The pit (question) [Archive]

MHz

08-20-2006, 12:48 PM

Hi Core,

Actully, you are the one with the out of the box positions.[/QUOTE]
I remember how many verses I read that mentioned 'genetic contamination" Zero verses. Six fingers and toes is 4 more than we have, in total. To come up that is outside the box, to come with a verse that about how ths could have happened in Scripture is by the book.

I know of no polite way to put this, but you are the one who has doctrines that are classically defined as non-Christian and cult. So, don't go pretending you are even close to main stream Christianity in beliefs.
I doubt that I hold any doctrine that is unheard of. The labels that you keep giving me show that.
That it conflicts with your verson is why you see it as non-Christian. An example is the 7 Churches, some say they are 'time indicators', a history of man's relationship with God in the last 2,000 years.
Why isn't it that none of these Churches is past? If all are still in existance today then there are some in all that have overcome or will overcome at some future time. Like in the time from when that verse applies untill the time of decision. With Holy Angels being the heads of these Churches would seem to indicate that where Holy Angels are the Holy Spirit of God is also close by and with this kind of quide you certainly stand a better chance of remaining alive (and then gathered). Satan may not be very concerned with 'believers' and those that 'fear thy name' compared to the two witnesses.

I do get joy in it. But I refuse to blind myself to word meaning and grammar to achieve it, as you seem to be doing.

Well I admit I use other verses to verify how the same word has been used in other Scripture. Like 'rest' and 'sleep'. Jesus used them in the same quote. A search for the word 'grace' almost reads like a chapter on it's own. If you don't go and read the passage you would miss quite a few "God forbid"(s) that do have meaning for the word grace.

See. You just did it again. Why did you conveniently leave out he was swallowed by a whale?

So was it a 'normal' whale?
Jon:1:17:
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.
And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Jonah prays because this has happened to him;
Jon:2:3:
For thou hadst cast me into the deep,
in the midst of the seas;
and the floods compassed me about:
all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.
Jon:2:4:
Then I said,
I am cast out of thy sight;
yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.
Jon:2:5:
The waters compassed me about,
even to the soul:
the depth closed me round about,
the weeds were wrapped about my head.

Has he just died 'in the flesh'?

Being 'cast out of his sight' would indicate being in hell;
Jon:2:6:
I went down to the bottoms of the mountains;
the earth with her bars was about me for ever:
yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption,
O LORD my God.

Jon:2:2:
And said,
I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD,
and he heard me;
out of the belly of hell cried I,
and thou heardest my voice.

If a fish has a belly then hell might also have one, your version would be the lake, my version is slightly different;
Isa:14:15:
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell,
to the sides of the pit.

Isa:14:19:
But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch,
and as the raiment of those that are slain,
thrust through with a sword,
that go down to the stones of the pit;
as a carcase trodden under feet.

De:32:22:
For a fire is kindled in mine anger,
and shall burn unto the lowest hell,
and shall consume the earth with her increase,
and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Once Jonah says he will do what the Lord had asked the fish delivers back on land.

Actually, I believe he feared they would kill him.

Jon:3:9:
Who can tell if God will turn and repent,
and turn away from his fierce anger,
that we perish not?
Jon:3:10:
And God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God repented of the evil,
that he had said that he would do unto them;
and he did it not.
Jon:4:1:
But it displeased Jonah exceedingly,
and he was very angry.

Jon:4:5:
So Jonah went out of the city,
and sat on the east side of the city,
and there made him a booth,
and sat under it in the shadow,
till he might see what would become of the city.

Which has nothing to to with the topic of the Pit.

While I would not refuse, but if a saint refused, God would not condemn him to Hell for that refusal.
Lu:12:47:
And that servant,
which knew his lord's will,
and prepared not himself,
neither did according to his will,
shall be beaten with many stripes.
Lu:12:48:
But he that knew not,
and did commit things worthy of stripes,
shall be beaten with few stripes.
For unto whomsoever much is given,
of him shall be much required:
and to whom men have committed much,
of him they will ask the more.

If you believe that then you do not understand salvation is not based on works. Which I don't think you understand.
It is a good indication of whether a person is living within Christ's guidelines or just saying they are Christians, in word and deed;
Jas:2:26:
For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also.

Later

MHz

08-20-2006, 01:21 PM

Hi Core,
[QUOTE]
And sin's rightful place is in Hell.

It says Christ descended and preached to those in prison.

I would agree that sinners will see Hell, but since some sins are forgiven not all sinners see hell but they will still death, that is the price of sin;

Ro:6:23:
For the wages of sin is death;
but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ro:8:10:
And if Christ be in you,
the body is dead because of sin;
but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

The grave is also a prison;

Ro:8:10:
And if Christ be in you,
the body is dead because of sin;
but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Job:3:13:
For now should I have lain still and been quiet,
I should have slept:
then had I been at rest,
Job:3:14:
With kings and counsellers of the earth,
which built desolate places for themselves;
Job:3:15:
Or with princes that had gold,
who filled their houses with silver:
Job:3:16:
Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been;
as infants which never saw light.
Job:3:17:
There the wicked cease from troubling;
and there the weary be at rest.
Job:3:18:
There the prisoners rest together;
they hear not the voice of the oppressor.
Job:3:19:
The small and great are there;
and the servant is free from his master.
Job:3:20:
Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery,
and life unto the bitter in soul;

The unborn infant would not be in hell but still being a prisoner of the grave.

Later

CoreIssue

08-20-2006, 01:47 PM

Hi MHz,

Actully, you are the one with the out of the box positions.
I remember how many verses I read that mentioned 'genetic contamination" Zero verses. Six fingers and toes is 4 more than we have, in total. To come up that is outside the box, to come with a verse that about how ths could have happened in Scripture is by the book.

I was referring to the Pit, not the Nephilim discussion.

You were trying to redefine the Pit and move it.

[QUOTE]I know of no polite way to put this, but you are the one who has doctrines that are classically defined as non-Christian and cult. So, don't go pretending you are even close to main stream Christianity in beliefs.
I doubt that I hold any doctrine that is unheard of. The labels that you keep giving me show that.
That it conflicts with your verson is why you see it as non-Christian.

No. Because what you are saying is in agreement with what a number of cults teach is why I said it.

No. It is not unheard of. But, yes, it is not accepted in Christianity.

An example is the 7 Churches, some say they are 'time indicators', a history of man's relationship with God in the last 2,000 years.
Why isn't it that none of these Churches is past?

They are past in the sense of being the dominate aspects of the time. They are not past in the sense of still existing in various forms and combinations.
If all are still in existance today then there are some in all that have overcome or will overcome at some future time.
There are no saved in the 7th church.

Your use of overcome is a problem. You use it to indicate salvation and sainthood in a works manner, which it is not.
Like in the time from when that verse applies untill the time of decision. With Holy Angels being the heads of these Churches
Never says they are the heads of the churches.
would seem to indicate that where Holy Angels are the Holy Spirit of God is also close by and with this kind of quide you certainly stand a better chance of remaining alive (and then gathered).
The 7 lampstands are gone at the First Seal. Now the 7 angels are aiding in administering the Trib upon Man.
Satan may not be very concerned with 'believers' and those that 'fear thy name' compared to the two witnesses.
He is concerned with all of them.

But he does not get onto the earth until Mid.

I do get joy in it. But I refuse to blind myself to word meaning and grammar to achieve it, as you seem to be doing.

Well I admit I use other verses to verify how the same word has been used in other Scripture.

That is context, not word meaning. You must compare context, not merge them together into one passage becuase of common words and try to find context.

Context plus context gives bigger context.

As with gather. Gather at the Rapture is gathering, but it also involves resurrection and glorification.

Gathering of living Israel, at the Second Coming, does not contain resurrection and glorification.

You fail there because you take resurrection from one and add it to the other.

Like 'rest' and 'sleep'. Jesus used them in the same quote. A search for the word 'grace' almost reads like a chapter on it's own. If you don't go and read the passage you would miss quite a few "God forbid"(s) that do have meaning for the word grace.

Again, rest can mean bodily sleep, as in at night or bodily death, where the body shuts down.

By tring to merge them you end up with Soul Sleep. And that is grammatically and contextually wrong.

And the forbide issues are related to grace, but do not define grace itself. Relationship, not meaning.

See. You just did it again. Why did you conveniently leave out he was swallowed by a whale?

So was it a 'normal' whale?

Yes. Here you go again spiirtualizing things.
Has he just died 'in the flesh'?
No. He says he was fading and used figurative speech to describe being in the whale and under the water.
Being 'cast out of his sight' would indicate being in hell;
No. It does not.
If a fish has a belly then hell might also have one, your version would be the lake, my version is slightly different;
I am trying to remember, but I do believe it was called that somewhere.

