCORDING TO MANY. It's simply a i belive this, you believe that argument. It is a difference of who's chronology to believe. Ptolemy is the foudation of both Usher and Anderson and Ptolemy has a hugh speculation about the lenght of the Persian empire. Perhaps it is you who needs to pick up one of Mauro's books. I believe Anderson was a very outspoken zionist, if I remember correctly or a dispensationalist at least. And if I remember correctly he also fashioned a peculiar 360 day "prophetic year" to arrive at his date. What happens to the missing 5 days each year? What about Hoehner? Ya know ya just can't believe everything you read in books these days.

One reason is that the indwelling Holy Spirit is an essential part of the New Covenant Thus it would be IMPOSSIBLE that the New Covenant could be “confirmed” with anyone during the first 3 ½ years in your chronology!

Where does it or did I say that the New Covenant was to be made in the first 3 1/2 years? The context is the next 490 years and expecially the final 7 years. Even before the cross however, Jesus said "this is the blood of the covenant".... And even before the absolutely pre-determined and pre-arranged (by God) crucifiction, John the baptist said, Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. But what you say about the Holy Spirit is true, and the indwelling of Jesus/Holy Spirit happened in the second half of the final 7 years, to Daniels people and in the city of Jerusalem, just as spoken in Dan 9:24.

Now back to Daniel 9:27: Any attempt to make the Messiah the subject of the verbs in verse 27 is forced and twists the meaning of this scripture.

Yes, in accordance with your view, not in accordance with Hebrew Parallelism. This is very simple to me. The subject of the middle of verse 26 is "the People of the prince" not the prince. Thus why would vs 27 start with the pronoun "he" when the noun "people" was being talked about. Thus any attempt to make anything other than the Messiah the subject of the "he" of vs 27 is forced and twists the meaning of this Scripture; to use your words.

First of all, the passive voice of the verb “shall be cut off” in verse 26, in contrast to the active voice of the verbs “shall confirm” and “shall stop” in verse 27 breaks the pattern of parallelism. I believe that this passage is straight prose, not poetry.

It is written as Poetry in the Hebrew and in the NKJV.
What was that you said about antithetical parallelism?
There is possibility of both types within a given part.

Further, the natural reading makes “the prince who is to come” the subject of verse 27, because (1) it makes no sense to mention him at all without saying anything further about him in the context, and (2) he is closest to verse 27 in the text.

The "PEOPLE" of the prince (the Roman Army) are the subject of the middle of vs 26. There is no transferal to the "prince to come" as the subject. It is the people of the prince who do the desolating. Thus it is sheer manipulation and speculation to make this refer to some figure who makes some 7 yr futuristic covenant, ESPECIALLY when the context of the prophecy is the next 490 years to Daniels people and the city. The angel is spelling out the judgement and finality of the old covenant and it's purpose and it's people, just as Moses promised if the people would not obey the statutes.

Titus was the "prince to come" due to his being Vespacians son.

This works both ways! In areas where we disagree, you seem to be advocating what may be called a theology in search of Biblical support, rather than the other way around. Paul refers to this sort of thing as “handling the word of God deceitfully” in II Cor 4:2, and Peter speaks of “wresting the scriptures” in II Pet 3:16. We need always to keep in mind the hermeneutical principle “If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense”. In no case is it justified to twist the Scripture to force it into agreement with the dogmas of a particular denomination or tradition.

These accusations interestingly can be directly spoken towards your views. A theology in search of support; handling the word of god decietfully, and wresting the scriptures. How accurate of the dispensational/futurist perspective.

Honestly, I think we have pretty well exhausted this subject, and I am getting a bit tired of going around and around with you on this.

Yes, likewise. Any view or proof that is outside your box of pro-israel futurist indoctrination is said to be bogus or "nonsense". Actually, it seems that your running out of logical arguments against some of the points. It is well to have exposed you to a different perspective.
Thanks for the valid points for discussion as it is through interaction that Iron sharpens iron.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, likewise. Any view or perspective that is outside your box of pro-israel futurist indoctrination is said to be bogus or "nonsense". Actually, it seems that your running out of logical arguments against some of the points. It is well to have exposed you to a different perspective.

I would say since most of them believe JESUS will be sitting on a "literal throne" in Jerusalem ruling the Jews with an iron club for a 1000yrs or so after Armegeddon wipes out most of them, I guess they would have to be pro-Israel/Jewish

 

[HarrisonS]

Are you saying that the kingdom of he son of man discludes some peoples/nations and languages??? Thats what I believe Dan 7:13 is referring to; the kingdom of the saints of one like the son of man has gone out to all nations, people and languages.

The message has gone out to all nations, but not everyone has obeyed it. Daniel 7:14 says “all peoples, nations and languages should obey Him”. What part of the word, ”all” don’t you understand? Read it again; it says, “all peoples, nations and languages should obey Him”.

The second temple was annointed during the 490 years following the prophecy given to Danial. But in addition How "HOLY" did God view the temple when David told Him that he wanted to build him a temple … God does not live in temples built by human hands (Acts 17).

All of this is true, but totally misses the point.

Although there is a second descent mentioned, I dont' believe that there it will be for a "in the flesh" millenial reign. The earth is reserved for cleansing by fire, and there will or may be a descent for the elect at that time.
Zech is filled with symbolic language. But to place Zech as a sequel to that event to nationalistic Israel is invoking commentary. Will Jesus do a split when the earth cleaves? Did not Jesus stand "in that day" upon the mount of Olives? What about the Olivet discourse?

Here you again depart from the clear teaching of scripture. Labeling a passage as “symbolic language” is a favorite “cop out” used by amillennialists and replacement-theologians to “sweep under the carpet” any scripture that does not agree with their preconceived theological dogmas. This is blatant eisogesis and scripture-twisting. Of course there are many passages of scripture that do use symbolic language. In the interpretation of scripture, you must always stick to sound grammatico-historical methods, compare the passage with other parallel passages, and remember that, “if the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.” Using your methods, you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say!

Thus Cyrus' decree in Ezra 1:1-4 seems to assume and include that the building of the temple also includes the building of the city, and that is a logical presumption for it would be illogical to build a temple in the middle of nowhere for the people of Isreal without rebuilding the city.

Nehimiah was simply requesting to be excused from his duties to the king in order to help the building of the city. Artexerxes not only granted his excuse from duties, but supported it. But I view that the building of the city is still based on Cyrus' decree, not Artexerxes. Comparing Ezra 4:21 with 24, it seems that to stop building the city, was carried out by ceasing to build the temple.

Granted, based on Isaiah 44:28 Cyrus may have given a command to rebuild the city. However, this command went out in ca. 538 BC, not 457. As I said before, the dates you are using for events in this period would be laughed at by any reputable historian or archeologist familiar with this period of history. Check out any up-to-date history book if you do not believe me. Modern research has confirmed Anderson’s dates to be correct within a year or two. If you do the math and use your chronology with Cyrus’s decree as the starting point, you will have to date the crucifixion around 51 BC!


Read Nehemiah 2:1-8 again. Artaxerxes also gave a command to build Jerusalem, and this time it was carried out! This has to be the command referred to in Daniel 9:25 because, it is the only one that fits the chronology, and it fits perfectly, as both Anderson and Hoehner demonstrated. You cannot rewrite history to support your theology any more than you can “rewrite” scripture through gratuitous symbolic interpretation!

Where does it or did I say that the New Covenant was to be made in the first 3 1/2 years? The context is the next 490 years and expecially the final 7 years. Even before the cross however, Jesus said "this is the blood of the covenant".... And even before the absolutely pre-determined and pre-arranged (by God) crucifiction, John the baptist said, Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. But what you say about the Holy Spirit is true, and the indwelling of Jesus/Holy Spirit happened in the second half of the final 7 years, to Daniels people and in the city of Jerusalem, just as spoken in Dan 9:24.

If your interpretation of Daniel 9:27 is true, the New Covenant would have to have been implemented for the entire seven years. Moreover the Hebrew language of Daniel 9:27 would require this. My point here was that it could not have been implemented at all during the first 3 ½ years. The utterance by John the Baptist was obviously prophetic, and does not differ at all from Isaiah 53 in this respect. Again, at the Last Supper, Jesus was obviously looking forward to His finished work which He was about to accomplish. How anyone can see this any differently, totally mystifies me. Again my whole point here is simply that your interpretation of Daniel 9:27 has to be wrong, because there was no New Covenant possible during the first half of the final 7 years, assuming your chronology.

