PDA

View Full Version : The Easter Debate ~ Lion and DDW on Eschatology (HOF thread)



Lion
December 17th, 2002, 04:22 PM
Dee Dee, excellent points made so far, and thanks for the definition of your views.

It’s funny how close our theologies are. The Acts 9 dispensational, open view theology agrees with your first and third points completely. I do have a problem with point number three however. The problem comes with the idea that the destruction of the Temple limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame. If the tribulation period was stopped prior to the destruction of the temple, then the later destruction of the temple has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the timeline. However the destruction of the temple does prove problematic for your side, as I will show in a moment.

We Acts 9, dispe, OVer’s believe that the tribulation period began immediately following the crucifixion, but was discontinued due to Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah.

Here’s the problem with the destruction of the temple that I referred to earlier. I assume you believe in the 70 week prophesy stated by Daniel? If so, how do reconcile that the 69th week was to be immediately followed by the 70th week. In other words, Why didn’t the 7 year tribulation begin immediately after the death of Messiah as prophesized?

Moderator Note: Gavin is back and as this discussion has progressed quite some length I have given it the honor of it's own thread continuing from here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4676&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)

smilax
December 17th, 2002, 04:37 PM
Interrupting again...
Originally posted by Lion
We Acts 9, dispe, OVer’s believe that the tribulation period began immediately following the crucifixion, but was discontinued due to Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah.Sounds like an argument from silence.
In other words, Why didn’t the 7 year tribulation begin immediately after the death of Messiah as prophesized?I can't speak for her, but I personally do not think what Daniel calls "one week" (the seven-year Jewish War) is the seventieth week, but rather a period of time detached from the seventy. And Jesus progressively revealed this to be within a generation (forty years) of the fulfillment of the seventy weeks.

Dee Dee Warren
December 17th, 2002, 05:01 PM
For the record while I am working on a response to Lion.. I oppose any detachment of the weeks. My answer will not include such a manuever. I hope that Smilax reads what I write and reconsider his position.

Lion
December 18th, 2002, 03:56 PM
Smilax-You said;
Sounds like an argument from silence. In response to my statement about the tribulation period (the time of Jacob’s trouble) starting and then ending. I wasn’t giving proof of that statement at that time, just stating what we believe for the record, (after all we are not futurists).

As to your second point, about the 70th week not following the 69th week, I think I will let your colleague work on that since she seems already to have a more believable answer in waiting.

Lion
December 18th, 2002, 04:02 PM
DD-(You know your moniker is the same as one of my boyhood super heroes-Dare Devil).

I know you are busy (lots of moderating, posting, and probably trying to deal with Christmas shopping and every day living as well), so no hurry. I like that you didn’t try the interruption theory, of the 70 week prophesy, at the get go.

Talk soon.

Dee Dee Warren
December 18th, 2002, 06:43 PM
Dear Lion:

I had one other project which I just finished up so I can begin to concentrate on answering your post. I don’t usually have a lot of time during the week to write substantive responses, so I expect that I will not be able to post anything until this weekend, I just wanted to let you know. Also, your response is different from what I usually tackle, so it does take some reflection as I do not care to give “shoot from the hip” responses. I am looking forward to dialoging with you.

Lion
December 19th, 2002, 07:12 PM
DD-Great. I had some surgery recently and have some time on my hands, but usually am swamped, so I know how it goes. In fact I am amazed at how you can find the time to post and research as much as you do. You must be a speed-reader, and much faster at typing than I am.

So whenever you get the time, we’ll talk.

novice
December 19th, 2002, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Lion
DD-Great. I had some surgery recently and have some time on my hands, but usually am swamped, so I know how it goes. In fact I am amazed at how you can find the time to post and research as much as you do. You must be a speed-reader, and much faster at typing than I am.

So whenever you get the time, we’ll talk. Ahhh... how cordial for a big scary Lion. :)

Come on......... duke it out already!!!! ;)

Lion
December 19th, 2002, 07:19 PM
Did somebody step on my tail…..who was it? Tell me….I’ll beat em up, I’ll beat em up, wuf wuf!

Knight
December 19th, 2002, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Lion
Did somebody step on my tail…..who was it? Tell me….I’ll beat em up, I’ll beat em up, wuf wuf! Uhhh.... I think Jaltus stepped on your tail.

Yea....

I am sure of it. Jaltus stepped on your tail.

Lion
December 19th, 2002, 10:16 PM
I’m sorta hungry, perhaps a late-Knight snack?

drbrumley
December 19th, 2002, 10:29 PM
Lion,

Long time , no see. Glad to see you back!

Lion
December 20th, 2002, 04:14 PM
Hey Doc, good to be back.

Jaltus
December 20th, 2002, 06:23 PM
Hey, is Knight talking about me behind my back?

Or should that be in front of my back?

Hmmm, either way doesn't really work.

Knight
December 20th, 2002, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Jaltus
Hey, is Knight talking about me behind my back?Of course I am!

What are good antagonists for?

Knight
December 20th, 2002, 07:24 PM
Dee Dee.. excellent strategy... lull your opponent to sleep. :D

Jaltus
December 20th, 2002, 07:30 PM
What are good antagonists for?


Family reunions?

Dee Dee Warren
December 21st, 2002, 11:12 AM
Dear Lion:

Phew! I have finally found the time to dedicate to answering your post.


Dee Dee, excellent points made so far, and thanks for the definition of your views.

Thank you very much :)


It’s funny how close our theologies are. The Acts 9 dispensational, open view theology agrees with your first and third points completely.

To recap that would be:

PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.

PROOF NUMBER THREE:The other “near” temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for “this generation,” specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23.


I do have a problem with point number three however.

I believe you mean point number two as follows:

PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.

and as an aside.. you did not comment on point number four which was:

PROOF NUMBER FOUR: The context of the Olivet Discourse is a clear first century Judean context, NOT the “end of the world” it is made out to in modern prophecy thought.

And might I add that point number two is the kicker, so I think that any disagreement on that point really renders any agreement that you and I have on points one and two merely academic.


The problem comes with the idea that the destruction of the Temple limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame. If the tribulation period was stopped prior to the destruction of the temple, then the later destruction of the temple has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the timeline. However the destruction of the temple does prove problematic for your side, as I will show in a moment.

I will reserve comment so that the flow of your point is not missed.


We Acts 9, dispe, OVer’s believe that the tribulation period began immediately following the crucifixion, but was discontinued due to Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah.

Again, comment is reserved.


Here’s the problem with the destruction of the temple that I referred to earlier. I assume you believe in the 70 week prophesy stated by Daniel? If so, how do reconcile that the 69th week was to be immediately followed by the 70th week. In other words, Why didn’t the 7 year tribulation begin immediately after the death of Messiah as prophesized?

Okay there are several issues packed in here that I will need to tackle. The big one is the idea that the destruction of the Temple falls within the 70th week of Daniel which should follow immediately after the 69th week. However, since the destruction of the Temple did not happen until about 40 years or so after the 69th week, how do I extricate myself out of this pickle without inserting an arbitrary gap in the weeks?? The other issue would be the assumption contained within your response that the 70th week of Daniel is synonymous with the period of the Great Tribulation… an idea which I reject.

First a caveat… I readily confess that while I am familiar with dispensationalism in general, having once been a dispensationalist myself, I am honestly not that familiar with the particular “flavor” of dispensationalism that you hold to, so I may make some improper assumptions, and I beg your forgiveness in advance if I do. I understand that a copy of the seminal book expounding upon this view is on its way to me, and I am grateful for that.

Judging by your comments, you appear to not be so enamored with the insertion of a gap into the weeks as well. That though, seems to be in conflict with the implied assertion in your post to me that the destruction of the Temple must fall within the 70th week, and that the 70th week represents the period of the Great Tribulation, for then even in your view.. it appears that you must posit some sort of gap, though you may entitle it an “interruption”… a rose by any other name… ;)

So briefly… here is my chronology of the 70 weeks… I will provide further defense and detail as needed (I am not going to deal with the dating of the beginning of the countdown, unless you find that necessary.. we are probably pretty close in agreement on that). To start… here are the “goals” of the 70 weeks, i.e. the objectives to be accomplished within that time frame:

Daniel 9:24 – “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.”

The first thing we notice here is that nowhere is the destruction of the Temple mentioned as one of the goals of the 70 weeks, it simply isn’t there However, the things that are mentioned as the goals were accomplished within the specified time frame all in the first century, in and surrounding Christ’s ministry. I was going to post specific proofs of those, but decided against it unless those are at issue.

Thus in my view, the 69th week ends with Christ’s baptism (the anointing of the Most Holy). The 70th week immediately followed without delay. Christ’s ministry lasted three and one-half years, and then He was cut off in the midst of the 70th week. The completion of the remaining three and one-half years of the 70th week after the Cross marked the end of the specific focus of the Gospel preaching to ethnic Israel (“You shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samarian and to the end of the earth.” Acts 1:8). The focus from that point on became the Gentiles and the opening of the Kingdom to them en masse. Acts records this progression. The opening chapters focus on Jerusalem, rippling out into Judea, and then Samaria, and then out into Gentiles with the conversion and ministry of Paul.

Thus in short, I see the destruction of the city and the Temple of the first century as a consequence of the 70 weeks, but not falling within the 70th week at all. I abbreviated this response, opting instead to see what areas you specifically question.

Now on to the other issue of your post which was your objection to my point that the destruction of the Temple then standing limits the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse to the first century. I frankly don’t see any way you can’t meaningfully get around this issue. Here is specifically what you said:


The problem comes with the idea that the destruction of the Temple limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame. If the tribulation period was stopped prior to the destruction of the temple, then the later destruction of the temple has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the timeline.


We Acts 9, dispe, OVer’s believe that the tribulation period began immediately following the crucifixion, but was discontinued due to Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah.

With all due respect, both of these statements are impossible. I have to tighten up some terms here so that both of us are clear on what is being said. When I use the phrase “tribulation,” I am not going to be referring to general tribulation (which is with us always) or the various tribulative (is that a word?) precursors to the Great Tribulation, but rather I will use the word specifically to refer to the three and one-half year period of time which I hold occurred from 66AD-70AD. It appears that you may be using a looser definition of the word in your comments, but at this point, it is difficult for me to discern.

The Great Tribulation was the judgment response of God to the Jewish rejection of, and murder of, their Messiah. That being said, there would be no reason to discontinue this punishment because they continued along the same path of rejection that was brining the punishment in the first place! That would be akin to a parent suspending the grounding of their children because they continued to be bad while confined to their room.

I do not deny that there is implied conditionality to all prophecies of judgment (and of blessing); however, this conditionality is logical, just, and clearly defined in Scripture.

Let’s take a look at the passage from this is derived.

Jeremiah 18:7-11 – The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”

There are a lot of interesting things here.

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.

This portion teaches that the threats to destroy and pull down and pluck up are God’s response to the evil that a nation has done. If that nation then turns from its evil, God will not bring the disaster upon it.

And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

God here speaks conversely to the truth already taught. Just as he will prosper an “evil” nation that turns from its evil, he will destroy a “good” nation” that turn from its good. In other words in this passage God is not talking about blessing an evil nation… it is presumed that when the blessing is pronounced, the nation is good, but if it turns evil, then the blessing is withdrawn.

The relevance to this discussion is apparent. At the time that Jesus spoke the Olivet Discourse, He was not speaking of a “good” nation upon whom He was now going to pronounce some blessing, He was speaking of an evil nation that would soon demand that He be crucified rather than a murderer (Mark 15:11 Matthew 27:21), cried out for His blood to be upon them and upon their children (Matthew 27:25), and pledged allegiance to no king but Caesar (John 19:15). They did not repent from those ways but continued in them, thus, even under the rubric of conditionalism there is no way out. The Great Tribulation was a first century event.

And continuing on the “escape” clause in prophecy, it is also apparent that this is only valid when the reaction of the people prophesied about is not also the subject of the prophecy. For example, when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, not only did He tell Moses what to say, and what the consequences of Pharaoh’s refusal would be, He also told Moses that Pharaoh would in fact refuse. That closes any escape hatch. God has spoken the whole thing. Likewise, the rejection of Christ by the Jews (except for a Remnant, which is all that ever really existed as the people of God to begin with) was also foretold. Their rejection was certain and prophesied. I can see no way out of this fact.

This then brings us back full circle to my contention that that the destruction of Temple then standing completely and irretrievably limits the fulfillment of the Discourse (at least up to Matthew 24:34), and if my points above are correct, this point still stands. Of course, there are other ways I can argue that point as well (i.e. the fact that Jesus made it undeniably clear what Temple was in view in His prophecy making any future “fulfillment” impossible) but at the admonition of Knight that I was not asked to write dissertation (smile), I shall stop here, and so look forward to your comments and interaction.

Lion
December 21st, 2002, 07:39 PM
DD- I will try and take your points in order.

First; you are correct, I did mean point number two, thanks for the correction.

Second; The reason I didn’t mention point number four is because it wasn’t up before I started responding to your other points, however while I agree that it is clearly a first century prophesy, I might have an issue with it not being the end of the world (age), (won’t go into that now though).

Third; You make the statement that the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem are nowhere mentioned in the 490 year prophesy. It is not stated in verse 24 but it is clearly stated in verse 26;
Dan 9:26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Fourth; You believe the 69th week ends with the baptism of Christ;

Thus in my view, the 69th week ends with Christ’s baptism (the anointing of the Most Holy). The 70th week immediately followed without delay.
You stated earlier that we probably are pretty close on the time line of Daniel’s 70 week prophesy, and perhaps we are, but apparently not close enough.
I believe the verses clearly show that the 69th week ends with the death of Christ and that the Great Tribulation started immediately after that.
Let’s look at the prophesy;
Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.
(Notice that they are not necessarily in order and that the anointing of the Holy One is only stated to be within the 70 week timeframe.)

Daniel’s prophesy in this verse, sets a time of 490 years to accomplish all the events mentioned above for Israel, her people and Jerusalem. The next verse tells when the 490 year period begins;

Dan 9:25 “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks (49 years) and sixty-two weeks (434 years) (49 + 434 = 483 years); The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
This portion of the prophecy states that the command to rebuild Jerusalem will be given and that the 490 year period will begin with that command. The next verse is where the Preterist’s theology breaks down, stating that the Messiah will appear after 483 years and be killed (not baptized).

Dan 9:26 “And after the sixty-two weeks (483 years) Messiah shall be cut off (killed), but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
The 62 weeks mentioned above, plus the 7 weeks from the previous verse, show that the Messiah would be killed 483 years after the order to rebuild Jerusalem, at the end of the 69th week.
That leaves only the last (the 70th) week, so let’s look at the next verse;

Dan 9: 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”
This seven year (1 week) period, is Daniel’s 70th week. The Great Tribulation. The Time of Jacob’s Sorrow.

So these two points are where I see the flaw in the Preterist’s theology. (1) The death of Christ (not the baptism) ended the 69th week, and the 70th week started immediately after, but was stopped, due to Israel’s rejection of her Messiah.

(2) The destruction of the sanctuary, (the temple), and the city, (Jerusalem), which is clearly seen to happen during the 70 weeks, and not as some type of result of the Tribulation period, forty years later. The Biblical timeframe does not fit the Preterist’s scenereo, but works perfectly with the Acts 9 Dispensational scenereo.

One last point. You said;
Judging by your comments, you appear to not be so enamored with the insertion of a gap into the weeks as well. That though, seems to be in conflict with the implied assertion in your post to me that the destruction of the Temple must fall within the 70th week, and that the 70th week represents the period of the Great Tribulation, for then even in your view.. it appears that you must posit some sort of gap, though you may entitle it an “interruption”… a rose by any other name…
Hmmmm…. You may be right, in a way. However I don’t see it as a “gap” or an “interruption”, but rather that it was stopped. Cold. The events outlined in the 70th week will still happen. But not when prophesied.
The Great Tribulation started after the Crucifixion of Christ (numerous signs of the Great Tribulation are present in the Book of Acts) and then was stopped about one year later. Daniel’s prophesy was aborted (and the completion of his prophesy will never be completed the way he stated it would, in other words, it can never be fulfilled in the timeline it was prophesied) at that time due to Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. God was not held to his word to complete the 70th week, as you so aptly pointed out in the Jeremiah 18 passage, because of Israel’s rejection. The Great Tribulation will happen, as is clearly shown in the Book Of Revelation, but not until the fullness of the gentiles has come in. So you may deem it a gap or an interruption, but I would say it was stopped, the 490 year prophesy ended. Even though the events themselves will still happen sometime in the future.

Dee Dee Warren
December 21st, 2002, 07:46 PM
Dear Lion:

Thank you for your response... I will surely respond in more detail now that I see better where you are coming from and can tailor my points accordingly. I hope you do not mind that first I am going to answer Gavin's question so that it will be waiting for him when he returns from his vacation. However, I should have that done by tomorrow and will then immediately begin working on my response to you. I am sorry that I am not lickety-split in responding, but I hope that you appreciate that I put a great deal of time and thought into my replies.

Lion
December 22nd, 2002, 09:15 AM
DD-Once again, no hurry. I kind of butted in on your conversation with Gavin anyway, so please let that take top priority. We’ll go at it as we can.

Dee Dee Warren
December 22nd, 2002, 09:18 AM
Dear Lion:

Well as you can see, I busted out a response to Gavin pretty quickly because it is the weekend, so I will be working on a response to you soon. :)

Dee Dee Warren
December 24th, 2002, 08:18 PM
Dear Lion:

I SO appreciate your response and time, and am enjoying this discussion. I am going to now get pretty darn specific and chase down certain issues which I do not believe you have fully dealt with in your response. I know you do not consider yourself a futurist (I would assert for all practical purposes though you may be), but as an example, I have found with the many futurists I have debated, that they have varying levels of success in explaining away isolated passages, but it is the “big picture” (as Knight likes to assert that I need to see) that is fatal to any eschatological system other than preterism. I know I sound irritatingly confident (I wouldn’t be Dee Dee if I didn’t), but I have dedicated years to this issue, and am pretty darned sure I have got the contours correct. Now on to your comments….


The reason I didn’t mention point number four is because it wasn’t up before I started responding to your other points, however while I agree that it is clearly a first century prophesy, I might have an issue with it not being the end of the world (age), (won’t go into that now though).

Okay, but I think you may have misunderstood me or are being imprecise in your terminology. Precision is very important in this discussion. I firmly believe the Discourse is about the end of the “age,” (which came in the first century) but not the end of the “world.” However, your comment made the two terms equal. They are not. Certainly we can go into that later, and I am eager to do so because I have an unassailable argument using that idea to prove that premillennialism utterly fails.


You make the statement that the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem are nowhere mentioned in the 490 year prophesy. It is not stated in verse 24 but it is clearly stated in verse 26;

Ah Lion my fine feline friend (smile), imprecision rears its ugly head (double-smile). That is not exactly what I said… but rather I said this:

To start… here are the “goals” of the 70 weeks, i.e. the objectives to be accomplished within that time frame:
Daniel 9:24 – “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.”

The first thing we notice here is that nowhere is the destruction of the Temple mentioned as one of the goals of the 70 weeks, it simply isn’t there

Thus, my point is that Daniel is given very specific goals that must be accomplished within the 70 weeks, and the destruction of the Temple is not one of them, and each of the goals for the 70 weeks were in fact accomplished during Christ’s earthly ministry; thus there is no reason, either textually or practically, to push any portion of this prophecy into the future. Your answer assumed what is yet to be proven and cannot be proven, and that is that every single detail of the remainder of Daniel 9 falls within the 70 week time frame. So while of course the destruction of the Temple is mentioned in 9:26, I have maintained this event does not fall within the 490 years but rather is a consequence of the 490 years.

This is born out by the New Testament record which teaches that the soon coming (to them) desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple were a result of their rejection and murder of Christ:

Matthew 23: 31-36: Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate.

The desolation of their house (i.e. Temple) was a consequence of their crimes.

Matthew 22:2-7 - The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

in, the destruction of their city was a consequence of their earlier crimes.


You believe the 69th week ends with the baptism of Christ;

Absolutely…. And I will demonstrate why….


You stated earlier that we probably are pretty close on the time line of Daniel’s 70 week prophesy, and perhaps we are, but apparently not close enough.

I meant that we are probably pretty close on the dating of the decree that started the countdown… I still believe that. There is only a three and one-half year difference in our placement of the end of the 69th week.


I believe the verses clearly show that the 69th week ends with the death of Christ and that the Great Tribulation started immediately after that. Let’s look at the prophesy;

Yes, let’s look at the text for it will show that your interpretation is anti-contextual and (grimace) forced.

Daniel 9:24 – Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.


(Notice that they are not necessarily in order and that the anointing of the Holy One is only stated to be within the 70 week timeframe.)

No problem here. I agree that they are not necessarily in order (but would argue that they are deliberately set up in a specific Hebraic phrasing consisting of three couplets), and that ALL of these items are the GOALS to be accomplished within the 70 week time frame. The destruction of the city and the Temple are thus only noticeable by their absence from this list.


Daniel’s prophesy in this verse, sets a time of 490 years to accomplish all the events mentioned above for Israel, her people and Jerusalem.

Exactly, and you are proving my point. The events mentioned to be accomplished for Israel and Jerusalem do not mention its destruction whatsoever…. And every single one of these events was accomplished in the first century during the earthly ministry of Christ, so thus in addition to the fact that there is not textual reason to thrust them into our future, there is also no pragmatic reason to do so either.


The next verse tells when the 490 year period begins;

No objection here.

Daniel 9:25 – Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks (49 years) and sixty-two weeks (434 years) (49 + 434 = 483 years); The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.


This portion of the prophecy states that the command to rebuild Jerusalem will be given and that the 490 year period will begin with that command.

No problem here.


The next verse is where the Preterist’s theology breaks down, stating that the Messiah will appear after 483 years and be killed (not baptized).

Daniel 9:26 – And after the sixty-two weeks (483 years) Messiah shall be cut off (killed), but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.


The 62 weeks mentioned above, plus the 7 weeks from the previous verse, show that the Messiah would be killed 483 years after the order to rebuild Jerusalem, at the end of the 69th week.


No, I am afraid you are mistaken… and again, precision is very important. First you object that verse 26 does not say that the Messiah will be baptized only murdered…. but you are neglecting that the anointing of the Most Holy (Christ’s baptism) was already mentioned in verse 24 as one of the explicit goals of the 70 weeks. It has to happen at some point, despite no explicit reference following verse 24 in anyone’s scheme. But it is pretty easy to prove my case in any event. Let’s get precise here and back up once again to verse 25.

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.

Look very, very carefully at that verse. It says that there will be 483 years UNTIL Messiah the Prince. Until Messiah the Prince what? Is born? No, that is much too late for that. Crucified? Possible in isolation though the next verse, as I will demonstrate, rules that out and would be even more unlikely in your particular dispensational view. What then this verse is referring to is the public presentation of the Messiah to Israel, and that happened at His baptism when John the Baptist, the harbinger, publicly announced Him, and God publicly anointed Him.

John 1:29-34 – The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.” And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”

Matthew 3:16 - When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”[/I]

After His baptism, Christ preached that the time was fulfilled (what time? – an obvious reference to Daniel 9 and Daniel 2 – the only places in the OT where the timing of Messiah and His kingdom are laid out) Mark 1:15.

Now we can go back to verse 26 for I want to point out something interesting with this background in mind….

And [b]after the sixty-two weeks (483 years) Messiah shall be cut off (killed), but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

That little word “after” renders your view impossible. The Messiah’s being cut off does not END the 69th week, it happens AFTER the 69th week is already ended. And what is the only week left? The 70th week, thus, the Messiah is cut off AFTER the 69th week, i.e. in the 70th week. Well when in the 70th week? That is what the rest of the passage tells us.

You continue….


That leaves only the last (the 70th) week, so let’s look at the next verse;

Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.