And for sure, our versions would be different.

When the Rich Man woke, he woke in Hell, in torment and in flames. The Lake in Hell.

Isa:14:15:
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell,
to the sides of the pit.

Isa:14:19:
But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch,
and as the raiment of those that are slain,
thrust through with a sword,
that go down to the stones of the pit;
as a carcase trodden under feet.

De:32:22:
For a fire is kindled in mine anger,
and shall burn unto the lowest hell,
and shall consume the earth with her increase,
and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Again, Hell with fire in it. The Lake.
Once Jonah says he will do what the Lord had asked the fish delivers back on land.
Yep. He did not die.

Actually, I believe he feared they would kill him.

Jon:3:9:
Who can tell if God will turn and repent,
and turn away from his fierce anger,
that we perish not?
Jon:3:10:
And God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God repented of the evil,
that he had said that he would do unto them;
and he did it not.
Jon:4:1:
But it displeased Jonah exceedingly,
and he was very angry.

Jon:4:5:
So Jonah went out of the city,
and sat on the east side of the city,
and there made him a booth,
and sat under it in the shadow,
till he might see what would become of the city.

Which still does not answer the issue of why he fled originally.

Which has nothing to to with the topic of the Pit.
While I would not refuse, but if a saint refused, God would not condemn him to Hell for that refusal.
Lu:12:47:
And that servant,
which knew his lord's will,
and prepared not himself,
neither did according to his will,
shall be beaten with many stripes.
Lu:12:48:
But he that knew not,
and did commit things worthy of stripes,
shall be beaten with few stripes.
For unto whomsoever much is given,
of him shall be much required:
and to whom men have committed much,
of him they will ask the more.

But he remains a servant, which is my point.

You have him being cast out as a servant.

If you believe that then you do not understand salvation is not based on works. Which I don't think you understand.
It is a good indication of whether a person is living within Christ's guidelines or just saying they are Christians, in word and deed;
Jas:2:26:
For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also.

Agree in that aspect 100%.

Later

CoreIssue

08-20-2006, 01:56 PM

Hi MHz,

[quote]
And sin's rightful place is in Hell.

It says Christ descended and preached to those in prison.

I would agree that sinners will see Hell, but since some sins are forgiven not all sinners see hell but they will still death, that is the price of sin;

All sins, past, present and future are forgiven at repentence.

You either die and go to Hell or Heaven. No inbetween.
The unborn infant would not be in hell but still being a prisoner of the grave.
No. They are innocent and thus not responsible for any sin.

They go to Heaven.

Later

Jessie

08-20-2006, 04:54 PM

then why did Jesus say "it is finished" on the cross.
this almost sounds like what Joyce meyers says.

God turned away from Jesus while on the cross. I find nowhere it says Jesus went to hell.

Oh, no! Meyers and that ilk believe Christ became sinful and died spiritually.

He did not. He bore our sins. He never became sinful. And sin's rightful place is in Hell.

Hell could hold the sin. But it could not hold Christ.

Christ said it is finished because he died for our sins. Meaning he had completed the just punishment for sin, death.

But that had nothing to do with where the just place for the spiritually dead is, Hell. Yet he was not spiritually dead.

His body was the sin offering, not his spirit.

It says Christ descended and preached to those in prison. Those who rebelled before the Flood, and such. Those people are in Hell, a prison. So to preach to them he had to be in Hell.

Those in Paradise were not in prison. They were in an intermediate waiting place before they could go to heaven.

also, what would the point of preaching to those in hell be?

So that it is true, at the White Throne Judgment, that none who stand before him have an excuse.

He preached to them of himself, knowing they would reject him.

Now, none can say, "If only we had heard the Gospel."

now that makes better sense!

I thought it was those in paradise he preached to not those in hell.
would they still not accept Him? what a strange place.
and too why preach to those who had already rejected him? or was this to give them "a chance" ?

this one leaves me scratching my head!

CoreIssue

08-20-2006, 05:02 PM

now that makes better sense!

I thought it was those in paradise he preached to not those in hell.
would they still not accept Him? what a strange place.
There is a time when one locks in their eternal choices. Exactly how and why, I don't know, but it is there.

Look at those at the end of the MK in the Short time marching on Jerusalem after Christ was on the earth for 1,000 years. How could they reject him? But they do.

and too why preach to those who had already rejected him? or was this to give them "a chance" ?
As I said, so none of them, at the White Throne have an excuse, as Christ says they will have no excuse.

Not knowing or being offered Christ would be an excuse.
this one leaves me scratching my head!
People are loaded with pride and ego. They will reject what is best for them because it is not them in charge. Just like Satan.

Satan's pride reached the point it was more powerful than his logic. Everyone reaches the point where what drives them, concerning God and so one becomes too powerful to change within them.

Ruth

08-20-2006, 05:54 PM

[quote]

Many have the idea that just dying on the Cross ended the sin payment. It did not. Sin goes to Hell.

From my understanding, the wages of sin is death. That is how it is explained in Genesis.
Our redemption is in the innocent blood of our Lord. It was finished on the cross and that was why He said It is Finished.
Also, that is why the curtain in the temple was torn in two at that moment and the dead came out of their graves - Jesus paid it in full on the cross. It tore in half because His death paid the price and there no longer was a barrier between man and God.

Matthew 27:50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

The visit to Hell was to preach to the lost who had not had a savior until then.
1 Peter 3:
18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-30428d)] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

So, IMHO, and based on the scriptural references I have provided above - I think that it was completed on the cross in the shedding of His blood.

CoreIssue

08-20-2006, 06:07 PM

Ruth

08-20-2006, 06:35 PM

Hi Ruth,

This passage must be taken into consideration in the issue.
1 Corinthians 15
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
Christ paid for the sin on the cross.

But for it to be effective he had to resurrect, ascend to the Father, and offer the sin sacrifice to him.

Otherwise, Christ would have remained in Paradise, sin free. But we would die in our sin and never be cleansed of it because the Holy Spirit would never have been sent.

Having the money for a ticket does not pay for the ticket until you present it to the judge.

I'm sorry but where in scripture do you come to these conclusions? I do not see your point in the passage that you site.

When the blood sacrifices were done in the temple, or in the other places before the temple was built - God came down and accepted the sacrifice either by angels or by fire - where does it say what you are concluding?

CoreIssue

08-20-2006, 06:46 PM

I'm sorry but where in scripture do you come to these conclusions? I do not see your point in the passage that you site.
No problem.

It says very plainly if Christ did not resurrect we would stay in our sin and be condemned for eternity.

So, the cross paid for the sin but it could not applied without the resurrection.

Meaning Christ did not overcome death on the cross, it just created the sin price. His ressurection overcame death.

He had to overcome death, not the Father or Holy Spirit.
When the blood sacrifices were done in the temple, or in the other places before the temple was built - God came down and accepted the sacrifice either by angels or by fire - where does it say what you are concluding?
Not correct.

In the Temple sacrifices the blood was shed in the Inner Temple, then the offering was brought into the Holy of Holies. And only by the High Priest and only then offered to God and accepted.

In other sacrifices the sacrifice had to be raised up and offered to God by the one who made the sacrifice. It was not accepted until then.

It was never enough to simply shed the blood.

Ruth

08-20-2006, 06:54 PM

CoreIssue

08-20-2006, 07:08 PM

Then why was the curtain torn and the dead raised from their graves as soon as Jesus gave up His spirit?
They did not resurrect. The 'resusitated,' so to speak. But their sins remained in them.
The torn curtain was evidence that the barrier had been removed - the sacrifice was received accepted and delivered and accomplished the task.

No. It said now the way to stand before the Father was via Christ, who is God in the flesh.

But, to complete the connection and process, Christ had to ascend.
He was resurrected at that time - but His first order of business was to attend to those in prison before He showed Himself to the disciples. He wasn't 'dead' those three days. He was just a little busy.
First, he presented himself to those in prison (Hell).
Second, he overcame death and existed Hell, it could not hold him.
Third, he went to those in Paradise.
Fouth, he rose with the spirits of those in Paradise in train, which shows that those who rose from the graves did not resurrect because the saints of spirits were still in Paradise.
Fifth, he resurrected in his earthly flesh, was seen, and said do not touch me until I go to the Father.
Sixth, he went on to Heaven with the spirits of the saints with him.
Seventh, he presented his body to the Father as a sacrfice, which the Father accepted.
Eighth, he was then glorified.
Nineth, he returned to the earth and presented himself to the Apostles and such.