Yes, in accordance with your view, not in accordance with Hebrew Parallelism. Very simple to me. The subject of the middle of verse 26 is "the People of the prince" not the prince. Thus why would vs 27 start with the pronoun "he" when the noun "people" was being talked about. Thus any attempt to make anything other than the Messiah the subject of the "he" of vs 27 is forced and twists the meaning of this Scripture; to use your words.

Of course it is the people! You seem to totally miss the point. My point is “Why identify the Romans as ‘the people of the prince to come’ at all?” Why were the Romans identified in this way, unless there was something further to be said about that prince in the context? Honestly, this is not rocket science! Further, to use your own words “it is sheer manipulation and speculation to make verse 27 refer” to the Messiah mentioned way back at the very beginning of verse 26!

Actually, it seems that your running out of logical arguments against some of the points. It is well to have exposed you to a different perspective.
Thanks for the valid points for discussion as it is through interaction that Iron sharpens iron.

Anyone who approaches scripture with a humble and open mind, and applies sound principles of grammatico-historical interpretation, reason, logic and sound principles of hermeneutics will inevitably come to one conclusion. This conclusion is that the “futuristic” and “pro-Israel” (to use your somewhat pejorative terms) has to be the only possible correct and Biblical one.

I have always striven to be unbiased, honest and objective in all of these discussions, and you obviously have not. It is you who seem to be brainwashed into believing a blatantly unbiblical perspective. It seems that you have been preprogrammed, to use your own words, to reject any “perspective that is outside your box of anti-Israel, preterist indoctrination.” And you have, through scripture-twisting, called God a de facto liar in your denial of the clear, unambiguous promises made by God in the OT regarding Israel’s future. I am sorry, but that makes me angry!

I am not running out of logical arguments against any of the points. Quite the contrary, if you can read, you will see that I have already logically and Biblically proven you to be wrong in virtually every point where we have disagreed. I am only getting very tired of all of the stubborn obscurantism. All I expect in such discussions is an honest, open mind in looking at these issues, and I have not gotten this courtesy from you. Whether you have a problem with egotism and pride, or are simply so brainwashed that you can only react like a zombie, I do not know; you seem to be “wise in your own conceits” (Prov. 26:12). I feel sorry for you!

 

[Notrash]

The message has gone out to all nations, but not everyone has obeyed it. Daniel 7:14 says “all peoples, nations and languages should obey Him”. What part of the word, ”all” don’t you understand? Read it again; it says, “all peoples, nations and languages should obey Him”.

All peoples does not equal every person. It is talking of a international 'eternal' church of obeyers of God. This came exactly as promised during the 4th beast Roman Empire which is the setting of Dan 7:13,14.

To find how the 6 things are fulfilled, read the "let god be true" link or Philip Mauro's link. He goes over the 6 things that needed to be fulfilled and supports them biblically.

Granted, based on Isaiah 44:28 Cyrus may have

May have??? Either he did or he didn't. It is not only vs 28, it is the other evidence including Ezra 4 and Josephus letters from Cyrus to other govorners that support Cyrus command to rebuild the city and temple.

given a command to rebuild the city. However, this command went out in ca. 538 BC, not 457. As I said before, the dates you are using for events in this period would be laughed at by any reputable historian or archeologist familiar with this period of history. Check out any up-to-date history book if you do not believe me. Modern research has confirmed Anderson’s dates to be correct within a year or two. If you do the math and use your chronology with Cyrus’s decree as the starting point, you will have to date the crucifixion around 51 BC!

Most rely on each other and on usher and Ptolemy, so it's no wonder that if any bad yeast gets in the dough, it spoils the whole batch of bread. And I'm not so concerned about being 'laughed at'. It is not the first time that majority or "status quo" was wrong.

Again, Cyrus was raised up to give the decree (read all of Isaiah 44 through half of 45.) The city was already being built due to his decree. There was a lull in the building after the intrusion of the neighboring states. Some attribute this as the reason for the seperation of the first 7 weeks; 49 years. Some even say that the city was partially rebuilt and the surrounding states came and destroyed some of the work and burnt the gates and that this is where Nehemiah comes in as it was prophecied to be built in times of trouble.

If the modern reasearch that you state confirms Andersons research, then why the need for the 360 day years.?? Anderson uses Ptolemy and Usher chronology as do many 'modern researchers".

Read Nehemiah 2:1-8 again. Artaxerxes also gave a command to build Jerusalem, and this time it was carried out!

I did reread it. I see no direct command from Artexerxes to rebuild the city and/or temple, but a permission for Nehemiah to go and letters given to give him for safe passage and to obtain timber from Asaph. Nehemiah is responding in faith and passionto Cyrus decree to have the city and temple rebuilt in preperation for the God of Heavens visitation.

This has to be the command referred to in Daniel 9:25 because, it is the only one that fits the chronology, and it fits perfectly, as both Anderson and Hoehner demonstrated. You cannot rewrite history to support your theology any more than you can “rewrite” scripture through gratuitous symbolic interpretation!

Notice the reason that you give to support your statement that Artexerxes command HAS to be the right one. "Because it is the only one that fits the chronology". Thus your basing your support of Andersons theory of Artexerxes commandment on the outcome of the date. But Anderson (and Hehner must also) devised a system of 360 day years when indeed the prophesy just like the 70 year prophecy is made in solar years. There are 5.25 days missing in a solar callendar for each supposed "prophetic year" Thus which system is "rewriting history or rewriting scripture. And yes, I know where they get their support for this "prophetic year".

Rather, if we first believe God, who raised up Cyrus and called him by name in Isaiah even 200 years before his rule; and consider that possibly Cyrus' command is the one that the prophecy is to be based on, then we would seek to restudy the documentation of History and to see if there may be any errors. This is what Antsey had done and Mauro supported. Mauro is not a stupid man, but was rather very well educated in law and Very Highly esteemed by his peers. His testimony, research and support should not be quickly overlooked. That you have not heard of them is because they are outside of dispensational teaching circles which we (the church) have been bombarded with for the last 100 years.

If your interpretation of Daniel 9:27 is true, the New Covenant would have to have been implemented for the entire seven years. Moreover the Hebrew language of Daniel 9:27 would require this. My point here was that it could not have been implemented at all during the first 3 ½ years. .............Again my whole point here is simply that your interpretation of Daniel 9:27 has to be wrong, because there was no New Covenant possible during the first half of the final 7 years, assuming your chronology.

I dont' see that as an accurate statement but, I see your point here more clearly. Your choice of the word implement again misrepresents the text. It is not a 7 yr covenant but 7 years of confirming, or strengthening a preplanned and prestated covenant(s) within a particular location (Jerusalem) and with/through a particular people. The word from Daniel 9:27 is Gabar meaning to confirm or strengthen. Make' is a completely different Hebrew word than Gabar. And I found no Hebrew word close to 'implement'. There is a close Hebrew word "Gadar" which can mean Make, but that is not the word being used. This is further fuel to accuse the modern tranlations of sabbotage, but that is a different subject.

Confirm: Gabar
c) (Hiphil)
1) to confirm, give strength
2) to confirm (a covenant)
The way that it is written I understand that Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the components and the law of the New Covenant thus strenghthening and firming it up during the teaching period of Jesus Ministry. Jesus also confirmed that he was the Messiah to come by fulfilling various prophecies concerning the Messiah.
What did John the Baptists tell his men to ask Jesus? ?. Luke 4:20 When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? (THE MESSIAH) or look we for another? Why were they looking for someone at that time? This prophecy in Daniel is the only prophecy that gives any timetable of when the Messiah would come.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit confirmed the covenant (to many, Dan 9:26)of the salvation seed promised to Adam/Eve that was expanded and included blessings as the covenant of the salvation seed promised to Abraham. They did this for 7 yrs within Jerusalem through teaching, healing and fulfilling prophecy about the Messiah/salvation. The seed who was promised is also the basis of the New Covenant to the Jews spoken of in Jeremiah since the old covenant is no longer in force. Jesus confirmed the covenant of forgiven sins and the law (of Christ and of Love) written in their hearts through his teachings and healings and through the Holy Sprits ministry in Jerusalem and among the Jews (vs 24)for those 7 years. The timing of his crucifiction that coincided with passover and the day of atonement anti-types the old covenant. It was further confirmed by the giving of the Holy Sprit that anti-typed

Of course it is the people! You seem to totally miss the point. My point is “Why identify the Romans as ‘the people of the prince to come’ at all?” Why were the Romans identified in this way, unless there was something further to be said about that prince in the context? Honestly, this is not rocket science! Further, to use your own words “it is sheer manipulation and speculation to make verse 27 refer” to the Messiah mentioned way back at the very beginning of verse 26!