Well here is something else that is very embarrassing to a view in opposition to mine. (smile – yes I can be irritating can’t I?). There is the pronoun “he.” Well who is the “he”? – simple rules of grammar inform us. A pronoun will refer back to the last dominant character. Well who was that? Simple, there has only been one dominant character introduced in this whole prophecy… the Messiah! It cannot be “the people,” that is not a “he,” that is a “they.” It cannot be the “prince who is to come” for the noun “prince” is NOT the last dominant figure, it is not a dominant figure at all, but rather is the subject of a prepositional phrase! On a side note, even if the last dominant figure were the “prince who is to come,” it would not matter since that is ALSO the Messiah, the ONLY Prince that has been mentioned. The insertion of an anti-christ in this passage is an anti-contextual forced intrusion indeed. So as to further prove Christ’s confirming of the covenant for many (an idiomatic expression in Daniel for Isael)–

Romans 15:8 – Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers.

Christ sealed the confirming, and using the same language as the LXX of Daniel 9 said in Matthew 26:28, “This is My blood of the new covenant, shed for MANY for the remission of sins.” Isaiah also places this at the atonement, “My Servant shall justify many for He shall bear their iniquities.”

So, then the Messiah shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week but in the midst of the week will bring an end to sacrifice and offering….. that is exactly what was accomplished by His being cut off. The two phrases are synomous and set in Hebrew parallelism within the passage. The timing of the crucifixtion is in the middle of the 70th week. It is ironic how your dispensational view converges much more tightly under my interpretation of this passage. Christ came, first, for ethnic Israel….the Gospel (and I maintain there is only one Gospel – but we can do that dance later) was first for the Jews, with a special focus upon them during Christ’s earthly ministry and in His words before His ascension (Acts 1:8)….. With the conversion of Paul, three and one-half years later, the focus changed, the 490 years had run their course.


This seven year (1 week) period, is Daniel’s 70th week. The Great Tribulation. The Time of Jacob’s Sorrow.

This is a mere assertion which I do believe I defeated with the points already made. Anywhere else a time period is explicitly mentioned with regards to the Great Tribulation it is three and one-half years… not seven years.


So these two points are where I see the flaw in the Preterist’s theology. (1) The death of Christ (not the baptism) ended the 69th week, and the 70th week started immediately after, but was stopped, due to Israel’s rejection of her Messiah.

I believe I have disproven the first part with the points already made… and as to the second part, see comments I will make below.


(2) The destruction of the sanctuary, (the temple), and the city, (Jerusalem), which is clearly seen to happen during the 70 weeks, and not as some type of result of the Tribulation period, forty years later. The Biblical timeframe does not fit the Preterist’s scenereo, but works perfectly with the Acts 9 Dispensational scenereo.

Actually not, as I have shown.


One last point. You said; “Judging by your comments, you appear to not be so enamored with the insertion of a gap into the weeks as well. That though, seems to be in conflict with the implied assertion in your post to me that the destruction of the Temple must fall within the 70th week, and that the 70th week represents the period of the Great Tribulation, for then even in your view.. it appears that you must posit some sort of gap, though you may entitle it an “interruption”… a rose by any other name…”

Hmmmm…. You may be right, in a way. However I don’t see it as a “gap” or an “interruption”, but rather that it was stopped. Cold. The events outlined in the 70th week will still happen. But not when prophesied.

Well that is a tremendous problem. First, of all, if things can possibly not happen as prophesied as to timing, there is absolutely no justification for believing that they will ever happen at all. For example, using an favorite OV passage, Jonah’s prophecy to Ninevah was not postponed due to their repentance, it was completely annulled. You have not provided one piece of New Testament evidence that the Tribulation started and was stopped and will start up again. In fact the whole New Testament testifies as to it’s rapidly approaching status in passages written after the period of time where you hold that the Great Tribulation was allegedly stopped.


The Great Tribulation started after the Crucifixion of Christ (numerous signs of the Great Tribulation are present in the Book of Acts) and then was stopped about one year later.

Big problems. First, I agree that there are numerous signs, not of the Great Tribulation, but of the approaching Great Tribulation in the Book of Acts… Remember Jesus said:

Matthew 24:6 – For all these things must come to pass but the end is not yet.

The Discourse makes it clear that the Tribulation was not something to happen immediately but to be preceded by a lengthy interval of “signs.”



Daniel’s prophesy was aborted (and the completion of his prophesy will never be completed the way he stated it would, in other words, it can never be fulfilled in the timeline it was prophesied) at that time due to Israel’s rejection of their Messiah.

I am sorry but that is nonsensical and no evidence to support the stoppage was proffered.



God was not held to his word to complete the 70th week, as you so aptly pointed out in the Jeremiah 18 passage, because of Israel’s rejection.

Here is the major point I alluded to where I felt you did not deal with my point. I did aptly point out something in the Jeremiah 18 passage and that is that judgment is ONLY averted or conditional when the nation which is subjected to the threatened judgment repents (and their reaction is not also the subject of said propohecy)! You have turned this concept on its head without any substantive defense or interaction with my response on this point.


The Great Tribulation will happen, as is clearly shown in the Book Of Revelation…

…..which book also declares it is near and soon with such time indicators which you have conceded in the Gospels places such prophetic fulfillment squarely within the first century. You cannot have it both ways. As of the time of the writing of Revelation (which of course I place prior to 70AD) the Great Tribulation was near, and soon, and at hand for them, not us or anyone else. You cannot concede in the Discourse that those timing statement do place the events within the first century, but after the prophesy was given, the prophesy was aborted, and then deny the implication of the near timing phrases uttered after said near time fulfillment was already allegedly aborted.


but not until the fullness of the gentiles has come in.

Again this is an assertion without any proof thus far.


So you may deem it a gap or an interruption, but I would say it was stopped, the 490 year prophesy ended. Even though the events themselves will still happen sometime in the future.


With all due respect, this is also an assertion without any proof and tremendous hurdles to traverse as already said above.

As an interesting supplement to this whole issue, I find that a lot of interpretations of the Daniel 9 passage go awry because the Jubilee pattern and imagery is neglected.

Daniel’s prayer that prompted the giving of the revelation is a covenant prayer to his covenant God. In fact, in this chapter (9) is the only place where the covenant name of God (YHWH) is used in the Book of Daniel. Gabriel’s answer is given in highly covenantal form expressing the highest vision of Messianic hope. The time frame is 70 groups of sevens. That is very, very important because it is an allusion back to the Jubilee cycle. After every seven groups of seven sabbatical years (49 years), there was the fiftieth year, the Jubilee. During the Jubilee, slaves were freed, debts were forgiven, etc., it is a rich portrait of redemption. In Jewish thought, numbers were very, very important. The number 10 signified a multiplier of “quantitative completeness.” The number 3 indicated perfect amplification. That is why we have God saying that He owns the cattle on a thousand hills (10 x 10 x 10) and why God is praised as holy, holy, holy. It is an idiomatic way of expressing a very large and complete number. So in Daniel’s vision, we have not seven sevens, a normal Jubilee, but seventy (7 x 10) sevens, the Ideal Jubilee, the Perfect Jubilee (49 x 10).

That is Christ. The Jubilee was but a shadow of the reality in Christ (Col. 2:17). Christ claimed this for Himself when He read from Isaiah 61:

“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound.”

And interestingly for our discussion, He omits the ending phrase “and the day of vengeance of our God” because that is NOT part of the Jubilee or Messianic redemption, but is a consequence of the rejection of same.

The allusion to the Jubilee here is undeniable. This ideal Jubilee is God’s ultimate ministry to ALL people, not just the Jews. The problem is that we so often treat the Scriptures as if they are man-centered, specifically Jew-centered, but they are not, they are Christ-Centered. The perfect Jubilee, redemption, of God came in the first century. It is not postponed waiting for the ethnic Jews to repent. God can raise up children of Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9).

This is available to the remnant, the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), made up a believing Jews and Gentiles on equal footing in the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12). That was the mystery, that Jews and Gentiles would be equal, all in the Israel of God (Ephesians 3:3-7). You see, if someone claims that they are not part of Israel, denying such a thing as “replacement theology” (when in fact it is not replacement, but rather expansion), then they have removed any Scriptural claim to have a part in the New Covenant, which was prophesied only specifically to be given to Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Okay, okay…. No dissertation…..

Knight
December 24th, 2002, 10:53 PM
Whoa... come on Dee Dee does the term "bite size" mean anything to you?

Sorry, but simply way too long for good point vs. counter point debate.

Dee Dee Warren
December 24th, 2002, 11:44 PM
Sorry Knight.... some points take longer than others...:o

Lion
December 26th, 2002, 06:01 PM
Woah! DD, I’m a little confused here. I am anxious to answer your last post, but first I need to know something.

Please tell me, (in as few words as possible) when you believe the 70th week ended?

You seem to be saying that the 69th week ended at the Baptism of Christ, and that there was no gap between the 69th week and the 70th week, so please tell me when it ended, (no explanation necessary at this time so we don’t get off track).

Thanks.

Dee Dee Warren
December 26th, 2002, 06:46 PM
Dear Lion:


Please tell me, (in as few words as possible) when you believe the 70th week ended? emphasis mine

LOLOLOLOLOL..... ack, ack, ack!!! That was good!!! Okay, okay I get the hint....

The 69th week ended at the baptism of Christ. The crucifixition took place at 69 and 1/2 weeks (i.e. midway through the 70th week). The 70th week ended with the conversion of Paul or thereabouts (ie Acts 8/9).

Knight
December 26th, 2002, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Sorry Knight.... some points take longer than others...:o Ahhh young grasshopper, someday I will teach you the fine art "point vs. counter point" debate.

It is a rare talent.

Dee Dee Warren
December 26th, 2002, 07:26 PM
I have mastered the art of bulldozing debate though :)

Knight
December 26th, 2002, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
I have mastered the art of bulldozing debate though :) And thats something to brag about??? ;)

Dee Dee Warren
December 26th, 2002, 07:55 PM
It works for me :p

Knight
December 26th, 2002, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
It works for me :p I will take quality of quantity any day.

Dee Dee Warren
December 26th, 2002, 09:01 PM
And then you are doubly blessed with me... man are you lucky!! You get both in one package.....

Lion
December 27th, 2002, 11:25 PM
First things first. I believe, as do you, that Christ was speaking about the end of the age, not the world, in the Matthew passage cited, (although there will eventually be an end to our world,
Rev. 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.and new heavens and a new earth made. And that his predictions were for the first century, or even better, for that generation, (meaning the generation present with Him at that time, exactly as the wording implies.).

Next, you go on to argue that the prophesy in Daniel 9:24; shows all the goals for the 70 week prophesy. And that the destruction of the temple is not one of them, and is instead, a by-product of Israel’s crimes. You try and use Matthew 23 as well as Matthew 22 to bolster your argument that the destruction of the temple falls outside of the prophetic timeline, stating that it is a result of their crimes. To which I say; So what? Of course it is a result of their crimes, or rather their rejection of Messiah, but so what? The entire prophecy is because of their rejection. That in no way sticks the destruction of the temple outside of the prophecy.

The verses read exactly as they would to a common reader, taking verses 24-27 as literal and all within the 70-week time frame. Showing an overall view of the entire 70 weeks in verse 24 and then going on and detailing the events within those 70 weeks in the next three verses. Just as God did in Genesis when He explained the six-day creation in chapter one and then goes into greater detail about just what He did in chapter two.

And just as it is correct to take biblical verses in the literal and chronological manner in which they read, unless instructed to do otherwise, the reading of Dan 9:26 follows suit stating that after the 483 years (that would read immediately after, or at the direct end of the 483 years) Messiah shall be cut off. The verbiage in no way infers a three and one half year interjection but instead flows smoothly to the 70th week where it continues to state what will happen during the last 7 years.

Therefore your entire argument of the destruction of the city and temple being outside the prophecy are void. So why didn’t it happen during the 70th week as prophesied but several decades later?

In reference to my bringing up the Jeremiah 18 passage, you said;
Here is the major point I alluded to where I felt you did not deal with my point. I did aptly point out something in the Jeremiah 18 passage and that is that judgment is ONLY averted or conditional when the nation which is subjected to the threatened judgment repents (and their reaction is not also the subject of said prophecy)! You have turned this concept on its head without any substantive defense or interaction with my response on this point. You are completely missing the point here. God did not repent of the harm He planned to do to Israel because of their rejection, but rather He repented of the good He said He would do. Remember that the time of tribulation is a good (although painful) thing for Israel, because it purges her and brings her back to God, so that He can bring the times of refreshing,
Acts 3:19-20“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, “and that He may send Jesus Christ… and establish and give to them the Kingdom.

So I ask you… why would God continue with the tribulation and be forced to give unbelieving Israel her kingdom, (as you believe), while she was still (and is still to this day) in utter rejection of her Messiah?
That goes completely against Jeremiah 18.

You state that the anointing of the Most Holy, refers to the time of the baptism of Christ? I see no place in scripture that places anointing and baptism as one and the same. They are sometimes performed at the same time, but clearly are not the same thing. Or perhaps you are stating that Christ was anointed not when He was baptized but rather when God said in Matthew 3:17 after His baptism; “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” If that is the case, was He anointed for the second time when God said in Matthew 17:5, after the transfiguration; “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” ?

There are many theories as to what the anointing of the Most Holy means, and you have in no way proven, or even given an argument that it happened at Christ’s baptism.

I like this one myself;
Mark 14:3-9 And being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard. Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head. But there were some who were indignant among themselves, and said, “Why was this fragrant oil wasted? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor." And they criticized her sharply. But Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for Me. For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always. She has done what she could. She has come beforehand to anoint My body for burial. Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”
"Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.” Except maybe in the Preterist’s camp?

As to my statement that the Tribulation will still happen, as is shown in the book of Revelation, you said;
which book also declares it is near and soon with such time indicators which you have conceded in the Gospels places such prophetic fulfillment squarely within the first century. You cannot have it both ways. As of the time of the writing of Revelation (which of course I place prior to 70AD) the Great Tribulation was near, and soon, and at hand for them, not us or anyone else. You cannot concede in the Discourse that those timing statement do place the events within the first century, but after the prophesy was given, the prophesy was aborted, and then deny the implication of the near timing phrases uttered after said near time fulfillment was already allegedly aborted. Not true at all. Since the plan has been put on hold. And since there are no prophesies to indicate when God will resume working with Israel, (except for the passage concerning the fullness of the gentiles), no one knows when it will happen. None of the apostles knew, including Paul or John, and neither do we. So they adopted the attitude that it would be soon, just as we should adopt the same attitude, acting as if it will come tomorrow so that we will be ever watchful.

But this does bring up another sticking point for you. I realize that you believe that the book of Revelation was completed prior to 90 AD, even prior to 70AD. I think I read something you wrote that stated it might have been written as early as 40 AD, but I could be wrong about that. In any case, how could the Book of Revelation be written for future events when according to your belief, these events had already occurred, or at best were occurring at the same time?

After all, if the 70th week, (the week of tribulation), ended at the conversion of Paul, as you state, then when did John have the time to pen his last book? And wouldn’t it be out of date as soon as it hit the shelves, since everything had already happened?

One last point-I know that I haven’t given proof that the tribulation was stopped, nor have I even shown that the tribulation began after the death of Christ (although I would think you would already agree that some of the tribulation signs were at work after the crucifixion, from your view). However we are not arguing my Acts 9 Dispensational, open view. We are arguing the Preterist, Calvinistic view and I do not want to slow the discussion unnecessarily at this time. I will go into our theology as needed, otherwise I will try to stay on track.

Dee Dee Warren
December 28th, 2002, 08:31 AM
Dear Lion:

Thank you for your response, and I am glad that you have gotten almost as wordy as I (though not as wordy for that might be almost impossible – I wrote a fifty-something page response in ten point font to a few email inquiries I had by someone). I wanted to comment for clarification though on one thing before we move on:


However we are not arguing my Acts 9 Dispensational, open view. We are arguing the Preterist, Calvinistic view and I do not want to slow the discussion unnecessarily at this time. I will go into our theology as needed, otherwise I will try to stay on track.

Of course, but since that is the counter-view you are proposing, there are times when it will necessarily veer there, but I appreciate your focus. But just so that you are clear, and there is no misunderstanding here, I am not Calvinist. I am adamantly nonCalvinist in a lot of things (though I am an individual predestinatarian).

Knight
December 28th, 2002, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Lion:

Thank you for your response, and I am glad that you have gotten almost as wordy as IHuh? come on Dee Dee Lion's post was short, sweet and to the point. All content and ZERO obfuscation.

Dee Dee Warren
December 28th, 2002, 01:51 PM
Dear Knight... sigh. It is obvious what horse your money is on. And that is cool. But I will point out in my next post some major problems with Lion's answer. I know you are waiting with baited breath.... LOLOLOL...... admit it, you love me like an annoying little sister. I know it must be so hard to watch me defeat all these points. I feel bad, really I do. :) But not bad enough not to do it ; :kiss:

Knight
December 28th, 2002, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight... sigh. It is obvious what horse your money is on.Of course! Only an idiot would intentionally bet on the losing horse! :D

You continue...
And that is cool. But I will point out in my next post some major problems with Lion's answer. I know you are waiting with baited breath.... LOLOLOL...... admit it, you love me like an annoying little sister. Dee Dee all I am saying is your last response (regarding the topic at hand) was 25,963 characters long, which is certainly pushing the envelope as to what we even allow here at TOL let alone a reasonable length for effective and entertaining debate.

Then you have the audacity to make the claim that Lion is being "as verbose" as you are.... yet his response was an extremely reasonable 8,885 characters long.

I am merely trying to do what I have done for 6 years at TOL... and that is attempting to keep the debates in a "point vs. counter point" style. Its more fun and profitable that way.

Dee Dee Warren
December 28th, 2002, 02:20 PM
Dear Knight:

I was joking in that claim that Lion was being as verbose as I was. Sheesh. No one is as verbose as I.

Knight
December 28th, 2002, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

No one is as verbose as I. Ah ha! I have effectively moved you into the realm of those who make sense! :D ;)

Lion
December 28th, 2002, 06:40 PM
Hey DD, no need to get nasty and call me a horse! (I guess I should be thankful that you left it there and didn’t get down to specifics, such as just what part of a horse I am).

And as for pointing out the major mistakes in my last post, just remember that anything I said that was wrong, isn’t my fault, since I was predestined to do it before I was even born.

Gee… you wouldn’t blame a baby, would you?

Dee Dee Warren
December 28th, 2002, 08:29 PM
Dear Lion:

LOLOLOLOL.... but notice I called myself a horse as well, and I know exactly what part of the beast that I can be at times!!!

Well my view of predestination would still make your major mistakes entirely your fault.. you can't pawn that off on God, though He certainly knew you were going to do it :D

Lion
December 28th, 2002, 09:09 PM
Oh, I know that brand of Calvinism….It’s called Arminianism. I would go for that view myself, except it’s too Calvinistic for me

You said
“... but notice I called myself a horse as well, and I know exactly what part of the beast that I can be at times!!!”
Now that’s a horse of a different color. And at the mere thought of someone calling you that, I say Neigh!

Still, our debate goes on and it’s your turn to pony up. So hoof it on over and see if you are up to corralling me.

I will stay glued to the screen until your next post, so quit grazing and trot on out the starting gate. Because I’m through horsing around, and I’m chomping at the bit. Not that I’m trying to nag you, or anything.

Poly
December 28th, 2002, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Lion
Oh, I know that brand of Calvinism….It’s called Arminianism. I would go for that view myself, except it’s too Calvinistic for me

Funny how when I was a Calvinist I looked down terribly upon Free Will Baptists because well, for one that's just what we were supposed to do. I thought of them as totally opposite as far as our doctrines were concerned. But now I find them too Calvinistic as well.

1Way
December 29th, 2002, 12:43 AM
Polycarpadvo – Wow, bravo! May the crux of the matter become ever more clear, “immutability” is not just some abstract theological term, it is at the heart of the issue of closed theism, the point I believe, as does John Sanders and many of my friends here at TOL, that once that issue is dismissed for the false teaching that it is, then TULIP and all it’s associated and “uniquely” Calvinistic teachings become unsupported and contrary to scripture. Foundational issues matter. :)

Knight – Thanks sir knight. Sometimes a closed mind understands truth and knows what to reject, yet it still carefully opens when necessary. Your forum has greatly helped me to appreciate the “opportunity” of learning that I may be wrong. Still learning that lesson from time to time, but the lesson has paid wonderful dividends already. Thanks exceedingly for giving others a place to be wrong! (Pro 12.1)

1Way

Prisca
December 29th, 2002, 01:55 AM
A couple of posts ago, you said:

God did not repent of the harm He planned to do to Israel because of their rejection, but rather He repented of the good He said He would do.
How sad and how true! It seems that this was the pattern with Israel. God would promise them great things if they obeyed Him, but time after time they disobeyed and missed out on the blessings He hoped to shower on them. I was specifically thinking of passages in Exodus and Joshua where God tells Israel that He will drive the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites out of the land. He promises to bless their bread and water, take away sickness, and give them the land. Later, we read in Judges:

Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.” Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out immediately; nor did He deliver them into the hand of Joshua.
Israel, in her rejection of God and her disobedience to the law, suffered curses rather than blessings. But God seems always hopeful that they will return to Him. The same is as true today. As Paul explains in Romans 11:

“I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Lion
December 29th, 2002, 02:15 AM
DD-You said;
I am almost done with him, and then you once again have my undivided attention my fine feline friend. Don’t you threaten me like that! You said that you could beat me with half your brain behind your back and I’m holding you to it!

Lion
December 29th, 2002, 02:26 AM
Becky, great post!

It’s like a parent promising a child that he will take him to (yuck!) Disney Land (not on red-shirt-day of course). But before the day of the trip the child completely disobeys his father. The wise father realizes that it would be harmful to neglect the wrongdoing and still let the child go as planned. Instead, the wise father would not allow the child to go (besides he couldn’t sit on the rides with his red bottom anyway), until his behavior warranted it.

Dee Dee Warren
December 29th, 2002, 09:23 AM
Dear Lion:


Don’t you threaten me like that! You said that you could beat me with half your brain behind your back and I’m holding you to it!

I could and I will... don't worry. I am planning a very special one just for you. :) But see, the distraction move on that other thread over to soteriology is working, and now I am only operating on 1/4 of brain, but that may be enough. But maybe if you tell Boom to stop stalking in me in chat I would have more time ;)

Poor Gavin.. when he gets back he will see his thread took on a whole new life of its own.

Yxboom
December 29th, 2002, 10:26 AM
I must say this is the most participation I have ever seen in the Eschatology section and beyond that, a preterist discussion. :shocked:

Poly
December 29th, 2002, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Yxboom
I must say this is the most participation I have ever seen in the Eschatology section and beyond that, a preterist discussion. :shocked:

I'm finding this thread one of the most interesting on TOL.

Poly
December 29th, 2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Lion
Becky, great post!

It’s like a parent promising a child that he will take him to (yuck!) Disney Land (not on red-shirt-day of course). But before the day of the trip the child completely disobeys his father. The wise father realizes that it would be harmful to neglect the wrongdoing and still let the child go as planned. Instead, the wise father would not allow the child to go (besides he couldn’t sit on the rides with his red bottom anyway), until his behavior warranted it.

I remember a similar situation on a personal level. When my oldest son was 3 (He's now 15) I told him I would get him a treat when we went to the store. He acted up terribly therefore receiving no treat. My mother-in-law was with me at the time and thought I had done the ultimate sin in not buying him something. She insisted on buying him something since I wouldn't. I told her if she did I wouldn't allow him to have it. She was seeing red all the way home. Sad that she didn't realize that it would have been wrong to go ahead and buy it for him. It's neat how we can relate to our LIVING God by some of the things that are every day occurances for us.

Dee Dee Warren
December 29th, 2002, 01:03 PM
These illustrations are interesting in that they prove my point when applied to the facts of the discussion at hand. I look forward to proving that.