But, as in the OT Temple, the full process for sin forgiveness was not complete until presented to God (First Person, now Father)

So the sin price was paid first.
That made Christ the door to the Father, not the Temple.
Then he defeated death.
Then he resurrected and ascend to present the offering.
Then, and only then was it all complete.

It is more than sin price that saves us. It is also overcoming death and price acceptance.

Hope that helps.

Ruth

08-20-2006, 07:27 PM

No, it doesn't help because (I hate to be stickler or bother about this) but could you present scripture to support the order of things and your statements?

CoreIssue

08-20-2006, 08:26 PM

No, it doesn't help because (I hate to be stickler or bother about this) but could you present scripture to support the order of things and your statements?
OK. But it will have to be later.

I don't have the time right now.

In the meantime, I would like to hear our reconciliation of the 1 Cor verses I posted and your position.

That passage means something. ;)

Ruth

08-20-2006, 08:36 PM

CoreIssue

08-20-2006, 09:35 PM

I did respond- I didn't see your conclusions in this passage at all.
This passage simply states the obvious - that Christ was ressurected. You are jumping to additional conclusions not stated here - from what I can see.

Yes - I have been away to dinner and stopped back in - but plant to go back out for the evening. Perhaps I will have time when I get home tonight. If not - tomorrow.

I think you miss the point.

You said it was ALL complete on the cross.

Here says.

17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

It says the cross was not enough to cleanse you of your sin. The resurrection had to occur.

And the resurrection was 3 days after the cross. So, if the cross was enough, then how could this be said?

Also, you are reading in that it covered cleansing us of sin, and not just the sin price being paid.

Where do you see this fulfills the demands of the Temple rites, where were shadows of Christ to come?

CoreIssue

08-20-2006, 10:12 PM

I am assuming I don't need to post the verses on the cross. Christ said it was done, but he did not state what was complete. That was a read in on your part.
First, he presented himself to those in prison (Hell).
Ephesians 4
8This is why it[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=4&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-29265a)] says:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men."[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=4&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-29265b)] 9(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=4&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-29266c)]? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

1 Peter 3
He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203;&version=31;#fen-NIV-30428d)] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago

Second, he overcame death and existed Hell, it could not hold him.

Acts 2
24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Third, he went to those in Paradise.

Fouth, he rose with the spirits of those in Paradise in train, which shows that those who rose from the graves did not resurrect because the saints of spirits were still in Paradise.

He had to go to Paradise to be able to lead them out. And since they were OT saint they had never heard his name or Gospel. To receive the Holy Spirit they had to hear and accept.

Fifth, he resurrected in his earthly flesh, was seen, and said do not touch me until I go to the Father.

Sixth, he went on to Heaven with the spirits of the saints with him.
Seventh, he presented his body to the Father as a sacrfice, which the Father accepted.

John 20

15"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."
16Jesus said to her, "Mary."
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). 17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

We are now after him leading the spirits from Paradise but before going to Heaven. And it says he led the spirits to Heaven.

So, out of Paradise with them, resurrected, says this and then ascends.

In the Temple sacrifices the High Priest was cleansed, and he could absolutely touch nothing until the sacrifice and offering was complete.

So, here, Christ was the sacrifice and was the High Priest, both spotless, and he had yet to offer himself up to the Father.

He most assuredly was not glorified if mistaken for a gardner.

Eighth, he was then glorified.
Next, we see him appearing to the Apostles. He was glorfied. Self explanatory.
Nineth, he returned to the earth and presented himself to the Apostles and such.

Pretty clear cut, I believe.

Ruth

08-21-2006, 05:41 PM

I really am trying hard to believe you here but you did not present clear and convincing scriptures to support your conjectures that it was not finished until He presented His body to the Father for approval of the sacrifice.
Nor did you present exact scriptures to each of the aspects you listed - you just repeated your own statements without scripture.

I'm sorry - but we are not any further in moving forward than we were when we started.

Our salvation is in His blood shed for us.
No one denies that He went into hell but it wasn't to pay anything or to have victory over anything - everything was completed on the cross and unless you can show me a scripture that disputes the It is Finished does not mean 'really, really finished' I stand on the fact that when He said those words - it was all done - the rest was collecting those who were in prison waiting for their savior to release them and the rest of what He had to do.

Where is the scripture where He presents Himself to the Father for approval? You didn't provide any scripture for this and it is the main point we are disputing.

Ruth

08-21-2006, 06:10 PM

Dave Hunt's Newsletter of July 1991:
"The Bible makes clear that we are saved by believing the true gospel—and that anything less or more cannot save. False gospels abound. Take, for example, just one of the heresies taught by Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland. On February 19, 1991, CRI's Hank Hanegraaff explained this perverse teaching to the head of TBN on his "Praise the Lord" program, but it was dismissed as of no consequence. It is the teaching that the shedding of Christ's blood upon the cross did not effect our redemption. That although Christ cried in triumph, "It is finished!" it was not finished. That although He said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit," He came into the hands of Satan who carried our Lord into hell and there tortured Him three days and three nights, thereby accomplishing our redemption. If Satan didn't torture Christ enough, are we not saved? If he did, do we thank him for the vital role he played in our redemption? What blasphemy!

On the contrary, the Bible always links redemption with what happened on the Cross. It is never implied, much less taught, that redemption took place in hell—nor that our salvation is secured by baptism, Mary's intercession, the Mass or our suffering in purgatory. Paul declared that he would glory in nothing except "the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal 6:14). We are told that Christ "became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross" (Phil 2:8). There is no hint that he also died spiritually in hell at the hands of Satan, as the faith teachers heretically claim.

We have "redemption through his blood" (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14) and not by reason of tortures which Satan allegedly inflicted upon Christ. His blood was shed on the cross, not in hell, and it is explicitly stated that He "made peace through the blood of His cross" (Col 1:20). Throughout eternity, the song of the redeemed in heaven will forever be to Him "that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rv 1:5). Yet Copeland teaches a false gospel: "When His blood poured out, it did not atone..."!"

CoreIssue

08-21-2006, 06:57 PM

You are confusing issues and connecting what I am saying to those who say Christ died spiritually and thus salvation is in Hell. And he resurrected a man who was born-again.

I never would say such a thing.

Again, Christ paid the blood price on the cross.

Now, tell me how that blood gets applied to us.

Think here. In the Temple and all OT sacrifices the blood was pure. But when was it accepted by God? At the moment of shedding or when brought before him and offered up to him?

Why did Paul say if Christ did not resurrect we would still be dead in our sins? Paul most assuredly said Christ never sinned, was pure and his death on the cross paid the price.

Why did Christ say not to touch him until he went to the Father?

Relate this all to the OT Temple sacrifices and you will see the answer.

And I will try once more, comparing to the Temple sacrifices on the key points.

Christ (High Priest) shed his own blood - animal blood was shed by High Priest

Christ presented himself as the blood sacrfice before the Father in Heaven. Christ, and only Christ, could do this. - High Priest, and only the High Priest could come before the Father in the Holy Holies (shadow of Heaven) and HAD to have blood with him.
Hebrews 9
6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.
The Temple and rites were shadows of what was to come.
Christ the Lamb = OT Lamb
Blood = blood
Christ the High Priest = High Priest
Blood PRESENTED before the Father in Heaven was acceptable to forgive sin - Blood PRESENTED before the Ark in the Holy of Holies was acceptable to forgive sin.

The pattern was shadowed in the OT and had to be followed in the NT. The blood indeed was a sin price, in both cases, but it did not get applied until offered to and accepts by God on behalf of the people.

That is why Paul also said:
17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.
No debate here.

Paul says Christ HAD to resurrect for your sins to be forgiven.

Why? The price was paid on the cross.

Because the blood was not effective until brought before God and offered up to him for the sins of the people. Just as in the OT.

Yes, Christ's death paid the price, it was finished. Yes, the way was open directly to the Father. But no, the door was not in place and the blood not effective until offered up in the Father's very presence.

I am not adding to it being finished on the cross. You and others are.

For, the payment for sin was finished there. But to be applied to you and me it must be offered up by our High Priest before the Throne of God.

That is what is said. And why we do not look to the cross, but his resurrection for our cleansing.

It is a process.
Blood payment for sin
Offering to the Father.

Without the complete process your sins cannot be washed away, even though the blood price was complete on the cross.

Does that help? ;)

Ruth

08-21-2006, 07:27 PM

CoreIssue

08-21-2006, 08:28 PM

No, I'm sorry. I am not moved to your way of thinking because you still have not provided the scripture that shows the Jesus presented the offering to the Father for approval.
Since that would be a pretty important issue as you describe it - then I would think Paul would have mentioned it a few times or Peter would have.
Where is the scripture describing this exactly - not an inferrence, but exactly.