Not according to Hebrew parallelism it is not manipulation and speculation.

Sometimes even a series of 4-5 verses will be repeated in order to add to and clarify a topic. The 6th verse restates what would be said in the first of the first group of 5 verses. But here in Dan 9, they are only one verse apart.

The strophes are subject to the same law of parallelism as the lines themselves. Thus Num. xxiv. 39 is composed of five strophes of 5, 6, 4, 5, and 4 lines respectively. Job iii., after the introit in verse 3, can be divided into seven strophes with 6, 10, 6, 8, 6, 8, and 6 lines respectively, balanced against one another in thought (e.g., cursing of day and night; the enviable condition of the still-born and those in the grave; and the pain of those tired of life). So also Ps. lxii. 2-5, 6-9, and 10-12; ib. ii. 1-3 and 4-6, which form two antithetical strophes.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=67&letter=P

I think that it is worded this way (the people of the prince to come) because the desolation and the prince would come outside of the actual 70 week, 490 yr time period. It is also worded this way so that when the people in Jesus extended generation saw a kings son leading a people, they could recognize the prophecy of Daniel and be more prepared. Titus was the kings son who was to come and whos people destroyed the city.

If your insistance about the covenant in vs 27 referring to 'the prince who is to come' were correct then it would have to be talking of a covenant that Titus would have CONFIRMED or strengthened; not some yet future man.

This proclamation that Titus was the man prophecied to be victorious over the Jews is the exact proclamation that saved Josephus the historian's life when Titus destroyed Josephus city. Titus spared Josephus life saying that if his proclaimation came true, he would be spared, and if false, he would lose his life.

Anyone who approaches scripture with a humble and open mind, and applies sound principles of grammatico-historical interpretation, reason, logic and sound principles of hermeneutics will inevitably come to one conclusion. This conclusion is that the “futuristic” and “pro-Israel” (to use your somewhat pejorative terms) has to be the only possible correct and Biblical one.

I see that your fixed in your opinion. But it kinda goes against your idea of having an open mind that you promote. I believe God when he said to Daniel that 490 years are fixed for your people and the holy city. Also, please dont' exclude literary and inductive from your interpretive principles. Milton Terry, one of the founders and writers of books on historico-grammatico interpretation was at least a partial pretertist. Intersting, isnt' it? http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/t/terry-milton.html

 

[Notrash]

I have always striven to be unbiased, honest and objective in all of these discussions, and you obviously have not. It is you who seem to be brainwashed into believing a blatantly unbiblical perspective. It seems that you have been preprogrammed, to use your own words, to reject any “perspective that is outside your box of anti-Israel, preterist indoctrination.” And you have, through scripture-twisting, called God a de facto liar in your denial of the clear, unambiguous promises made by God in the OT regarding Israel’s future. I am sorry, but that makes me angry!

Yes, it angered the Pharisees and religious leaders of Jesus day also. And they did not recognize the hour of their visitation. The talmudists went to great lengths to make a prosylyte and then during the formation of the church went to great lengths to try to bring the Jewish Christian converts back to judaism, even through persecution and angry tyrades.

And, actually, no, it is the faults, the modernism and the eclectic bible twisting religiosity of the self-approved dispensational perspective that cause me to be open to other perspectives. For I was a one time hearer and even teacher of said perspective (hidden church age) , but found the support for it, twisted and contrived.

Such faults are in Scofield and others interpretive patterns: As "biblewriter" says in his outline of principles of interpretation; All prophecy is to be fullfilled in end time scenario. And every time Israel is used, it is a literal usage. These are the laws of interpretation that Scofield and dispensationalists such as yourself make up and use while casting out the historical/literary and inductive applications.

I have no qualms with anyone of "Israel", however their salvation, grace and favor from God and inclusion in Gods present or future economy must be through belief in Christ's previous coming to the earth and his work and testimony. Jewish sources themselves say that modern jewish religion is composed of talmudic judaism which is derived from Pharisaism. The old covenant religion did not survive the desolation of Jerusalem nor did God intend for it to survive.

The kingdom was taken from them and given to those bearing its' fruit. Prophetically, this was foretold in Dan 7:13,14; 27 This kingdom is the final kingdom and is forever. I believe that it is not the church age which is the parenthesis; it is the old covenant age from the passover in Egypt to the crucifiction that was to confirm the Salvation of all mankind that is the parenthesis.

I am not running out of logical arguments against any of the points. Quite the contrary, if you can read, you will see that I have already logically and Biblically proven you to be wrong in virtually every point where we have disagreed.

So you werent' wrong about Cyrus giving a decree to build the city as well as the temple???

I am only getting very tired of all of the stubborn obscurantism. All I expect in such discussions is an honest, open mind in looking at these issues, and I have not gotten this courtesy from you.

These words can be read with a perspective of coming from my keyboard.

I have looked at many of those ideas before. I have peace in my heart and mind through the Holy Spirit on most of the issues we discuss, especially Dan 9 and in disagreement with the dispensational/zionism/ chilaism discussion.

Whether you have a problem with egotism and pride, or are simply so brainwashed that you can only react like a zombie, I do not know; you seem to be “wise in your own conceits” (Prov. 26:12). I feel sorry for you!

Again, these attitudes are common among those seeking to support dispensationalism including scripture throwing. The seed bears its' fruit. I am simply presenting a different perspective for any time in the future when the Holy Spirit MAY call you to question some of those things and those perspectives that you now feel so confident in.

Weather they be "pride", i dont' think so, but there is a certain amount of confidence that the Holy Spirit gives, when He himself bears witness within a believers Spirit and answers His/Her questions.

I would for one time like to have a dispensationalist admit to an error that is openly shown to be true. Woudl you admit such error concerning Cyrus decree being to rebuild both the city and the temple.? It would be difficult since you would have to admit that in the past you were not as "approved from your studies" (2 Tim 2:15) as you believed that you were.

 

[HarrisonS]

All peoples does not equal every person. It is talking of a international church of obeyers of God. This came exactly as promised during the 4th beast Roman Empire which is the setting of Dan 7:13,14.
/

While it is true that “All peoples does not equal every person” it does mean every people, every nation and every language. Can you name even one nation in 2000 years of history that was truthfully obedient to His will? Give me a break! Look at the nations today! Can you honestly state that Iran is obedient to Jesus Christ? What about Saudi Arabia? Sudan? North Korea? Shall I go on? All nations means all nations, nothing less.


It is true that Christ rules in the hearts of true believers everywhere, but that is clearly not what Daniel 7:13,14 means. Again reread Psalm 2:1-8! Just like the Pharisees, you are rendering the word of God null and void through your tradition!

Some even say that the city was partially rebuilt and the surrounding states came and destroyed some of the work and burnt the gates and that this is where Nehemiah comes in as it was prophecied to be built in times of trouble.

This may well be true, but unless there is some extra-Biblical evidence, it is pure speculation. I will grant you that Isaiah 44:28 prophesied that Cyrus would give a command to build the city, and so it must have been given, because God prophesied it. (You must likewise be honest enough to admit that prophecies that God gave about the future of Israel will likewise be literally carried out, but I suspect that, as with the Pharisees, your tradition will not allow this honesty!).


There is no indication in scripture whether any of Cyrus’s command to build Jerusalem was ever carried out or not; that is pure speculation as I just stated. Also in the historical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, there is no mention of a command by Cyrus to build the city, only the temple itself. Ultimately, this is all academic, because (1) you cannot use it as the starting point for the 490 years using any legitimate dating system, because, as I said before this places the crucifixion around 51 BC. and because (2) Artaxerxes Longimanus did issue an order to rebuild the city around 445 BC. Read Nehemiah 2:1-8 again, and note especially in verse 5 “I ask that you send me … to the city of my fathers’ tombs, that I may rebuild it.” And then in verse 8, “And the king granted [the royal letters of authorization] to me according to the good hand of my God upon me.”


