Featured Spiritual Interpretation....pt4

How so? AD 70 did not mean that God totally rejected the Jewish people, as he is dealing with them in time of Jacob troubles at end of this Age!

 

Its called also the day of the Lord, and is yo Israel, right before the Messiah returns!

 

I replied in red as I was quoting a number of posts - yours & mine - & showed my new posts in red. Thought it would help you understand.

My logic is very simply. The 70 weeks are 490 years. As the prophecy concerns the saving work of Christ, FINISHED at Calvary, the 490 years must also finish soon after - in the 30s AD. Whether we date the end of week 69 as Jesus' baptism/anointing or the last week of his life.

The literal history of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy is recorded in the Gospels & Acts. Some aspects, AFTER the 70th week are the subject of NT prophecy.

The 69 weeks brings us to Messiah the Prince, the anointed Prince, logically his baptism/anointing. So the 70 th week covers Jesus earthly ministry, his cutting off for sinners (in the midst of the week) and the first 3 years of the Gospel age, after which the Jews totally rejected their Messiah & faced the consequences.

The consequences - the destruction by "the people of the prince who is to come" are clearly prophesied by Gabriel, the Lord Jesus, by Moses & Peter (Acts 3:22-23), by Paul in Acts & Epistles, & John in Revelation.

It is your problem if you do not understand that the beginning & end of a period of 490 years will be 490 years apart, rather than 2,500 & counting.

I do care that the Jewish week was 7 days, not 30.

My interpretative method is primarily grammatical-historical, with reference to the fulfilment of prophecy in the NT. The literal understanding is straightforward. The objective of the 70 weeks declared in v. 24 was fulfilled in the ministry & death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Separation of week 70 from weeks 1-69 defies all logic & grammatical reading. I suggest you read the bit in between Scofield's notes.

 

I am not affiliated with nor do I endorse Christian Zionism in any way. Are you attempting to use the association fallacy to divert the issue?

 

God says no such thing - but if you are thinking of Jeremiah 30:5-7 then it was written when Judah was in exile in Babylon. The dreadful event that would threaten the existence of the Jews, & their deliverance, is recorded in Esther.

 

I never even insinuated that.

No. I'm attempting to enlighten you as to what the REAL danger is, relegating fulfilled prophecies to the future.

You stated "Preterism is very dangerous", which shows you don't know what you're talking about. It is in fact harmless. The religious fanaticism (not at all unlike that which brought about the Crusades) that has it's roots in misapplied prophecies is very dangerous.

 

It's actually distracting, but thanks for the effort.

So far so good. This is better. Thanks for the clarification.

Okay.

I find this to be a real stretch, since the early ministry of Jesus is unanimously agreed to be either 3 or 3 1/2 years. And I have no idea where you get the 3 year cutoff for the Jews totally rejecting their Messiah. Many Jews were saved in the latter chapters of Acts.

I do agree that the destruction of Jerusalem was prophesied.

Well, I have other problems, so adding one more is not a problem.

My mistake. I meant the Jewish month. But previously you said it didn't matter, or something like that.

So then, are you a partial preterist, a full preterist, or not a preterist?

Since I almost never read Scofield's notes....

 

Do us a favor. Elaborate exactly how Preterism is "very dangerous".

 

I have been doing that since the very first thread on this issue! One cannot be a Preterist and consistently believe in the (future) coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead. I have consistently demonstrated that by comparing scripture with scripture and bringing together related passages of scripture. I think denying these are very dangerous as it places one outside the faith. Perhaps that would be inconsequential for you since you would only lose your "time salvation."

 

"Are you attempting to use the association fallacy to divert the issue?"

So have we.

Wrong. My faith and love for the Lord and His people and confidence in His word is as strong as ever.

Hmmm. Who are you?

Are you insinuating Preterists are hell bound? Explain please.

 

I am not using the association fallacy to divert the issue. I have demonstrated why Preterists like you are inconsistent in your interpretation of scripture. J. Stuart Russell, on the other hand, was consistent. The Parousia is as much a refutation of your inconsistent Preterism as it is an attempt to refute Futurism. I think Partial Preterism is a good term to identify those who are partial in their interpretation and application of scripture. I never accused you of denying the coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead, but that is the only consistent position you can take. You may believe in both, but you do so in spite of your eschatological views. My previous post concerning Dan. 12:1, 2 and Mt. 24.15 is just one of many examples I have presented. Instead of replying to it, you chose rather to discuss Christian Zionism. One cannot be a Christian and deny the (future) coming of the Lord and resurrection of the dead. Preterism naturally and consistently leads to that conclusion. That is why it is dangerous.

 

You chose to grossly malign Christians that hold to a benign eschatology. I chose to point out to you REAL danger.

So, who are you? How is it you throw "time salvation" in my face?

 

Hmmm - I saw a article where they had tested comprehension of the "red letter Bible" & found lower understanding. Perhaps I should have used bold black.

The Jews were declared "uncircumcised" by the Holy Spirit - Acts 7:51. Many continued to be saved - not least Saul/Paul. Zechariah 13:9 indicates that 1/3 of the Jews will be saved before the destruction. Jesus quotes v. 7 about the disciples being scattered at his arrest. John makes the number from the tribes of Israel as 144,000.

Jews were & are saved by repentance & baptism in the name of Jesus. I don't know the dating of the Acts events, but 3 1/2 years is indicated by Gabriel. That's the second half of the 70th week.

The idea of an end time 7 year tribulation, & cutting week 70 off from the 69 is from Scofield. And Scofield got into the Bible colleges as a free one-volume commentary, so his teaching became standard in the US. You may not read him, but generations of Bible college students - a generation of college lecturers have been influenced to this day.

His Bible fundamentalism was a bulwark against the rise of modernism & his Genesis "gap" theory gave an argument against evolution. In my student days Scofield was often quoted.

I hold a 'partial' Preterist position.

 

Denying the resurrection of the dead or holding to an interpretation that logically and necessarily leads one to do so is not benign.

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. -1 Co. 15.12-19

Are you now going to demonstrate how you can believe Mt. 24-25 was fulfilled historically and how you can still believe in the resurrection of the dead in light of Dan. 12.1, 2? I would also be interested in your interpretation and application of 1 Th. 4.15-5.10 and how they relate to Mt. 24-25.

 

Zechariah 13:8 2/3 of isarael dies at Day of the Lord, but rest remaining will see the Messiah!

 

IF you see AD 70 as being time of the Second Coming, now outside the faith on that issue!

 

Irenaeus and Hippolytus lived long before Scofield. At any rate, the historical data is against the seventieth week having been fulfilled in and around the time of the crucifixion.

 

Just use regular letters, please. I read well, thank you.

Absolutely wrong. No one was ever saved by repentance and any kind of ceremony, including baptism. It's salvation and faith in all ages and dispensations.

Never said I never read Scofield. I seldom read him nowadays, but grew up with various reference Bibles.

Don't remember Scofield being quoted in my student days, but he probably was. My grandfather quotes him occasionally in his books, but disagreed with his dispensationalism.

Okay, thanks for the info. I hold an anti-preterist position.