Thank you for your kind patience with me. We may end up simply agreeing to disagree and that is fine too.
Sure.

But your positions leaves you without an answer to this statement by Paul.
17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.
By your position it would not be futile because the cross ended in full.

Paul didn't say one word about the cross.

He says those who died with Christ remain dead with Christ.

Christ was indeed dead until he resurrected. Wasn't he?

Please reconcile these issues from your perspective.

I can from mine.

Jessie

08-22-2006, 01:16 AM

core said:

That is what is said. And why we do not look to the cross, but his resurrection for our cleansing.

interesting, as it seems to make a difference in the way we look at things.
could you expound on this?

CoreIssue

08-22-2006, 02:06 PM

Protestant crosses do not have Christ on them because they recognize if the issues were still on the cross we are doomed.

It has been recognized that Christ's resurrection is where our hope is.

The cross was a day or sorrow and pain. The resurrection is the day of joy and hope.

Which is more celebrated? The Cross of the Resurrection? The Resurrection.

Notice crucifixes are used by those who see the job incomplete. That Christ began it and we must complete it?

There is a distinction between sin payment price and sin application price.

No one here is arguing Christ did not pay the price in full on the Cross.

What is being argued is how the blood gets from the Cross to the Father and then to us. Christ offers his blood for us, the Father accepts it and declares paid in full and the Holy Spirit administers it.

That could not happen if Christ did not resurrected and ascend.

That is why solid Bible preachers, the Apostles and so on do not dwell on the Cross, but the resurrection.

The Apostles were Jewish. They understood the Temple rites.

The lambs blood was shed OUTSIDE the dwelling place of God. It had to be brought into the dwelling place of God and presented to him there before he could accept it.

The High Priest was the shadow type of Christ.

The alter was the shadow type of the Cross.

The Holy of Holies was the shadow type of Heaven.

The Ark was the shadow type of the Throne of God.

Christ fulfilled this demanded sequence only upon presenting the blood before the Father.

Ruth

08-22-2006, 06:57 PM

I don't want to take away from Jesse's questions. She started this thread.
I think we have waivered from the original concern and that was attributing any amount of what Jesus did to any time in hell.

I agree completely that the resurrection was crucial - if He had not overcome death there would be no victory. But trying to tie hell in with what He did is where we differ.

This discussion has taken too many twists and turns to make heads or tails of it anymore.
I will start another thread where we can strictly focus on the one question. We can establish where we agree and where we differ and then establish scripture to support our positions where we differ.

I will bow out here so Jesse can continue her discussion with you.

Core - you certainly seemed to be spread thin here in trying to address our questions!
I'm in no hurry. So take your time with responding to me. :tiphat:

MHz

08-24-2006, 09:37 AM

Hi Core,
When you say Jesus preached the Gospel to those in hell, as well as to those in the grave (Abraham's bosom), you don't really mention what you thing the outcome was. Previous words would indicate it may have had zero effect in that these couldn't say at Judgement Day that they had never heard of the Gospel.
At Christ's return many will fall to His sword and their next thousand years will be in hell, do you also see these being preached to about the Gospel, if so does this have any effect on them at Judgement Day. Also, since both death and hell (and the sea) give up their dead who are the ones in death?

Later

CoreIssue

08-24-2006, 09:54 AM

Hi MHz,

Hi Core,
When you say Jesus preached the Gospel to those in hell, as well as to those in the grave (Abraham's bosom), you don't really mention what you thing the outcome was. Previous words would indicate it may have had zero effect in that these couldn't say at Judgement Day that they had never heard of the Gospel.
At Christ's return many will fall to His sword and their next thousand years will be in hell, do you also see these being preached to about the Gospel, if so does this have any effect on them at Judgement Day. Also, since both death and hell (and the sea) give up their dead who are the ones in death?

Later
The change effect was zero. They were offered and they continued to reject.

Amazing how self defeating pride can be.

As for the Second Coming, they already know the Gospel. There is nothing more to preach to those who have 2,000 years of history and the testimony of the Two Witnesses.

Beginning the latter 20th Century the Gospel has been preached to every corner of the earth.

Death, in the final, ultimate context, means those who are apart from God.

The First Resurrection deals with those who are saints. Thus all in Death at the White Throne are to eternally damned.

At that time physical death is conquered. Everyone who every lived will have been either resurrected in the First of Second Resurrections. Now the issue is purely a spiritual one.

MHz

08-25-2006, 01:10 AM

Hi Core,

The change effect was zero. They were offered and they continued to reject.
And you know this how?
That it is Jesus who preaches the Gospel to these would seem to indicate you have little faith in how powerfull a high priest Christ actually is, in reguards to explaining to men about God. You have stated even with the living in the thousand years that many are in sin, despite having Christ living with them and all who are alive go once a year to the feast of tabernacles, to His house of prayer. So with Christ Himself, and that alone would be more than enough to provide righteous leadership, the 24 Elders, the whole house of resurrected Israel, and the Church, and maybe even access to Holy Angels, you still see sin as claiming many of the people. I don't have to deal with the above, I simply reject your understanding of the Scripture you use to promote this.
You say the unborn child who dies goes to Heaven, yet no verse actually says this, so it is more than possible that 'they' are part of 'the rest'. Those who will be alive for the thousand years are listed, it is a rather 'select group' if all of mankind is considered, this would also make 'the rest' a much larger group who come to life, and are able to retain this new life than who have been a part of the thousand years.

Amazing how self defeating pride can be.
In relation to those in hell, God certainly 'listens' to what is said but to preach the Gospel is more for those who died without knowing the Gospel, hell is for those who know and reject the Gospel. Like those who call Christ Lord and do not follow His instructions. It is prayer that will be heard but prayer concieved by the person in hell without any prompting from voices that are in Heaven, that voice only reaches those in the grave.

As for the Second Coming, they already know the Gospel. There is nothing more to preach to those who have 2,000 years of history and the testimony of the Two Witnesses.
Unless a prophecy determined some would be determined to be doing certain things;
Jer:25:17:
Then took I the cup at the LORD's hand,
and made all the nations to drink,
unto whom the LORD had sent me:

Jer:25:28:
And it shall be,
if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drink,
then shalt thou say unto them,
Thus saith the LORD of hosts;
Ye shall certainly drink.

Beginning the latter 20th Century the Gospel has been preached to every corner of the earth.
Would you consider the RCC in the dark ages as part of 'preaching the Gospel'?
To preach the Gospel would require accurate knowledge, since Christians have many different doctrines and not a singularity of truth who are we to preach? Here is a test question, if you are talking to someone about Jesus and they aren't receptive, what do you do in this situation?

Death, in the final, ultimate context, means those who are apart from God.
The lake of fire is being apart from God, but everyone sent there is certainly 'well aware' of just where they are. Having God turn His back to you is also being apart from God. Death seperates you from the living, it does not mean you are 'apart from God' as everyone dead will be called out of death.

The First Resurrection deals with those who are saints. Thus all in Death at the White Throne are to eternally damned.
List them (saints)all please. Verses only.
Who is Hebrews 12 written for?
Who are not the 'servants' in Isaiah 65?

At that time physical death is conquered. Everyone who every lived will have been either resurrected in the First of Second Resurrections. Now the issue is purely a spiritual one.
The term 'second resurrection' is not in Scripture, what is said is the rest of the dead become alive and that is (part) of the first (and only) resurrection. Those who will be alive for the thousand years will be resurrected first, and that is all it says;
Re:20:5:
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.
This is the first resurrection.
Re:20:6:
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:
on such the second death hath no power,
but they shall be priests of God and of Christ,
and shall reign with him a thousand years.

1Co:15:51:
Behold,
I shew you a mystery;
We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed,
1Co:15:52:
In a moment,
in the twinkling of an eye,
at the last trump:
for the trumpet shall sound,
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible,
and we shall be changed.
1Co:15:53:
For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co:15:54:
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption,
and this mortal shall have put on immortality,
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written,
Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Co:15:55:
O death,
where is thy sting?
O grave,
where is thy victory?
1Co:15:56:
The sting of death is sin;
and the strength of sin is the law.
1Co:15:57:
But thanks be to God,
which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co:15:58:
Therefore,
my beloved brethren,
be ye stedfast,
unmoveable,
always abounding in the work of the Lord,
forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

The above plainly states that those alive are 'in the same state' as those who will be raised from the grave, the first are the whole house of Israel, the reason being it is the whole house is because trangressions on their part will not bring protection from death, except for the 144,000.

Later

CoreIssue

08-25-2006, 12:31 PM

Hi MHz,

The change effect was zero. They were offered and they continued to reject.
And you know this how?

