history lesson

//Christ was crucified - in fact He was crucified in the midst of the 70th week which also meant the sacrifices were at an end//

While this may well be true, in a Spiritual sense,
the PHYSCIAL
sacrifices at the Temple of Jerusalem were
NOT stopped in 33AD (some say 30AD*)
but in 70AD.

* the 70AD destruction of the Temple is
well known. The 30AD comes from
back tracking 40 years -- '40' is the
period for full pentance. The 33AD time
has more validity.
The 1260 days that denote the time
Jesus spent in ministry (3½-years) is
determined from back tracking from
mid-week.
I just cannot think that Jesus would defile
the Temple (That is what the AoD = Abomination
of Desolation is all about, you know).
An 'abomination' before God is something that
God really finds very offensive -- I can't see Jesus
doing an abomination before God.

So your late 19th Century (1801-1900) 'new
revelation' from God is weak (it's weakness exceeded
only by the Christ of the inner chambers /Mormon/
and the Christ of the Desert /Baha'i/ ).

I'll stick with the futurist view (33AD-present, well except from
325AD to 1500AD it was usurped by a women:
the Whore of Revelation 17, also known as: preterist),
pre-millinnial view (33AD-present, well except from
325AD to 1500AD it was usurped by a women:
the Whore of Revelation 17, also known as: post-millinnial)

The 70th week of Daniel is still in our future.

 

// Another even less useful concept is that this key segment
of Daniel's prophecy focused on an insignificant and
pointless act of a future Antichrist at the end of time who
stops Jewish animal sacrifices already made void
some 2000 years prior to that by the Messiah and already
Stopped by the Romans 2000 years prior..
(One wonders if the antichrist is to be applauded
for that or criticized). //

I repeat, Jewish Rabbi trainees are taught that
the following three things will mark the arrival of
the Messiah:

1. bring Peace to Yisrael
2. restore the daily sacrifice
3. cause the Temple to be rebuilt
where it belongs on Temple Mount in Jerusalem

Note the Daily Sacrifice can be restored the
day that Messiah brings Peace to Yisrael
-- all one needs is readily available right now
save access to Temple Mount.

When the AntiChrist (the instead-of-Messiah)
makes the peace treaty he will set up the
daily sacrifice. At the middle of the 70th week
of Daniel AntiChrist will enter the Temple and
delcare himself to be God:

2 Thessalonians 2:4 (KJV1611 Edition):
Who opposeth and exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God,
or that is worshipped: so that he as God,
sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himselfe that he is God.

Then every Jewish/Israeli will see what a phony he
is -- that the real Messiah (Greek 'Christ') - the Anointed
one of God - is Jesus (Yeshua ben-Yoseph
ben-David ben-Yisrael ben-Abraham
of Nazereth) - the rejected cornerstone:

Mat 21:42 (KLJV1611 Edition):
Iesus saith vnto them, Did ye neuer reade
in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders
reiected, the same is become the head
of the corner? This is the Lords doing,
and it is marueilous in our eyes.

And this is the plan of God from before the foundation
of the world - that all Yisrael will be saved:

Rom 11:25-26 (KJV1611 Edition):
For I would not, brethren, that ye should bee ignorant
of this mysterie (least yee should bee wise in your owne conceits)
that blindnesse in part is happened to Israel,
vntill the fulnes of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saued,
as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliuerer,
and shall turne away vngodlinesse from Iacob.

So the Antichrist shall restore the daily sacrifice
at the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel
(The Tribulation Period of the unjust)
and end it at the AoD (Abomination of Desolation)
that takes place at the mid-Tribulation crises.\

Yes, I think my story is better than the story of the
SDA /7th day Adventists/.

 

Daniel 9:27 in the middle of the week He will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering;
Heb 10
5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "" SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
6 IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.
...
9 then He said, "" BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.'' He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
...
18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Heb 7
12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

It is the ONLY case where we have NT authors explicitly proclaiming fulfillment of the VERY detail predicted in the Dan 9 text regarding offerings and sacrifices! Paul says it is accomplished AND tells us who did it!

1. Hardly a detail sufficient to undo what Paul already stated as fact.

2. The detail above is not "abomination"

3. The detail above is not "destroying the temple".

4. The detail addressed here is explicily the work of the Messiah 3.5 years after his annointing for Minisry (baptism)

Daniel 9:27 in the middle of the week He will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering;

This is in the 70th week -- which is the period of 7 years AFTER the 69th week (7 + 62 weeks). That is the period of time that this great Messianic prophecy EXPLICITLY says it is dealing with -

26"Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off (NASB)

 

ONE alternative to this gospel central view - is that the event being highlighted (in this epic prophecy regarding the coming Messiah in 480 years) - is that the minor aspect of the Roman people and the Roman Caesar as they stop the defunct worship practices of an apostate Jewish church about 40 years after the Messiah negates their usefulness.

(Truly a trivialization of the mammoth gospel themes that the first view highlights in Daniel 9.) This view bypasses the aspect of the Romans act of slaughtering the Jews - and focuses instead on the fact that this stops sacrifices that are already made void and made defunct by the Messiah some 40 years prior to this.

