ECT Was Christ "Doing Prophecy" in Mt 24?

musterion

Well-known member
Posts don't get deleted just because they're long. The only time lengthy posts get deleted is when they're ID'd as plagarized or simply irrelevant thread disruptions that make no point related to the topic. Both of those are the Mod's call.
 

Interplanner

New member
Are you suggesting that there's some sort of conspiracy aimed at you?


Not at me and Only in a general sense: D'ism truly does not have any interest in history. Notice how resistant Danoh is to a piece like Josephus validating the NT!

The lists by Holford have been printed here several times and even those people who love the spectacular (seeking signs and prophecies or tongues-speakers) stare at it like a cow looking at a gate, and it dwindles. They don't get it, and I don't get them!
 

Interplanner

New member
Now, there might be a consp against Tetelestai who posted some of them and who is more versed than I am. Maybe that's why they disappear.
 

Danoh

New member
Not at me and Only in a general sense: D'ism truly does not have any interest in history. Notice how resistant Danoh is to a piece like Josephus validating the NT!

The lists by Holford have been printed here several times and even those people who love the spectacular (seeking signs and prophecies or tongues-speakers) stare at it like a cow looking at a gate, and it dwindles. They don't get it, and I don't get them!

Nope. I love history. One of my favorite subjects. Have read the Antiquities but not much of Darby beyond a good three articles by him.

Have read J.S.Russell; which I enjoyed.

Am presently reading a history of Liberal bias within the Media (which greatly differs from Liberal values).

What I keep finding is the unavoidable - that history is unreliable.

Ask Native Americans.

Read a few War histories supposedly about most any country.

Read histories of the Exodus.

Ask what remains of the millions of Indigenous peoples slaughtered the world over - to - this - very - day - if "the history" is reliable.

Try reading some Roman Catholic history.

Or the various histories by the so called "Early Fathers..."

Or histories that are pro KJV.

Or histories that are anti-KJV.

And on, and on, and on...

Too often...a one sided agenda.

"Religious" works ever the worst of the bunch.

Fascinating to no end, but no - thank you!

When it comes to Scripture; I am MORE THAM FINE with the following...

Isaiah 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.

8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You have a problem with that?

I - could - NOT - care - LESS.

Take it up with the ACTUAL Author of those passages.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Not at me and Only in a general sense: D'ism truly does not have any interest in history. Notice how resistant Danoh is to a piece like Josephus validating the NT!

The lists by Holford have been printed here several times and even those people who love the spectacular (seeking signs and prophecies or tongues-speakers) stare at it like a cow looking at a gate, and it dwindles. They don't get it, and I don't get them!

I love history and especially since I became a Christian in '79. History suddenly became very, very interesting.

I don't necessarily agree with all history writers on their view of history, however.
 

Interplanner

New member
Nope. I love history. One of my favorite subjects. Have read the Antiquities but not much of Darby beyond a good three articles by him.

Have read J.S.Russell; which I enjoyed.

Am presently reading a history of Liberal bias within the Media (which greatly differs from Liberal values).

What I keep finding is the unavoidable - that history is unreliable.

Ask Native Americans.

Read a few War histories supposedly about most any country.

Read histories of the Exodus.

Ask what remains of the millions of Indigenous peoples slaughtered the world over - to - this - very - day - if "the history" is reliable.

Try reading some Roman Catholic history.

Or the various histories by the so called "Early Fathers..."

Or histories that are pro KJV.

Or histories that are anti-KJV.

And on, and on, and on...

Too often...a one sided agenda.

"Religious" works ever the worst of the bunch.

Fascinating to no end, but no - thank you!

When it comes to Scripture; I am MORE THAM FINE with the following...

Isaiah 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.

8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You have a problem with that?

I - could - NOT - care - LESS.

Take it up with the ACTUAL Author of those passages.



That is simply verbosity; why not just say something about Holford? The question at hand is why there is simply no interest at all in what happened there at the DofJ, even though it was spectacular. Instead modern Israel and 'prayer languages' debates go on and on.
 

Danoh

New member
That is simply verbosity; why not just say something about Holford? The question at hand is why there is simply no interest at all in what happened there at the DofJ, even though it was spectacular. Instead modern Israel and 'prayer languages' debates go on and on.