Because:
1. The eternal lost went to Hell, in the OT times, and the saints went to Paradise, a waiting place. No third option existed.
2. The Bible says we live this earthly life once and then are judged. Not live, die, might change our minds, and then judged.
3. The Bible says those who enter the Lake are there for eternity. It says those who are saved are predestined to glorification and being with Christ.
4. The Angels who rebelled could then also change their minds and repent. But they have no way back to Heaven.

For there to a be an ongoing chance of changning ones mind would mean there could also be a future rebellion in Heaven, which the Bible shows is not going to happen.

The Rich Man did not repent nor try to change his fate. He spoke of chaning the minds of those still on the earth.
That it is Jesus who preaches the Gospel to these would seem to indicate you have little faith in how powerfull a high priest Christ actually is, in regauards to explaining to men about God.
No. You are looking in the wrong place. I have no lack of faith in the ability of people to spit themselves for eternity.

And this is a ill thought out statement. Christ explained to people about God and himself while he lived on this earth. They killed him for it.

You have stated even with the living in the thousand years that many are in sin, despite having Christ living with them and all who are alive go once a year to the feast of tabernacles, to His house of prayer. So with Christ Himself, and that alone would be more than enough to provide righteous leadership, the 24 Elders, the whole house of resurrected Israel, and the Church, and maybe even access to Holy Angels, you still see sin as claiming many of the people. I don't have to deal with the above, I simply reject your understanding of the Scripture you use to promote this.

Reject away. I will not address several errors you made here because they are off topic.

I provided the verses stating there would be sin. You reject them because of your desires, not the words of the verses.

Sorry, not going off topic for the rest you said. Either needs to be in an existing thread coverning those issues or start another.

But, since we cannot get even close on foundational meanings and issues, we would not get very far, I fear.

Amazing how self defeating pride can be.
In relation to those in hell, God certainly 'listens' to what is said but to preach the Gospel is more for those who died without knowing the Gospel, hell is for those who know and reject the Gospel. Like those who call Christ Lord and do not follow His instructions. It is prayer that will be heard but prayer concieved by the person in hell without any prompting from voices that are in Heaven, that voice only reaches those in the grave.

Those in Hell do not pray to God. Curse him, yes, not not pray.

As for the Second Coming, they already know the Gospel. There is nothing more to preach to those who have 2,000 years of history and the testimony of the Two Witnesses.
Unless a prophecy determined some would be determined to be doing certain things;

God does not force people to think in a certain way. He will encourage, allow and enable them to do evil, that serves his purpose. But never does he force one to reject him or think is a specific manner.

Beginning the latter 20th Century the Gospel has been preached to every corner of the earth.
Would you consider the RCC in the dark ages as part of 'preaching the Gospel'?
To preach the Gospel would require accurate knowledge, since Christians have many different doctrines and not a singularity of truth who are we to preach? Here is a test question, if you are talking to someone about Jesus and they aren't receptive, what do you do in this situation?

What has the Dark Ages got to to do with this?

Paul tells us those without the Gospel or Law are judged by Conscience.

Death, in the final, ultimate context, means those who are apart from God.
The lake of fire is being apart from God, but everyone sent there is certainly 'well aware' of just where they are. Having God turn His back to you is also being apart from God. Death seperates you from the living, it does not mean you are 'apart from God' as everyone dead will be called out of death.

The Lake is a literal and physical place.

The First Resurrection deals with those who are saints. Thus all in Death at the White Throne are to eternally damned.
List them (saints)all please. Verses only.
Who is Hebrews 12 written for?
Who are not the 'servants' in Isaiah 65?

For the I don't how many times, Hebrews and Isaiah are not Resurrection verses.

And I have posted the verses numberous times stating those in the First Resurrection are blessed and at the White Throne the damned are resurrected, judged and cast into the Lake.

At that time physical death is conquered. Everyone who every lived will have been either resurrected in the First of Second Resurrections. Now the issue is purely a spiritual one.
The term 'second resurrection' is not in Scripture, what is said is the rest of the dead become alive and that is (part) of the first (and only) resurrection. Those who will be alive for the thousand years will be resurrected first, and that is all it says;
Re:20:5:
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.
This is the first resurrection.
Re:20:6:
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:
on such the second death hath no power,
but they shall be priests of God and of Christ,
and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Right. Now a bit of Logic here.

If the Resurrection of the Blessed is the FIRST Resurrection, what does that make the next one?

1Co:15:51:
Behold,
I shew you a mystery;
We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed,
1Co:15:52:
In a moment,
in the twinkling of an eye,
at the last trump:
for the trumpet shall sound,
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible,
and we shall be changed.
1Co:15:53:
For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co:15:54:
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption,
and this mortal shall have put on immortality,
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written,
Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Co:15:55:
O death,
where is thy sting?
O grave,
where is thy victory?
1Co:15:56:
The sting of death is sin;
and the strength of sin is the law.
1Co:15:57:
But thanks be to God,
which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co:15:58:
Therefore,
my beloved brethren,
be ye stedfast,
unmoveable,
always abounding in the work of the Lord,
forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

The above plainly states that those alive are 'in the same state' as those who will be raised from the grave, the first are the whole house of Israel, the reason being it is the whole house is because trangressions on their part will not bring protection from death, except for the 144,000.

You are warping the verse.

It says those DEAD in Christ Resurrect to the earth and then ALL IN CHRIST rise to meet him in the clouds.

It is talking all saints, not Israel. It is not a Second Coming passage, but a Rapture one.

That very much leaves the living, who are not in Christ, in the flesh and on the earth.

There is no Rapture at the Second Coming. There is the gathering of still living Israel, the 144,000 and more, the Resurrection of the dead Trib Saints, the coming of the glorified Church, with Christ and the rest of the world, who survived, very much alive in earthly flesh.

We really need to limit this topic to the Pit. Plenty of room for other threads.

Later

MHz

08-28-2006, 08:43 AM

Hi Core;
We really need to limit this topic to the Pit. Plenty of room for other threads.

In the discussion of the pit, we still have to find the supporting verses for who is in hell and their fate. We also have to determine how hell and the lake of fire are different.

Because:
1. The eternal lost went to Hell, in the OT times, and the saints went to Paradise, a waiting place. No third option existed.
A verse from Daniel speaks of a resurrection of many, some to rewards and others to (a place to avoid);
Da:12:1:
And at that time shall Michael stand up,
the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:
and there shall be a time of trouble,
such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time:
and at that time thy people shall be delivered,
every one that shall be found written in the book.

(the beginning of great tribulation, the sound of the 7th trump, the time that those still alive are gathered, etc. Satan's tribulation is ended, this is the cleansing of the Earth of all the wicked. You don't bring somebody out of hell just to send them back, you awake everybody that is asleep and then some go to hell, others to glorified bodies for the thousand years.)

Da:12:2:
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life,
and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
( Even this says many, not all will awake, some will remain asleep for the thousand years, like the unborn child and many others. This awakening is for those who will be alive for the thousand years and for those who will be in hell for the thousand years, everlasting in that there are no breaks)

Da:12:3:
And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament;
and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
(This one is interesting in that the righteous already are judged to be alive have already been turned. Who but those in hell can be turned. I wouldn't say anybody other than Christ is wise, but it does say 'they' so I doubt He is alone, you have already judged where those who end up in hell belong, in the one eternal lake of fire.)

2. The Bible says we live this earthly life once and then are judged. Not live, die, might change our minds, and then judged.
Fair enough, but we also have to consider the Gospel is preached to the dead in order that they (the dead) will be judged the same as the living (having heard the Gospel) That this verse is after Judgement Day is worth noting for those children born into the new earth and there is an age for men that will be their age at judgement;

Re:21:7:
He that overcometh shall inherit all things;
and I will be his God,
and he shall be my son.
Re:21:8:
But the fearful,
and unbelieving,
and the abominable,
and murderers,
and whoremongers,
and sorcerers,
and idolaters,
and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.

3. The Bible says those who enter the Lake are there for eternity. It says those who are saved are predestined to glorification and being with Christ.
Which would be not possible with your two lakes, hell is empty on Judgement Day, so is death and the seas hold no dead.

4. The Angels who rebelled could then also change their minds and repent. But they have no way back to Heaven.
No they don't. Look at the difference, they were without sin and had the knowledge of good and evil. There is no repenting of any sin from this state of being.

For there to a be an ongoing chance of changning ones mind would mean there could also be a future rebellion in Heaven, which the Bible shows is not going to happen.
No chance for another fall;
Isa:65:23:
They shall not labour in vain,
nor bring forth for trouble;
for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD,
and their offspring with them.
Isa:65:24:
And it shall come to pass,
that before they call,
I will answer;
and while they are yet speaking,
I will hear.