It is sometimes true that various sources tend to quote one another, especially in Christian circles, less so in secular ones. But when you bring into the mix modern archaeological digs, radioactive carbon dating and other evidence, and it all supports the same dates, it is difficult to accept anything else. Radioactive dating is extremely accurate over periods of two or three thousand years, and only becomes problematic if pushed to millions or billions of years, as evolutionists attempt to do. That, however, is an entirely different subject!

Anderson (and Hehner must also) devised a system of 360 day years when indeed the prophesy just like the 70 year prophecy is made in solar years. There are 5.25 days missing in a solar callendar for each supposed "prophetic year" Thus which system is "rewriting history or rewriting scripture. And yes, I know where they get their support for this "prophetic year".

Rather, if we first believe God, who raised up Cyrus and called him by name in Isaiah 200 years before his kingship; and consider that possibly Cyrus' command is the one that is to be based on, then we would seek to restudy the documentation of History and to see if there may be any errors. This is what Antsey had done and Mauro supported. Mauro is not a stupid man, but was rather very well educated in law and Very Highly esteemed by his peers. His testimony, research and support should not be quickly overlooked. That you have not heard of them is because they are outside of dispensational teaching circles which we (the church) have been bombarded with for the last 100 years.

Andersons 360 day prophetic year is not without justification. Many ancients used simplified numerical representations of time, and there are examples of this in scripture. Note, for example the reference to 3 ½ years as 1260 days (3 ½ X 360 = 1260) in Rev. 11:3. In the same manner, they always spoke of a 12 hour day (daylight hours) irrespective of whether it was summer or winter. Of course the ancients were not dumb; they knew quite accurately the length of a year. And a year is not equal to 365 days, not even 365.25 days. The last time I checked, it was 365.2421988+ days. And, as I recall, Anderson gives a very credible justification for this representation for the prophetic year.

The way that it is written I understand that Jesus and the Holy Spirit Confirmed and gave strength to a prestated covenant with Many (in Jerusalem). They taught the components and the law of the New Covenant thus strenghthening and firming it up during the teaching period of Jesus Ministry.
What did John the Baptists tell his men to ask. When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? (THE MESSIAH) or look we for another? Why were they looking for someone at that time? This prophecy in Daniel is the only prophecy that gives any timetable of when the Messiah would come.

All of this is true, but I believe that the hiph`il of gabar means much more than this. Remember that the meaning of the English word “confirm” has been somewhat weakened in modern usage. Today most people understand it only to mean “to reaffirm something to be true” and prior to the cross this is all that Jesus (and John the Baptist) indeed did do. The miracles were a further certification of His Messiah-ship, but still this was just prophetic of what was going to happen in the future. The New Covenant was still only something coming in the future, and all of this was just another reaffirmation (albeit a very strong one) of prophecies which the Jews had already had for several hundred years.


However, all of this, I believe misses the full sense of the Hebrew meaning of this verb. Literally it means “to make strong” or “to cause to prevail”. Webster gives among definitions of “confirm” such meanings as “make firm” and “establish”, and it is these definitions you must use if you translate this word with “confirm”. The New Covenant was not “made firm” or “established” until after the cross. It was still only a promise for the future.

In other parts of Daniel, I believe it is the Romans who are the 4th beast and as some believe, the ships of Kittim. Thus the Romans are already introduced in the book of Daniel. The Romans are the only ones that would be in power during the time of the Messiah.

I agree with this 100 percent. But the very fact that you said this at all seems to indicate that you missed the point of what I was saying. I was only discussing the identity of the coming prince.

 

[HarrisonS]

I'm glad your fixed in your opinion. But it kinda goes against your idea of having an open mind that you promote. I believe God when he said to Daniel that 490 years are fixed for your people and the holy city. Also, please dont' exclude literary and inductive from your interpretive principles. By the way, Milton Terry, one of the founders and writers of books on historico-grammatico interpretation was at least a partial pretertist.

But you do not believe God when He made clear and unambiguous promises about Israel’s future. You can’t have it both ways!

Yes, it angered the Pharisees and religious leaders of Jesus day also.

This is incorrect. Jesus upheld the OT promises (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:29,30; Matt 5:18; Luke 16:17). What angered the Pharisees was the fact that Jesus did not conform to their petty regulations which they had gratuitously added to the law (Luke 13:14; John 5:10,11), exposed their hypocrisy (Matt 23:1-37) and made claims to His Deity (John 5:17,18).

And they did not recognize the hour of their visitation. The talmudists went to great lengths to make a prosylyte and then during the formation of the church went to great lengths to try to bring the Jewish Christian converts back to judaism, even through persecution and angry tyrades.

I agree with you here!

And, actually, no, it is the faults, the modernism and the eclectic bible twisting religiosity of the self-approved dispensational perspective that cause me to be open to other perspectives. For I was a one time hearer and even teacher of said perspective (hidden church age) , but found the support for it, twisted and contrived.

It is true that some early dispensationalists like C. I. Scofield did go occasionally to extremes and even twisted scripture. But for a preterist to make this accusation is rather like “the pot calling the kettle black”! Like the Bereans, we always need to “search the scriptures [to see] whether these things are so” (Acts 17:11). And we must always use sound methods of interpretation, and do so consistently, and not just when the passage agrees with our preconceived theology.

Such faults are in Scofield and others interpretive patterns: As "biblewriter" says in his outline of principles of interpretation; All prophecy is to be fullfilled in end time scenario. And every time Israel is used, it is a literal usage. These are the laws of interpretation that Scofield and dispensationalists such as yourself make up and use while casting out the historical/literary and inductive applications.

I have not seen biblewriter’s work and cannot comment on it. But I feel sure that you have either misquoted him, or taken his comment out of context. Of course not all prophecy is to be fulfilled in an end time scenario! An enormous portion of prophecy was fulfilled in the OT or in the first century AD. And I feel sure that biblewriter would agree. Also, most prophecy was not even predictive, the prophets were raised up to confront sin, apostasy and other issues of their day. All of that being said, I must point out, however, that it is equally wrong for preterists to insist that all predictive prophecy was fulfilled in the past! This too is scripture-twisting!



I would agree that “every time [the word] Israel is used, it is a literal usage”. I cannot find any Biblical case where the word is used otherwise. Even in Romans 9:6, if you read it carefully, you will see that Paul is simply excluding from Israel (and thus from the Abrahamic blessings) unbelievers who belong to ethnic Israel. To understand the word “Israel” in any other way would render a large part of Romans chapters 9-11 redundant or meaningless. In Hebrews 8:8 ff, the writer is simply quoting from Jeremiah 31:31-34. Remember that in the OT, the New Covenant is always seen in the context of Israel only, because the inclusion of the Gentiles on an equal status was still a mystery, as Ephesians 3:5,6 plainly states. Finally, you would be hard-pressed to prove anything from the often parroted phrase “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). Many believe that this phrase simply refers to the believing remnant of ethnic Israel within the NT Church.

It is true that all believers are spiritual descendants of Abraham (Galatians 3:7) but the word Israel is not applied here, and we must not try to read something into the text that is not there!


The accusation of “casting out the historical/literary and inductive applications” is again an example of “the pot calling the kettle black”!

I have no qualms with anyone of "Israel", however their salvation, grace and favor from God and inclusion in Gods present or future economy must be through belief in Christ's previous coming to the earth and his work and testimony. Jewish sources themselves say that modern jewish religion is composed of talmudic judaism which is derived from Pharisaism. The old covenant religion did not survive the desolation of Jerusalem nor did God intend for it to survive.

All of this is true. The only means of salvation has always been through “faith alone in Christ alone”, and it always will be. The OT sacrifices were largely ceremonial and symbolized the then future finished work of Christ, much as the Lord’s Supper does for us today. Since the fall, God has always prescribed some symbolic act (Gen. 3:21) representing this, and, I believe, will continue to do so.

The kingdom was taken from them and given to those bearing its' fruit. Prophetically, this was foretold in Dan 7:13,14

This all happened, just as you say, but as I pointed out earlier, to see this as the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13,14 is just scripture-twisting.

 

[Notrash]

It is true that Christ rules in the hearts of true believers everywhere, but that is clearly not what Daniel 7:13,14 means.

Yes, I believe that is what is meant. People from all nations and languages including the believing jews were drawn to become a people of God. Most importantly, we are told the timetable of this event. That timetable is during the 4 kingdom that would come upon the face of the earth after Daniels hearing of the prophecy. That kingdom was also the kingdom of the 10 horns, the persecution of the saints and the time when one like the son of man would come into the presence of the Ancient of days for judgement.

