The Easter Debate ~ Lion and DDW on Eschatology (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Lion
- Start date
- Status
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
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.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Knight:
Sure...
Here is the question
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.
Sure...
Here is the question
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.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
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.
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.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Tick, Tock, Broken Clock
Tick, Tock, Broken Clock
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 -
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.
Tick, Tock, Broken Clock
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 -
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.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
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
Guest
Ah, the soft white underbelly
Ah, the soft white underbelly
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.
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
Err, you do know that Antiochus was not the one who destroyed the Temple and city in 70AD right?
More to come…
Ah, the soft white underbelly
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.
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
Err, you do know that Antiochus was not the one who destroyed the Temple and city in 70AD right?
More to come…
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
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.
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.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Oh Danny Boy....
Oh Danny Boy....
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..
Oh Danny Boy....
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..
DD-I will take your points in order. You said:
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:
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?
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;
Next, DD asks about this one:
What time would that be? Well let’s see, by reading the passage in context:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
I didn’t say anything about thoroughly evangelizing the cities, and neither did Jesus, He said:
But this is typical of the way the preterists must twist and spiritualize scripture to make it fit their mold.
Next you say:
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:
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:
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.
Next:
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:
And last but not least:
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.
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?).
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:
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?
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;
Next, DD asks about this one:
What time would that be? Well let’s see, by reading the passage in context:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
I didn’t say anything about thoroughly evangelizing the cities, and neither did Jesus, He said:
But this is typical of the way the preterists must twist and spiritualize scripture to make it fit their mold.
Next you say:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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:
And last but not least:
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.
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?).
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
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.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
18078
Whoa looks like Lion is gaining on DDW for eschatological post length record
Whoa looks like Lion is gaining on DDW for eschatological post length record
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
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,
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)
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,
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)
With posts like the last one Lion can have all the room he wants.Originally posted by Yxboom
18078
Whoa looks like Lion is gaining on DDW for eschatological post length record
What were you, a Baptist?
What were you, a Baptist?
DD-You said:
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.
What were you, a Baptist?
DD-You said:
In response to my having said:
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
New member
Zech. 8:23 “Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘In those days ten men from every language
Zech. 8:23 “Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘In those days ten men from every language
Thank You.
Zech. 8:23 “Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘In those days ten men from every language
Thank You.
Re: Zech. 8:23 ?Thus says the LORD of hosts: ?In those days ten men from every language
Re: Zech. 8:23 ?Thus says the LORD of hosts: ?In those days ten men from every language
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.
Re: Zech. 8:23 ?Thus says the LORD of hosts: ?In those days ten men from every language
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.
- Status