The Rich Man did not repent nor try to change his fate. He spoke of chaning the minds of those still on the earth.
What got him into hell was not careing for those less fortunate than himself. I've never said you get released from hell 'early', just as Jonah stayed in the belly for the full alotted time so will those who are sent to hell, they will be there untill Judgement Day.

No. You are looking in the wrong place. I have no lack of faith in the ability of people to spit themselves for eternity.
That wasn't the topic, the topic was 'Can Christ stop a person who would become a sinner?'

And this is a ill thought out statement. Christ explained to people about God and himself while he lived on this earth. They killed him for it.

You do know that the cross was prophecised, right? Your statement indicates it did not have to happen, totally false.

For the I don't how many times, Hebrews and Isaiah are not Resurrection verses.
Just who do you think Christ is chastising?
Re:20:11:
And I saw a great white throne,
and him that sat on it,
from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away;
and there was found no place for them.
Re:20:12:
And I saw the dead,
small and great,
stand before God;
and the books were opened:
and another book was opened,
which is the book of life:
and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books,
according to their works.

Heb:12:22:
But ye are come unto mount Sion,
and unto the city of the living God,
the heavenly Jerusalem,
and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb:12:23:
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn,
which are written in heaven,
and to God the Judge of all,
and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb:12:24:
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,
and to the blood of sprinkling,
that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Heb:12:25:
See that ye refuse not him that speaketh.
For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth,
much more shall not we escape,
if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

Heb:12:2:
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,
despising the shame,
and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Heb:12:3:
For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself,
lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
Heb:12:4:
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood,
striving against sin.
Heb:12:5:
And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children,
My son,
despise not thou the chastening of the Lord,
nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
Heb:12:6:
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth,
and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb:12:7:
If ye endure chastening,
God dealeth with you as with sons;
for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Heb:12:8:
But if ye be without chastisement,
whereof all are partakers,
then are ye bastards,
and not sons.

The below is after Christ's return, two groups are described;
Isa:65:11:
But ye are they that forsake the LORD,
that forget my holy mountain,
that prepare a table for that troop,
and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.
Isa:65:12:
Therefore will I number you to the sword,
and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter:
because when I called,
ye did not answer;
when I spake,
ye did not hear;
but did evil before mine eyes,
and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
Isa:65:13:
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD,
Behold,
my servants shall eat,
but ye shall be hungry:
behold,
my servants shall drink,
but ye shall be thirsty:
behold,
my servants shall rejoice,
but ye shall be ashamed:
Isa:65:14:
Behold,
my servants shall sing for joy of heart,
but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart,
and shall howl for vexation of spirit.
Isa:65:15:
And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen:
for the Lord GOD shall slay thee,
and call his servants by another name:
Isa:65:16:
That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth;
and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth;
because the former troubles are forgotten,
and because they are hid from mine eyes.

What, in the above, is not about resurrection, being given to the sword and then having the 'former troubles' forgotten. These would still have a certain amount of time to show they have overcome their ways that brought the sword on them in the first place.

And I have posted the verses numberous times stating those in the First Resurrection are blessed and at the White Throne the damned are resurrected, judged and cast into the Lake.

The blessed and 'the rest' are both in the 'first resurrection', just at different times. Two groups, what do you have, about 4 so far?

Right. Now a bit of Logic here.

If the Resurrection of the Blessed is the FIRST Resurrection, what does that make the next one?
That would make their resurrection the first one.

Later

CoreIssue

08-28-2006, 10:40 AM

Hi MHz;

We really need to limit this topic to the Pit. Plenty of room for other threads.

In the discussion of the pit, we still have to find the supporting verses for who is in hell and their fate. We also have to determine how hell and the lake of fire are different.

Because:
1. The eternal lost went to Hell, in the OT times, and the saints went to Paradise, a waiting place. No third option existed.
A verse from Daniel speaks of a resurrection of many, some to rewards and others to (a place to avoid);
Da:12:1:
And at that time shall Michael stand up,
the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people:
and there shall be a time of trouble,
such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time:
and at that time thy people shall be delivered,
every one that shall be found written in the book.

(the beginning of great tribulation, the sound of the 7th trump, the time that those still alive are gathered, etc. Satan's tribulation is ended, this is the cleansing of the Earth of all the wicked. You don't bring somebody out of hell just to send them back, you awake everybody that is asleep and then some go to hell, others to glorified bodies for the thousand years.)

No. Totally disagree with your timing. You are putting all the Bowls after the Second Coming, which is not true.

Also, Daniel is not limiting to the Trib. He is speaking of the whole DOTL.

Da:12:2:
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life,
and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
( Even this says many, not all will awake, some will remain asleep for the thousand years, like the unborn child and many others. This awakening is for those who will be alive for the thousand years and for those who will be in hell for the thousand years, everlasting in that there are no breaks)

Your timing is wrong.

This is speaking of the First and Second Resurrection.

The First is from the Pre-Trib Rapture to the end of the Short time. The Second is after the First and after the destruction of the heavens and the earth.

Da:12:3:
And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament;
and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
(This one is interesting in that the righteous already are judged to be alive have already been turned. Who but those in hell can be turned. I wouldn't say anybody other than Christ is wise, but it does say 'they' so I doubt He is alone, you have already judged where those who end up in hell belong, in the one eternal lake of fire.)

No. None in Hell can be turned. This is never even hinted at in the Bible.

It says live once, die and then be judged. Not live, die, get another chance and then be judged.

2. The Bible says we live this earthly life once and then are judged. Not live, die, might change our minds, and then judged.
Fair enough, but we also have to consider the Gospel is preached to the dead in order that they (the dead) will be judged the same as the living (having heard the Gospel) That this verse is after Judgement Day is worth noting for those children born into the new earth and there is an age for men that will be their age at judgement;

It never ever says that all must hear the Gospel to be judged.

Enoch never heard the Gospel. But was judged righteous and taken in the flesh to Heaven. As was Elijah.

We see many called righteous and of God in the OT without hearing the Gospel.

Paul says those who have neither the Law or Gospel are judged by conscience.

It is one thing to offer Christ to those who were in Paradise, already saints, and have them accept.

It is quite another to think those in Hell, hearing the Gospel, might repent.

You are trying to make your doctrine work, but are simply ending up with contradictions.

No one changes their minds after death. Period.

There is no hope for fallen angels or demons. No means of salvation. No hope for people who die unsaved. They never come out of Hell or the Lake.

None who are saved ever change. Romans 8 says ALL who loved God are predestined to eternal glorification and being with him. Not some.

You are applying verses, about hearing the Gospel, that are stated concerning those who have the Gospel available, in the flesh, to those who did not. False concept.

Re:21:7:
He that overcometh shall inherit all things;
and I will be his God,
and he shall be my son.
Re:21:8:
But the fearful,
and unbelieving,
and the abominable,
and murderers,
and whoremongers,
and sorcerers,
and idolaters,
and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.

Correct. The saved will be with God. The unsaved will not.

All who repent are saints instantly. No earning it. No works involved.

3. The Bible says those who enter the Lake are there for eternity. It says those who are saved are predestined to glorification and being with Christ.
Which would be not possible with your two lakes, hell is empty on Judgement Day, so is death and the seas hold no dead.

Again, you spin what I said.

The current Lake is part of Hell. It is not the Eternal Lake from which none judged will emerge.

None have been judged yet.

4. The Angels who rebelled could then also change their minds and repent. But they have no way back to Heaven.
No they don't. Look at the difference, they were without sin and had the knowledge of good and evil. There is no repenting of any sin from this state of being.

Which is my point. Once one reaches that final decision there is no changing of mind or heart.

The Fallen Angels have no way out. Those in Hell have no way out.

For there to a be an ongoing chance of changning ones mind would mean there could also be a future rebellion in Heaven, which the Bible shows is not going to happen.
No chance for another fall;

And if no chance of another fall, then no chance of a future repentence. Same issue, opposite position.

Isa:65:23:
They shall not labour in vain,
nor bring forth for trouble;
for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD,
and their offspring with them.
Isa:65:24:
And it shall come to pass,
that before they call,
I will answer;
and while they are yet speaking,
I will hear.

NOT eternity. This is the MK where living flesh is still living their lives and making their eternal decisions.

The Rich Man did not repent nor try to change his fate. He spoke of chaning the minds of those still on the earth.
What got him into hell was not careing for those less fortunate than himself. I've never said you get released from hell 'early', just as Jonah stayed in the belly for the full alotted time so will those who are sent to hell, they will be there untill Judgement Day.

Totally nonbiblical statement. Not even hinted at any future possible release.