Lion
December 29th, 2002, 08:23 PM
HA! You only think that because you are diminished to a quarter of your brain power. The rest of us are able to think clearly and see that it really proves our point!

Yxboom
December 29th, 2002, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Lion
HA! You only think that because you are diminished to a quarter of your brain power. The rest of us are able to think clearly and see that it really proves our point! :noid: Didn't Becky post that??? :noid:

Dee Dee Warren
December 29th, 2002, 08:27 PM
Actually, my fine furry feline friend, I am think that because I am Bea Arthur. Bow to the power of Bea!!! I feel my preterist power returning....

Lion
December 29th, 2002, 08:27 PM
Polycarpadvo-Great post and awesome point. Too bad your mother in law couldn’t see the writing on the wall. But God’s attributes are clearly seen through out creation, just as you have shown.
Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Lion
December 29th, 2002, 08:31 PM
Yxboom-You have some of the best posts and the best avatars on TOL!

Lion
December 29th, 2002, 08:33 PM
Actually, my fine furry feline friend, I am think that because I am Bea Arthur. Bow to the power of Bea!!! I feel my preterist power returning....
I am think that you are still using not enough brain power.

Dee Dee Warren
December 29th, 2002, 08:37 PM
Blame it all on Boom. He is in on your dastardly plans.

Yxboom
December 29th, 2002, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Lion
Yxboom-You have some of the best posts and the best avatars on TOL! And you are the representative of our view and my champion in this debate.....hmmm the compliment with interest and intensified in return :D

Knight
December 29th, 2002, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Lion
Yxboom-You have some of the best posts and the best avatars on TOL! Oh great..... just what need.... YxBoom with even a larger head. :(

Yxboom
December 29th, 2002, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Oh great..... just what need.... YxBoom with even a larger head. :( Knight are you needing affirmation. In front of the mirror say this 5 times..."I am a good admin....I am good enough....and gosh darn people like me!"

ebenz47037
December 29th, 2002, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Oh great..... just what need.... YxBoom with even a larger head. :(

Then, Dee Dee and I could invite all of TOL to move in with us! :crackup:

Knight
December 30th, 2002, 02:12 PM
I think I will rename this debate between Lion and Dee Dee to:

The Easter Debate. Lion makes a post, three days later Dee Dee responds, Lion makes his response..... three days later Dee Dee makes a post, and so on and so on....... :D ;)

Dee Dee Warren
December 30th, 2002, 02:15 PM
Knight LOLOLOLOL... tell Boom to stop distracting me!! (excuses, excuses, excuses). And actually you are being generous.. my responses have taken more than three days. I have been extraordinarily busy.. I did have to take some time out to assist a good friend, but now I am back on track (hopefully).

GraceInMe
December 30th, 2002, 02:28 PM
Dee Dee convert me to a super model.:thumb: Oh and you can wait three days if you need too.

Dee Dee Warren
December 30th, 2002, 02:34 PM
LOLOLOL.... give us one of those fantastic poses like the one in the gallery!!! (and congrats Grace - you are the hostess with the mostess - YOU GO GIRL!!!)

GraceInMe
December 30th, 2002, 02:46 PM
:o
Oh that was nothing. (Thank you Knight)!

Knight
December 31st, 2002, 01:04 PM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz :sleep:

Knight
December 31st, 2002, 05:16 PM
Are we at the point where I should be giving Dee Dee the standing 8 count?? ;)

Dee Dee Warren
December 31st, 2002, 06:14 PM
Who let the heckler in the house??

Lion
December 31st, 2002, 07:13 PM
Hmmmm… DD- I see one of your friends is perusing our conversation. Say hello to Mr. Holding for me.

I havent seen JP in a while.

Dee Dee Warren
December 31st, 2002, 10:37 PM
Sure thing Lion!! But then again, if he is reading this... you have just told him yourself :D

Dee Dee Warren
December 31st, 2002, 11:51 PM
Dear Lion:

First, let’s feed the strays - we must soon get to the idea of the “end of the age” and the end of the world, the bite you will get from that snake may surprise you :) as I can utterly disprove the premillennial timeline. Confident little bugger aren’t I??

Also, there is a lot of material to cover, so I have decided to concentrate primarily on the Daniel issues, putting aside a few of the other issues temporarily until this is exhausted so that I do not draw yet another rebuke from Knight (the heckling is bad enough) :noid:

So now onto the main enchilada:

Is the destruction of the Temple an event to fall within the seventy weeks?

Of course I said no and proved that point by demonstrating that Daniel 9:24, which is Gabriel’s declaration of the goals for the seventy weeks, does not mention the destruction of the Temple even once. That is significant and was pretty much hand-waved away. You have agreed that the destruction of the Temple was a result of their rejection of the Messiah (that will be a costly admission later) but deny that this can even place the destruction of the Temple outside of the 70 weeks, by stating:


The entire prophecy is because of their rejection.

Really?? Is that your final answer?? If so, then your insistence that the last week was stopped because they rejected their Messiah makes even less sense than before. :D I have provided evidence that the entire prophecy of the 70 weeks is redemptive in context based upon the obvious Jubilee pattern. The judgment falls as a result of rejecting the completed redemption, it is not part of the completed redemption. Jesus gives us a major clue to this when He cited Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18, claiming to be the fulfillment of the Jubilee, and omitted the last sentence speaking of the “day of vengeance of our God.”

Now onto to the cutting off of the Messiah … the only thing that we agree upon thus far is that the text says that this cutting off will occur after the 69th week, which only leaves during the 70th week. So far so good… you are moving rapidly in the right direction. However, we quibble on what part of the 70th week. You seem to be claiming it would be the very first moments of the 70th week (thus conceding I am right that the crucifixion is in the 70th week) and state that there is no implication of a three and one half year interjection. Well as a matter of fact, if we are considering only verse 26 there is no implication of “immediately after” either as a matter of plain fact.

Nonetheless there are numerous problems with your assertion.

One: You have not dealt with the issue in 9:25, in which I asked the question, until Messiah the Prince what?? In your view verses 25-27 deal only with the events of the 70th week beginning with the crucifixion. But do you realize that you have just made Christ’s earthly ministry textually invisible here for you must allege that nothing is mentioned of the Prince until He is crucified?? What about His “Kingdom proclamation” for three and one half years prior?? The text makes much more sense (especially within your own view ironically enough) for placing the “until” Messiah the Prince to the time of the beginning of His public ministry where He was presented to Israel as their Messiah (see John 1:31).

Two – Despite your claim that there is no reason to interject three and one-half years in between the presenting of Messiah to Israel and His being cut off, I did in fact demonstrate that the text is explicit by referring you to verse 27 which spoke of a “he” who confirms a covenant for one week (which you believe is the 70th week – as do I), and in the midst of the week “he” brings an end to sacrifice and offering. I demonstrated that the “he” can only refer back to Messiah the Prince, and speaks of His bringing a judicial end to the sacrificial
system.

In then examining your contention, I notice something very interesting here. The “he” who confirms the covenant for one week does so at the beginning of the 70th week, which in your view is the crucifixion (yet in my view is Christ’s baptism). Who is this “he”? It cannot be some future figure (in your view) for “he” existed at the time of the crucifixion and began the “confirming” of the covenant at that time. I can anticipate your answer, but since I do not want to falsely assume, I will cease, but unless you have moves worthy of Astaire, this is a tremendous problem for you.

Three – The Hebraic parallelism of the verses completely supports my contention. Observe:

Verse 9:26 –And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Verse 9:27 – Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.

The red colored text is parallel as is the blue. This places the timing of the cutting off in the midst of the 70th week. Also notice in the concluding words of verse 26 and 27 in parallel, that it is only the determination of the desolations that is said to be determined in the 70th week itself. The effecting of those desolations could take place any time thereafter.

Four – The text tells us exactly what was to take place during the 70th week, and once again, the destruction of the Temple is noticeable only by its absence. During the 70th “he” (who can only be Christ) makes firm the covenant with the Jews during the entire seven years. In the midst of these seven years the sacrifices and oblations cease. Where again is that destruction?? What do I hear?? Crickets?? LOL. This is where I found a remarkable juxtaposition of our two views, but again, in sheer irony, only my position on this passage exploits this idea to the fullest. You see, I also affirm that there was a special and specific focus on the Jews during Christ’s earthly ministry and for the period of time thereafter leading up the conversion of Paul, which was three and one-half years later. Christ made firm the covenant with them first before opening the floodgates to the Gentiles. He then gave them a probationary generation to repent, after which the judgment came.

This fits in so perfectly with the Exodus imagery of the NT with Christ as the eschatological Passover lamb and the first Christians being the wilderness wanderers waiting until the wicked generation was killed off before entering the “promised land” of the New Covenant. I will have much more to say on this as we progress.

Next, you object to my equation of the anointing of the Most Holy to Christ’s baptism by stating, “I see no place in scripture that places anointing and baptism as one and the same.” I must apologize for being unclear. My bad. The anointing that I was referring to was the anointing of Christ by the Spirit at His baptism.., I conflated the two events causing the confusion. Christ explicitly claimed to have already been anointed by the Spirit by the time He read from Isaiah 61:1-2 as previously mentioned is a direct allusion to the Jubilee (which is the pattern in Daniel 9) thus making my position a compelling referent. Peter also speaks of this anointing of Christ (Acts 10:38) and looks back to the baptism by John as the significant founding of the salvation/redemptive message (Acts 1:21-22). John also declared that his ministry was to reveal the Christ (John 1:31). Throughout His ministry, Christ was referred to as the Anointed One (i.e. Christ) meaning that this very significant anointing had already taken place. Additionally, Scripture gives us explicit precedent for referring to the gift of the Spirit as an anointing (1 Corinthians 1:21-22; I John 1:20,27).All of this dovetails perfectly.

You bring forth Mark 14:3-9 as a possible candidate for the anointing, and I will concede it is possible. However, considering the significance of the descent of the Spirit upon Christ concurrently with the beginning of ministry, His claim to be the ultimate Jubilee in Luke 4:18 (with the Jubilee pattern in Daniel 9), I find my interpretation much truer to the typological and redemptive context.

However, your own interpretation causes you some timeline problems (and tsk, tsk, tsk, here is where those pesky details come buzzing around again) because you do not even have Messiah the Prince being a significant figure in the Daniel 9 passage until His crucifixion! This anointing took place before that event… Not good. :nono:

I have one other issue to bring in, that I brought in my prior post which has remained unacknowledged thus far. Specifically, you agree with the preterist contention that there are unambiguous time references in the Gospels teaching that the Great Tribulation and a “coming” of Christ was expected in the first century. You differ with the preterists in that you believe that although this was expected and actually begun, it was interrupted about one year after the resurrection. This puts you in a tremendous bind for you have sold the farm with the concessions to the preterist position made thus far. Why? Because the “near” time references do not end in the Gospels, they continue throughout the entire New Testament even in NT books written after this plan was allegedly interrupted. Did God not tell anyone about this?? :doh: This is a major problem for you.

I acknowledge that I did not go over the Jeremiah 18 issues for which I have MUCH to say.

Statistics (to save Knight the trouble)

Characters (including formatting codes) - 10,320

Words - 1723

efta777
January 1st, 2003, 11:04 PM
Dee Dee,
Great post, but I think you forgot one VERY important verse that really helped tie some things together for me:

Daniel 9:26 "He will confirm a covenant with many for one week. But in the middle of that week he will bring an end to sacrifice and offering to a halt..."

Compared to the very words of Jesus:

Matt. 26:28 "For this is my blood, the blood of the covenant that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Am I wrong in seeing a fairly obvious connection here?

Lion
January 2nd, 2003, 12:26 AM
DD
First point; You said:
Is the destruction of the Temple an event to fall within the seventy weeks?
Of course I said no and proved that point by demonstrating that Daniel 9:24, which is Gabriel’s declaration of the goals for the seventy weeks, does not mention the destruction of the Temple even once.Really? In the first place, as I have so painstakingly demonstrated in earlier posts, the entire segment of Dan 9:24-27, is exclusively about the 70 week timeframe. I also showed you how verse 24 is like Gen 1 where God gives an overview of the creation, and in chapter two goes into detail about the creation, which is exactly what God does with the Daniel passage in question. In verse 24, the overview of the entire 490 year prophesy is given and in verses 25-27 God goes into detail about those same events, (IE-destruction of the city and temple, crucifixion, Israel’s rejection ended, atonement made, etc.) God even alludes to the destruction of the temple and city in verse 24 when he says;
Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy cityWhat city? Jerusalem. And what happens to Jerusalem in this prophesy? It is destroyed. And when is the temple destroyed? Oh yeah, when the city is destroyed.

And I have to remark on another little inconsistency that I see with the Preterists theology, it’s this; One of the main tenants of the Preterists theology is that the destruction of the Temple could only have happened at a certain time in history, in order to be in line with the Daniel prophesy, proving that the end times had already taken place. But you go out of your way to show that the destruction of the temple is not even part of the 70 week prophesy. Thereby destroying your main tenant! The only argument left then, rests entirely on the idea that in Matthew, Christ was stating prophesy that would take place in the first century, which the Acts-9 view also adheres to and with much better supporting arguments.

Okay onto your next point. You said;
I have provided evidence that the entire prophecy of the 70 weeks is redemptive in context based upon the obvious Jubilee pattern. The judgment falls as a result of rejecting the completed redemption, it is not part of the completed redemption. Jesus gives us a major clue to this when He cited Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18, claiming to be the fulfillment of the Jubilee, and omitted the last sentence speaking of the “day of vengeance of our God.”I want to thank you so much for pointing this out to me. It is AWESOME! You are exactly right about this!
Jesus is totally acknowledging the Isaiah 61 passage and He does completely leave out the last line; the ”day of vengeance of our God.” But you miss the whole point as to why He does this. It is because He, (Jesus) is still in the 69th week of the prophesy, and the day of the vengeance of God (the beginning of the 70th week) is not yet at hand. Which completely destroys your argument of the 70th week starting at the baptism of Christ. If it was the 70th week, Jesus would have finished the last line. But He did not because that day was still in the future, awaiting His crucifixion.

Next, you said;
Now onto to the cutting off of the Messiah … the only thing that we agree upon thus far is that the text says that this cutting off will occur after the 69th week, which only leaves during the 70th week. So far so good… However, we quibble on what part of the 70th week. You seem to be claiming it would be the very first moments of the 70th week (thus conceding I am right that the crucifixion is in the 70th week…No, that wasn’t what I said. I said that it implies that it was either at the end of the 69th week , or immediately following the end of the 69th week. And here are a few examples to prove my point;
Ezek. 46:12 “Now when the prince makes a voluntary burnt offering… Then he shall go out, and after he goes out the gate shall be shut. (Now let’s see…would that be 3 1/2 years after he leaves, that the gate should be shut? or just as he is leaving?)
Mark 8:31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. (Oh look, when God wants to let us know there is going to be some type of time interval, He tells us just what it is. He sure is a good communicator.)
Jer. 31:19 Surely, after my turning, I repented; And after I was instructed, I struck myself on the thigh; (Of course he means after three and a half years after he was instructed, he struck himself on the thigh) I was ashamed, yes, even humiliated, Because I bore the reproach of my youth.’
John 20:26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” (here again God lets us know just how long an interval there was, in this case 8 days)And as I stated before the normal flow of speech, (as well as the above verses I have cited), places the cutting off of Christ at the end of the 69th week, or possiblyat the very beginning of the 70th week. But in no way allows for a three and a half year interruption, (perhaps a little gap theory of your own?).

And if I have to get really nasty I’m going to bring up the fact that we know for certain that the 70th week started at Christ’s crucifixion because we know when the commandment went out for the rebuilding of the city and it is not only exactly 483 years to the crucifixion of Christ, but His crucifixion was even in the same month as foretold, (more on that later, if need be).

Next: You said;
You have not dealt with the issue in 9:25, in which I asked the question, until Messiah the Prince what?? In your view verses 25-27 deal only with the events of the 70th week beginning with the crucifixion. But do you realize that you have just made Christ’s earthly ministry textually invisible here…No, although His main purpose is to die. Notice that in verse 25, where you allege I claim it is only about the 70th week, (which I don’t), it clearly states that within the 490 years the city and the wall will be restored--- OH MY GOODNESS! STOP THE PRESSES! THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE TEMPLE BEING REBUILT IN THIS VERSE! IT MUST NOT HAVE EVER HAPPENED!!! THEREFORE THE PRESTERISTS THEORY IS COMPLETELY VANQUISHED! (sorry, couldn’t resist) and that the Messiah will come on the scene during the 69th week. And why does He come on the scene? So that He can be cut off.

Next, you asked me who the “he” is in the 26 and 27th verses. And I will have to say that I don’t know. I will study it this week and see what I can find out. (Just a side note though; If it is Jesus, it works better for my argument, in that after the crucifixion He made a covenant with “The Little Flock”, His disciples, for one week, and in the middle of the week, three and one half years into the tribulation, things get really bad, the temple is destroyed and the believers have to flee to the mountains. With no temple there can be no sacrifices, thus He puts an end to the sacrifices.)

Next, I have disproved both points 3 & 4 above, so no need to commit on them.

Next, your point on the baptism of Christ in relationship to the anointing of the Most Holy: I agree that neither point seems clearly provable at this time, but does not seem crucial in either case.

Next, and this is a big one against you. You said;
I have one other issue to bring in, that I brought in my prior post which has remained unacknowledged thus far. Specifically, you agree that there are unambiguous time references in the Gospels teaching that the Great Tribulation and a “coming” of Christ was expected in the first century. You differ with the preterists in that you believe that although this was expected and actually begun, it was interrupted about one year after the resurrection. This puts you in a tremendous bind for you have sold the farm with the concessions to the preterist position made thus far. Why? Because the “near” time references do not end in the Gospels, they continue throughout the entire New Testament even in NT books written after this plan was allegedly interrupted.
You need to go back and read my last post again. I not only completely answered this question, but also showed how it fits perfectly with an Acts-9 theology but flies in the face of your theology. I’m going to paste my previous answer for you here, but it will make my post longer, so don’t blame me for being wordy. In the last post I said;
Not true at all. Since the plan has been put on hold. And since there are no prophesies to indicate when God will resume working with Israel, (except for the passage concerning the fullness of the gentiles), no one knows when it will happen. None of the apostles knew, including Paul or John, and neither do we. So they adopted the attitude that it would be soon, just as we should adopt the same attitude, acting as if it will come tomorrow so that we will be ever watchful.

But this does bring up another sticking point for you. I realize that you believe that the book of Revelation was completed prior to 90 AD, even prior to 70AD. I think I read something you wrote that stated it might have been written as early as 40 AD, but I could be wrong about that. In any case, how could the Book of Revelation be written for future events when according to your belief, these events had already occurred, or at best were occurring at the same time?

After all, if the 70th week, (the week of tribulation), ended at the conversion of Paul, as you state, then when did John have the time to pen his last book? And wouldn’t it be out of date as soon as it hit the shelves, since everything had already happened?If you need further clarification on this please ask.

And you are right, you did not even get to the Jeremiah 18 passage where I showed you clear proof that the stopping of the tribulation, hence taking away the promised Kingdom to that generation, was in no way violating the Jeremiah 18 tenant, but instead fits it perfectly. This does not hold true for the preterist position where God goes ahead and awards bad behavior with a blessing.

Summation: I have shown that the end of the 69th week of Daniel’s 70 week prophesy happened at the crucifixion of Christ, not at His baptism.

I have shown that the destruction of the temple was supposed to have happened within one year of the crucifixion of Christ but did not.

Questions for DD in order of importance: When was the book of Revelation written?

If the destruction of the temple is vital in proving the Preterists theology in connection to Daniel’s 70 week prophesy, how is it that it happened decades after said prophesy?

(Wow! Still under 10,000 characters.)

Dee Dee Warren
January 2nd, 2003, 03:25 AM
Dear Efta:

You are correct in that point... that is a verse that I usually do bring into the argument. Thank you for pointing that out.

Dee Dee Warren
January 2nd, 2003, 03:30 AM
Dear Lion:

I am going to take one of your questions out of turn since it is short and I do not want it to get lost in the larger answer...

Revelation written sometime during the reign of Nero, probably in 65 or 66 AD. You had commented that I had said at one point that it could have been written as early as 40AD. I don't recall ever saying that but it is possible that I had quoted a scholar who said that. I personally don't believe that, but am firm that it was written during the reing of Nero.

Lion
January 2nd, 2003, 04:58 PM
DD-Hmmmmm… very interesting. So then the Book of Revelation has absolutely nothing to do with the Tribulation?

Carl Smuda
January 2nd, 2003, 05:37 PM
thlipsis occurs five times in the book of Revelation. All five times it is translated 'tribulation' in the King James.

thlipsis is almost as interesting as orge. That greek word is translated 'wrath' many times in Revelation.

Dee Dee Warren
January 2nd, 2003, 05:38 PM
Dear Lion:

This is where we keep talking past each other, and I don't think it is intentional on either of our parts. You need to understand (even if you disagree - which of course you do) that I do not believe that the 70th week of Daniel has anything to do with the Great Trib. Thus, I certainly believe Revelation is about the Great Trib, and do believe it parallels parts of the Olivet Discourse. I hope that clears something up so that you can correctly represent my position, even though you disagree. This will become more clear as we progress, but I keep seeing you unintentionally misstate my position.

drdeutsch
January 2nd, 2003, 07:03 PM
I don't want to interrupt - I just want to throw this out there for anybody who wishes to read it, but some on Greg Boyd's forum, including Dr. Boyd himself, seem to believe that preterism is the eschatological position that fits best with OV theism. Check it out here (http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1690).

That being said, I'll get out of this thread and allow you all to continue your debate.
Dr. Deutsch

Yxboom
January 2nd, 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by drdeutsch
I don't want to interrupt - I just want to throw this out there for anybody who wishes to read it, but some on Greg Boyd's forum, including Dr. Boyd himself, seem to believe that preterism is the eschatological position that fits best with OV theism. Check it out here (http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1690).

That being said, I'll get out of this thread and allow you all to continue your debate.
Dr. Deutsch Thanks, I have adamently said earlier that I disagree with Greg Boyd's model of OV you have only given more fuel to the fire against Greg Boyd's compatibilitistic Open Theism :down:

Lion
January 2nd, 2003, 10:52 PM
DD-I apologize, you are correct that I wasn’t understanding your position correctly, and the fault is completely mine. I went back and re-read your earlier posts, where you clearly stated this was indeed your position. Thank you for clearing that up, it will certainly help in the future.

Dee Dee Warren
January 3rd, 2003, 04:39 AM
Dear Lion:

Thank you!!

Knight
January 3rd, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by drdeutsch
I don't want to interrupt - I just want to throw this out there for anybody who wishes to read it, but some on Greg Boyd's forum, including Dr. Boyd himself, seem to believe that preterism is the eschatological position that fits best with OV theism. Check it out here (http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1690).

That being said, I'll get out of this thread and allow you all to continue your debate.
Dr. Deutsch Thats really strange Dr.

But I am glad you posted it because I have been wondering something regarding a similar topic.....

Why do preterists hold the closed view almost exclusively? (the view that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future)

Is there any connection with their theology regarding preterism? Or do they simply hold the closed view by chance? Are there any OV preterists? I have never met one, have you?

I see no logical reason why a preterist couldn't be an OV'er, can you?

Carl Smuda
January 3rd, 2003, 12:35 PM
Howdy Knight,
maybe the preterists hold to the closed view almost exclusively because that is the position held for many hundreds of years in Christiandom? OV isn't exactly reformed protestant orthodox you know...
respectfully,

Dee Dee Warren
January 3rd, 2003, 12:45 PM
Dear Knight:


Why do preterists hold the closed view almost exclusively? (the view that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future) Is there any connection with their theology regarding preterism? Or do they simply hold the closed view by chance? Are there any OV preterists? I have never met one, have you?