Thus, the application of Dan 7:13,14 is found during the time period of the Roman kingdom and within the 10 horns (kings) mentioned. Jesus said that the kingdom would be take from those he was speaking to and given to those bearing it's fruit. The old covenant 'kingdom' was ended and the kingdom in Gods favor is the New covenant kindom of all peoples, people of all nations and people of all languages.
Read all of Dan 7 in context and include Dan 7:27 where a 'kingdom' is given to the saints".

This may well be true, but unless there is some extra-Biblical evidence,

And you dont' consider Ptolemy's dating as 'extra-biblical evidence"?

it is pure speculation. I will grant you that Isaiah 44:28 prophesied that Cyrus would give a command to build the city, and so it must have been given, because God prophesied it. (You must likewise be honest enough to admit that prophecies that God gave about the future of Israel will likewise be literally carried out, but I suspect that, as with the Pharisees, your tradition will not allow this honesty!).

No, it is not the 'dishonesty', but rather the disagreement that Israel must always mean national or political Israel rather than believing Israel meaning 'sons of God' in Christ. As mentioned, according to the jewish sources, the primary (some say only) sect that survived the desolation was that of the Pharisees. Talmudic Judaism is todays "Israel".

There is no indication in scripture whether any of Cyrus’s command to build Jerusalem was ever carried out or not; that is pure speculation as I just stated.

Again, Ezra 4 equates stopping of the building of the temple that had begun with Cyrus command, with the stopping of the building of Jerusalem. The temple and city's rebuilding were coinciding events. As also mentioned, Zerubbabul and other prophets continued buiding despite Artexerxes order to temporarily stop due to their being obedient to the lord through the command given to Cyrus. Yes, I can see that this Artexerxes mentioned in Nehemiah "sent" Nehemiah or rather granted his request to be sent', but this does not compare with the emphasis placed on Cyrus' "COMMAND". It is quite possible that Nehemiah recieved a report about the people who were there building in oppression and opposition.

24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
And He who formed you from the womb:
"I am the Lord, who makes all things,
Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;
25 Who frustrates the signs of the babblers,
And drives diviners mad;
Who turns wise men backward,
And makes their knowledge foolishness;
26 Who confirms the word of His servant,
And performs the counsel of His messengers;
Who says to Jerusalem, 'You shall be inhabited,'
To the cities of Judah, 'You shall be built,'
And I will raise up her waste places;
27Who says to the deep, 'Be dry!
And I will dry up your rivers';
28Who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd,
And he shall perform all My pleasure,
Saying to Jerusalem, "You shall be built,"
And to the temple, "Your foundation shall be laid."'

45"Thus says the Lord to His anointed,To Cyrus,
.....................
3 I will give you the treasures of darkness
And hidden riches of secret places,
That you may know that I, the Lord,
Who call you by your name,
Am the God of Israel.
4 For Jacob My servant's sake,
And Israel My elect,
I have even called you by your name;
I have named you, though you have not known Me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
11 Thus says the Lord,
The Holy One of Israel, and his Maker:
"Ask Me of things to come concerning My sons;
And concerning the work of My hands, you command Me.
12 I have made the earth,
And created man on it.
I--My hands--stretched out the heavens,
And all their host I have commanded.
13 I have raised him up in righteousness,
And I will direct all his ways;
He shall build My city
And let My exiles go free,
Not for price nor reward,"
Says the Lord of hosts.

It is sometimes true that various sources tend to quote one another, especially in Christian circles, less so in secular ones. But when you bring into the mix modern archaeological digs, radioactive carbon dating and other evidence, and it all supports the same dates, it is difficult to accept anything else. Radioactive dating is extremely accurate over periods of two or three thousand years, and only becomes problematic if pushed to millions or billions of years, as evolutionists attempt to do. That, however, is an entirely different subject!

We are talking of a difference of 80 some odd years. I do not believe that radio carbon dating is that accurate going back millenia.

Andersons 360 day prophetic year is not without justification.

As mentioned, I know his perspective taken from Revelation, but if Daniel were to have used a 360 day prophectic year to determine when the 70 years of captivity were ending, he would have been a year or so early. So also, especially with the length of 490 years being in consideration, anyone attempting to deciphre the coming of the Messiah would arrive at a time about 7 years (5.25X490) short. Thus, I think rather it would be acceptable to consider the study of Antsey and Mauro and others to determine if there is some other explaination for the discrepencies of dates. Using biblical information only, they arrived at an opinion that Usher and Ptolemy had an extra 80 years of Persian empire in his dates.

Furthermore, there is a discrepency of wether the 483 years bring the date to "Messiah the Prince". Some including myself view his "coming out publickly' including his Baptism by the dove and Gods voice being heard as his confirmation as "Messiah". Some say that his 'Messiahship" was confirmed by his entry into Jerusalem on the ass. I would ask, what then of the significance of His Baptism and His teaching? John uses the word Messiah twice in his book and they are both before he rode on the ass.

All of this is true, but I believe that the hiph`il of gabar means much more than this.

The quote I used included Strongs reference of the hiph'il of gabar. Thus I would disagree with the idea that this covenant described in Dan 9 is a 7 year only covenant. The 'covenant' (promised to Eve, to Abraham and prophecied through Jeremiah as a Covenant to replace the one given to Moses) was Confirmed for 7 years in Jerusalem and primarily to the people of Israel as mentioned in vs 24. It is not only the "new" covenant but also the Edenic and Abrahamic covenants. I think the 'new covenant' was irrevocably "established" at and after the cross, BUT Jesus called on people to believe on Him and His words before the cross. John the Baptist also called people out of the hypocritical pharisaic ways and unto true change of behavior. The disciples were given power to heal and cast out some demons before pentecost and Peter was told that it was because the father had revealed Jesus identity that he was blessed.

Jesus' teachings before his crucifiction did just as much making firm in the disciples mind of his Messiahship and the fulfilled covenants as did the Holy Spirits ministry afterwards. Thus I believe that the 'new covenant' was made firm in the disciples minds both before and after the cross.

 

[Notrash]

But you do not believe God when He made clear and unambiguous promises about Israel’s future. You can’t have it both ways!

Present National Israel (I believe) is part of the Viper that has arisen out of that which was crushed in Isaiah 59; 1-5. If present Israel or a national Israel has some part in some 'end time' scenario, it will be as a fruitless fig tree among the other trees pushing their leaves. The old covenant land/nation promises to a people of Israels and Abrahamic (through Isaac and Israel's) physical descendency had been terminated and judged faulty as evidenced by the desolation of Jerusalem. At least twice, Paul says that God has judged ALL (nations,peoples) in unbelief (equally) that he might have mercy on those of ALL nations. Rom 11:32; Gal 3:22, But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe

Many if not all prophecies concerning a restoration (just like we read in Isaiah 44/45) were fulfilled with the restoration of 490 years up to the time of Christ. Many prophecies which some attribute to a Millenial Davidic throne are fulfilled figuratively in Christ eternal and present Kingdom of Christians. Just as Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah who was to come, it is fulfilled in a figurative sense of the name and ministry of Elijah. Some prophecies that mention or continue talking of "Israel" in a timetable after Christ I believe speak towards the church, the Israel of God; the sons of God, heirs according to the promise; as a continuation and fulfillment of the blessings of Abraham to 'Israel'. Such is Isaiah 61 which Jesus read from. Some of those that talk of victorious Israel (such as in Armagheddon) I believe talk of Spiritual warfare where we are to be "more than conquerers.

It is true that some early dispensationalists like C. I. Scofield did go occasionally to extremes and even twisted scripture. But for a preterist to make this accusation is rather like “the pot calling the kettle black”! Like the Bereans, we always need to “search the scriptures [to see] whether these things are so” (Acts 17:11). And we must always use sound methods of interpretation, and do so consistently, and not just when the passage agrees with our preconceived theology.

If your allusions to 'scirpture twisting' and having a pretertist perspective are referring to Dan 7 or Dan 9 or futurist Israel perspectives, thus far, I have no apologies. You may call my kettle whichever color you wish and it will make no influence on it's true color. But, I have no pretertist bone to pick. That my interpretations align themselves with some or most pretertist ideas does not mean that I have started from a pretertist or partial pretertist positon. I appreciate though the perspectives of those who have gone before me.

This brings us to a discussion of principles of interpretation.
I offered the historico/grammatical/literary (not literal) and 'inductive' approach.