Another even less useful concept is that this key segment of Daniel's prophecy focused on an insignificant and pointless act of a future Antichrist at the end of time who stops Jewish animal sacrifices already made void some 2000 years prior to that by the Messiah and already Stopped by the Romans 2000 years prior.. (One wonders if the antichrist is to be applauded for that or criticized).

The double problem in this view is that stopping what Christ already made void is pointless just as stopping what was Already Stopped is pointless. So you must also invent an entirely NEW imaginative story line to precede this event. One where God re-instituting the defunct "Shadows" sacrifices that pointed FORWARD to Christ's first coming. This means trading the more gospel centric view of Christ as the antitype for all Hebrew temple sacrifices and replacing that with this anti-Christ centric view of sacrifices-resumed then-stopped-again -- hard to swallow by every standard.

 

1. Romans 11 makes no mention of antichrist in any form
2. Romanns 11 makes no mention of persecution or taking away sacrifices.
3. Romans 9 speaks to BOTH Jews AND Gentiles ALREADY joined into ONE Israell and Romans 11 SHOWS how this occurs IN the vine of Christ -- and that it happens all the time. "In this way all Israel will be saved" is a way of showing that THROUGH the walk of faith as we see it every day -- with both Jews and Gentiles joined into what GOD calls "Israel" we have the solution for how "Israel is saved" .

 

Paul is SHOWING a process whereby Gentiles are constantly - over time , being added JUST as Jews are leaving OR returning based on their own choice of faith. That has resulted (as this model tells us) in a MIX of branches over TIME all grafted into ONE VINE (Christ). THAT SINGLE entity that results IS then the true Israel consisting of BOTH Jews and Gentiles WHO - (by the process being DESCRIBED) are joining and/or leaving.

25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will
not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel
until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

Notice that at TIME element is emphasized here "hardening" UNTIL the fullness of the
Gentiles comes IN.

“Come IN” to what??

Rom 9
6But it is not as though the Word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7[b]nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants[/b], but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.”
8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Come in as ISRAEL!

26 and SO (and SO in THIS WAY) all Israel will be saved; (Rom 11:26)

 

[/quote]

Again - good emotionalism but no facts.

Here are the facts.

1. John Gill was not SDA

2. All the others who agreed with him (such as Bishop Chandler who is given in the quote above) on that 490 year timeline being "intact in stead of fractured and fragmented" were not SDA.

3. It is wishful thinking to try to spin this around as "only SDAs discovered" that NO timeline in all of scripture given as a Bible prophecy can be fractured without doing damage to the text or that NO one but SDAs see what John Gill clearly states.

Frankly I see no reason to start imagining such a thing. Who would consider that line of reasonging compelling? Where can it ever be used without challenge?


Hint: Since the title is "history lesson"

in Christ,

Bob

 

// 1. John Gill was not SDA//

Good history lesson -- see, we learned something.

I note John Gill wasn't there when, in good
Baptist fashion, I studied the Scriptures.
I'll tell what I found.

What was 'John Gill'?

 

Baptist theologian seems to sum it up - though you could just stick with "not SDA" AND "pre-SDA"

Geneva Bible - "not SDA" -- and "Pre-SDA"

Calvin "Not SDA"

Zwingli "Not SDA"

My argument is not that you can not believe as you wish if John Gill and the Geneva study Bible show you to be in error. My argument is that you can not blame this rock solid position that ALL Bible prophecy is contiguous and intact - on SDAs, Mormons and B'hai. Much as I would like to take credit for such an obvious and clear view of prophetic timelines -- this was already well known before me and before SDAs.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Ed: //What was 'John Gill'?//

BobRyan: //Baptist theologian seems to sum it up - ... //

Thank you for that bit of historical information.
I also am a Baptist Theologian. But I've not
published anything save a few notes on BB /Baptist Board/.


BTW, I value BobRyan's opinion on scriptural
matters more than John Gill, Calvin, Zwingli,
Geneva Bible commentary writers, SDA founders,
Mormon founders, and B'hai founders..
I get to converse with Brother BobRyan but not
those other guys (persons).

 

For your convenience -- post 47

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1124724&postcount=47

 

"It is my pleasure to serve you". -- :})

I just came back from India and they were saying that at lot to me at one of the Taj hotels so now "it just comes naturally" (ok maybe it doesn't but I liked the experience).

in Christ,

Bob

 

//Ed, Have you or any other member of this board ever
read the book, The Rapture Plot by
Dave MacPherson (Armageddon Books)//

no

However, I have probably answered many of his arguments.
I'm getting to where I don't talk to the professional eschatologists
but only amature eschatologists. The professional ones
have more time. Here is a good professional Eschatologist
of the post-tribulation rapture2 Only type:

//Why do pretribs persist in having illogical and unnatural language so often? //

That is a virtual body slam. I feel like I'm being
false accused for DOING THE RIGHT THING.
My attempts to try to explain things carefully gets
body slammed

Here are some confusing terms (as used in the literature
and on the BB /baptist board/ )

rapture - a one-each-12-hour day event at the end of the
Tribulation Period only (note how cute this is also the
end of the church age)

rapture - a one-each-48-hour day event at the start of
the Tribulation Period which is closely preceeded by
a Rapture of dead saints of the church age.