I do not know of any OV preterists.. but that is said with a caveat. All of the other preterists (save a very few) that I know personally are on this Board, so that is not a wide sampling. But there is another reason why I do think that you will not find many, and that is because preterism leads IMHO naturally and inevitably to postmillennialism, which IMHO again is difficult to reconcile with OV, but then again, to be absolutely honest, I find the predictive prophecy of the type held to by preterists to be difficult (understatement) to reconcile with OV...... I am not trying to veer off into an OV discussion or pick an OV fight, I am just trying to give you an educated preterists perspective. I buck the system myself in that I am not a Calvinist (we can argue that on the other thread) and I know of no other postmillennialists who are not. So in a nutshell, preterism tends to lead to postmillennialism which tends to lead to Calvinism.... and thus, not an enviroment conducive to OV views, but certainly not impossible either, I think as demonstrated by the comments on that Boyd board.

But... as an interesting aside... if tomorrow I were to decide OV were correct (I am speaking strictly hypotheticially), it would not require one whit of change in my eschatology. This is entirely different from the subject in which Lion and I are debating though which adds in the monkeywrench of Acts 9/12 out dispensationalism which cannot co-exist with true preterism, though it has some preteristic tendencies. The two systems are mutually exclusive. OV can theoretically exist within either.

Carl Smuda
January 3rd, 2003, 12:56 PM
Dee Dee, are you a theonomist?

Dee Dee Warren
January 3rd, 2003, 01:04 PM
Carl, yes.

Carl Smuda
January 3rd, 2003, 01:08 PM
Thank you. Will you and Dr.B be debating Amill vs. Postmill?

Dee Dee Warren
January 3rd, 2003, 01:18 PM
Carl, I think you have DrB confused with Calvinist who is the one I was going to be debating on that subject, and no, we will not be. He has had other committments come up which caused him to have to decline. And of course the thought of debating me scared the pants off of him :D :p

DrB and I are currently debating preterism though, somewhat similarly to the debate that Lion and I are having though DrB makes my responses look absolutely rapid in comparison. He drops out of sight for weeks at a time.

Knight
January 3rd, 2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Carl Smuda
Howdy Knight,
maybe the preterists hold to the closed view almost exclusively because that is the position held for many hundreds of years in Christiandom? OV isn't exactly reformed protestant orthodox you know...
respectfully, Are you saying that because OV is a minority position it is less likely a solid biblical position?

Carl Smuda
January 3rd, 2003, 01:47 PM
No! not at all good sir Knight! In fact, I've been going over your paper again. Work is not the best place to do that. I have to keep stopping to actually do work, or post answers. :o
Are you saying that because OV is a minority position it is less likely a solid biblical position? If OV gains momentum and speed, or roots grow (whatever) in 2 or 3 centuries it could very well become just as established as the trinity doctrine. (hey, if trinity can evolve over 300 years why not Open-View?). I was thinking about that it IS new. That's probably why main stream probably hasn't heard of OV. I respect the idea but I'm not close to comfortable with it. What time I have is spent mostly thinking or reading stuff on postmill or theonomy or even Calvin's Institutes or, well, "In defense of Miracles" and the like.

That is why I appreciate people like you who have made some of it easier to digest for my own rumination. Have you compared OV to Providence? There is many scriptures about God's divine providence. How old would you say Open View Theism is?

respectfully,

Lion
January 3rd, 2003, 05:06 PM
I think it’s just a little older than this;
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.And most certainly before this exchange;
Ex. 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! “Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.”
Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God… So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Carl Smuda
January 3rd, 2003, 05:24 PM
Lion,
greetings Lion heart. God Bless you! Interesting, thank you. It took me a minute to see what you meant. But I believe I follow. What I meant when with that question was when (in our time) did the theology of OV start to develope? When did people start publishing works on open view? If it is the true description of the nature of the One God then, of course, it's been with us as long as time has been with us. Do you know when this theology really started?
respectfully,

Yxboom
January 3rd, 2003, 06:06 PM
The Martin Luther's thesis on Guttenberg for OVT would be the book The Openness of God by Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker and David Basinger.

Dee Dee Warren
January 4th, 2003, 10:47 PM
Dear Lion:

We are still quite obviously on the Daniel 9 issues and at the point on some of them where we may just need to move on…. Our main sticking point has been whether or not the destruction of the city and Temple fall within the 70 weeks (your position) or as a result of the 70 weeks (my position). My starting point for my position has always been that Gabriel very clearly laid out the goals for what was to be accomplished within the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24, and no matter how you slice it, the destruction of the city and the Temple ain’t one of them. :nono: As we get into the Olivet Discourse I have further proof which is premature to bring in now. In order to overcome this incredible large piece of evidence in my favor, you point out that Gabriel states:


Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city

….for which I say you missed the next little word “to” which is repeated six times stating the goals. This is crystal clear…. seventy weeks are determined to… to…. to…. to…. to…. to…. and again, the destruction ain’t one of them. We apparently are not going to agree on this whatsoever. Your citation of Genesis 1 and 2 is weak as you attempt a comparison between a narrative and prophetic text, and as you assume the very point you want to prove, i.e. that everything that follows in verses 25-27 are simply an expansion of verse 24 which is not a simple overview, but rather a mission statement… thus, apples (pun intended) and oranges.

A great deal of your point hinges upon your assumption that the 70th week of Daniel 9 is the Great Tribulation; however, without first begging the question on this passage, nowhere else in Scripture is the Great Tribulation said to be seven years. The other places where a period of time is mentioned it is explicitly said to be time, times, and half a time (Daniel 12:7), one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days (Daniel 12:11), and forty-two months (Revelation 13:5). This is the main reason why typical futurists will place the Great Trib in the last half of the 70th week, which makes more sense if one is going to futurize said week at all.

But…. I demonstrated, and the text is painfully obvious, that Christ is crucified after the 69th week, which only leaves the 70th week. You can say (and you try to) that He was crucified in the very first moments of the 70th week, but it is the 70th week nonetheless. You absolutely cannot place this event at all within the 69th week though you even try to do that. It is textually impossible. I then demonstrated through the Hebraic parallelism present in the text (which you did not touch), that the text then goes on to explicitly state that the Messiah was cut off in the midst of the 70th week, and that the phrases “cut off” and “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” are equivalent. This interpretation of course is supported by the NT in Hebrews 10:9 – He takes away the first that He may establish the second,” which in context is speaking of the end of the sacrificial system in light of Christ’s work.

In an attempt to deflect the force of my point, you attempt to jokingly mock (and remember no offense, I like that style) the idea that there can be any period of time following the “after” and before the event that is said to follow the “after.” This is nonsense. However you do try and point out other verses where “after” is used to try and demonstrate that “after” cannot allow for any period of intervening time “after” but must imply immediacy... However, let’s go to other texts shall we?

Matthew 1:12 – And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. (oh my goodness! Jeconiah’s first order of business after he arrived was to have intimate relations…. He did nothing else before right?)

Matthew 22:25 – Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. (Egad!, this poor sap died immediately after he said “I do” right?)

Lev 25:48 – After[b] that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him. (a slave can only be redeemed immediately after he is sold?? Come on now….)

Jeremiah 12:15 – And it shall come to pass, after that I have plucked them out I will return, and have compassion on them, and will bring them again, every man to his heritage, and every man to his land. (Really now?? God immediately restores a nation after plucking them out ?)

I could multiply passages, but I think I have embarrassed you enough ;) The “normal flow of speech” as you say also allows for intervening time as well. If I say that I will return to work after I have my baby, I do not mean that I will get up off the delivery table and punch in. Your allusion that you can prove your case by calculating the crucifixion down to the exact month is also grossly misplaced and anti-contextual to the culture. The Hebraic mind only calculated down to the smallest unit of time mentioned, and in this case, that would be a week of years. We see the same thing with the resurrection which technically happened about 32 hours after Christ’s death, not three full days and nights.

You still also have not adequately answered my charge that you have made Christ’s earthly ministry and His public presentation to Israel as their Messiah textually invisible (which ignores John’s role as His harbinger (John 1:31). Verse 26 gives a period of time until Messiah the Prince.. your view has His ministry prior to His death completely irrelevant to the passage. However, I did mistakenly say that you believe that the events of verse 25 related to the 70th week only.. neither of us hold that, I meant to say that you hold that the events of verse 26-27 belong to the 70th week exclusively (or the last seconds of the 69th week which is textually impossible), so your attempted dramatics :D at claiming that the city must not have been rebuilt since it is textually invisible as well is just plain wrong. Verse 25 states that the first seven weeks were allotted for that task, so it is anything but invisible, quite unlike the yawning and wide stretch of 62 weeks that follow in which you would dump Christ’s earthly ministry.

You also made a comment about preterist reliance upon the timing of the destruction of the Temple and its relation to Daniel’s prophecy, and in so doing, you misunderstood the preterist position… however, I see that we are clearing up some of that confusion… so I will reserve comment until our discussion gets really into the Temple and the Discourse, which is very soon.

You have candidly admitted that you do not know who the “he” is in verse 27, but I would submit that the correct identity of the “he” is crucial to understanding this passage and the Hebraic parallelism already mentioned. I will not pursue it further to give you time to study it out. And on the last issue of the anointing of the Most Holy, you did concede that my position was possible (which of course then makes the rest of my position possible), but are unwilling to see the entire force. Just to recap on that one issue, you have sorely neglected the Jubilee imagery and Christ’s claim to have already been anointed by citing a Jubilee passage in Luke 4:18. This conclusively places His anointing prior to that time, and I would say conclusively at His baptism. This chronology gives full weight to His Messianic mission and proclamation leading to His crucifixion, and recognizes the weighty judicial effect of His death in rendering null animal sacrifices for sin.

Now to the point where you metamorphize into a typical futurist. I had brought up the fact that the “near” timing references do not stop after the point where you allege that the Tribulation was halted. So while you concede the force of such timing verses prior to that point, in a move which seems quite ad hoc, with regards to the very same type of verses after that point you say:


Since the plan has been put on hold. And since there are no prophesies to indicate when God will resume working with Israel, (except for the passage concerning the fullness of the gentiles), [b]no one knows when it will happen. None of the apostles knew, including Paul or John, and neither do we. So they adopted the attitude that it would be soon, just as we should adopt the same attitude, acting as if it will come tomorrow so that we will be ever watchful.

Eeek!! Don’t make me choke! That is not what the texts say whatsoever which I find very ironic in light of what I see of certain hyperliteralizations you do of certain OT texts regarding God’s knowledge. Are you suggesting that the Greek language is devoid of means to express the concept that the events might be soon but no one knows?? The apostles were just as emphatic as Christ was on the soon approaching eschatological event, and you quite arbitrarily, because of an imposed grid, accept the face value statements of one and not the others. This error is quite transparent. Let’s look at a few of the more embarrassing ones for you, shall we?? (and I can prove later that Paul did in fact have an idea of the far timing of the Second Coming which you have improperly conflated with Christ’s “soon” judgment-coming in AD70)

Revelation 1:3 – Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Note that this verse tells us that the time is near. Near meant then exactly what near means now. Near does not mean could be near, might be near, or I don’t know if it is near so we should act as if it is. There is nothing equivocal or vague about this term at all. In order to further clarify this point…

Daniel 8:26 – Therefore seal up the vision, for it refers to many days in the future.

Daniel is told that his vision was for many days in the future, and in fact we know that the coming of Christ was hundreds of years into his future, thus, many days in the future. However, very similar phrasing appears in Revelation.

Revelation 22:10 – Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

John is told the complete opposite. If the Bible has any continuity, then this means exactly what that says. And it says “at hand,” not could be at hand, might be at hand, or I don’t know if it is at hand but we should act like it is.

And though I have many more to rub in on this topic… here is a bone-cruncher:

1 John 2:18 – Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

John is emphatic. While before apostles preached the “last days,” the event was now so near that it was the “last hour.” And John says not that he thinks it might be the last hour, or that they should act like it is the last hour, he says that WE KNOW it is the last hour. Ouch.

Cherith
January 5th, 2003, 03:54 PM
CARL SAID: "Dee Dee, are you a theonomist?"

DEE DEE SAID: "Yes"

Yikes!!! Not only does my girl retain a foothold in the world (Pelagianism) and crossed the line (postmillennialism), but she's fallen into the abyss! Come back, Dee Dee, come back...

"Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments, and He repays those who hate Him to their face to destroy them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him to his face. Therefore you shall keep the commandment, the statutes, and the judgments which I command you today, to observe them." --Deut 7:9-11

Dee Dee Warren
January 5th, 2003, 04:01 PM
Dear Cherith:

LOLOLOL!!! I know I keep promising to call you soon, but I will, I will!! I was just thinking of that earlier..... Funny, you think I am pelagian, and Lion thinks I am Calvinist, what's a girl to do?? But I think you already knew that theonomy was around the corner with the postmillennialism, didn't you?? But don't worry too much, I am still very much Theonomy Lite, but I am still studying.... Gary DeMar's Ruler of the Nations pushed me over the edge.

Cherith
January 5th, 2003, 04:12 PM
Well, semi-pelagian anyway...

Girl, you need to quit reading DeMar and read more of Mr. White (the Reformed BAPTIST)...

Actually, NCT (New Covenant Theology) would be a better antidote to theonomy's slow poison.

I'll pray for you!
--C

Dee Dee Warren
January 5th, 2003, 04:15 PM
Dear Cherith:

I need all the prayer I can get, so I appreciate it Sis :D..... I have not turned paedo-baptist, so you can relax on that point. When we talk, you can try to cure me :p

Lion
January 6th, 2003, 04:46 AM
DD- As you have already stated, we are certainly hung up on Daniel’s 70 week prophesy, however let’s just wait a bit before moving on. There are still a few things to consider.

First, you must quit playing with words and make up your mind. Either Daniel’s 70 week prophesy (including the destruction of the temple, thus making it the Great Tribulation) is covered completely throughout verses 24-27 or they are not. You say that the destruction of the temple is not part of the prophesy because it is not stated in 24, (even though it is stated in 26), but then deny that the rebuilding of the temple is not part of the prophesy because although it is not stated in 24, it is stated in 25.

And if we are going to be exact, the rebuilding of the temple isn’t even mentioned in verse 25, as you claim, but rather only the building of the “wall” and the “street”. Which were historically completed nearly 30 years before the temple was rebuilt, and not before an angry God had to chastise His people for building their city, but neglecting to build His house (the same temple in question) because of their comfort and laziness, as evidenced by:
Hag. 1:1-11 In the second year of King Darius, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, saying, “Thus speaks the LORD of hosts, saying: ‘This people says, “The time has not come, the time that the LORD’s house should be built.” ’ ”
Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet, saying, “Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, and this temple to lie in ruins?” Now therefore, thus says the LORD of hosts: “Consider your ways! “You have sown much, and bring in little; You eat, but do not have enough; You drink, but you are not filled with drink; You clothe yourselves, but no one is warm; And he who earns wages, Earns wages to put into a bag with holes.”
Thus says the LORD of hosts: “Consider your ways! Go up to the mountains and bring wood and build the temple, that I may take pleasure in it and be glorified,” says the LORD. “You looked for much, but indeed it came to little; and when you brought it home, I blew it away. Why?” says the LORD of hosts. “Because of My house that is in ruins, while every one of you runs to his own house. Therefore the heavens above you withhold the dew, and the earth withholds its fruit. For I called for a drought on the land and the mountains, on the grain and the new wine and the oil, on whatever the ground brings forth, on men and livestock, and on all the labor of your hands.”It isn’t until verse 27 that the sanctuary is actually mentioned in this prophesy and that is at its destruction.

It is of course silly to have to play with verses this way. We should, instead, take them in their natural flow, which clearly reads that 70 weeks are determined for the people and their city. What is determined? All that he is about to describe to take place in the following verses, including the building of the wall, street, and sanctuary. As well as the coming and cutting off of the messiah, the destruction of the city and sanctuary and the end of the war. Daniel even makes a great point, in verse 27, to tie it all together when he says;
”Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”Remember in verse 24 where he stated that 70 weeks were determined for the people and the city? Well here in verse 27 he ties it right back to that statement, ending the prophesy stating that what he has foretold is determined.

And then there is an even bigger assumption taken by the preterist’s theology. It is that the anointing of the most holy is referring to the baptism of Christ. We alluded to this before and both seemed to agree that we could not be certain about what the statement actually meant, but then you said:
And on the last issue of the anointing of the Most Holy, you did concede that my position was possible (which of course then makes the rest of my position possible), but are unwilling to see the entire force.In the first place I do not at all agree that the possibility that the anointing of the Most Holy is referring to the Baptism of Christ, in any way makes the rest of your case possible.

Second, this made me curious so I did some research to find out what the “Most Holy” in that passage was referring to. The Hebrew word used is Ko-Desh (Strong’s #6944). I searched numerous translations and several commentaries and what I found is that this word is never once used (except by you in this one place) in denoting a person, but rather is always used to describe an item, object or building, as in; the Most Holy of places. In fact, and I think you will find this interesting, In most translations it is translated as exactly that, (here are a few examples):

24 “Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. NRSV

24 “Seven times seventy years is the length of time God has set for freeing your people and your holy city from sin and evil. Sin will be forgiven and eternal justice established, so that the vision and the prophecy will come true, and the holy Temple will be rededicated. TEV

24 “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. English Standard Version

24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. NASB

24 Seventy weeks are apportioned out upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to close the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make expiation for iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of the ages, and to seal the vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies. 1890 Darby Bible

24 ‘Seventy weeks are determined for thy people, and for thy holy city, to shut up the transgression, and to seal up sins, and to cover iniquity, and to bring in righteousness age-during, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies. Young's Literal TranslationAnd even our own NKJV (as well as the American standard version) that translates it as ”and to anoint the Most Holy”, is margin noted as “and to anoint the most holy place.”

One other thing of note here; Jesus is never referred to in the Bible as an object or a building or a thing, although He is referred to in the neuter, once.

This is crippling for your view and takes away even the possibility that the rest of your position might be correct, (according to your own words).

Next; You attempted to discredit my point about God placing time indicators in certain verses:
However you do try and point out other verses where “after” is used to try and demonstrate that “after” cannot allow for any period of intervening time “after” but must imply immediacy...(three verses stressing that an amount of time is not always indicated after which you say)… I could multiply passages, but I think I have embarrassed you enough Not embarrassed at all, thank you. However the point that I was making is not that all verses give time indicators, but rather that when the matter of time passage is important and relevant to the topic (as in our current discussion), God does give us indicators. Such as stating that Christ would rise in three days. That the world was created in six days. That after sixty two weeks the Messiah shall be cut off.

If God meant that after sixty two weeks and three and a half years had passed, Messiah would be cut off, He would have said so.

Then you say:
I then demonstrated through the Hebraic parallelism present in the text (which you did not touch), that the text then goes on to explicitly state that the Messiah was cut off in the midst of the 70th week, and that the phrases “cut off” and “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” are equivalent.As for the Hebraic parallelism you propose, I see no reason to take it as such. You already have a presupposed idea for what should be in the verses and then cut and paste them in a way that works to your liking, rather than the way they are written in scripture. I dread to think what kind of theology people could come up with if they decided to start playing the game of rearranging scripture to suit their ends. Oh wait, it’s been done. The Mormons, the JW’s, the…(list goes on all the way to hell).

You then attacked with:
Your allusion that you can prove your case by calculating the crucifixion down to the exact month is also grossly misplaced and anti-contextual to the culture. The Hebraic mind only calculated down to the smallest unit of time mentioned, and in this case, that would be a week of years.The Hebraic mind? Oh my goodness, weren’t those primitive Hebrews stupid? Why they could only calculate down to the smallest unit of time mentioned!

Well, let’s see about that. Daniel’s 70 week prophesy states:
Dan 9:25 “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (483 years);Okay, here it is. The 490 years start in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes. When the proclamation that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt was given by the King himself:
Neh. 2:1 And it came to pass in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, Notice the command is given in the month of Nisan In the year 454 BC.
Dan 9:26 “And after the sixty-two weeks (483 years) Messiah shall be cut off (killed)Jesus Christ was crucified (not baptized) in the year 29 AD in the month of Nisan.

How do we know this?

Birth of Christ: In the 11th century a Monk named Dionysius Exiguus calculated the date of the birth of Christ and dubbed the time following as AD or anno Domini (in the year of our Lord). Today, Christian scholars recognize that he was off on his dates by about three years, (due to differences in actual years, which are comprised of three hundred and sixty five and a half days, compared to the Jewish calendar year, comprised of only 365 days), and that the actual date of Christ’s birth is about 4 BC, and His death about 29 BC.

Secular history places King Artaxerxes reign from 465 to 425 BC. If you add the 483 years (365 day years) to the 20th year of his reign (445 BC) we find the date of the prophesy to be wrong by about 5 years. However, if you adjust the 483 years to correspond correctly with the Jewish 360 day year, and adjust for the leap years as well as the century leap years, you amazingly come up with 29 AD, in the month of Nisan.

However there is another strong argument, posed by E.W. Bullinger, that gives very strong evidence that secular history is wrong about Artaxerxes’ reign, and that the correct date that the command was given was in the year 454 BC. Adding 483 years to 454 equals, again 29 AD. The truly incredible thing is that either way, the year of the crucifixion is reached and both in the month of Nisan. Why is that important? Because Christ was crucified in 29 AD during the month of Nisan.

Hebraic mind, DD? Prophesy! And it does not allude to the year or the month of Christ’s baptism, but only to the time of His crucifixion. Thus, undeniably, placing the crucifixion at the end of the 69th week, and the Great Tribulation at the beginning of 70th week. And therefore totally refuting the preterist’s position.

I would like to go on, but we’ve covered a lot so let me summarize.

I have shown you that the common reading of Daniel’s prophesy places the crucifixion at the end of the 69th week (with no 3-1/2 year gap), and the following great tribulation (as well as the destruction of the temple) as the 70th week.

I have proven that one of your main arguments, (that the anointing of the most holy) refers to a place (the temple) and not to the baptism of Christ.

I have proven that Daniel’s 490 year prophesy, points directly to the crucifixion of Christ (the exact same year and month), with the Great Tribulation to immediately follow. And that the 483 years can in no way be speaking of the baptism of Christ, thus destroying the preterist timeline.

And we didn’t even get to the stuff you have still refused to comment on such as your mis-statement of the Jeremiah 18 passage in regards to God relenting of the harm he would do to Israel even though they didn’t repent.

As well as the corner you painted yourself into when stating that Jesus leaves out the crucial mention of the day of the “vengeance of God”;
Is. 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,

Luke 4:19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.”Okay, enough for tonight, my fingers are getting tired. It was a fun discussion and very informative. Being an Acts-9 OV’er I’ve never been that interested in the end times, (since it’s for the nation of Israel and I ain’t that). But I very much appreciate you pushing me to learn more about it. Thank you. I'm sure Knight will accept your towel.

Dee Dee Warren
January 6th, 2003, 04:56 AM
Ahh, and after my alleged silence on the Jeremiah 18 passage, which I am gearing up towards, your silence on the rest of the timing issues is deafening, I can even hear it above the crickets. :p

Dee Dee Warren
January 6th, 2003, 05:01 AM
Oh and Lion, your last paragraph has left me somewhat confused. On one hand, the wording seems to be that you think that you have gotten the last shot and want to bail, but on the other hand it seems like we still have a long way to go (which we certainly do). Please clarify for me... forum postings are difficult sometimes without the tone etc that verbal conversations give us.

Lion
January 6th, 2003, 01:42 PM
Salutations, Carl Smuda. I am sorry it took me so long to respond to your greeting, I missed it the first time I went to this page.

And in answer to your question
”Do you know when this theology really started?”I will have beg ignorance. However I believe that Sanders goes heavily into the history of the Open View in one of his books. I can not remember which one right now, but I will certainly try and find it for you.

And again, I’m sorry for taking so long.

Lion
January 6th, 2003, 01:46 PM
DD-The only kind of “bail” that is in my vocabulary is the kind that lets evildoers out of jail so they can do more crimes. (Sorry, that’s cop humor).