We must gather all historical information possible and read with a historical mindset. In addition, this includes first seeking to understand how the original audience and intendees would have understood the words written to and for them. (this is a main area where mistakes are made, including I believe some of futurism's error)

We must decipher grammatically, using period and biblical usage word studies, figures of speech, sentence construction and other grammatical helps. Literarily, we must include those figures of speech, poetical considerations, sentence and paragraph construction, connecting words or phrases and as mentioned the heavy influence of hebrew Parallelism. The 'inductive" aspect is the idea that we must first cancel out any pre-conceived interpretation or ideas before beginning to come to understand a passage within it's contextual, literary,grammatical historical meanings. The inductive approach is the one that seems to continaully ask questions of the text probing it from various angles.

I must point out, however, that it is equally wrong for preterists to insist that all predictive prophecy was fulfilled in the past! This too is scripture-twisting!

I do not really have a pretertist bone to pick as it may seem. But, as mentioned above, I seek to understand an application in the context that the original hearers and readers of the letter or gospel record would have understood them. This is what limits the desolation of Jerusalem and the overturning of the stones of the temple to that temple that Jesus pointed towards and the disciples were glorying over.

There are times when a person does not know of the historical or intended figurative fulfillment of a said prophecy. Thus sometimes when a person calls a pretertist a 'scripture twister' they may just be unknowing of fulfillments or unseeing of figurative fulfillments (as the Elijah/John the Baptist case)

I would agree that “every time [the word] Israel is used, it is a literal usage”.

I would disagree with this assessment and this is a core law that Scofield established and refered to as a law of Literal Interpretation.

For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise (blessing of Abraham; salvation; election) are counted as the seed.

Paul defends his belief in God's election in the following verses still talking and defining this "ALL" Israel,

9:16. So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

and then includes the elect believing Gentiles in "all Israel" :

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Paul then supports the inclusion of the Gentiles into "ALL ISRAEL" by the quote from Hosea before turning his attention to physical Israel. Note: "All Israel" was a phrase the Rabbi's would use in times past to describe those who would be 'saved'.

25 As He says also in Hosea: (concerning the Gentiles)
"I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved." [fn8]
26 "And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
'You are not My people,'
There they shall be called sons of the living God." (a name for Israel, Jesus)

And turning back to then present tense non elect vs elect Israel he says:

27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: [fn10]

"Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.
28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth."

29 And as Isaiah said before:

"Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,
We would have become like Sodom,
And we would have been made like Gomorrah."
Interesting analogy considering the upcoming desolation and burning of Jerusalem.

Thus the "All Israel" that is being saved is those of Both Jew/Gentile who are elect to be recieving salvation through faith.

This is the same "all Israel" of Rom 11:26 which describes the manner in which 'all Israel" will be known and saved'. "All Israel" are those who have their sins cancelled out and subsequently turn from ungodliness through the election of God; like Jacobs 'election'. see Rom 10:19, key to Romans 11:25; read part 2 which is down a few posts to see comments on vs 26. http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7243209

It is true that all believers are spiritual descendants of Abraham (Galatians 3:7) but the word Israel is not applied here, and we must not try to read something into the text that is not there!

There is a certain understanding of the Spirit of the law vs letter of the Law. That "Israel" is not mentioned here should not deny gentile believers in the 'sonship of God' which is spirtual Israel and those in equal receipt of the Blessing of Abraham through salvation by faith. Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Furthermore, those of national or Genetic Israel have no active covenant due to the old covenant being judged weak, faulty and obsolete should be enough to recognize that there is no present tense "Israel" other than 'spiritual descendents' of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The national descendants have no active coveant and are now "not a people" but are counted among the nations, just as others. Gal 3:22 and Rom 11:32 again.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are the elected by faith which continued as the 'sons of God" prophets and Israelites through faith and now through Christians.

John 1:12. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, (compare Rom 9:16 above) nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Israelites of the flesh could not keep the conditional old land/nation covenant promise as God knew they would not. The disciples asked Jesus how many times to forgive... 70 times??? they asked? They were apparently referring to the 70 yrs of captivity in Babylon. But this would not be an accurate picutre of forgiveness but rather national punishment and national payment for failing to uphold their end of the old covenant. Then after Jeremiahs 70 yrs Daniel pleads for forgiveness and God had already predetermined a 70 X 7 period of reprisal of grace (forgiveness) concerning the old covenant (figured in Dan 490 yr prophecy). After 490 yrs, the period of "forgiveness" ends and judgement is then placed upon the Old "pattern" covenant and it's people who continually desire an earthly 'kingdom'. The "old covenat' of the land/nation promises of Deut 11-28 has been judged inferior and is now obsolete and no longer in effect... has passed away. 2 Cor 3 and Hebrews 6-10. Jesus forgave 70 times 7 knowing the outcome of the judgement of their known inability to keep the Old covenant.

Concerning Gal 6:16,
When you begin to understand the rythm of Parallelisms, and Paul or the scribe/writer of Gal mind, you can perhaps understand that the "Israel of God" Gal 6:16 refers to And as many as walk according to this rule that he has been describing concerning not submitting to circumcision of the flesh. Compare Eph 1:1 where Paul says "and to the faithful in Christ Jesus"..http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6277764

Remember that in the OT, the New Covenant is always seen in the context of Israel only, because the inclusion of the Gentiles on an equal status was still a mystery, as Ephesians 3:5,6 plainly states.

I think it is that way because it is contrasted with the 'old covenant' in Jeremiah.
But, Eph 3:5;6 is not referring to including gentiles into any Old covenant Israel which was the land/nation covenant. Eph 3:5,6 includes all nations (gentiles and Jews) into the New Covenant promises of the Gospel as preached to Abraham. and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel . Eph 2:11-18 talks of the process of making a new man of the two old men. It wasn't only the gentiles who needed to 'move'. Jews needed to leave the old covenant ways. Christ made Peace between those formerly of the (old Covenant) and those formelry outide the Commonwealth of "national' Israel. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, (between them) [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances;

This all happened, just as you say, but as I pointed out earlier, to see this as the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13,14 is just scripture-twisting.

I would say that to apply Dan 7:13, 14 to some future event would be to take this from it's historical period of the Roman kingdom which was the context provided by the 4th beast of Daniel 7. This is the transferal of Gods's spirit from the Old covenant fully to the New Covenant International church. This occured during the context of the Roman kingdom which is the context of Daniel 7:13,14.

 

[jamescarvin]

I have found this thread a pretty good read. As I believe in multiple fulfillments in passages, I have no objection to seeing the term "Israel" applied to both the nation by blood or by boundaries and to the church. I also have no problem with the partial preterist explanations, where they are accurate. None of this stops me from looking forward to a wonderful period of a thousand years in my new risen incorruptible body to reign with King Jesus over nations of people who have come out of the tribulation not so raised as of yet since they did not believe prior to his return, who will have children at that time and be thought accursed if they don't live more than 100 years.

Let me ask a simple question. Does the partial preterist view mean that there can be no coming antichrist or tribulation period? Does it mean there wil be no future millennium?

 

[Nilloc]

Hi jamescarvin.

Let me ask a simple question. Does the partial preterist view mean that there can be no coming antichrist or tribulation period?

Yes, we believe that the "anitchrist" passages such as 2 Thess. 2 or the Beast of Revelation, were fulfilled in the first century. We believe that the tribulation happened in the first century as well, so I find no reason to think there will be a future one.

Does it mean there wil be no future millennium?

I've never heard of any Partial Preterist who believes in a future Millenium. Some of the more rare Postmillenial interpertations believe that, by the preaching of the Gospel, we will setup Christian governments in many countries before the Second Coming. That's probably the closest any Partial Preterist has come to believing in a future Millenium that I know of.

God Bless.

 

[jamescarvin]

Hi jamescarvin.

Yes, we believe that the "anitchrist" passages such as 2 Thess. 2 or the Beast of Revelation, were fulfilled in the first century. We believe that the tribulation happened in the first century as well, so I find no reason to think there will be a future one.

I've never heard of any Partial Preterist who believes in a future Millenium. Some of the more rare Postmillenial interpertations believe that, by the preaching of the Gospel, we will setup Christian governments in many countries before the Second Coming. That's probably the closest any Partial Preterist has come to believing in a future Millenium that I know of.

God Bless.