No. You are looking in the wrong place. I have no lack of faith in the ability of people to spit themselves for eternity.
That wasn't the topic, the topic was 'Can Christ stop a person who would become a sinner?'

It is the issue.

Christ will not and cannot force someone to repent. To do so violates freewill, regarding the choice, and he will never do that.

You accused me of 'underpowering' Christ. Which is not the issue. Choice is.

And this is a ill thought out statement. Christ explained to people about God and himself while he lived on this earth. They killed him for it.

You do know that the cross was prophecised, right? Your statement indicates it did not have to happen, totally false.

Yes. It was prophecied.

Where you go wrong is in the idea Christ caused it to happen. He allowed it to happen.

Big difference.

There would have been zero substitutionary value in it if he had not permitted others to kill him unjustly, but made them kill him.

He would have been his own executioner then.

For the I don't how many times, Hebrews and Isaiah are not Resurrection verses.
Just who do you think Christ is chastising?

He isn't chastising anyone at the White Throne. He is judging and condemning them.

Chastise is to correct. That time is well past.

Re:20:11:
And I saw a great white throne,
and him that sat on it,
from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away;
and there was found no place for them.
Re:20:12:
And I saw the dead,
small and great,
stand before God;
and the books were opened:
and another book was opened,
which is the book of life:
and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books,
according to their works.

Second Resurrection. The damned. After the destruction of the Heavens and the Earth.

Heb:12:22:
But ye are come unto mount Sion,
and unto the city of the living God,
the heavenly Jerusalem,
and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb:12:23:
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn,
which are written in heaven,
and to God the Judge of all,
and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb:12:24:
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,
and to the blood of sprinkling,
that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Heb:12:25:
See that ye refuse not him that speaketh.
For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth,
much more shall not we escape,
if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

Heb:12:2:
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,
despising the shame,
and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Heb:12:3:
For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself,
lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
Heb:12:4:
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood,
striving against sin.
Heb:12:5:
And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children,
My son,
despise not thou the chastening of the Lord,
nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
Heb:12:6:
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth,
and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb:12:7:
If ye endure chastening,
God dealeth with you as with sons;
for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Heb:12:8:
But if ye be without chastisement,
whereof all are partakers,
then are ye bastards,
and not sons.

Read it carefully.

He is speaking to the still living. Jerusalem is still in Heaven.

This has nothing to do with the First Resurrection.

The below is after Christ's return, two groups are described;
Isa:65:11:
But ye are they that forsake the LORD,
that forget my holy mountain,
that prepare a table for that troop,
and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.
Isa:65:12:
Therefore will I number you to the sword,
and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter:
because when I called,
ye did not answer;
when I spake,
ye did not hear;
but did evil before mine eyes,
and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
Isa:65:13:
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD,
Behold,
my servants shall eat,
but ye shall be hungry:
behold,
my servants shall drink,
but ye shall be thirsty:
behold,
my servants shall rejoice,
but ye shall be ashamed:
Isa:65:14:
Behold,
my servants shall sing for joy of heart,
but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart,
and shall howl for vexation of spirit.
Isa:65:15:
And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen:
for the Lord GOD shall slay thee,
and call his servants by another name:
Isa:65:16:
That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth;
and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth;
because the former troubles are forgotten,
and because they are hid from mine eyes.

What, in the above, is not about resurrection, being given to the sword and then having the 'former troubles' forgotten. These would still have a certain amount of time to show they have overcome their ways that brought the sword on them in the first place.

All of it. It is about living Israel gathered at the Second Coming.

And I have posted the verses numberous times stating those in the First Resurrection are blessed and at the White Throne the damned are resurrected, judged and cast into the Lake.

The blessed and 'the rest' are both in the 'first resurrection', just at different times. Two groups, what do you have, about 4 so far?

False. There is one resurrection of the blessed and one of the damned.

Right. Now a bit of Logic here.

If the Resurrection of the Blessed is the FIRST Resurrection, what does that make the next one?
That would make their resurrection the first one.

Oh, come on. If something is the first, that means there is a second. Otherwise it is just THE resurrection.

Later

MHz

08-30-2006, 01:07 AM

Hi Core,

No. Totally disagree with your timing. You are putting all the Bowls

after the Second Coming, which is not true.
Totally allowed to disagree. However being as this is the beginning of

anopther chapter an no new subject is introduced I feel it is not wrong

to look back at what the last chapter was talking about;
Da:11:45:
And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in

the glorious holy mountain;
yet he shall come to his end,
and none shall help him.

The vials are his end, and the end of life to all who support him. The

first life, the one of flesh.

Just because you disagree does not make you the final authority on the

subject.

Also, Daniel is not limiting to the Trib. He is speaking of the whole

DOTL.

Daniel covers time from when Daniel was given his visions. TDOFT has

not yet arrived and having Satan cast to arth is not the start of it

for us on Eartrh, TDOTL starts when Satan has reached the end of his 42

months.

Your timing is wrong.
It isn't my timing, it is the timing Scripture gives

This is speaking of the First and Second Resurrection.
No it is speaking of some who come to life and some are sent to hell,

that is when the one who has the keys to death and hell uses the keys.

The First is from the Pre-Trib Rapture to the

end of the Short time. The Second is after the First and after the

destruction of the heavens and the earth.

Your words, Scripture never says there is more than one, it does say it

is a thousand years after the blessed are resurrected that 'the rest'

are then resurrected.

No. None in Hell can be turned. This is never even hinted at in the

Bible.
If a Gentile dies in sin (before repentance) that shouldn't be a

different fate than when God turns his back to a wayward Israel, both

would seem to deserve hell (for eternity in your view). It is certainly

in God's right to withold 'protection from suffering death' if some are

not living within His guidelines. When wayward Israel is given to the

sword that should be the end of their story, but it isn't, God's anger

passes and only when it is past are their sins forgiven;
Eze:39:23:
And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity

for their iniquity:
because they trespassed against me,
therefore hid I my face from them,
and gave them into the hand of their enemies:
so fell they all by the sword.
Eze:39:24:
According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions

have I done unto them,
and hid my face from them.
Eze:39:25:
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD;
Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob,
and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel,
and will be jealous for my holy name;
Eze:39:26:
After that they have borne their shame,
and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me,
when they dwelt safely in their land,
and none made them afraid.

It says live once, die and then be judged. Not live, die, get another

chance and then be judged.

Scripture also says there is none that are righteous, that would seem

to put everybody in hell. You will say your sins are covered by grace

but you then refuse to deal with God's mercy and how far that can be

extended. There is no reason for this offer to be given after Judgement

Day if there are not people around who became alive then and were not

cast into the Lake of fire;
Re:21:6:
And he said unto me,
It is done.
I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end.
I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of

life freely.
Re:21:7:
He that overcometh shall inherit all things;
and I will be his God,
and he shall be my son.

It never ever says that all must hear the Gospel to be judged.
Joh:6:45:
It is written in the prophets,
And they shall be all taught of God.
Every man therefore that hath heard,
and hath learned of the Father,
cometh unto me.

(Key word in the below is 'seeth the Son')
Joh:6:40:
And this is the will of him that sent me,
that every one which seeth the Son,
and believeth on him,
may have everlasting life:
and I will raise him up at the last day.

Enoch never heard the Gospel. But was judged righteous and taken in the

flesh to Heaven. As was Elijah.
Now do you really think 300 years with God he didn't hear the Gospel?

As in this Gospel;
M't:4:23:
And Jesus went about all Galilee,
teaching in their synagogues,
and preaching the gospel of the kingdom,
and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the

people.

Job wasn't Jewish but he certainly knew he would come back to life at

some time.

Paul says those who have neither the Law or Gospel are judged by

conscience.
Verses please.

It is one thing to offer Christ to those who were in Paradise, already

saints, and have them accept.
How can you offer something to somebody who already has what is

offered? A believer already has Christ.
You haven't yet shown that while in Abraham's bosom a dead person is

even aware of where he is.

It is quite another to think those in Hell, hearing the Gospel, might

repent.
If this is the first time of them hearing the Gospel then they can't be

condemned (to the second death)untill they reject Christ which can only

occur after hearing the Gospel.
I'm not sure you are really concerned with if God will have mercy on

them, pre-tribbers and Jews certainly fit the description of those

hired to work in the field for a penny. It is only the first of about

four groups that are hired that complain that the last recieve the

exact same reward as those who have been in the field (I assume both I

mentioned consider this 'job' or 'calling', the rest seem to be quite

content that the last ones recieve what they do. You don't just talk

you point from a SAcripture POV, you use every oportunity to say this

over and over and over. You're saved, what is it to you if others, not

as nobel as yourself are saved?