I just figured that after that dunking, you might need a towel to…dry off, or throw in…or something.

Oh, and as to the other issues I didn’t touch on, believe me I wanted to, but I was already over 11,000 characters, and thought I had better stop there. Besides, I would think the stuff already mentioned would make the rest of those points rather needless.

Dee Dee Warren
January 6th, 2003, 01:52 PM
Well I can understand your reticence to deal with those timing passages. I would be too if I were you :D And I agree, the stuff already mentioned does make the rest of the points rather needless since I have already abundantly proven my case with what I have already said, but what can I say? I am an overachiever.

Dee Dee Warren
January 7th, 2003, 03:56 AM
Dear Lion:

Last things first. You can attempt to make a lot of hay about my alleged avoidance of Jeremiah 18 if you like as a deflection tactic, but the fact is that I am being very detailed in handling Daniel 9, and if my posts were any longer I would draw a rebuke from Knight. If you are very eager to get to that passage out of turn, then allow me two posts in a row, and it will be disposed of. Otherwise, it will come in due time. Now I know cats are finicky but you have been doing some real selective choosing of which points of mine you are going to deal with and at other times engage in much hand-waving and posturing…. Vogue anyone?

For example, I have noticed your absolute silence on at least two occasions of my pointing out the Great Tribulation is nowhere (unless you beg the question on this passage) said to be seven years. This deals your chronology a terrible blow, so no wonder you have swept it under the rug. Second, though I did allow you time to study it out, you cannot have a coherent picture of the seventy weeks (nor can I comprehensively demolish your view) until you disclose who you believe the “he” is of verse 27. I have already very conclusively shown that it is Christ and refers to His work on the Cross. This is very important as, if I am correct, then the text explicitly states that His crucifixion falls in the middle of the seventieth week, thus your avoidance of this verse is not acceptable.

Now further onto the idea of when He was crucified, you again are dancing quite suavely, but I am not in the mood for the Mambo. The text explicitly says that AFTER the 69 weeks, the Messiah is cut off. You keep insisting that He was crucified within the 69 weeks, specifically at the end of same, but the text does not say that. You also keep appealing to the normal flow of conversation, and yet repeatedly violate your own mantra. Why doesn’t after means after? There is nothing unclear about “after” is there? And as far as the normal flow of conversation, we also must ask ourselves, normal to who? Us moderns or the original audience? I have demonstrated the Hebraic parallelism there, and rather than offering any rebuttal whatsoever, you simply sneered at it as if a mephitic glare would make it go away. It does not. The word after as I have demonstrated, simply means “following” and does not carry with it any implied baggage that said event is instantaneous. The verses I provided abundantly proved that point.

And about the idea of natural to who when reading a text, your deprecation without any supporting facts of my assertion about the Hebraic mindset serves no purpose, and although it may give your supporters some cheap comfort, it would not provide anything to anyone seeking for the truth on the issue. There was nice case of attempted well-poisoning [violation of Cypertopia Statute 4.323(a)(1)] by implying that I said that the ancients were so stupid that they were unable to think beyond the lowest increment of time mentioned, but of course that is not what I said. Are you denying in the Hebrew culture that this is the way that they dealt with chronological issues? This is a well-documented, and non-controversial fact which makes your whole hoo-ha about calculating down to the exact month misplaced for that reason alone, in addition to the fact that whole prophecy is geared towards cycles of Jubilee years in the first place, and that the dating of very ancient events, despite your swagger, is a very imprecise and suspect science. Are you aware that we have rabbinical records much older than the sources you cite that thoroughly disagree with your data?

Now to backtrack once again to the issue of whether or not the destruction of the Temple falls within the seventy weeks or not (and referring again by reference to the fact that the Tribulation is not seven years to begin with, thus eliminating the entire 70th week = Tribulation as a possibility). You have stated that my only textual reason for putting the destruction outside of the 70 weeks is because it is not one of the stated goals in verse 24, which of course, silly me, I take at their face value. However, that has never been the only reason to a precise reader. I thoroughly demonstrated by going though verses 25-27 that the weeks are taken up by other events explicitly described thus putting said destruction outside the 70 weeks by sheer process of elimination. Ironically though, in examining these issues, I have found a better way to argue your own position if I were you which I will now do for you. If you were to hold that the baptism of Christ does mark the end of the 69th week, and that Christ was then crucified midway through the 70th week, that would leave the immediate three and one-half years after His death for the Great Tribulation which you can then say was postponed about one year into it. This would be much more faithful to the chronology of the seventy weeks (especially that nasty little “after” word which refuses to budge despite all your hand-waving and tail-wagging), and be true to the rest of Scripture that times the Great Trib at three and one-half years. Of course I can defeat this on other grounds, but if I were you, that would make much more sense than the tact you are now taking.

I have another proffer as well though to the idea that the destruction falls outside the seventy weeks, and this again, is proven by that pesky little verse to your position, verse 24. Young’s Literal Translation gives us an insight into this:

Seventy weeks are determined for thy people, and for thy holy city, to shut up the transgression, and to seal up sins, and to cover iniquity, and to bring in righteousness age-during, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies.

The six goals are actually arranged in three sets of couplets which is very common in Hebrew thought which things you have resisted since interpreting this passage in its literary form is very damaging to you. I didn’t expect such modern chauvinism from you which is much more typical of the KJV-only crowd.

The first couplet the is “shut up the transgression” and “seal up sins.” These two ideas are intimately related to each other. In the 70 weeks, Israel would finish its transgression against God by murdering their Messiah, and then their sins would be “sealed up” which implies a setting aside for future judgment. This is another strong textual hint that the destruction and judgment upon the city are a result of the 70 weeks not within the Jubilee redemption. For those who reject the redemption, judgment is sure to come, but it will not despoil the perfect Jubilee by according in its midst. You have consistently missed that point.

Now as far as whether the initial rebuilding of the Temple is “part” of the prophecy or not, we must quibble on what you mean by “part.” If you mean “part” by stating that it is one of the goals to be accomplished within the 70 weeks then no. But I have never stated that the only events on earth that happen during the 70 weeks are the things mentioned, I have only stated that those goals are exactly that, the goals, the pinnacles towards which the prophesy is reaching, i.e. the focus of the prophesy which is solely Messianic and redemptive. As a distraction, you speak about the fact that the rebuilding of the Temple (only the city) was never mentioned in verse 25, well I would say that is true only if you want to be pedantically facile. The word for the command to “restore” means to bring back to its former glory (see also Jeremiah 33:7).

All of this of course was done to divert attention away from the fact that you have made Christ’s earthly ministry completely irrelevant to this prophesy, despite the fact that He made claim to be the Anointed One (which is the meaning of the Hebrew phrase “Messiah”) bringing in the redemptive Jubilee in Luke 4:18 and claiming that the time was fulfilled BEFORE His crucifixion in Mark 1:15:

Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

… which machine guns your position and is unexplainable by you in any meaningful way. The only passage which explicitly times the coming of the Messiah (and by implication His Kingdom) was Daniel 9 (and Daniel 2). Jesus is making obvious reference to both. You cannot escape this, and it was BEFORE the crucifixion, utterly supporting my chronology. And this of course then explains something already noticed by the precise reader, and that is that there are two Messianic events in verses 25-26 – the until Messiah the Prince which happens at the end of the 69th week, and then the cutting off of the Messiah which the text explicitly states is after the 69th week. The Messiah is presented first, and then He is rejected. You have hopelessly conflated the two. All of the ducks line up and are quacking to my tune.

Now, and I am really sorry to have to do this to you, but you really should have been more thorough in doing your homework with regards to the “anointing of the Most Holy.” Tsk, tsk, tsk. It is true that many translations render it “anoint the Most Holy place.” But the fact is that the word “place” does not appear in the text, it is added by the translators according to their bias as to what they believe the text means. I am not using the word “bias” pejoratively, I am stating an acknowledged fact. You claim that “kodesh” is never used of a person, but always a place. I wish you had thought a little more deeply about this in light of the New Testament which teaches that all such rituals and places were merely symbolic of heavenly realities which all point to Christ. So even if your point were rock solid (which it is not as I will demonstrate further), it would not matter in light of this typological fact. And if you are going to insist otherwise, then you will be in a pickle in Isaiah 53:10 which speak of the Messiah’s seed which a Jewish skeptic will tell you can never refer to anything but literal natural children. But….. your assertion that “kodesh” (holy) is not used of persons in the OT is flat out wrong, as a simple use of a concordance would have informed you (Exodus 22:31; Leviticus 21:6; Numbers 18:17; Ezra 8:28, 9:2; Psalm 51:11; Isaiah 6:13, 62:2, 63:10; Ezekiel 36:38; Daniel 12:7) and is in fact used of persons (or animals) multiple times in the Old Testament. In the Septuagint in that verse, the Greek work for “holy” is “hagios” (Strong’s 40) which of course is often used of Christ (see especially Acts 3:14 and Revelation 3:7). And also note how, if it refers to the anointing of the Temple, that it completely shoots your argument in the foot, for then the only reference to the Temple in the verse 24 mission statement would refer to the building of the Temple, not its destruction! Oops! And my position stands irregardless for the reasons already said. Drat!

And what was that you said about the rest of the very damaging New Testament timing verses??? Oh that’s right. Nothing.

That was easy. :D :p

Yxboom
January 7th, 2003, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by Lion
And in answer to your questionI will have beg ignorance. However I believe that Sanders goes heavily into the history of the Open View in one of his books. I can not remember which one right now, but I will certainly try and find it for you.
Go on Rocky. I will take this one for you. Chapter 2 Historical Considerations in The Openness of God also in his own book The God Who Risks.

drbrumley
January 7th, 2003, 11:51 AM
Wow!

Wondering if anything will be left for me when Dee Dee finally gets back to me since this is so detailed on both sides of this issue. Might as well just give up.

Carl Smuda
January 7th, 2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Yxboom
Go on Rocky. I will take this one for you. Chapter 2 Historical Considerations in The Openness of God also in his own book The God Who Risks. Yxboom, thank you. Can you give me a brief on the historical considerations covered in that chapter? What are the historical considerations that He covers? Do I have to go buy his book to find out? respectfully,

Carl Smuda
January 7th, 2003, 04:52 PM
Lion and Yxboom,
Okay, I see from a quick search that this Open idea does go back into the 1800's and before. Okay. I'll go ruminate. Thanks.
sincerely,

Yxboom
January 7th, 2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Carl Smuda
Yxboom, thank you. Can you give me a brief on the historical considerations covered in that chapter? What are the historical considerations that He covers? Do I have to go buy his book to find out? respectfully, Although a brief summary will do grave injustice to any position, I will advise starting a thread perhaps Historical Considerations of the Open View where it would be more appropriately discussed. :)

Lion
January 7th, 2003, 09:34 PM
Yo Adrian! (I mean YXBoom) You did it!

(Thanks)

Lion
January 8th, 2003, 04:07 AM
DD-You say that I am making a big deal out of you not answering my questions, but that I am sneakily avoiding yours. The truth is I have stated in my posts why I haven’t gotten to certain points, and have almost always dealt with the ones I missed on the next go round (unlike you). I did ask for a week to look into, who the he is in the prophesy, and you said that would be okay, and then blasted me for not answering who “he” is just three days later? (Hmmmm, maybe this is really one of those three and one half Hebraic measurements and you are cutting me down in the middle of the week).Or perhaps it is you, and not the Hebrews who have a problem with what a week means.

Okay, the he (notice the small “h”, and don’t go crazy on me - I know the original doesn’t have capitals), is the antichrist. That one has now been answered for you. NEXT!
For example, I have noticed your absolute silence on at least two occasions of my pointing out the Great Tribulation is nowhere (unless you beg the question on this passage) said to be seven years.The great Tribulation is the same one as spoken of in Daniel’s 490 year prophesy, and the same one as spoken of in Revelation. And it isn’t three and one half years as you proclaim, it is seven years, just as the prophesy states. It becomes much harsher for Israel in the last three and a half years, once the temple and the city are destroyed, and that is why such a big deal is made out of the time, times, and half a time. That of course coincides perfectly with verse 24
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.The end of sacrifice and offering is a result of the destruction of the temple and the need of the Israelis to flee to the mountains.

Next!
The text explicitly says that AFTER the 69 weeks, the Messiah is cut off. You keep insisting that He was crucified within the 69 weeks, specifically at the end of same, but the text does not say that. You also keep appealing to the normal flow of conversation, and yet repeatedly violate your own mantra. Why doesn’t after means after? There is nothing unclear about “after” is there? And as far as the normal flow of conversation, we also must ask ourselves, normal to who?We have gone over it numerous times, but once again you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You make a big deal out of Messiah being cut off after the 69th week but then try and say it is perfectly normal to insert a three and one half year gap in the same meaning. The crucifixion is the culmination of the 69th week and announces the beginning of the 70th week, the great tribulation. And what a way to kick it off, with the unmistakable climax of the Messiah’s death. I have consistently proven you wrong on this point, even going to the trouble of showing you how the word determined is used three times during the prophesy. Once at the beginning, the middle and then at the end to finish the prophesy, (which of course you ignored).
Dan. 9:24 “Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city… 26… Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined…27… Even until the consummation, which is determined… And then you state that you don’t believe the material I advanced showing that the 490 year prophesy was proved accurate by the fact that it precisely dated the death of Messiah, down to the month.
…and that the dating of very ancient events, despite your swagger, is a very imprecise and suspect science. Are you aware that we have rabbinical records much older than the sources you cite that thoroughly disagree with your data?Are you saying that the prophesy is wrong? That it is inaccurate? One of the founding prophesies proving God’s ability to bring something to pass? And if it is not wrong, try and prove what month the baptism of Christ happened in, one thing we know for sure, it wasn’t Nisan! We do however know that Christ was crucified in the month of Nisan, and that the command to rebuild the city was given in the month of Nisan, but that’s not good enough for you. Just the most incredible fulfillment of prophesy in the Bible. You say you can prove this prophesy wrong? Bring it on. Let’s see if you can. Atheists have tried for centuries.

Then you say:
I have found a better way to argue your own position if I were you which I will now do for you. You’re right, I could take that track, but why would I want to since it has been so effectively proven wrong during this discussion?

And as to your couplet theory, I refer you back to my last post. It sounds good if you decide to look at it through preterists filters, and ignore the actual text. As to the leaving out of Christ’s earthly ministry, I answered that as well, when I said that His appearing, (in this prophesy), is primarily concerned with His death, because that is what the dating relates to, as well as the beginning of the Tribulation, which happens to be what Daniel’s vision is all about. You are so focused on preterists details that you cannot see the forest for the trees. The entire thrust of this prophesy is about setting a date for Messiah’s death, (that is accurate and record able, just as with His birth, so that it cannot be denied), as well as bringing in the needed information about the end times.

Then you make the statement of:
”…which machine guns your position and is unexplainable by you in any meaningful way. The only passage which explicitly times the coming of the Messiah (and by implication His Kingdom) was Daniel 9 (and Daniel 2).Jesus is making obvious reference to both. You cannot escape this, and it was BEFORE the crucifixion, utterly supporting my chronology.Well I certainly hope it was before the crucifixion. And this does nothing to bolster your position, it only shows that the first appearance of Christ would be followed quickly by His death, the Tribulation and then the second coming. Which follows much better with my position, where there is no forty year gap before the tribulation and who knows how many years before the second coming? (I of course have to assume you do not believe that Christ has bodily returned).

However, as a side note I have a request: Please give me a timeline or a short overview of the preterists chronology of the bible. I would be glad to do the same for you, of course you already have a copy of the Plot, but if you want I would be glad to give you one. When we first started to converse I thought our ideas might be close, however that may have been very premature on my part. And feel free to make it a second post. And while we are on that subject; This is not a Battle Royal, so please make as many posts as you like, one after the other or what ever you need. I will respond the best that I can.

About ko-desh. I’m sorry, I thought I explained that well enough, but I must have been mistaken. The words ko-desh, ko-desh (sorry don’t have the Hebrew font on my computer) without the definite article, (in said placement with anoint) are never used in conjunction with a person, only with an object, a place, or a thing. That is why I made the statement about Christ never being referred to as a thing. The closest the Bible gets is to describe Jesus in the neuter position, but never as a thing. The correct translation of the verse is best served as; “To anoint a most holy place”. Your attempt to state that Christ could be the object considered here, is negated by the fact that Jesus is never referred to as an object as stated before. For you to take this stance would require you to state that this is the only place in the bible that uses it as such.

Then you said:
And what was that you said about the rest of the very damaging New Testament timing verses??? Oh that’s right. Nothing.I assume you are again referring to the last half of the tribulation period. Already answered above.

Now, how about that Jeremiah passage? Why is it that God, who wanted to give Israel her kingdom, and would use the tribulation period to purify her so that she was ready to accept it, went ahead with the plan even though Israel refused to repent? Not a very good Father, going back on his word like that and rewarding bad behavior with good.

Oh, and any response to that painted corner of Luke 4:19 that I brought up?

Dee Dee Warren
January 8th, 2003, 04:28 AM
Dear Lion:

Since you have freed me up to make more than one post, I would like to dispose of a few nigglies quickly.


DD-You say that I am making a big deal out of you not answering my questions, but that I am sneakily avoiding yours. The truth is I have stated in my posts why I haven’t gotten to certain points, and have almost always dealt with the ones I missed on the next go round (unlike you).

Hmm, that is called satire. I was using it for effect. I don't think that either of us are sneakily avoiding anything but now that you see that it is not fair to be accused of it yourself, perhaps you will not use that tactic any longer with me. That was my only goal, and I see that it may have achieved its desired effect. But on that note, you say that when you have not gotten to certain points you almost always deal with them on the next round, while there is one HUGE point that you have not dealt with, but I do not think it is sneaky since you seem to have misunderstood my reference to it as follows:


Then you said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what was that you said about the rest of the very damaging New Testament timing verses??? Oh that’s right. Nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume you are again referring to the last half of the tribulation period. Already answered above.


Oh, no, no, no....... Here is exactlywhat I referring to, and I would love for you to address this point before I make my next substantive post, but if you don't want to, that is cool as well. Here is the points copied from an earlier post (I believe the one before my last one)


Since the plan has been put on hold. And since there are no prophesies to indicate when God will resume working with Israel, (except for the passage concerning the fullness of the gentiles), no one knows when it will happen. None of the apostles knew, including Paul or John, and neither do we. So they adopted the attitude that it would be soon, just as we should adopt the same attitude, acting as if it will come tomorrow so that we will be ever watchful.

Eeek!! Don’t make me choke! That is not what the texts say whatsoever which I find very ironic in light of what I see of certain hyperliteralizations you do of certain OT texts regarding God’s knowledge. Are you suggesting that the Greek language is devoid of means to express the concept that the events might be soon but no one knows?? The apostles were just as emphatic as Christ was on the soon approaching eschatological event, and you quite arbitrarily, because of an imposed grid, accept the face value statements of one and not the others. This error is quite transparent. Let’s look at a few of the more embarrassing ones for you, shall we?? (and I can prove later that Paul did in fact have an idea of the far timing of the Second Coming which you have improperly conflated with Christ’s “soon” judgment-coming in AD70)

Revelation 1:3 – Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Note that this verse tells us that the time is near. Near meant then exactly what near means now. Near does not mean could be near, might be near, or I don’t know if it is near so we should act as if it is. There is nothing equivocal or vague about this term at all. In order to further clarify this point…

Daniel 8:26 – Therefore seal up the vision, for it refers to many days in the future.

Daniel is told that his vision was for many days in the future, and in fact we know that the coming of Christ was hundreds of years into his future, thus, many days in the future. However, very similar phrasing appears in Revelation.

Revelation 22:10 – Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

John is told the complete opposite. If the Bible has any continuity, then this means exactly what that says. And it says “at hand,” not could be at hand, might be at hand, or I don’t know if it is at hand but we should act like it is.

And though I have many more to rub in on this topic… here is a bone-cruncher:

1 John 2:18 – Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

John is emphatic. While before apostles preached the “last days,” the event was now so near that it was the “last hour.” And John says not that he thinks it might be the last hour, or that they should act like it is the last hour, he says that WE KNOW it is the last hour. Ouch.

**********************

And I will take up your Jeremiah 18 issues in a separate post fromthe Daniel issues. Hopefully though I will just post them at the same time. Fair notice.... this is a rough week for me when I will be out of the house with little time.

And for the record again, so there is NO confusion. I do not beleive that Jesus has bodily returned, and I do believe that He will do so at some point in the future. There is a heretical group of people who call themselves preterists (whom I denounce) that deny the future bodily return of Christ and the future bodily resurrection. I am not one of those.

Dee Dee Warren
January 8th, 2003, 05:10 AM
Dear Lion:


However, as a side note I have a request: Please give me a timeline or a short overview of the preterists chronology of the bible.

That is a rather broad request for a short overview, so I am not sure what you want. Additionally, please be aware that preterism standing alone does not provide all of the chronology issues, but rather preterism combined with a millennial position does, and as you are aware I am postmillennial.

So here is what I think you are looking for:

First century, Christ comes, makes atonement, and ascends to the Father to receive His Kingdom and begins His reign. He is pubically vindicated at the destruction of the Jerusalem which marks the official (rather than judicial) end of the Old Covenant age, and ushers in the Millenium, i.e the age to come from both Jesus and Paul's perspective (and there is no way around this which I willl painfully prove to you later). He will reign until all of His enemies are subjugated at which time He will bodily return victorious. He will not have to torch the earth at His return. The final days of this age (for the most part - one exception) will not be marked by apostasy and evil but of Gospel blessedness and peace. At this point, when Christ returns, He resurrects the damned and the saved and the eternal state begins.


When we first started to converse I thought our ideas might be close, however that may have been very premature on my part.

We are very close on some things in theory, but in practical outworking, we are not close at all. Specifically, we are very close in that we believe Christ meant exactly what He said by the near timing words in the NT.... in other words we are both exegetical preterists when it comes to the Olivet Discourse. You, however, believe that although Jesus did really predict things to happen then that such things were delayed or interrupted.... which makes you a practical futurist, even though you are an exegetical preterist on that passage. That is a large difference, but also a very common ground at the same time. I don't have to prove to you that generation means generation etc. However, you do become very inconsistent in that hermeunetic in later NT books where all of a sudden soon does not mean soon and near does not mean near. You on those passages are for all intents and purposes a futurist.

We are also very close on the idea that Acts 9 was a very significant turning points with regards to ethnic Israel. We differ on the details and the logical outworking, but we do agree on that major point as contra persons who place the major emphasis on Acts 2 etc.

In these respects, I have much more in common with you than a typical futurist such as Jerry in the Battle Royale.

Now, when I started this discussion, I was unsure how foundational to your view eschatology is. For example, as has been pointed out here, if I convinced any OVer of preterism, it would not of necessity casue them to abandon their OV views. The two can peacefully co-exist in one person without major modification of eithe view. However, preterism cannot be held by a dispensationalist of your flavor. The two ideas cannot be both be right without major modification.

Knight
January 8th, 2003, 12:07 PM
Be careful Lion... remember your in Colorado and you can be thrown in jail for the type of spanking your giving Dee Dee. ;) :D

Dee Dee Warren
January 8th, 2003, 01:03 PM
Dear Knight: I hear that there are medications available (even in Colorado) for those delusions you are suffering with. :D :p

Knight
January 8th, 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight: I hear that there are medications available (even in Colorado) for those delusions you are suffering with. :D :p Its time for me to get in on the "theologian" speak.... and the "big-word-fest" that has been plaguing TOL lately, therefore I will refer to your above statement as an SDA. That being a........... Subjective Delusional Assertion. :D

Dee Dee Warren
January 8th, 2003, 02:44 PM
Actually my assertion that you are delusional was quite objective. :D

Knight
January 8th, 2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Actually my assertion that you are delusional was quite objective. :D OK... but was THAT statement subjective or objective?