Hi NILLOC

OK. I certainly can see and have known of the fulfillment of Daniel in Antiochus, and can appreciate that John was pinpointing a new Nero(n) in 616(666). I can also appreciate the millennium as current Christian kingdom. If this has already been fulfilled and won't happen again HURRAYYYY!!

Sadly, I think it is stil coming.

Where I am persuaded that there is much prophecy still pertaining to the future is …

1. We are on the verge of the seventh millennium, by my count from the birth of Adam plus five days and the signs of the times tell my gut that what this world needs is a Savior. And his name is not Barak Obama. The Lord promised to set up an earthly kingdom. The kind of millennial kingdom I think of seems to be the actual promised land spoken of to Israel that elicits a certain type of praise - something that goes beyond your standard gratitude for an earthly possession. They worship their king.

2. The scenario that has the church just woosh off into the heavens, or maybe be ruled over, while this happens on earth is a little disappointing. I was looking forward to ruling with Christ during the millennium. Certainly the world would change once King Jesus returns. I trust you don't mean to say that he has already returned. And I trust you don't mean to say that he will rise up being born from a womb again like we expect antichrist to be.

I think there are enough Jews who espouse this last view to be genuinely concerned about a coming antichrist. I don't think this will happen. There is too much anti-Semitism. And the Jews don't have aspirations of global dominance, which makes me wonder why people fear Zionism. But that is another topic. What would concern me very much would be a situation where a world was ruled from Jerusalem by anyone other than Jesus. This leaves me with a future situation in which Jesus does finally return and if I am to reject the future millennial reign of the church, the only other choice I see is leaving the reign to the Jews alone. I suppose this is how many see it. But if that happens then where is our unity with Christ? It's kind a a switcheroo, where we go to heaven while he comes down to earth. We still have to wait on him. I know he'll be in heaven too. But then, that is precisely where my point is taking me - our unity in Christ on heaven and earth - the communion of saints. The obvious answer to the above is the perfect

3. The reason that I equate church/Israel, taking neither title away from either the church or the Jews (though I am not saying by this that every or any particular passage has to be construed both ways), is that we are all on the same journey towards, in, by and through Christ in the unity of the one Holy Spirit. There is no other way to get to the Father. You can call me by any name. What I rejoice in is my Savior who grants me access to the Father. I'm much less blessed by land than I am by this relationship. However, it seems appropriate to me that an earthly fulfillment of Christ's reign should be the swan song of earth's history, as blessed by, and redeemed by the Lord.

That is to say that the millennium reaffirms the incarnation of Christ by making the kingdom something not just heavenly but also earthly. It also, if it begins any time soon, also affirms the sabbath, as a millennial rest for creation.

4. A resorting to old covenant law in such a millennium is a step backward and doesn't serve as a swan song. In the communion of saints wherin our unity is in Christ our life by the Holy Spirit, I hope to be in communion with these Jews. But if they resort to the old law in the millennium, or for whatever period of history that exists after the church is no longer a part of a "dispensation" then they have no access to the Holy Spirit, because while the law may remove judgement, it does not create a heavenly rebirth, which was the significance of the incarnation and the paschal sacrifice to begin with.

The other option is to suppose that the church remains here after Christ resturns, but that the church is not united with Him? Somehow they are superior, but they rule the other nations, but suddenly somehow the nations have no better covenant?

5. All of this is to say that all of the Old Testament must be fulfilled. And much still has not, as I see it. Just check the boundaries of the land. And where does the lion lay with the lamb in our history? Where does the child play with the ader without harm? Where is the return to Eden?

But so does the New Testament need to be fulfilled. And what I see is a both/and situation, where the Jews do rule under King Jesus, but under the new covenant, which fulfills the old. Nothing is lost. Everything is magnified. We move from one fulfillment and glory to a greater fulfillment and glory, where what was mainly heavenly, now becomes earthly and heavenly. It fulfills the communion. It is the epliclesis of the kingdom in this world. The heavens bow down to the earth.

Are you saying that your interpretation omits all of this? How do you see the worldwide rule from Jerusalem?

 

[Nilloc]

Hi jamescarvin

I trust you don't mean to say that he has already returned.

Jesus IS coming again (no matter what the full preterists say); I believe passionatley in a future Second Coming.

Just check the boundaries of the land.

The actual land promise was fulfilled in the time of Joshua (Josh. 21:43). We also have to remember that the real promise God made to Abraham was that he and his Seed (Christ and those in Him) would inherit the world, not just a piece of land (Rom. 4:13).

And where does the lion lay with the lamb in our history? Where does the child play with the ader without harm? Where is the return to Eden?

I believe that these will be fulfilled in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Are you saying that your interpretation omits all of this? How do you see the worldwide rule from Jerusalem?

To make it brief, I don’t believe that the modern state of Israel has any prophetic significance or that it has any role to play in the Second Coming. I don’t believe that the Church and Israel are separate; I believe that they are one-and-the-same and always have been. Thus the promises that were made to Israel are/will be fulfilled in us, His Holy Nation (1 Pet. 2:9).

I don’t believe that Jesus will rule on an old earth (although He is currently ruling over it) or in an old Jerusalem, I believe that He will rule on the New Earth, in the New Jerusalem for eternity, not just a thousand years.

God Bless.

 

[Notrash]

Hi NILLOC

OK. I certainly can see and have known of the fulfillment of Daniel in Antiochus, and can appreciate that John was pinpointing a new Nero(n) in 616(666). I can also appreciate the millennium as current Christian kingdom. If this has already been fulfilled and won't happen again HURRAYYYY!!

A pretertist perspective is that Revelation was written before the desolation of Jerusalem and thus 616/666 was refering to that Nero..... not a new figurative Nero.

1. We are on the verge of the seventh millennium, by my count from the birth of Adam plus five days and the signs of the times tell my gut that what this world needs is a Savior.

Any ideas of a 'new future savior" that detracts focus on Christs accomplished and finished work is I believe follow after the Spirit of the antichrist as those who believe not that Christ (the appointed savior) has already come "in the flesh". We need to be more taking Hold of our adoption as sons of the Creator and resisting our being claimed as children of this world.

The Lord promised to set up an earthly kingdom

.

When did he make this promise?

I trust you don't mean to say that he has already returned.

A Pretertist would be inclined towards at least one return being when HE 'Jesus' REVEALED (key on the word Revelation) Himself as the Creator by forming images of Roman Soldiers in the Clouds and performed many other physical and extra-natural phenomena prior to and during the seige of Jerusalem. Titus denied a trophy cup of the victory saying something to the effect: There is no honor when a peoples own God has turned against them in Battle. So very obvious was the Creators judgement against those jews who remained in Jerusalem and who had not believe in Jesus after the Resureection.

Weather there are other physical 'returns' or returns of His Presence OR that we return to Him is not a primary issue to me personally. Loving His "appearing" can have other meanings other than a physical appearance.

And the Jews don't have aspirations of global dominance, which makes me wonder why people fear Zionism. But that is another topic.

I think the Talmudic Jews do seek world dominance along with others.

What would concern me very much would be a situation where a world was ruled from Jerusalem by anyone other than Jesus. This leaves me with a future situation in which Jesus does finally return and if I am to reject the future millennial reign of the church, the only other choice I see is leaving the reign to the Jews alone. I suppose this is how many see it. But if that happens then where is our unity with Christ? It's kind a a switcheroo, where we go to heaven while he comes down to earth. We still have to wait on him. I know he'll be in heaven too. But then, that is precisely where my point is taking me - our unity in Christ on heaven and earth - the communion of saints. The obvious answer to the above is the perfect

I apreciate your comments and analysis. If a Christian beleives and lives in the reality that he is presently residing in a Millenial kingdom that will continue in a Eternal new heavens and earth, the Christian may find a stronger empowerment to make good spiritual decisions and recieve better gifts from above here on the earth. As it is now, Christianity has been taught that the future 'millenial reign' will be through the Jews, and thus we have been playing second fiddle for the last few hundred years. Our churches have been infiltrated with 'judaism' just as Corwallis spoke to Washington at his surrender. This prophecy or promise by Cornwallis is only part of the reason to view that the jews seek at least a world control, if not a world dominion. Some refer to this as the New World Order.

3. The reason that I equate church/Israel, taking neither title away from either the church or the Jews (though I am not saying by this that every or any particular passage has to be construed both ways), is that we are all on the same journey towards, in, by and through Christ in the unity of the one Holy Spirit. There is no other way to get to the Father. You can call me by any name. What I rejoice in is my Savior who grants me access to the Father.