I think you get the picture -- agreements are made but
people aren't taking about the same things (the spirit
is of the SITUATION COMEDY) - arguments happen
between people talking about the same thing but they
use different terms. Black is white; white is place,
pokeydotted is floresecent beige.

I note in scripute there are ages and intra-ages
that have two different sets of 'church'
1. Jewish/Israeli
2. Mostly gentile Christians but some Messanic Jews

I note in scripture there are ages and between ages
that have two different sets of 'elect'

//Indeed the pretrib group spins the "First Resurrection"
statement of Rev 20 into "Second First Resurrection"
or as Ed says "First resurrection is really resurrection2" for pre-tribbers//

Actually, if I said that, it is wrong.
But you know I get extra stars in my crown
each time somebody claims NOT to understand
my clarification. I get PMs (which should not be
shared on BB) saying readers know exactly what
I'm talking about, but arguing in the all-Christians
forum isn't their bag-of-tea.


Here is how I defined some terms to AVOID confusion.
Those who say I am twisting & confusing haven't even
bothered to define terms - so I have not idea what they
are talking about (and suspect they don't either).

rapture1 - the granting by God of a new Body
to a living person in Christ

resurrection1 - the granting by God of a new Body
to a dead person in Christ

granting of a new Body is discussed for the dead
in 1 Corinthians 15:35-58

'rapture' is the Latin word for 'caught up' in English,
see 1 Thess 4:17. Note that 1 Thess 4:17 doesn't
mention new bodies; 1 Cor 15 doesn't mention
'caught up' -- but they are talking about the same
subject: When Jesus comes to get us.

resurrection2 - a resurrection1 followed by a
rapture1 after the Tribulation Period (of the just
in Christ)

rapture2 - a resurrection1 followed by a
rapture1 before the Tribulation Period (of the just
in Christ)

resurrection3 - a resurrection1 of the unjust
(not 'in Christ')

Of course, if you accept my definitions, you have
to be a pre-tribulation rapture2 believer :laugh:

Meanwhile, in Revelation 20 'first resurrection' is
a resurrection1 of the just in Christ - all two or three
of the type resurrection1
(implied 'second resurrection' is of the type: unjust
raised to life for eternal damnation. 'Resurrection3'
is the type resurrection 'of the unjust - not in Christ)

// ... as Ed says "First resurrection
is really resurrection2" for pre-tribbers ... //

That isn't correct

Here are a couple of correct statements:
The 'first resurrection' is really two, maybe three,
resurrections1 followed EACH shortly by a
rapture1.
The 'first resurrection' is really the rapture2*
plus the resurrection2*.
You see 'first resurrection' has to be
a 'type' of resurrection1 - the resurrection1
of the just (in Christ).

*In Rev 20:4 the guys on the thrones
are from the rapture2, the ones that
didn't take the mark & got their heads
lobbed off are from the resurrection2.

I really think it is a waste of your time to
to call my careful explanations 'spin'.

You see, I have to fight illogic that makes
first = one and only one.
Sorry, 'first' does NOT mean the same as
'one and only one'.
So then I try to show how the two different
purposes resurrrection1s are ONE.

Here we go:

1 each resurrection1 - all will be resurrected: just & unjust alike,
resurrected for judgement of their deeds in the flesh

2 each resurrections -
1. resurrection1 of the just (in Christ) rewarded
for the good deeds done in the flesh
2. resurrection3 of the un-just (not in Christ) rewarded
for the evil deeds done in the flesh
(recommend one make arrangements to go
to a resurrection1 instead of a resurrection 3.
Check Romans 10:9-10 for details

1 each resurrection1s of the just (in Christ):
1a - part of the raputure2
(start of the Tribulation day/week/7-years)
1b - part of the resurrection2
(end of the Tribulation day/week/7-years)

2 each resurrection1s of the just (in Christ):
1 - part of the raputure2
2 - part of the resurrection2

 

Likewise here.

As my canibal friend says:
"We are eager to serve you anytime"

 

Ed said

Whereas Bob would say --

First resurrection is resurrection 1 and happens just before rapture 1 according to 1thess 4. Where "Rapture 1" and "resurection 1" are the first rapture and first resurrection in the future - for both Paul and John when they are writing.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to see if that fits the natural reading of "this is the FIRST resurrection" in Rev 20 and "The dead in Christ will rise FIRST then we who are ALIVE and remain will be caught up together with them in the air" - in the best way possible of all options (complex or simple) listed here.

in Christ,

Bob

 

//You're too nice a person, Ed, to not want to know
what's really going on outside the borders
of Oklahoma. //

I have a 16-year-old niece from Ubekistan.
Have you talked to a Ubek lately?
I have a 17-year-old niece from Mainland
China. Have you talked to a Red China
teen lady lately?
I have a 16-year-old neice from Vietnam.
Have you talked to a Maygar lately?

Thank you for the compliment: 'too nice'!!!!