Dee Dee Warren
January 8th, 2003, 02:52 PM
What statement?? Are you imagining things again?? ;) I hear those meds kick in real fast. If you get your scrip now, perhaps you will be able to think coherently for the rest of the debate (be sure to read the high altitude directions).

Knight
January 8th, 2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren (be sure to read the high altitude directions). Ah ha! That's why the preterist arguments don't make any sense! I haven't been using the high altitude directions!!!! Why didn't I think of that!!!????

OK... add one extra tablespoon of flour and pre-heat the oven an additional 25 degrees.

Dee Dee Warren
January 8th, 2003, 03:07 PM
:D

Dee Dee Warren
January 10th, 2003, 06:53 AM
Dear Lion:

I hope to post a response this weekend. I have been away from the house for most of the week as I had let you know in PM. And yesterday I got some disturbing job news.....

Lion
January 10th, 2003, 03:04 PM
Waiting with baited breath. I will be gone for the weekend, my son has hockey games in Vail and Aspen.

Knight
January 10th, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Lion
Waiting with baited breath. I will be gone for the weekend, my son has hockey games in Vail and Aspen. Lion... I have been meaning to say something about your breath. :shocked:

Dee Dee Warren
January 12th, 2003, 01:37 AM
Dear Lion:

Okay, let’s roll…. The first subject you tackled was the identity of the “he” in the following verse:

Daniel 9:27 – Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

You responded:


Okay, the he (notice the small “h”, and don’t go crazy on me - I know the original doesn’t have capitals), is the antichrist.

Since you know that the capitalization or lack thereof has NOTHING to do with the original text, why in the world would you even mention it? But its time for you to wipe your paws for you have now stepped in it big time, and you’re tracking it across the floor. We both agree that this verse speaks of the beginning of the 70th week to the middle. However, while I believe that the 70th week began with the baptism of Christ, thus placing His crucifixion in the midst of the 70th week bringing a judicial end to sacrifices and offerings (Hebrews 10:10-14), you believe that the 70th week started immediately after the crucifixion and was halted about one year later. Take a deep breath Lion… really?? Well, then, please do educate us on exactly who the first century antichrist was that confirmed a covenant with the many for one week immediately after the crucifixion. Ouch!

And now for the next episode of As the Question Begs……

After I pointed out to you that Scripture nowhere else EVER refers to the Great Tribulation as lasting seven years (and there is VERY good reason for that – i.e. the symbolism of a broken seven indicating judgment), you simply assumed what you must prove and said,


The great Tribulation is the same one as spoken of in Daniel’s 490 year prophesy, and the same one as spoken of in Revelation. And it isn’t three and one half years as you proclaim, it is seven years, just as the prophesy states.

Thank you for the demonstration in circularity, but now where exactly does Revelation say that the Great Tribulation is seven years? It doesn’t. Everywhere a period of time for the entire event is mentioned in Revelation it is 3.5 years (Revelation 11:2, 12:6, 13:5). So once again, without illegitimately using the disputed passage to prove the disputed passage, you cannot prove that the Great Tribulation is seven years, and there is tremendous proof to the contrary.


It becomes much harsher for Israel in the last three and a half years, once the temple and the city are destroyed, and that is why such a big deal is made out of the
time, times, and half a time.

Really? And what verse says that? None. The verses in question simply say that 3.5 years is the length of the time of “Jacob’s Trouble” which you keep insisting began immediately after the crucifixion, but apparently now are backpedaling, since by your own admission, it could not have began until 3.5 years AFTER the crucifixion since only the latter half of the 70th week can properly be called that time. It is becoming painfully obvious that we are entering into uncharted waters for you as you keep tripping over your own tail.

But does this 3.5 years of “Jacob’s Trouble” really begin after the city and (some alleged future) Temple are destroyed? Well let’s see. In Revelation 11:5, the Temple and city are specifically said to be still standing during the “42 months.” Oops for you. Revelation 18:19 which describes the fall of the city happens at the END of the terrors after which (taking your presuppositions as true) Christ returns in Revelation 19 and destroys those who came up against her. Oops Number Two. Also, in comparing the synoptics in the Olivet Discourse, specifically Luke 20-24 with Matthew 24:15-22 we see that the Tribulation happens while the city and Temple are still standing and its destruction ushers in the “coming” of Christ mentioned in those passages, which Matthew takes great pains to tell us happens immediately after the destruction. Thus, there is no greater period of Tribulation AFTER the destruction, the Tribulation is the events leadings TO the destruction Matthew 24:21. Three Oops, and you’re out.

**Drat those five letter words!

I have shown numerous times, but I do not mind rubbing it in, that the text of Daniel 9:26 specifically says that the Messiah is cut off AFTER the 69 weeks. Apparently you have some difficulty understanding the word AFTER so here are some synonyms – following,subsequent in time, past, and later.[/I] The Messiah is not cut off in the 69th week, He is cut off AFTER and the text then goes on to say exactly WHEN AFTER….In the midst of the 70th week which is patently obvious in the parallelism which I will once again demonstrate….

Verse 9:26 –And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Verse 9:27 – Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.

The red colored text is parallel as is the blue. This places the timing of the cutting off in the midst of the 70th week. There is no controversy at all that the blue texts are parallels, but in that admission, it becomes obvious that the red is as well.

And contrary to your assertion that I did not deal with the use of the word “determined” – this is a repeat of a point made several posts ago - Notice in the concluding words of verse 26 and 27 in parallel, that it is only the determination of the desolations that is said to take placed in the 70th week itself. The effecting of those desolations could take place any time thereafter.

**The Grammar Hammer

But this brings up another devastating reason why the pronoun “HE” of 9:27 cannot be the antichrist - simple rules of grammar. A pronoun will refer back to the last dominant character. Well who was that? Simple, there has only been one dominant character introduced in this whole prophecy… the Messiah! It cannot be “the people,” that is not a “he,” that is a “they.” It cannot be the “prince who is to come” for the noun “prince” is NOT the last dominant figure, it is not a dominant figure at all, but rather is the subject of a prepositional phrase! The “he” refers back to the Messiah who appears in the verse already set in Hebraic parallelism. It is only the gerrymandering insertion of a predetermined grid upon the text that could cause anyone to deny this.

**The Dating Game

After I pointed out how misplaced your reliance was upon trying
to pin down the fulfillment to exact month due to the fact that the prophesy was not in months, it was in patterns of Jubilee years, and that for every evidence you can provide of the dating of certain decrees, there is differing evidence (i.e. the dating of ancient events is an imprecise science) you in a stunning display of melodrama say:


Are you saying that the prophesy is wrong? That it is inaccurate? One of the founding prophesies proving God’s ability to bring something to pass?

And perhaps you would like to point out where I said that? I did not. I said that the prophecy certainly came to pass but using selected material (and from Bullinger of all people!) to bolster your particular position that things panned down to a specific month, when the prophesy does not even say that is misplaced. Nice drama though, it brought a tear to my eye.

**They Make Such a Cute Couple….


And as to your couplet theory, I refer you back to my last post. It sounds good if you decide to look at it through preterists filters, and ignore the actual text.

And in this comment you analyze the text where? Oh, an ex Cathedra statement from you is sufficient, when I in fact demonstrated the parallelism.

**[color=green]The Missing Link….[/color=green]


As to the leaving out of Christ’s earthly ministry, I answered that as well, when I said that His appearing, (in this prophesy), is primarily concerned with His death, because that is what the dating relates to, as well as the beginning of the Tribulation, which happens to be what Daniel’s vision is all about.

The baloney-meter just went off the scale. You did not answer that for you cannot answer how Christ claimed to the Jubilee figure that was ALREADY anointed in His citation of Isaiah 61:1-2; you never adequately answered my proofs of two Messianic events in the text; you simply assumed the dating relates to His death and the beginning of the Tribulation; and funny, if the vision is so much about the Tribulation how Gabriel neglects to mention that even once in the goals stated in verse 24.

And of course all of this is supported by this verse of which you have remained silent…..

Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”


You are so focused on preterists details that you cannot see the forest for the trees. The entire thrust of this prophesy is about setting a date for Messiah’s death, (that is accurate and record able, just as with His birth, so that it cannot be denied), as well as bringing in the needed information about the end times.

Your question begging abilities are unparalleled. The passage speaks of two Messianic events, with the second being His death, the first being “until Messiah [the anointed one] the Prince.” My view fits in perfectly with the NT texts which present Jesus as the Anointed One well prior to His crucifixion, and claims that the “time is fulfilled” well prior to that event as well. John the Baptist was the forerunner until the public presentation of the Messiah which Jesus affirms in Matthew 11:13. Ironically, it has been noted by scholars that the dating of Christ’s baptism (Luke 3:1-3)receives unusually detailed information in the NT, which is the only reason we can date His death with any accuracy.

Ironically you state after my numerous proofs that TWO Messianic events are predicted:


Well I certainly hope it was before the crucifixion. And this does nothing to bolster your position, it only shows that the first appearance of Christ would be followed quickly by His death, the Tribulation and then the second coming.

LOL! Did you really read what you said? If you concede that the “until Messiah the Prince” refers to the first public Messianic appearance of Christ, then you have conceded it is the baptism! And funny, when it suits you, 3.5 years all of a sudden becomes “followed quickly,” yet when it doesn’t suit you, such a timeframe becomes a yawning “gap.” How art Thou Inconsistency?

Dee Dee Warren
January 12th, 2003, 01:41 AM
**A Ko-desh Moment


About ko-desh. I’m sorry, I thought I explained that well enough, but I must have been mistaken.

You mean when you said…


The Hebrew word used is Ko-Desh (Strong’s #6944). I searched numerous translations and several commentaries and what I found is that this word is never once used (except by you in this one place) in denoting a person, but rather is always used to describe an item, object or building, as in; the Most Holy of places. (emphasis on “the” mine to show that you were even using the definite article the last time you addressed this point)

Hmmm. You now state:


The words ko-desh, ko-desh without the definite article, (in said placement with anoint) are never used in conjunction with a person, only with an object, a place, or a thing. That is why I made the statement about Christ never being referred to as a thing…. The correct translation of the verse is best served as; “To anoint a most holy place”.

Well no personal offense, but such a simplistic rendering of the issue of the definite article in Hebrew would make a JW proud. Surely you are aware (see An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Bruce Waltke and M. O'Connor, Eisenbrauns:1990), that there are multiple ways to indicate the definite status of a phrase in Hebrew besides the definite article, which in fact, is the least common way to do so?? Could that be why every nonparaphrase translation of the Bible that I consulted translates the phrase “THE most holy [with some completely adding out of thin air the word “place’]? And for the record, all the verses that I previously cited, save two, showing the use of the word “ko-desh” in reference to persons (or in one case animals) do not have the definite article either!! Thus, your point is????

And Jesus is very often referred to as “thing” (your bait and switch about neuter pronouns is irrelevant), and He in fact describes Himself as the very “thing” that you are claiming this passage is about, the Temple (John 2:20-21).


For you to take this stance would require you to state that this is the only place in the bible that uses it as such.

Untrue as demonstrated, but you have no trouble doing such things when you insist the Tribulation is seven years. Just how black is that pot anyways? Next!

**Put Down a Drop Cloth First….


Oh, and any response to that painted corner of Luke 4:19 that I brought up?

You mean when you said….


Jesus is totally acknowledging the Isaiah 61 passage and He does completely leave out the last line; the ”day of vengeance of our God.” But you miss the whole point as to why He does this. It is because He, (Jesus) is still in the 69th week of the prophesy, and the day of the vengeance of God (the beginning of the 70th week) is not yet at hand. Which completely destroys your argument of the 70th week starting at the baptism of Christ. If it was the 70th week, Jesus would have finished the last line. But He did not because that day was still in the future, awaiting His crucifixion.

Yes, here is my response. All you have simply done is once again assumed your position that the 70th week MUST be the Great Tribulation, inserted that unproven assumption into the text, and said “Ah ha!”

But let’s look at it once again. Jesus, prior to His crucifixion, was announcing Himself as the fulfillment of the Jubilee imagery of Daniel 9 and said that this Scripture is fulfilled THAT day in their hearing. You would have this taking place in the 68th week, and be completely irrelevant to the Daniel 9 prophecy which reeks of said Jubilee imagery. In so doing, you have destroyed the whole typological and polemical purpose of Jesus citing and utilizing that passage. You are being faithful to your “system” at the expense of the text. He omits the reference to the say of vengeance because that is a result of the rejection of the Jubilee He offered, and they had not yet done that. The passage completely supports my chronology.


I will be working on my Jeremiah 18 response tomorrow, and hopefully will complete it and post it then.

Dee Dee Warren
January 12th, 2003, 06:20 PM
Okay now onto Jeremiah 18 which Lion believes explains how God allegedly “interrupted” the Great Tribulation after beginning it for one year. I will repeat something I initially posted on this idea:

Let’s take a look at the passage from this is derived.

Jeremiah 18:7-11 – The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”

There are a lot of interesting things here.

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.

This portion teaches that the threats to destroy and pull down and pluck up are God’s response to the evil that a nation has done. If that nation then turns from its evil, God will not bring the disaster upon it.

And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

God here speaks conversely to the truth already taught. Just as he will prosper an “evil” nation that turns from its evil, he will destroy a “good” nation” that turn from its good. In other words in this passage God is not talking about blessing an evil nation… it is presumed that when the blessing is pronounced, the nation is good, but if it turns evil, then the blessing is withdrawn.

The relevance to this discussion is apparent. At the time that Jesus spoke the Olivet Discourse, He was not speaking of a “good” nation upon whom He was now going to pronounce some blessing, He was speaking of an evil nation that would soon demand that He be crucified rather than a murderer (Mark 15:11 Matthew 27:21), cried out for His blood to be upon them and upon their children (Matthew 27:25), and pledged allegiance to no king but Caesar (John 19:15). They did not repent from those ways but continued in them, thus, even under the rubric of conditionalism there is no way out. The Great Tribulation was a first century event.

And continuing on the “escape” clause in prophecy, it is also apparent that this is only valid when the reaction of the people prophesied about is not also the subject of the prophecy. For example, when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, not only did He tell Moses what to say, and what the consequences of Pharaoh’s refusal would be, He also told Moses that Pharaoh would in fact refuse. That closes any escape hatch. God has spoken the whole thing. Likewise, the rejection of Christ by the Jews (except for a Remnant, which is all that ever really existed as the people of God to begin with) was also foretold. Their rejection was certain and prophesied. I can see no way out of this fact.

Lion has turned on its end the whole judgment aspect of the Great Tribulation which Jesus described as God’s retribution for the blood of the all the righteous blood shed upon the earth:

Matthew 23:35-36 – that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

and the “days of vengeance –

Luke 21:22 – For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Jesus in describing these same events parabolically ALWAYS referred to it as a judgment event that was to happened BECAUSE OF THEIR REJECTION: Matthew 21:33-44

“Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.” Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’ ? “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

Matthew 22:1-14 –

“The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. “But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

And very interesting is the parables that contains Boom’s signature verse:

Luke 19:11-27 – Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. Therefore He said: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business till I come.’ But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’ “And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned ten minas.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.’ And the second came, saying, ‘Master, your mina has earned five minas.’ Likewise he said to him, ‘You also be over five cities.’ “Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ “And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) ‘For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’ ”

The point of all of these passages is that the rejection of the Jews was ALREADY predicted, and the consequences were clearly laid out. And the fact is that the Jews behaved exactly how predicted, and thus there is absolutely no reason for judgment to have been averted. Lion tries to ignore this very, very clear context and say that the result of all this punishment was a good thing because God would then give the Kingdom to the Jews. Lion would have us believe that if the Jews back then had repented He would have brought on them the most terrible of judgments (described by Jesus as the greatest tribulation that has ever been or shall ever be) but because they remained unrepentant, judgment was averted. That is total nonsense as all of Christ’s word were completely and contextually within the assumption that they were unrepentant. What Lion is proposing is exactly opposite to what Jeremiah 18 teaches and to what Jesus taught, i.e. that the coming conflagration was directly BECAUSE of their rejection and unrepentance. And irony of all ironies….. everything predicted did in fact happen!

Notice closely, Jesus predicted that the nation would reject Him and His rulership and described the consequences of that rejection through parables, and then ultimately in the Olivet Discourse. Lion claims that since the nation rejected Him that the Olivet Discourse was postponed and if they had repented, God would have brought His wrath down upon them. Who do we believe?

Lion
January 15th, 2003, 02:39 AM
DD-You said;
We both agree that this verse speaks of the beginning of the 70th week to the middle. However, while I believe that the 70th week began with the baptism of Christ, thus placing His crucifixion in the midst of the 70th week bringing a judicial end to sacrifices and offerings (Hebrews 10:10-14), you believe that the 70th week started immediately after the crucifixion and was halted about one year later.

Yes let’s look at this just a little more closely, shall we? The preterists position on the Daniel 490 year prophesy isn’t really a 490 year prophesy at all is it?. It is really a 486 and 1/2 year prophesy, because that is the only way they can try and make things fit. Their theory states that the 483 years until Messiah, happened at the beginning of the 483rd year, then about 3 and 1/2 years later Jesus was crucified, bringing us up to about the 486 and 1/2 year in the prophesy. What happens for the other 3 and 1/2 years of the prophesy? Nothing really, except maybe the apostle Paul, might have been converted at around the end of that time. So just what is it that really marks the end of the prophesy? Who knows? Not the preterists that’s for sure. I guess Daniel really meant 486 and 1/2 years were determined for their city and their prople.

Now let’s look at it the way the Bible states it. The prophesy highlights three important points in time, (1) the beginning, (2) the culmination of 483 years, and then (3) the end.
It is a 490 year prophesy so what happens at the beginning? The command goes forth. What happens next? The Messiah is killed at the culmination of the 483rd year, (in the exact month as foretold), thus linking it without question to the prophesy. Next, the beginning of the 7 year period of the Great Tribulation. The end of the prophesy is at the end of the Tribulation period, at the culmination of the 490th year, when the millennial kingdom begins for Israel. Boy, it really is a 490 year prophesy after all, and not just a 486 and 1/2 year prophesy as the preterists claim.

Next, you ask:
Well, then, please do educate us on exactly who the first century antichrist was that confirmed a covenant with the many for one week immediately after the crucifixion.Here again the preterist’s theory has to completely abort the prophesy in order to try and make their stance work. In the preterist’s theory, none of the things spoken about the tribulation times in the Daniel verses are part of the 486 and 1/2 year prophesy at all, but are instead refereeing to a future time, some 40 years away, (even though there is no mention of the intervening years anywhere in the text). Sort of a futurist concept don’t you think?

In the biblical rendition of this prophesy (Acts-9 dispensational view), we see that Christ was cut off as foretold in the 490 year prophesy and that the tribulation times (7 years or 1 week) did start immediately after His death, but was stopped approximately 1 year later, just as Christ himself foretold would happen if Israel did not repent and recognize their Messiah;
Luke 13:6-9 He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. “Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground? “But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. ‘And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down. ” So the logical answer is that we do not know who it was that would have made the covenant because the plan was stopped prior to his making himself known, due to the continued rejection of Israel toward their Messiah. And Just as Christ foretold, if after a year, they continued to produce no fruit, they would be cut off.

Next you say:
Thank you for the demonstration in circularity, but now where exactly does Revelation say that the Great Tribulation is seven years? Oh, just about everywhere, if you aren’t looking at it through the preterist’s filter, and are willing to take the passages in context such as in:
Rev. 12:7-14:8 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. “Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.”
Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood, which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Now let’s see, I was never that great at math but hmmmm, the woman (Israel) flees to the mountains for a time, times and half a time, I believe that adds up to 3 and 1/2 years. And then we see that the beast was given more time to continue. How much time? Oh, another 42 months. Now let’s see, 42 divided by 12 equals 3.5 years, converted for our purposes that would be 3 1/2 years. So, 3 1/2 years plus 3 1/2 years….hey that makes 7! That’s one of the places where it states the tribulation is 7 years, when taken in context. And notice that the last 3 1/2 years are especially tough because the Beast was then given authority to make war with the saints and to overcome them.

Then you bring up the “Grammar Hammer”. Interesting. That might be true except for the phrase:
And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Now in order for your “Grammar Hammer” to be correct then the people of the prince to come, must be the people of Christ Himself, since He is the afore mentioned Prince. In that case you are saying that the followers of Christ are the ones that destroy the temple, the city and then set up the abomination of desolation. Is that really what the preterists believe?

Then you go on to the “Dating Game.” And state:
and that for every evidence you can provide of the dating of certain decrees, there is differing evidence (i.e. the dating of ancient events is an imprecise science) Oh and you have given soooo many. As in zero. Then you claim that you do believe in the prophesy but not in the fact that it could accurately predict down to the month. Then why did God go to such great lengths to show us exactly what month and year the proclamation started?

Here’s a little gift for you:
Neh. 1:1-4 The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah.
It came to pass in the month of Chislev, (That’s the month of December for us) in the twentieth year, (of King Artixersies rule) as I was in Shushan the citadel, that Hanani one of my brethren came with men from Judah; and I asked them concerning the Jews who had escaped, who had survived the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem. And they said to me, “The survivors who are left from the captivity in the province are there in great distress and reproach. The wall of Jerusalem is also broken down, and its gates are burned with fire. So it was, when I heard these words, that I sat down and wept, and mourned for many days; I was fasting and praying before the God of heaven.

Neh. 2:1-6 And it came to pass in the month of Nisan (Babylonian name for the month of Abib our March-April) in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was before him, that I took the wine and gave it to the king. Now I had never been sad in his presence before. Therefore the king said to me, “Why is your face sad, since you are not sick? This is nothing but sorrow of heart.” So I became dreadfully afraid, and said to the king, “May the king live forever! Why should my face not be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ tombs, lies waste, and its gates are burned with fire?” Then the king said to me, “What do you request?” So I prayed to the God of heaven. And I said to the king, “If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favor in your sight, I ask that you send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers’ tombs, that I may rebuild it.” Then the king said to me (the queen also sitting beside him), “How long will your journey be? And when will you return?” So it pleased the king to send me;

Now why did it take four months for Nehemiah to tell the king what he wanted? And why would God take such care to make sure that this particular month and time would be recorded?
Ex. 13:3-4 And Moses said to the people: “Remember this day in which you went out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out of this place. No leavened bread shall be eaten. “On this day you are going out, in the month Abib.

Deut. 16:1 “Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to the LORD your God, for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you out of Egypt by night.

John 19:14-18 Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!” Then he delivered Him to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus and led Him away.
And He, bearing His cross, went out to a place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha, where they crucified Him, The Passover lamb, crucified in the month of Abib (Nisan ), which is the exact same month that the order was given to rebuild the city exactly 483 years before. You can try to argue the year (with no success) but you can’t possibly argue the month, because it is plainly stated so in the verses above. Jesus was not baptized in the month of Nisan (Abib), the time of the Passover. He was crucified in that month, because He is the Passover lamb.
Feel free to accept this gift or reject it as you see fit.