Todays Talmudic Isreal has rejected Christ who came "in the flesh". Their "Messiah" and Savior is the collection of writings of Rabbi's of the interpretation of the Law which favors their cult/religion. This Talmud began being formed ( I think) during or shortly after Babylonian captivity. Talmud teaching allows Jews to view themselves as superior to other races/groups all with the goal of ruling over them. Thus "Israel" of the flesh and the church are not all on the same journey towards, in, by and through Christ in the unity of the one Holy Spirit.

I'm much less blessed by land than I am by this relationship. However, it seems appropriate to me that an earthly fulfillment of Christ's reign should be the swan song of earth's history, as blessed by, and redeemed by the Lord.

Paul had some key analysis in Galations 4 when he talks of the typology of the old covenant "Mt Sinai" which recieved the OT Law with Jerusalem which recieved the Law and love of Christ and which pertains to " Jerusalem. Those of the new covenant were Then in bondage with their children to those of the old covenant. But what saith Scripture?

Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Sons of the 'old covenant' shall not be heir with 'sons' of God of the new covenant.

That is to say that the millennium reaffirms the incarnation of Christ by making the kingdom something not just heavenly but also earthly. It also, if it begins any time soon, also affirms the sabbath, as a millennial rest for creation.

We can reaffirm the incarnation by yeilding ourselves as 'living sacrifices' in the present reign of Christ in our bodies. Sometimes this is easier said than done.

4. A resorting to old covenant law in such a millennium is a step backward and doesn't serve as a swan song. In the communion of saints wherin our unity is in Christ our life by the Holy Spirit, I hope to be in communion with these Jews. But if they resort to the old law in the millennium, or for whatever period of history that exists after the church is no longer a part of a "dispensation" then they have no access to the Holy Spirit, because while the law may remove judgement, it does not create a heavenly rebirth, which was the significance of the incarnation and the paschal sacrifice to begin with.

The other option is to suppose that the church remains here after Christ resturns, but that the church is not united with Him? Somehow they are superior, but they rule the other nations, but suddenly somehow the nations have no better covenant?

5. All of this is to say that all of the Old Testament must be fulfilled. And much still has not, as I see it. Just check the boundaries of the land.

The 'old land/nation opportunity and 'Covenant' has been annulled, and has no effectiveness. It is void, canceled. REad 2 Cor 3 and Hebrews 6-10. It was a covenant that was conditioned on those Sons of Israel continuing in all things Moses commanded and instructed them. There was centuries upon centuries of seeking to restore them, but they refused and went after Beor. Finally, as preknown, God nullified that covenant. The only religion that survived the desolation of Jerusalem was that of the Pharisees, and almost all of judaism today stems directly from that religion.

And where does the lion lay with the lamb in our history? Where does the child play with the ader without harm? Where is the return to Eden?


But so does the New Testament need to be fulfilled. And what I see is a both/and situation, where the Jews do rule under King Jesus, but under the new covenant, which fulfills the old. Nothing is lost. Everything is magnified. We move from one fulfillment and glory to a greater fulfillment and glory, where what was mainly heavenly, now becomes earthly and heavenly. It fulfills the communion. It is the epliclesis of the kingdom in this world. The heavens bow down to the earth.

Are you saying that your interpretation omits all of this? How do you see the worldwide rule from Jerusalem?

Your advocating and describing a dual economy or dual dispensaton idea of dispensationalism and/or zionism. Again, remember that those seeking a kingdom on this earth may not be heirs of the 'eternal' kingdom of the New Heaven/New Earth. Nor do they recieve the 'blessings of Abraham' in this life and His present Kingdom.

 

[Nilloc]

Hi NILLOC




A pretertist perspective is that Revelation was written before the desolation of Jerusalem and thus 616/666 was refering to that Nero..... not a new figurative Nero.



Any ideas of a 'new future savior" that detracts focus on Christs accomplished and finished work is I believe follow after the Spirit of the antichrist as those who believe not that Christ (the appointed savior) has already come "in the flesh". We need to be more taking Hold of our adoption as sons of the Creator and resisting our being claimed as children of this world.

.

When did he make this promise?



A Pretertist would be inclined towards one historical "figurative" return when HE 'Jesus' REVEALED (key on the word Revelation) Himself as the Creator by forming images of Roman Soldiers in the Clouds and performed many other physical and extra-natural phenomena prior to and during the seige of Jerusalem. Titus denied a trophy cup of the victory saying something to the effect: There is no honor when a peoples own God has turned against them in Battle. So very obvious was the Creators judgement against those jews who remained in Jerusalem and who had not believe in Jesus after the Resureection.



I think the Talmudic Jews do seek world dominance along with others.



I apreciate your comments and analysis. If a Christian beleives and lives in the reality that he is presently residing in a Millenial kingdom that will continue in a Eternal new heavens and earth, the Christian may find a stronger empowerment to make good spiritual decisions and recieve better gifts from above here on the earth. As it is now, Christianity has been taught that the future 'millenial reign' will be through the Jews, and thus we have been playing second fiddle for the last few hundred years. Our churches have been infiltrated with 'judaism' just as Corwallis spoke to Washington at his surrender. This prophecy or promise by Cornwallis is only part of the reason to view that the jews seek at least a world control, if not a world dominion. Some refer to this as the New World Order.


Todays Talmudic Isreal has rejected Christ who came "in the flesh". Their "Messiah" and Savior is the collection of writings of Rabbi's of the interpretation of the Law which favors their cult/religion. This Talmud began being formed ( I think) during or shortly after Babylonian captivity. Talmud teaching allows Jews to view themselves as superior to other races/groups all with the goal of ruling over them. Thus "Israel" of the flesh and the church are not all on the same journey towards, in, by and through Christ in the unity of the one Holy Spirit.


Paul had some key analysis in Galations 4 when he talks of the typology of the old covenant "Mt Sinai" which recieved the OT Law with Jerusalem which recieved the Law and love of Christ and which pertains to " Jerusalem. Those of the new covenant were Then in bondage with their children to those of the old covenant. But what saith Scripture?

Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Sons of the 'old covenant' shall not be heir with 'sons' of God of the new covenant.




We can reaffirm the incarnation by yeilding ourselves as 'living sacrifices' in the present reign of Christ in our bodies. Sometimes this is easier said than done.



The 'old land/nation opportunity and 'Covenant' has been annulled, and has no effectiveness. It is void, canceled. REad 2 Cor 3 and Hebrews 6-10. It was a covenant that was conditioned on those Sons of Israel continuing in all things Moses commanded and instructed them. There was centuries upon centuries of seeking to restore them, but they refused and went after Beor. Finally, as preknown, God nullified that covenant. The only religion that survived the desolation of Jerusalem was that of the Pharisees, and almost all of judaism today stems directly from that religion.


Your advocating and describing a dual economy or dual dispensaton idea of dispensationalism and/or zionism. Again, remember that those seeking a kingdom on this earth may not be heirs of the 'eternal' kingdom of the New Heaven/New Earth. Nor do they recieve the 'blessings of Abraham' in this life and His present Kingdom.

Good points Notrash.

(I sent you a private message a few days ago btw, did you get it? Can you please reply to it?)

God Bless.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I apreciate your comments and analysis. If a Christian beleives and lives in the reality that he is presently residing in a Millenial kingdom that will continue in a Eternal new heavens and earth, the Christian may find a stronger empowerment to make good spiritual decisions and recieve better gifts from above here on the earth.

Isn't that the Catholic's view? I disagree about the Millenium being literal.

But then again, I view Armegeddon and Gog-Magog as the same event which is I suppose a pretty unique view. Notice in Ezekiel 38 the Great Hail and Fire happens at the same time and I even put up a song to go with it LOL........

Ezekiel 38:22 "And I will bring him to judgment with pestilence and bloodshed; I will rain down on him, on his troops, and on the many peoples who with him, flooding rain, great hailstones, fire, and brimstone. [Revelation 16:21 and 20:9]

Reve 16:21 and hail, great as talent weight is descending out of the heaven up the men and blaspheme the men the God out of the stripes of the hail, that great is the stripe/blow of her, tremendous.

Reve 20:9 And they ascended on the breadth of the land and they surround the camp of the holy-ones and the city, the having been loved. And descended fire out of the heaven and it devoured them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JGGKOjF8FU