You're right; Holford et al override just letting the Scripture interpret Scripture.

:doh:
 

musterion

Well-known member
Read the whole thing and give an honest, objective opinion on this, IP. Start a new thread on it if you need to.

A person is involved (called “the prince of the people”), who will establish and confirm a covenant with the nation Israel and then break it by this act of abomination (Daniel 7:26-27). A careful student will deduce things from this verse in relation to its fulfillment: First, the temple must be rebuilt before or during the tribulation period. It is apparent that this act is committed in the temple, therefore, it must be standing. Second, is the exercise of Levitical practice must be reinstated, as evident from the fact of daily sacrifices. This abomination will take place it the sanctuary, and will profane it, making it desolate (Daniel 11:31). All this made the rebuilding of the Temple necessary before these events occur.

One cannot find fulfillment of this in the events of 70 AD. The prophecy is not ambiguous. It depicts a covenant been Israel and the person involved. No such covenant existed in 70 AD; not with Rome, Titus, or Zealots of the time. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD can not be the fulfillment of this event . . .

There can be little question that the abomination of desolation for Christ and Daniel is the same event. Some try to find fulfillment of this event in history, but have fallen short. One is hard pressed to find fulfillment of this event in history. Nothing comes near it, not even the destruction of the city and temple in 70 AD.

The rest is at http://bereanadvocate.blogspot.com/search/label/70 AD
 

Danoh

New member
Read the whole thing and give an honest, objective opinion on this, IP. Start a new thread on it if you need to.



The rest is at http://bereanadvocate.blogspot.com/search/label/70 AD

IP's argument will be that said abomination was in connection with 1st Century Zealots.

And that fits the recurrent pattern of where he looks at things from.

Just a matter of looking at things from where some one other than ourself appears to be looking at things from.

In contrast to reading our own, on the spot notions about their words, into their words.

And that is my sharing of a principle I have found highly useful - not some anger towards you or anyone else, for that matter.
 

Interplanner

New member
IP's argument will be that said abomination was in connection with 1st Century Zealots.

And that fits the recurrent pattern of where he looks at things from.

Just a matter of looking at things from where some one other than ourself appears to be looking at things from.

In contrast to reading our own, on the spot notions about their words, into their words.

And that is my sharing of a principle I have found highly useful - not some anger towards you or anyone else, for that matter.


Or, more coherently, Jesus was not talking about things X000 years away. He was in the stream of Dan 9 and it was about to happen (a slight bit of wiggle room about the last verse relative to the week), Messiah was still accomplishing what was supposed to happen, both suffering and glory, etc. But his Mt24A is as necessary and direct and practical and sober as any leader about avoiding devastating harm so that his following will survive.

Your first task is to realize that many sayings are already in existence about the mission work of ch 10.
 

Interplanner

New member
Read the whole thing and give an honest, objective opinion on this, IP. Start a new thread on it if you need to.



The rest is at http://bereanadvocate.blogspot.com/search/label/70 AD



The material is unfortunately very low calibre because it needs to address all the things that comment on these passages AND on the events at hand. You would do that by using Luke. But it is in John and in Josephus that we find two clues about what Judaism thought was going to happen, and the writer doesn't seem to be aware of them and those resources.

He also thinks he has covered Daniel, when the real source of things is that there is a 'rebellion that desolates' in 8:13, and there is a person who is going to lead that. He does not mention those things.

A person should not be looking for a few convenient passages that will make it all clear; you have to really immerse in the times and the materials at hand, and the writer did poorly on that question.

His futurism shows way too much; he should really be demonstrating that he knows the materials that are out there and that he knows why they cannot work. Well, if he is as unfamiliar as futurism makes a person, he will not know why they can't work.

The modern dates bore me. What you really need to grasp is that the 'homeland' movement began a century earlier, and guess what the spark was? It was the concept that, all things considered, the Jews needed to be in their land in order to be connected to their God, and they needed their worship system, etc. So why would Christians re-wrap their message all around that all over again in such unawareness of the plain passages of Luke (ie Paul through Luke) and fumble with a neo-Judaism all over again? Have you really not learned anything from the tenor and direction of the NT? From the letter to Hebrews? What was the conflict between Judaism and the Christian Gospel, for that matter?
 

musterion

Well-known member
The material is unfortunately very low calibre because it needs to address all the things that comment on these passages AND on the events at hand. You would do that by using Luke. But it is in John and in Josephus that we find two clues about what Judaism thought was going to happen, and the writer doesn't seem to be aware of them and those resources.