About ko-desh. Once again you make a statement without any proof, (this is beginning to become your strong point). There is NOWHERE in the bible where the words ko-desh and anoint are used without the definite article, in conjunction with a person, only with an object, a place, or a thing. And despite your claim that Jesus is often referred to as a thing, you are wrong, as shown here:
Much older, more general, and also nearer the truth, is the explanation which refers these words to the anointing of the Messiah, an explanation which is established by various arguments. The translation of the LXX, ___ ________ _____ _____ , and of Theod., ___ ______ _____ _____ , the meaning of which is controverted, is generally understood by the church Fathers as referring to the Messiah. Theodoret sets it forth as undoubtedly correct, and as accepted even by the Jews; and the old Syriac translator has introduced into the text the words, “till the Messiah, the Most Holy.” 77 But this interpretation is set aside by the absence of the article. Without taking into view 1 Chron. 23:13 , the words ______ _________ are nowhere used of persons, but only of things. This meaning lies at the foundation of the passage in the book of Chronicles referred to, “that he should sanctify a ______ _________ , anoint him (Aaron) to be a most holy thing.” Following Hävernick, therefore, Hengstenberg (2nd ed. of his Christol. iii. p. 54) seeks to make this meaning applicable also for the Messianic interpretation, for he thinks that Christ is here designated as a most holy thing. But neither in the fact that the high priest bore on his brow the inscription ______ ________ , nor in the declaration regarding Jehovah, “He shall be ___________ ,” Isa. 8:14 , cf. Ezek. 11:16 , is there any ground for the conclusion that the Messiah could simply be designated as a most holy thing. In Luke 1:35 Christ is spoken of by the simple neuter _____ , but not by the word “object;” and the passages in which Jesus is described as _ _____ , Acts 3:14 ; 4:30 , 1 John 2:20 , Rev. 3:7 , prove nothing whatever as to this use of ______ of Christ. Nothing to the purpose also can be gathered from the connection of the sentence. If in what follows the person of the Messiah comes forward to view, it cannot be thence concluded that He must also be mentioned in this verse.

Cf. Raymundis Martini, Pugio fidei, p. 285, ed. Carpz., and Edzard ad Abodah Sara, p. 246f., for evidences of the diffusion of this interpretation among the Jews.
Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentary on the Old Testament. (Da 9:24). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Hebrew and Greek won’t translate to my posts.

Next you said:
But let’s look at it once again. Jesus, prior to His crucifixion, was announcing Himself as the fulfillment of the Jubilee imagery of Daniel 9 and said that this Scripture is fulfilled THAT day in their hearing. You would have this taking place in the 68th week, and be completely irrelevant to the Daniel 9 prophecy which reeks of said Jubilee imagery.The only thing that reeks here is the misinterpretation that the preterists shove into these passages. The fulfillment that Jesus is talking about here, as plainly stated in the passage, is the Isaiah verses. He, Jesus, is the fulfillment. He is the one who does these things. He doesn’t state, as you contend, that this is the fulfillment of the Daniel 9 passage, in relation to the Jubilee, but rather that He is the fulfillment of the Isaiah passage. He is the one to preach good tidings to the poor; He is the one that has been sent to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

Finally you try and deal with the Jeremiah passage:
The relevance to this discussion is apparent. At the time that Jesus spoke the Olivet Discourse, He was not speaking of a “good” nation upon whom He was now going to pronounce some blessing, He was speaking of an evil nation that would soon demand that He be crucified rather than a murderer (Mark 15:11 Matthew 27:21), cried out for His blood to be upon them and upon their children (Matthew 27:25), and pledged allegiance to no king but Caesar (John 19:15)…

…The point of all of these passages is that the rejection of the Jews was ALREADY predicted, and the consequences were clearly laid out. And the fact is that the Jews behaved exactly how predicted, and thus there is absolutely no reason for judgment to have been averted.
Unfortunately your preterists bias has forced you to miss the entire point of the tribulation period, as well as God’s character. Yes God pours out His wrath on the Jews, but why? Because He wants Israel to turn back to Him, so that He can fulfill the promises He made to the fathers. God has always purged Israel to refine her. Through all of her troubles and captivities, it was always to bring her back to Him, just as it is in the Tribulation period.
Zech 13:7-9 “ Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, Against the Man who is My Companion,” Says the LORD of hosts. “Strike the Shepherd, And the sheep will be scattered; Then I will turn My hand against the little ones. And it shall come to pass in all the land,” Says the LORD, “That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die, But one- third shall be left in it: I will bring the one-third through the fire, Will refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them. I will say, ‘This is My people’; And each one will say, ‘The LORD is my God.”

Is. 1:24-27 Therefore the Lord says, The LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel, “Ah, I will rid Myself of My adversaries, And take vengeance on My enemies. I will turn My hand against you, And thoroughly purge away your dross, And take away all your alloy. I will restore your judges as at the first, And your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.” Zion shall be redeemed with justice, And her penitents with righteousness.

Mal 3:2-4 “But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire And like launderer’s soap. He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver; He will purify the sons of Levi, And purge them as gold and silver, That they may offer to the LORD An offering in righteousness. “Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem Will be pleasant to the LORD, As in the days of old, As in former years.

Rev 2:25 “But hold fast what you have till I come. “And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations”
God will refine Israel through the Tribulation period and she will return to Him, so that He can give her the Kingdom, and so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.

This is yet another reason why your idea of the Tribulation falls flat. The preterist position shows God completely abandoning Israel, and stomping the whole nation out in His wrath.
The biblical position shows that the tribulation is a nessissary pre-condition to
Israel’s receiving the kingdom, a blessing, but that God stoped the tribulation because corporate Israel refused to return to Him. And since they refuse, He will not give them their promised kingdom until she is ready for it. Perfectly in keeping with the Jeremiah passage, and God’s character as shown throughout the bible. And notice how even after the crucifixion, (which you claim sealed Israel’s fate), the apostles are still trying to get Israel to repent so that:
Acts 3:19 “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, Now why would they still be doing that if it was already too late for Israel?

In summation: As clearly shown DD completely misses the entire point of the tribulation period and God’s unique relationship with the nation of Israel, thinking that the tribulation is only intended to punish the nation, rather than its true intent, which is to cleanse Israel so that she is ready to receive her eternal kingdom as promised.

Once again we see that the correct translation of the Dan 9 prophesy is “to anoint the most holy place.”

It has also been established, (as everyone in Christendom, except the preterists, already know), that the tribulation period is 7 years long, with the last half being especially horrible.

It has been shown that the “he” in the Dan 9 prophesy could not be referring to Christ, unless DD is willing to state that she believes God ordered His own people to construct the abomination of desolation to defile His own temple. I doubt even she will go that far.

I have demonstrated how Daniel’s 490 year prophesy really is 490 years, and not the 486 1/2 years the preterists think it is. I have outlined how the prophesy shows a distinct beginning, (the order to rebuild the city), when the messiah will be cut off after exactly 483 years, (the crucifixion of Christ), and an exact end, (the end of the tribulation and giving of the kingdom). The preterists theory has the crucifixion happening around the middle of the 483rd year (with no clear indicator), and the end happening some ambiguous time around the conversion of Paul. Wow that really puts some teeth in the prophesy. Who could possibly doubt God on that one?

And most importantly it has been proven that the date of the crucifixion of Christ was established by Daniel’s 490 year prophesy to the exact year and month, thus completely disputing the preterists entire theology.

So DD, do you really think Antiochus was one of Jesus followers?

OMEGA
January 15th, 2003, 09:00 AM
The "Servitude of the Nation" and the
"Desolations of Jerusalem"

are often confused. They are two independent

periods, largely overlapping, but

both lasting seventy years.

The "desolations of Jerusalem" began with the annihilation of
the city of Jerusalem

and the Solomon's Temple in 587 B.C. According to Jeremiah it
was punishment

for not yielding to the "Servitude of the Nation" which began
in 606 B.C., with the

first siege of Nebuchandnezzar.[Jeremiah 27:6,8,11; 38:17-21.
29:10, Daniel 9:2 ]

"In the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the
books the number of

years specified by the word of the Lord through Jeremiah the
prophet, that he

would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of
Jerusalem." (Daniel 9:2)

"Seventy weeks are determined For your people (Israel) and for
your holy city

(Jerusalem)," (Daniel 9:24)

Since two separate prophecies are talked about here can we
apply the same

calculations used for the "Servitude of the Nation" on the
"Desolations of

Jerusalem"? In Ezekiel 4:1-7 the prophecy is not only for the
"Servitude of the

Nation" but also for the "Desolations of Jerusalem."
-------------------

Jewish calendar: 8 Elul 3243
=25,200 days (Daniel 9:24)

Gregorian calendar: 10 August 587 BC (modern civil calendar)
Jewish calendar: 27 Av 3174

Solomon's temple was destroyed on 9-10 Av 3174
=23-24 July 587 BC.
[Jeremiah 52:12-13 ]
------------------------------
Jeremiah 25:11
"And this whole land shall be a desolation and an
astonishment, and these nations

shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years"

There are 360 days in the Jewish year
In this prophecy the 360 day year time scale must also be used

for the 70 year prophecy.

360 days x 70 years = 25,200 days.

The period from the summer of 606 B.C (the first siege)
to the summer of 537 B.C. (the decree of Cyrus) is exactly
25,200 days.
This corresponds to 70 years of 360 days duration!
--------------------------------------

Ezekiel 4:3-6

"This will be a sign to the house of Israel. Lie also on your
left side, and lay the

iniquity of the house of Israel upon it. According to the
number of the days that you

lie on it, you shall bear their iniquity. For I have laid on
you the years of their

iniquity, according to the number of the days, [390] three
hundred and ninety days;

so you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.
And when you have completed them, lie again on your right
side; then you shall

bear the iniquity of the house of Judah [40] forty days.

I have laid on you a day for each year" .

Each day represents one biblical year.
[390 + 40 years] = 430 biblical years .
----------------

(Leviticus 26:18 - 28
"And after all this, if you do not obey Me, then I will punish
you
7x more for your sins"

430 years = first 70 years
= 360 years x 7
= 2,520 biblical years x 360 day
= 907,200 days

( 907,200 / 360 = 2485 years + 5 months + 25 days.)

( 70 x 360 = 25,200 days / 365 = 69 years + 15 days )
--------------------------

The Servitude of the Nation: the loss of independence in 606
B.C

Gregorian calendar: 15 July 0537 BC (modern civil calendar)
Jewish calendar: 15 Av 3224

= 25,200 days (Jeremiah 25:11)

Gregorian calendar: 17 July 0606 BC (modern civil calendar)
Jewish calendar: 5 Av 3155 (3155/12/5)

= the loss of independence in the summer of 606 B.C.
------------------------

The loss of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. was also 19 years.


Israel lost its independence in 606 B.C. but Jerusalem was
left intact with the

Second temple.

Dee Dee Warren
January 15th, 2003, 09:20 AM
Dear Lion:

Hey thank you for taking at least a few days to respond. And I thank you for giving me several posts to catch up with the unanswered questions from some of your posts.... but speaking of unanswered questions.... I would really, really prefer not to respond until you do the same. There is that really big honking unanswered question that I have asked you about three times now (that you briefly answered once and I forcefully rechallenged) about the rest of the timing passagqes in the NT. It is restated on page 8 of this thread at 01-08-2003 05:28 AM. I would appreciate it if you would answer that as well before I post anything further so that we are both "caught up" so to speak.

Please let me know if that is amenable to you.

Explosived
January 15th, 2003, 10:40 AM
Let me ask a question If I may, If the Jews had received Christ as their Saviour as as nation what would of happened?
Do you believe they would of went right into the Millin.?

Lion
January 15th, 2003, 05:32 PM
DD-You said:
but speaking of unanswered questions.... I would really, really prefer not to respond until you do the same. There is that really big honking unanswered question that I have asked you about three times now (that you briefly answered once and I forcefully rechallenged) about the rest of the timing passagqes in the NT. It is restated on page 8 of this thread at 01-08-2003 05:28 AM. I would appreciate it if you would answer that as well before I post anything further so that we are both "caught up" so to speak.

OH PA-LEASE! This is the fourth time you have asked this question, and I have answered it each and every time! Now you may not like, or accept my answer, but you must acknowledge that I have answered it. As proven below. Your question:
…which book also declares it is near and soon with such time indicators which you have conceded in the Gospels places such prophetic fulfillment squarely within the first century. You cannot have it both ways. As of the time of the writing of Revelation (which of course I place prior to 70AD) the Great Tribulation was near, and soon, and at hand for them, not us or anyone else. You cannot concede in the Discourse that those timing statement do place the events within the first century, but after the prophesy was given, the prophesy was aborted, and then deny the implication of the near timing phrases uttered after said near time fulfillment was already allegedly aborted.My answer:
Not true at all. Since the plan has been put on hold. And since there are no prophesies to indicate when God will resume working with Israel, (except for the passage concerning the fullness of the gentiles), no one knows when it will happen. None of the apostles knew, including Paul or John, and neither do we. So they adopted the attitude that it would be soon, just as we should adopt the same attitude, acting as if it will come tomorrow so that we will be ever watchful.You asked:
I have one other issue to bring in, that I brought in my prior post which has remained unacknowledged thus far. Specifically, you agree that there are unambiguous time references in the Gospels teaching that the Great Tribulation and a “coming” of Christ was expected in the first century. You differ with the preterists in that you believe that although this was expected and actually begun, it was interrupted about one year after the resurrection. This puts you in a tremendous bind for you have sold the farm with the concessions to the preterist position made thus far. Why? Because the “near” time references do not end in the Gospels, they continue throughout the entire New Testament even in NT books written after this plan was allegedly interrupted.I answered:
You need to go back and read my last post again. I not only completely answered this question, but also showed how it fits perfectly with an Acts-9 theology but flies in the face of your theology. I’m going to paste my previous answer for you here, but it will make my post longer, so don’t blame me for being wordy. In the last post I said;

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true at all. Since the plan has been put on hold. And since there are no prophesies to indicate when God will resume working with Israel, (except for the passage concerning the fullness of the gentiles), no one knows when it will happen. None of the apostles knew, including Paul or John, and neither do we. So they adopted the attitude that it would be soon, just as we should adopt the same attitude, acting as if it will come tomorrow so that we will be ever watchful.You asked:
And what was that you said about the rest of the very damaging New Testament timing verses??? Oh that’s right. Nothing.And, again, I answered:
I assume you are again referring to the last half of the tribulation period. Already answered above.

SO, now that you see I have answered it each and every time you have asked it, I will, hopefully for the last time answer it again. Christ spoke as if the coming tribulation and kingdom were imminent! For that generation, in fact it would happen so fast that they wouldn’t even get through all of the cities of Israel before it was done:
Matt. 10:23 “When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.Hey that brings up another point against you, do you really think it would have taken 40 years just to make it through the cities of Israel? No, that sounds a lot more like a seven-year job to me.

However, once the plan was put on hold, due to Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah, the time of the end was anyone’s guess. Only the Father knows when it will be:
Mark 13:32 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.John didn’t know when the time would be when he wrote the book of Revelation, neither did the angel that spoke to him, nor even God the Son, but rather only God the Father knows. So from the time the plan was stopped, until this very day, we should treat each day as if the time is now, but realize that it could be another thousand years away.

Now as I said, you may not agree with, or like this answer, since it does not go along with the preterist’s version of the Tribulation, but I have, indeed, once again answered it for you.

Dee Dee Warren
January 15th, 2003, 05:45 PM
Dear Lion:

I acknowledged that you gave that answer, so forgive me if you got the impression that I was saying you never gave an answer. However, the last round that I refered you to interacted with that response and required further defense from you. That is what I was referring to. That post I referred you to totally acknowledged your first answer and requires further response as I poked holes in your answer. I am not trying to misrepresent you or what you have or have not answered, and ask your forgiveness if it appears that I have done that in any way. I truly would like a fuller answer to that post I referred you to because I showed in that post how your imminence answer is impossible. Of course you already gave the imminence answer, if not, I would not have known to address it, and you have not addressed my fuller challenge. If you choose though not to provide a fuller answer now, I will then just simply bring it back up again in fuller detail in my response. I was hoping you would interact more with my objections now though.

Lion
January 15th, 2003, 05:52 PM
Explosived-You asked:
Let me ask a question If I may, If the Jews had received Christ as their Saviour as as nation what would of happened?
Do you believe they would of went right into the Millin.?Great question, for both of us.

If the nation of Israel had accepted Jesus as their Messiah what would have happened?

The 70th week (the 7 year period of the Great Tribulation) would have happened, immediately following the crucifixion, as foretold in the 490 year prophesy. Why? Because that was God’s plan all along, so there would be no reason to stop it. God would sift Israel, as well as the rest of the world, to expunge the dross, and refine His people. The events listed in the prophesy, as well as all the horrifying events in the book of Revelation would have come to pass. God’s people would emerge as the silver and the gold and become the nation of priests they were meant to be. The Kingdom would have been given to them and the thousand-year reign would have commenced as promised. The rest of the events would continue to proceed as stated in the Book of Revelation.

Lion
January 15th, 2003, 05:59 PM
DD-I believe the answer I have given is sufficient as well as accurate. No further response from me is required on this subject.

Dee Dee Warren
January 15th, 2003, 06:01 PM
Lion I of course disagree, and perhaps I did not word it sufficiently well why a further response is indeed required. I will be bringing it up again in my further response because those particular points are absolutely fatal to your position but I understand that the burden is upon me to demonstrate that fact.

Knight
January 15th, 2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Lion I of course disagree, and perhaps I did not word it sufficiently well why a further response is indeed required. I will be bringing it up again in my further response because those particular points are absolutely fatal to your position but I understand that the burden is upon me to demonstrate that fact. In the meantime I think it would be fruitful if you answered Explosived's question as clearly, directly and without obfuscation as Lion did. Keep in mind.... the question can be taken as a hypothetical.

Dee Dee Warren
January 15th, 2003, 09:03 PM
Dear Knight:

Sure...

Here is the question


Let me ask a question If I may, If the Jews had received Christ as their Saviour as as nation what would of happened?
Do you believe they would of went right into the Millin.?

Some hypotheticals cannot be taken as such because they must be answered within a certain framework. This question has to be answered within the Biblical framework, and thus, I would say that since the rejection of the Saviour by the nation was prophesied to happen, within my view, the question is impossible. But... there are a lot of buried assumptions within Explosived's question, namely that we are not in the Millenium now, which I believe that we are, so the Millenium did come back then and continues.

But... taking for the sake of argument that the rejection of the nation was not prophesied, then yes the Jews as a nation would entered have entered the Millenium just as all believers did, and they would not have had to go through the Tribulation which was the judgment for their apostasy.

Lion
January 16th, 2003, 12:44 AM
Well that figures since my position already shows the numerous fatal points in your theology.

Wow! This sure has been a loooooong millennium. But perhaps that is to make up for the preterist’s missing 3 and 1/2 years.

Dee Dee Warren
January 16th, 2003, 03:06 AM
Dear Lion:

I am sure that as we progress I will have ample opportunity to prove my statement, which would be when I demonstrate the "end of the age" issue, and the chronology of the ages issue which I have already alluded to several times in some of my responses. I look forward to doing so though it will not be in my next post unless you would like me to.

Dee Dee Warren
January 19th, 2003, 10:10 AM
Dear Lion:

I am going to be splitting up my responses into different posts based upon subject matter since we seem to be concentrating on three major areas

1. The Jeremiah 18 principle

2. Daniel’s 70 weeks (which may itself be split up into several posts are there are numberous subissues)

3. New Testament timing issues

This post is going to focus on the NT timing issues. I need to recap the dilemma you are in for the benefit of the readers. You and I agree that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said in the Gospels, that there was a major eschatological event predicted to happen within the lifetimes of the people then living, including the Great Tribulation and the public inauguration of the Kingdom. We both agree on this because Jesus made indisputably dogmatic timing statements to this effect. You, however, believe that this event was interrupted and postponed to some future time about one year after the crucifixion.

But here is the embarrassing part for you and the huge unexplainable inconsistency in your system. The “near” timing references do not cease from appearing in the NT record after the time where you say such plan was allegedly stopped. This is highly problematic for you, and it is at this point that you morph into a typical futurist, and claim that the apostles did not know when God would resume working with Israel so they treated it as if it could happen any minute. I repeat what I said before…. Are you suggesting that the Greek language is devoid of means to express the concept that the events might be soon but no one knows?? You must answer that question as it is critical. The apostles were just as emphatic as Christ was on the soon approaching eschatological event, and you quite arbitrarily, because of an imposed grid, accept the face value statements of one and not the others. Now I feel for you because I know that this is what you HAVE to say, but it is unacceptable. The texts simply do not say that, and I brought forward several specific examples which I will repeat and ask you to deal with specifically and not just by general principle, which you did of course do, and I once again apologize if my prior comments were taken to mean that you ignored them completely.

Revelation 1:3 – Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Note that this verse DOGMATICALLY tells us that the time is near. Near meant then exactly what near means now. Near does not mean could be near, might be near, or I don’t know if it is near so we should act as if it is. There is nothing equivocal or vague about this term at all. In order to further clarify this point…

Daniel 8:26 – Therefore seal up the vision, for it refers to many days in the future.

Daniel is told that his vision was for many days in the future, and in fact we know that the coming of Christ was hundreds of years into his future, thus, many days in the future. However, very similar phrasing appears in Revelation.

Revelation 22:10 – Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.

John is told the complete opposite. If the Bible has any continuity, then this means exactly what that says. And it DOGMATICALLY says “at hand,” not could be at hand, might be at hand, or I don’t know if it is at hand but we should act like it is.

Now this next verse is absolutely essential for you to deal with for it decimates your very proposition, and though I have a few more like it, I will keep it to this one for now….


1 John 2:18 – Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

John is emphatic. While before apostles preached simply the “last days,” the event was now so near that it was the “last hour.” And John says not that he thinks it might be the last hour, or that they should act like it is the last hour, he says that WE KNOW it is the last hour. Your system cannot explain that.

Now you throw in a few questions for me and made the point that there were no antecedent signs to God allegedly beginning to work with Israel again (except for the fullness of the Gentiles – which is a honkingly huge sign if your interpretation is correct – and certainly not something that was close to happening then, shooting your own argument in the paw). But if one is taking the “coming” of the Great Tribulation to be identical to the Second Coming (impossible for other reasons) and close in proximity to the completely made-up out of whole cloth secret coming to rapture the Church, that is just not true. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:24-26 that the “rapture” marks the destruction of the LAST enemy, which is death, and that ALL OTHER enemies will have been destroyed prior to that event. I think that the destruction of all other enemies world be a fairly noticeable sign . Also, Paul also says in 2 Thessalonians 2 (which you futurize), that this event cannot happen until the falling away and the revealing of the man of sin. Oops, those sound like signs. So if those things had not happened, there is no way that the apostles were using timing language because they thought it could be soon. Also, as we continue, for I am sorry but I will continue on this point as it is the major chink in Smaug’s armor, I will also prove that Paul taught that the resurrection was an “age” away from his perspective, and thus not soon at all, proving that this soon event spoken of repeated in the NT was something entirely different from the Second Coming.

You also inquired about Matthew 10:23 and the amount of time it would take to go through the cities of Israel, and stated -


Hey that brings up another point against you, do you really think it would have taken 40 years just to make it through the cities of Israel? No, that sounds a lot more like a seven-year job to me.

Well in your view you have to try and make it a three and one-half year job since the disciples are told to flee Judea midway through this alleged seven-year period, and thus would no longer be going through the cities of Israel. I have to ask if you are suggesting that Israel was thoroughly evangelized by the outbreak of the Jewish wars in AD67. I don’t. The work of the disciples was not finished, thus the urgency, which was Jesus’ whole point. If your view was correct and that the nation was expected to repent in order to be purified Jesus’ comment makes no sense, His comment only makes sense in light of His other repeated and crystal clear pronouncements that the city and the geopolitical entity of Israel was irretrievably doomed.

You also brought up Jesus not knowing the day or hour in the Olivet Discourse. And I say so what? You and I both agree that at the time He dogmatically predicted the generation, … and Revelation 1:1 tells us that the Father gave Jesus the full revelation of such things which He then gave to John. There was nothing “iffy” about it, and the dogmatic near and numerous timing references continue in that Book, in fact, there are more pronounced and urgent that in almost any of the others.

Dee Dee Warren
January 19th, 2003, 10:48 AM
I am working on posts directed towards the other two issues. I seem to have contracted a really nasty eye infection which makes working on the computer for too long uncomfortable, and since I do not want to go to the emergency room, I can't see a doctor until tomorrow. I was hoping that it would just clear up on its own. Not!! Okay, who has the voodoo doll of me and is poking it in the eye??? Oh, bad Troy! :D

Dee Dee Warren
January 19th, 2003, 10:05 PM
Dear Lion:

Okay continuing with the Daniel issues…. and the arrow has found yet another chink in Smaug’s armor, the alleged antichrist of Daniel 9:27, and the implosion of your chronology. You had previously stated that you believe that the 70th week did in fact start after the crucifixion but was interrupted because the Jews did not repent. Hmm, that is too bad for you, because this same verse says….

Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week….

Well, this would be the ENTIRE 70th week would it not? It does not say that he will confirm a covenant with many for anything less. This means that this covenant was confirmed, in your view, immediately after the crucifixion, yet you cannot answer what this covenant was, or who the first century antichrist was. How peculiar! This totally kills your view, and you cannot explain it away. Daniel is clear that this is the kick-of the 70th week, and yet you cannot show it as happening by any stretch of your fervent eschatological imagination. :D

You attempt to use a parable (Luke 13:6-9) to override this clear chronology, but that parable does nothing for you even if I accept your interpretation of it. For, according to you, the 70th week went right on schedule after the crucifixion, and then would include this covenant for an ENTIRE seven years (and yet you have it confirmed for one invisible year by an invisible antichrist). Impossible, and the error is sadly transparent. This is further confirmed by Paul who taught that the man of sin (who you must say is the “he” of Daniel 9:27) must be revealed FIRST, prior to the Tribulation beginning. There is no room for this invisible year. And this brings up another very interesting point. In your view one year is already fulfilled…. There cannot even be an additional seven years left in the future, only six!

This is further underscored by the fact that you are violating a cardinal hermeneutical rule that parables are never to be used to solely develop doctrine (or Eeek! strict time sequences) but rather to communicate one main point and expound upon more literal and clear passages. If we compare Scripture with Scripture, the cursed fig tree never bears fruit again (Matthew 21:19). The time sequences mentioned in parables are never to be hyperliteralized in that fashion. If you are going to do so consistently, you must then insist that Christ was expected to return within one night as His servants are said to be waiting up for Him (Luke 12:35-40) – and I could name other nonsensical examples if you are going to hyperliteralize the parables in that manner. But something very interesting is revealed about the correct interpretation of this parable (which simply demonstrates the long-suffering of God) when it is compared to Luke 20:9-16 which uses the idea of three prior servants being sent to Israel and rejected with Christ being the fourth and final one.

However, if one is going to insist on bringing the interpretation of that parable down to hyperliteralizing the years, the natural referent would be Christ’s own ministry which spanned four years (a fraction of a year being counted as a whole which is common knowledge as Hebrew idiom).

Now about the Grammar Hammer, you never dealt with my point (and you need to) of how the grammar has nullified your position about the identity of the “he,” rather you tried to deflect attention away by asking me if I believed that it was Christ’s people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in AD70. Well that is a nice “yeah but” question, and you have fallen into the trap of asking a question that you do not already know the answer to. There are two possibilities, first, the one I hold to…. drum roll please. Yes. If we allow the Bible to interpret that Bible, it is obvious because Christ Himself taught this in Matthew 22:7 in the parable of the wedding feast -

And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

This is an undisputed reference to AD70. And the allusion to Daniel 9:26 is striking. God calls the Roman armies who in fact DO destroy the city and the sanctuary HIS ARMIES. They are His servants, His people. This is not an infrequent idea in the OT that even marauding pagans are God’s servants in executing His judgment. Oops.

And there is a second option, and though it is not one that I hold, I do not rule it out as a possibility, and that is that the phrase “the prince who is to come” does not refer to the Messiah but does in fact refer to Titus who at first led the armies to surround Jerusalem, and then directed the destruction as Emperor.

Now are you going to deal with the pummeling the Hammer gave you?

And on a side note…. You asked
So DD, do you really think Antiochus was one of Jesus followers?

Err, you do know that Antiochus was not the one who destroyed the Temple and city in 70AD right? :p

More to come…

Dee Dee Warren
January 21st, 2003, 06:25 AM
Dear Lion:

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I will be responding to the rest of your points, I have just gotten a bit sidetracked. I did not want you to think that I was just ignoring them. I will be back as soon as I can.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 10:51 PM
Dear Lion:

Now onto some of your other points…. First of all an adjustment. Precisely speaking, Daniel’s prophecy is NOT a 490 year prophecy; it is a prophecy of 70 weeks of years. There is a difference, for as I stated and you have not refuted, it is almost universally accepted that the Hebraic method of accounting time went down to the lowest measuring denominator used. Thus, a fraction of one day is counted as whole day in a segment marking time in days, and a fraction of a year is a whole year in a segment of time marked in years. This one fact alone makes any attempt to pinpoint down to the exact day from beginning to end a vain exercise, and in fact makes any crowing about the lack of black line in the sand as an ending point vain as well.

But the fact is that you are absolutely incorrect that my view only accounts for 486 and ½ years as I clearly put the conversion of Paul and the opening of the floodgates to the Gentiles as the ending point. God’s specific focus on the Jews as His special redemptive covenant people was over. To a certain extent you agree. Now if you want to quibble on whether or not Paul’s conversion was in fact NOT three and one-half years after the crucifixion that is your right, but then I can just as easily quibble about the SEVERE and unsupported contention of yours that this event was one year after the crucifixion, for which I challenge you to find any significant scholarly support. You will not be able to since it is cookie-cuttered in to fit your interruption theory.

And though you have technically addressed the issue, your explanation for the fact that there are TWO Messianic time delimiters in this passage is woefully inadequate. Firstly,there are the 69 weeks until the Anointed One, the Prince which absolutely points to His baptism, as Christ declared Himself as the Anointed One of Isaiah 61:1-2 well before His crucifixion and declared that the “the time was fulfilled,” a highly problematic statement for you. The fact that there were TWO main Messianic events in view is the only way to explain the fact that Jesus did declare that the time was fulfilled (Mark 1:15), and yet still declared that His time was not yet at hand (John 7:6-8; 8:20). The time for the presentation of the Messiah to Israel was fulfilled. Secondly,the time for His cutting off was not yet at hand because the cutting off occurs AFTER the Messiah was already presented, as that pesky little five-letter word informs us, unequivocally placing the crucifixion within the 70th week, and more precisely in the midst of the 70th week.

I also asked about where it is taught that the Tribulation is seven years, and you claimed just about everywhere? Really? Or is it the sort of hyperbole that I am consistently criticized (not necessarily by you) for finding in the Bible?

You bring up Revelation 12:14 and 13:5 each of which mention three and one-half year periods of time. You then very simplistically assume that these two are to be added together to make seven years. Sheer assertion without solid exegetical proof. You are going to need to pony a bit more substance than that. And the fact is that Daniel 12:7, in response to Daniel’s specific question about HOW long this tribulation period is to be, declares that it is for three and one-half years, which is also symbolically significant as a broken seven is a consistent symbol of judgment. All this being said, this is not a hill that I would be willing to die on, for even if the Tribulation was seven years, that would not automatically prove your case nor disprove mine. This same principle is true for the next point on….

Ko-desh. You go on and on about the lack of a definite article, even though I posted information that the Hebrew more often than not indicates definiteness in ways other than the article, and that nearly all translations render this phrase as definite! And the FACT is that Christ claimed to be the true Temple anyways….. and that was never done before by a person either! And interestingly if you are going insist this is referring to the anointing of the literal physical Temple (and Temples are NEVER anointed in Scripture by the way), that just creates another dramatic proof for my position in that the goals stated in verse 24 would even more pointedly omit mentioning any destruction of said Temple. So again, it is a win, win situation for me. I don’t have to prove this point to still have 70th week begin with Christ’s baptism since Christ Himself, following that event claimed that the time was fulfilled (Mark 1:15).

But, just to throw this in the morass, the focus should be on the word “anointed” which is then repeated in the title of the prince, the Anointed One. Our English translation of Messiah unfortunately obscures that connection which is obvious right there in the text. This next brings us to the Isaiah 61 passage and its tight connection to Daniel 9. I already demonstrated in a previous post the heavy Jubilee imagery in the Daniel passage, and the Jubilee imagery in the Isaiah passage. You seem to be claiming that the connection could not be made between the two passages because Jesus did not hold their hands and spell it out for them. He did not need to. Those people knew the OT way better than we do as a general rule and would have made the connection. Jesus was dogmatically claiming to be the Anointed Messianic figure to herald the perfected Jubilee, and in your view, He is doing this before He becomes a prominent figure in the 70 weeks prophecy.

Next stop... Jeremiah 18 and the Discourse clash once again.... and I hope to have that up tomorrow evening, if nothing comes up..

Lion
January 22nd, 2003, 11:46 PM
DD-I will take your points in order. You said:
But here is the embarrassing part for you and the huge unexplainable inconsistency in your system. The “near” timing references do not cease from appearing in the NT record after the time where you say such plan was allegedly stopped.

Okay I will go over this again in more detail. But first, I admit that this is the strongest point I have seen for the preterists theology. However the reason it fails is this:


Revelation 1:3 – Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Who is saying that the time is near? “And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John…” The angel is talking to John. Do the angels know when the events will happen?


Mat 13: 32-33 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. “Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is.

So the angel doesn’t know. Well then, why would the angel tell John that the time was near? (notice that the angel doesn’t say that it is going to happen to this generation or that some of those alive now will live to see it). Perhaps because since the plan was changed, due to Israel refusing to turn and honor the Lord, no one can know when it will happen. So we should all take heed, watch and pray;


Rom 11:25-27 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, (of course he means except for those ethnic Jews that He is going to squash using His people the Romans) as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” (I guess He means taking away their sins by crushing the sin out of them).

Next, DD asks about this one:
Revelation 22:10 – Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand

What time would that be? Well let’s see, by reading the passage in context:
Rev. 21:22-23:5 “But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.

So, is that the time that is at hand? Wow let me see it, I want some of the fruit from that tree, our nation could sure use some healing. Oh, but wait, you futurist-preterists don’t believe the second coming has actually happened yet, right? That’s for some time after the non-millennial, millennial kingdom.

Once again the angel is the one speaking and as we have already seen, he doesn’t know when the time is.

Next:
1 John 2:18 – Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

Once again the preterist seeing just the one lone tree misses the forest all around her. The topic of this discussion is not the tribulation, John is referring to the antichrists that are defiling the brethren. That is those who had called themselves brothers (believers of Christ from the circumcision) that had turned away and denied Christ. The ministry of the circumcision was passing away, because the last of them were dying out, and he is not talking about the beast here, just the false brethren. Just as he states when the passage is read in context:
1John 2:15-23 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world — the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life — is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, (is it the last hour for the world? Or is this hyperbole?) and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. Little children, it is the last hour (that of course would be referring to the last hour of the world in your view because of the Grammar Hammer rule); and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come(huh? More than one antichrist? Who could they be?), by which we know that it is the last hour(of the world again). They (that would be the antichrists) went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son (Those that went out from them no longer confessed the son and so became antichrist, not the beast of Revelation, and notice that John never calls the beast the antichrist). Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

So we see two possibilities here. One, that John is strictly using hyperbole,(as you preterists love to do), or that the time of the circumcision believers was coming to an end, as the Body of Christ (the uncircumcision) grew.

Next you say:
Now you throw in a few questions for me and made the point that there were no antecedent signs to God allegedly beginning to work with Israel again (except for the fullness of the Gentiles – which is a honkingly huge sign if your interpretation is correct – and certainly not something that was close to happening then, shooting your own argument in the paw).

How do you know it wasn’t close to happening then? I do not know what the fullness of the gentiles is, and neither do you. It may not be a set time at all, but rather just something that God may decide at any instant, by His righteous judgment. So my suggestion to you is to watch, pray and take heed, for no one (not even DD) knows the hour or the day. However we do know one thing, and that’s that it ain’t happened yet.

Next you say:
But if one is taking the “coming” of the Great Tribulation to be identical to the Second Coming (impossible for other reasons) and close in proximity to the completely made-up out of whole cloth secret coming to rapture the Church, that is just not true. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:24-26 that the “rapture” marks the destruction of the LAST enemy, which is death, and that ALL OTHER enemies will have been destroyed prior to that event. I think that the destruction of all other enemies world be a fairly noticeable sign .

Once again showing your ignorance of the Acts-9 theology. The second coming of Christ is not when the rapture happens. Then you continue in your ignorance:
Also, Paul also says in 2 Thessalonians 2 (which you futurize), that this event cannot happen until the falling away and the revealing of the man of sin. Oops, those sound like signs.

The falling away is the rapture and yes that will be a big sign. However the 12 apostles always had a hard time understanding the new role of the gentiles and their exact role in God’s new plan. It was difficult for them to understand that everything they had held their entire lives had suddenly changed. They were no longer the elect and not everything about the new plan was reveled to them because it was not for them. Just as Peter states:
2Pet. 3:16 as also in all his (Paul’s) epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Then you make an off hand attempt to obfuscate my question to you about how long it would take to make it through the cities of Jerusalem:
Well in your view you have to try and make it a three and one-half year job since the disciples are told to flee Judea midway through this alleged seven-year period, and thus would no longer be going through the cities of Israel. I have to ask if you are suggesting that Israel was thoroughly evangelized by the outbreak of the Jewish wars in AD67. I don’t.

I didn’t say anything about thoroughly evangelizing the cities, and neither did Jesus, He said:
Mat 10:23 “When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

But this is typical of the way the preterists must twist and spiritualize scripture to make it fit their mold.

Next you say:
You also brought up Jesus not knowing the day or hour in the Olivet Discourse. And I say so what? You and I both agree that at the time He dogmatically predicted the generation,

Yes, but the reason Jesus knew the approximate “day”, was because He understood that the 70th week of Daniel’s prophesy was the beginning of the Great Tribulation, and that it would proceed immediately after the culmination of the 69th week, His crucifixion. Of course, in your theology that doesn’t work. It certainly does in ours..

Next:
…yet you cannot answer what this covenant was, or who the first century antichrist was. How peculiar! This totally kills your view, and you cannot explain it away. Daniel is clear that this is the kick-of the 70th week, and yet you cannot show it as happening by any stretch of your fervent eschatological imagination.

Girl you keep twisting scripture like that and you gonna give yourself a whiplash!

Where does it state that everyone will know about this covenant? Nowhere! It states that it will be made, and then broken half way through the week, but never says that it will be public, or worldwide news. But even if it is, there is no indication at what point it will be made public.

And then you once again show your ignorance of the Acts-9 dispensational view by stating:
You attempt to use a parable (Luke 13:6-9) to override this chronology, but that parable does nothing for you even if I accept your interpretation of it. For, according to you, the 70th week went right on schedule after the crucifixion, and then would include this covenant for an ENTIRE seven years. Impossible… This is further confirmed by Paul who taught that the man of sin (who you must say is the “he” of Daniel 9:27) must be revealed FIRST, prior to the Tribulation beginning.

Try and keep this straight. Paul came after the plan had been aborted. So your second objection about the man of sin being reveled before the falling away, has nothing to do with this because at that time there wasn’t a falling away (or rapture) in the future. The 490 year prophesy was still on track, the kingdom right around tribulation corner.

And that brings me to your disgusting statement that God had His people destroy the temple and set up a false god.
God calls the Roman armies who in fact DO destroy the city and the sanctuary HIS ARMIES. They are His servants, His people.You glibly try and lessen the impact by showing that God has used other nations to come against Israel, but where has God ever called them His people? Never, not once! And where has God ever made, or coaxed, or whatever you want to call it, been responsible for, or ordered something along the lines of placing an image of a false god in His temple? So once again, (like in the anointing of the most holy place), in order to accept the preterists teachings we must be willing to believe that because their interpretation says it is so in this one isolated instance, and even though it goes completely against the bible and the nature of God Himself, we must accept that it is so.

Next:
However, if one is going to insist on bringing the interpretation of that parable down to hyperliteralizing the years, the natural referent would be Christ’s own ministry which spanned four years (a fraction of a year being counted as a whole which is common knowledge as Hebrew idiom).

Once again we see how preterists must bend scripture so that even they can stomach it. What a joke your last statement was. I won’t even commit on it. Instead I will let the readers judge it for themselves:
Luke 13:6-9 He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. “Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’ “But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. ‘And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ”

And last but not least:
And on a side note…. You asked
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So DD, do you really think Antiochus was one of Jesus followers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Err, you do know that Antiochus was not the one who destroyed the Temple and city in 70AD right?

Oh, I’m sorry, I must have misspelled it. What I meant to ask was this: “DD, do you really believe that Adolph was one of Jesus followers?”

Summation: I have once again shown how the seeming near time passages in the books of John, in no way prove that the Great Tribulation happened in AD70, as the preterists claim.

I have shown how preterists continually twist scripture and intentionally misrepresent other theologies in order to try and prove their points.

I have proven that Christ knew in the Olivet discourse that the tribulation was about to start, directly because He understood the 490 prophesy given to Daniel, who’s 70th week, (the 7 years of the Great Tribulation), would begin immediately following His crucifixion.

I have shown, sadly, that DD would rather place God in the role of calling pagans “His people”, rather than depart from her theology. Even going so far as to assign the blame for the erecting of an idol in God’s temple to God Himself.

Furthermore, in my last post I started off showing how the preterists do not believe that Daniel made a 490 year prophesy, but rather just a 486 and 1/2 year prophesy, since nothing happens to annotate the end of the prophesy. In the preterists theology, Christ is cut off in the middle of the 70th week and nothing much happens for the rest of the 3 1/2 years except, the apostle Paul might have been converted around that time. Nothing to say on this DD?

My next point went on to show DD where the bible says that the Great Tribulation lasts for 7 years, instead of just 3 1/2, as they claim. No answer to that either DD?

Then I went on to prove to her, once again, that the 490 year prophesy foretold the crucifixion of Christ to the exact year and month.
And it wasn’t when they think it is either. DD?

I then showed DD, yet again, how terribly the preterists theology misses the entire point of the time of the tribulation. That it is meant to purge Israel of the dross and refine out of them the pure silver and gold so that they can again be the nation of priests they were always meant to be, and receive their promised kingdom. Instead of just some good squashing time for God to get those evil, murdering, ethnic Jews that He hates.
Matt. 23:37-39 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! “See! Your house is left to you desolate; “for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’ ”
Might be hard for them to say that if they are all dead, as the preterists position states.

And last; I proved once again that the preterists totally misinterpret the application of the Jeremiah passage in relation to Israel. DD refuses to see that the promise of the kingdom was withheld because of their unbelief, instead insisting that it is only a time of judgment with no room for repentance. (uh, is that the sound of crickets chirping again?).

Lion
January 22nd, 2003, 11:49 PM
I submitted this last post before realizing that you had made a further post. I will answer the questions, if any, that I have left out on the above post, in my next post.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 05:43 AM
Dear Lion: I am glad you made that last short post there for I was wondering why you said I did not address quite a few things I most certainly did. And I hope you note that I said I was still working on my Jeremiah 18 alleged interruption stuff.

Yxboom
January 23rd, 2003, 05:46 AM
18078

Whoa looks like Lion is gaining on DDW for eschatological post length record :D

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 06:33 AM
Dear Lion:

I also wanted to briefly comment on one thing that you said for the benefit of the readership as not to get lost in my larger response.

You said,


I have shown how preterists continually twist scripture and intentionally misrepresent other theologies in order to try and prove their points.


Lion I think you said something in the heat of the moment that you do not really mean and I am asking you to reconsider. First of all I have no problem with you thinking that I twist Scripture, that is a fair thing to say in a debate of this kind, since quite honestly at times I think you do that same thing. That is inevitable. But your second statement is without excuse. You are accusing me of deliberate deceit, and I really don't believe that you mean that. Earlier in your post, I believe you called some of the things I said as misunderstanding your position (which you have done with my position several times and for which you graciously apologized) and being ignorant of it, and I have no problem with those statements... but saying that I intentionally misrepresented you is not right. I have done no such thing. This is not a game to me, or an argument to be won at any cost. I believe we are both seeking truth here, and not our own vain glory.

And I will show in my response that I am not ignorant of your position with those comments I posted, I just looked at them a different way to show an internal inconsistency/problem, but the burden of proof is now upon me in that respect.

I am just respectfully asking that you reconsider your charge of deliberate misrepresentation. (and I mean the respectfully quite sincerely as you have been and are a worthy opponent)

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Yxboom
18078

Whoa looks like Lion is gaining on DDW for eschatological post length record :D With posts like the last one Lion can have all the room he wants. :D

Lion
January 25th, 2003, 05:38 PM
DD-You said:
”But your second statement is without excuse. You are accusing me of deliberate deceit, and I really don't believe that you mean that. Earlier in your post, I believe you called some of the things I said as misunderstanding your position (which you have done with my position several times and for which you graciously apologized) and being ignorant of it, and I have no problem with those statements... but saying that I intentionally misrepresented you is not right. In response to my having said:
I have shown how preterists continually twist scripture and intentionally misrepresent other theologies in order to try and prove their points. I said this in regards to the way that preterists often try and downplay dispensationalist, stating that “I use to be a dispensationalist until I found the truth of preterism” and then going on to completely misrepresent the Acts-9 dispensational theology as advocated on this website. All Christians are dispensational in some form or other in their theology, especially preterist, but when used in the context of an argument with an Act-s 9er, it seems to be a purposeful misrepresentation.

However, you have stated that you will show that I am in error in thinking this, so I will, for the nonce, apologize for my statement, and await your rebuttal.

Explosived
January 28th, 2003, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by Lion
Explosived-You asked:Great question, for both of us.

If the nation of Israel had accepted Jesus as their Messiah what would have happened?

The 70th week (the 7 year period of the Great Tribulation) would have happened, immediately following the crucifixion, as foretold in the 490 year prophesy. Why? Because that was God’s plan all along, so there would be no reason to stop it. God would sift Israel, as well as the rest of the world, to expunge the dross, and refine His people. The events listed in the prophesy, as well as all the horrifying events in the book of Revelation would have come to pass. God’s people would emerge as the silver and the gold and become the nation of priests they were meant to be. The Kingdom would have been given to them and the thousand-year reign would have commenced as promised. The rest of the events would continue to proceed as stated in the Book of Revelation.

Thank You.

Knight
January 28th, 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Explosived


Thank You. Explosived, that is a pretty LARGE difference in theologies wouldnt you think?

Most.... rightly see the Great Tribulation as God preparing His people for their Kingdom. In other words.... the Great Tribulation is a rough process but it is a blessing for Israel.

The preterists.... see the Great Tribulation as a bad thing or as having no other purpose than a punishment.

Explosived
January 29th, 2003, 07:48 AM
Yes, very.

billwald
January 29th, 2003, 04:48 PM
"Most.... rightly see the Great Tribulation as God preparing His people for their Kingdom. In other words.... the Great Tribulation is a rough process but it is a blessing for Israel.

"The preterists.... see the Great Tribulation as a bad thing or as having no other purpose than a punishment"

Then without a great tribulation we are unprepared?

The dispensationalists who think all the good guys will have been raptured?

Preterists (generally) thing the GT is past, historical, refers to the destruction of the Temple.

Knight
January 29th, 2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by billwald
"Most.... rightly see the Great Tribulation as God preparing His people for their Kingdom. In other words.... the Great Tribulation is a rough process but it is a blessing for Israel.

"The preterists.... see the Great Tribulation as a bad thing or as having no other purpose than a punishment"

Then without a great tribulation we are unprepared? "we" are not Israel.

You continue...
The dispensationalists who think all the good guys will have been raptured?Huh?

You continue...
Preterists (generally) thing the GT is past, historical, refers to the destruction of the Temple. Right, which is why it is so strange that they (the preterists) so tragically miss the ENTIRE point of the Great Tribulation.

James G
February 22nd, 2003, 12:38 AM
This thread needs to be archived

Knight
November 23rd, 2004, 11:33 AM
This thread has been inducted into the TOL Hall of Fame as of 11-23-2004

Turbo
November 23rd, 2004, 04:52 PM
I archived the thread linked in the first post for good measure. :)