He also thinks he has covered Daniel, when the real source of things is that there is a 'rebellion that desolates' in 8:13, and there is a person who is going to lead that. He does not mention those things.

A person should not be looking for a few convenient passages that will make it all clear; you have to really immerse in the times and the materials at hand, and the writer did poorly on that question.

His futurism shows way too much; he should really be demonstrating that he knows the materials that are out there and that he knows why they cannot work. Well, if he is as unfamiliar as futurism makes a person, he will not know why they can't work.

The modern dates bore me. What you really need to grasp is that the 'homeland' movement began a century earlier, and guess what the spark was? It was the concept that, all things considered, the Jews needed to be in their land in order to be connected to their God, and they needed their worship system, etc. So why would Christians re-wrap their message all around that all over again in such unawareness of the plain passages of Luke (ie Paul through Luke) and fumble with a neo-Judaism all over again? Have you really not learned anything from the tenor and direction of the NT? From the letter to Hebrews? What was the conflict between Judaism and the Christian Gospel, for that matter?

You addressed what he didn't say, not really what he did say. Try again, bullet points.
 

Interplanner

New member
You addressed what he didn't say, not really what he did say. Try again, bullet points.


What he didn't deal with voids what he did.

To be simple, just deal with Luke (ie Paul through Luke, as you know).

Among other things there is the general warning clear back in ch 13 that an army of 10K should not mess with one of 20K but instead seek 'terms of peace.' That is no small matter, because in 19 where he is specifically warning of the losses to come, Israel is at fault for 'not seeking terms of peace.'

He then describes the thing in its horror. They did not recognize God's coming--not that they were supposed to change the outcome, but that they were supposed to do the right thing with the outcome--to preach it as salvation and not fight Rome. (This is not some sort of back door to alternate outcomes to Christ).

Immediately after that he says they have made the temple a 'den of thieves' which I have shown many times is poor translation for 'leistes.' They are brigands, insurrectionists, terrorists. They don't just steal, they steal to make certain things happen politically. But here he is saying it years ahead of time, knowing they won't become missionaries.

Is there any need to explain ch 21? We already know from above what he's talking about when repeating about the surrounded city. V22 says this event would be everything that was written. It would be the fate of Jerusalem to the end of time. That is another Semitic expression misunderstood: Judaism thought the age after Messiah came was the age of the Gentiles and there was nothing after that (on earth). It means Jerusalem is trampled as such to the end of time.

ch 23: the babies now nursing would see the horrible events in Jerusalem when they were adults. The line from the OT about asking the mountains to fall on them is used here and in the Rev, because it is about this as well.

Luke (Paul) is the most dialed in to events in that age, and what is said about the DofJ is no exception.

Then I mentioned John. I'm referring to Caiaphas in ch 12 and 18. Caiaphas is as aware as Josephus of what Dan 9 is saying. The person leading the desolating rebellion (8:13) is going to ruin the country. But Caiaphas supposes he can prevent it, anyway. So he decides to crucify Jesus. Caiaphas is not saying 'to save the nation' as a Gospel-believer does. He means he hopes he can prevent all out conflict with Rome, with one leader's death.

The person who is the AofD, Paul says in Thess, may as well be called the Son of Perdition. That's who would claim to be God, at the temple. We know from Jesus experience that to claim to be God would be outrageous, and the guy was championing it! We know from what Jesus said in Mt24A that the false messiah might be out raising troops in the desert or might be HQ'd in the inner rooms of the temple. And he was--at different times.

That act of blasphemy therefore was triple: it offended God as found in Judaism, it offended Christ by taking his place, and it offended God as far as the mission goes. It was the worst of outcomes Israel could have ended up in, and was unfortunately inevitable.

Thus the situation, and Dan 9, look very different from what the writer is about. He needs years in the NT background materials , seeing it from there.

People are very quick to make sensational statements about 'the news' today. Every since Lindsay was a 'hit' for all the wrong reasons.
 

musterion

Well-known member
What he didn't deal with voids what he did.

To be simple, just deal with Luke (ie Paul through Luke, as you know).

Among other things there is the general warning clear back in ch 13 that an army of 10K should not mess with one of 20K but instead seek 'terms of peace.' That is no small matter, because in 19 where he is specifically warning of the losses to come, Israel is at fault for 'not seeking terms of peace.'

He then describes the thing in its horror. They did not recognize God's coming--not that they were supposed to change the outcome, but that they were supposed to do the right thing with the outcome--to preach it as salvation and not fight Rome. (This is not some sort of back door to alternate outcomes to Christ).

Immediately after that he says they have made the temple a 'den of thieves' which I have shown many times is poor translation for 'leistes.' They are brigands, insurrectionists, terrorists. They don't just steal, they steal to make certain things happen politically. But here he is saying it years ahead of time, knowing they won't become missionaries.

Is there any need to explain ch 21? We already know from above what he's talking about when repeating about the surrounded city. V22 says this event would be everything that was written. It would be the fate of Jerusalem to the end of time. That is another Semitic expression misunderstood: Judaism thought the age after Messiah came was the age of the Gentiles and there was nothing after that (on earth). It means Jerusalem is trampled as such to the end of time.

ch 23: the babies now nursing would see the horrible events in Jerusalem when they were adults. The line from the OT about asking the mountains to fall on them is used here and in the Rev, because it is about this as well.

Luke (Paul) is the most dialed in to events in that age, and what is said about the DofJ is no exception.

Then I mentioned John. I'm referring to Caiaphas in ch 12 and 18. Caiaphas is as aware as Josephus of what Dan 9 is saying. The person leading the desolating rebellion (8:13) is going to ruin the country. But Caiaphas supposes he can prevent it, anyway. So he decides to crucify Jesus. Caiaphas is not saying 'to save the nation' as a Gospel-believer does. He means he hopes he can prevent all out conflict with Rome, with one leader's death.

The person who is the AofD, Paul says in Thess, may as well be called the Son of Perdition. That's who would claim to be God, at the temple. We know from Jesus experience that to claim to be God would be outrageous, and the guy was championing it! We know from what Jesus said in Mt24A that the false messiah might be out raising troops in the desert or might be HQ'd in the inner rooms of the temple. And he was--at different times.

That act of blasphemy therefore was triple: it offended God as found in Judaism, it offended Christ by taking his place, and it offended God as far as the mission goes. It was the worst of outcomes Israel could have ended up in, and was unfortunately inevitable.

Thus the situation, and Dan 9, look very different from what the writer is about. He needs years in the NT background materials , seeing it from there.

No covenant.
 

Interplanner

New member
No covenant.


The bulk of the final paragraph of Dan 9 is about Messiah. He did install the new covenant.

It is completely mistaken to remove Dan 9 from a consistent 490 years or to shift its topic from Messiah. Only the last line is clearly about his opponent--the leader of the 'rebellion that desolates.'

There is no futurism in it, which has been pressured into existence by people who believe 2P2P which is phantom. They go back to Dan 9 and try to make it shift reference because they believe 2P2P.

Mt24's reference to the guy is about him as a person. It is not a Roman act nor a perverted Jewish idol. It is an anti-messiah who refuses to accept the mission and Gospel of Messiah, and seeks to liberate Israel in conflict with Rome. Which was an abject failure.

Find Holford's collation of Mt24A and Josephus' JEWISH WAR and you'll start to get the idea of what happened there.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
The bulk of the final paragraph of Dan 9 is about Messiah. He did install the new covenant.

It is completely mistaken to remove Dan 9 from a consistent 490 years or to shift its topic from Messiah. Only the last line is clearly about his opponent--the leader of the 'rebellion that desolates.'

There is no futurism in it, which has been pressured into existence by people who believe 2P2P which is phantom. They go back to Dan 9 and try to make it shift reference because they believe 2P2P.

Mt24's reference to the guy is about him as a person. It is not a Roman act nor a perverted Jewish idol. It is an anti-messiah who refuses to accept the mission and Gospel of Messiah, and seeks to liberate Israel in conflict with Rome. Which was an abject failure.

Find Holford's collation of Mt24A and Josephus' JEWISH WAR and you'll start to get the idea of what happened there.

:chuckle:

So says the preterist with a gap in the 70 weeks.
 
Top