There is no hope for fallen angels or demons. No means of salvation. No

hope for people who die unsaved. They never come out of Hell or the

Lake.
You forgot those who call Christ Lord and do not follow His

instructions.

You are applying verses, about hearing the Gospel, that are stated

concerning those who have the Gospel available, in the flesh, to those

who did not. False concept.

Re:21:7:
He that overcometh shall inherit all things;
and I will be his God,
and he shall be my son.
Re:21:8:
But the fearful,
and unbelieving,
and the abominable,
and murderers,
and whoremongers,
and sorcerers,
and idolaters,
and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and

brimstone:
which is the second death.

Correct. The saved will be with God. The unsaved will not.
If God himself is saying this to some after Judgement Day does it make

more sense that it is to those just raised from the dead or hell than

said to those who have been with Christ for over a thousand years,

presented spotless to God I might add.

All who repent are saints instantly. No earning it. No works involved.

Is repenting an act? are believers, those that fear His name and saints

totally equal, if so, why are they sometimes mentioned seperately in

the very same verse?

3. The Bible says those who enter the Lake are there for eternity. It

says those who are saved are predestined to glorification and being

with Christ.

Again, you spin what I said.
You said hell was the lake, if you enter the lake when Christ returns

then you will never see Judgement Day, do you see the beast, the false

prophet or satan there. They are never mentioned again after being sent

to the lake, period.

The current Lake is part of Hell. It is not the Eternal Lake from which

none judged will emerge.

None have been judged yet.

I would agree that no man has been judged yet, for time in hell. The

fallen angels have been judged and nothing said will change that

judgement

Which is my point. Once one reaches that final decision there is no

changing of mind or heart.
You are making equal man, born into sin, as being equal to angels, who

have seen God's face many times to man who has never seen His face. You

place punishment for sin the same for both. Eternal damnation for some

men who have not repented before death, due to whatever circumstances,

to the same who have been in Heaven and before the throne of God (on

many occassions most likely). God does not reject those who have not

yet known Him (full understanding that can only come with being

face-to-face with Him).

The Fallen Angels have no way out. Those in Hell have no way out.

I agree about the fallen angels, they ad a personal relationship with

God. Those in hell are simply lost, decieved by Satan as who is

actually God, when they see him in hell they mock him.

NOT eternity. This is the MK where living flesh is still living their

lives and making their eternal decisions.
No Core it is the new earth which only comes after Judgement Day;
Isa:65:17:
For,
behold,
I create new heavens and a new earth:
and the former shall not be remembered,
nor come into mind.

That you cannot relate the above to this verse is really quite

distrubing;
Re:21:1:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth:
for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;
and there was no more sea.
Re:21:3:
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying,
Behold,
the tabernacle of God is with men,
and he will dwell with them,
and they shall be his people,
and God himself shall be with them,
and be their God.
Re:21:4:
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;
and there shall be no more death,
neither sorrow,
nor crying,
neither shall there be any more pain:
for the former things are passed away.
Re:21:5:
And he that sat upon the throne said,
Behold,
I make all things new.
And he said unto me,
Write:
for these words are true and faithful.
Re:21:6:
And he said unto me,
It is done.
I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end.
I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of

life freely.

Satan still has an appearance at the end of the thousand years, he is

not allowed in the new earth, HELLO.

It is the issue.
Christ will not and cannot force someone to repent. To do so violates

freewill, regarding the choice, and he will never do that.
When Jesus forgave the sins of the adultress and the one that washed

His feet do you really think Joanna or Susanna went back to their old

ways?

Where you go wrong is in the idea Christ caused it to happen. He

allowed it to happen.
Where you go wrong is that is was His fathers will that it should

happen, it was not looked foreward to by Jesus, hense the intense

prayer;
M't:26:39:
And he went a little further,
and fell on his face,
and prayed,
saying,
O my Father,
if it be possible,
let this cup pass from me:
nevertheless not as I will,
but as thou wilt.

M't:26:42:
He went away again the second time,
and prayed,
saying,
O my Father,
if this cup may not pass away from me,
except I drink it,
thy will be done.

Isa:53:10:
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him;
he hath put him to grief:
when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
he shall see his seed,
he shall prolong his days,
and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Big difference.
Bigger than you can possibly imagine.

He isn't chastising anyone at the White Throne. He is judging and

condemning them.
Le:26:28:
Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury;
and I,
even I,
will chastise you seven times for your sins.

Job:34:31:
Surely it is meet to be said unto God,
I have borne chastisement,
I will not offend any more:

Psalms:94:10:
He that chastiseth the heathen,
shall not he correct?
he that teacheth man knowledge,
shall not he know?

Jer:31:18:
I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus;
Thou hast chastised me,
and I was chastised,
as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke:
turn thou me,
and I shall be turned;
for thou art the LORD my God.

Read it carefully.

He is speaking to the still living. Jerusalem is still in Heaven.
Flesh and blood cannot enter Heaven

This has nothing to do with the First Resurrection.

This is what 'the rest' go through.

All of it. It is about living Israel gathered at the Second Coming.

Given to the sword and still alive, you have reached a new milestone Core.

Oh, come on. If something is the first, that means there is a second.

Otherwise it is just THE resurrection.

You yourself have said there is one death and one resurrection, don't blame the wording in Scripture for your no understanding, the blessed are raised together and later those who weren't in the first group, one resurrection for each man, as well as one gathering for each man.

Later

CoreIssue

08-30-2006, 06:27 PM

Hi MHz,

I reset the time out to 2 hours. Sometimes 1 hour just isn't enough.

With that said, much of what you said has been discussed between us many time. My answers still apply for those and not really much point in us continuing to go in circles over them.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions and I am not the ultimate authority. Neither are you.

But, with that said, there are some things that can be said with 100% accuracy. And those things prove you are wrong in your doctrines.

1. The Bible was written in the language of the times, using proper word definitions and rules of grammar. Otherwise no one could read anything literally. The Bible most assuredly says we can and should read as stated.

2. You violate word definitions all the time.

First example is there are two princes/rulers spoken of from the end of the 69th week and into the 70th. Word definition demands the first is Jewish and the second is Gentile.

You declare both Christ.

Second example is the word 'after.' Unless a conditional is given it means the immediate next thing in sequence to occur.

After the 69th Week the Messiah dies. It states that.

There are no conditionals to allow any intervening event. Yet, you interpose 3.5 years, including half of another week of listed issues.

That is not after by word demand.

That is but 2 examples within two back to back verses that change the whole meaning of what is said. And to do it you attempt to drag in other verses, put your doctrinal position on them, and declare them the definitions of prince and after.

You cannot do that grammatically, semantically or logically.

Thus, when you do that, anyone who understands grammar and such immediately know you are wrong.

3. You violate rules of grammar.

An example is Revelation. You pull it apart and then, based on your thinking, reassemble it into some order that cannot be justified grammatically.

Even worse when reading in given grammatical order is clear, precise and logical.

Again, you try to justify it by bringing in other verses, putting you doctrine on them, and attempt to say that properly changes the order.

Does not work that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14293#post14293)
Paul says those who have neither the Law or Gospel are judged by

conscience.

Verses please.
Romans 2 states those who do not have Law or NT Gospel are not judged by them. They do not have to wait and hear them to be righteous or justified.

Which is clearly demonstrated in all the saints before Law and before Christ.

Romans 5 tells us as knowledge of sin is added responsibility for sin increases which increases reward.

So sin condemnation is based on available knowledge at the time. Not Law or Gospel only, which, if available do apply.

Romans 8 tells us it is the love of God that matters. And those who love God are predestined to be conformed to Christ.

That makes it clear all those who loved God with Law and without Gospel, but by Law of Conscience, the Holy Spirit and angels, are very bit as saved as those with Gospel.

Covenant, reward, responsibility and such vary greatly saint to saint. But salvation is the exact same in all.

So, your thinking of needing to be resurrected, have the Gospel preached and then make a decision is invalid by the chapters posted above. Not to mention only living once in the flesh and then being judged.

No conversions in Hell. No rebellions in Heaven.

Saint and innocents go to Heaven and later the New Earth. The lost go into the lake in Hell and later into the Lake of eternity, which is not Hell or the lake it contained.
You said hell was the lake,
I have never said that.

The fallen angels have been judged and nothing said will change that judgement

Wrong. They have not been judged. It says the Church WILL, future, judge angels.
You are making equal man, born into sin, as being equal to angels, who

have seen God's face many times to man who has never seen His face. You

place punishment for sin the same for both. Eternal damnation for some

men who have not repented before death, due to whatever circumstances,

to the same who have been in Heaven and before the throne of God (on

many occassions most likely). God does not reject those who have not

yet known Him (full understanding that can only come with being

face-to-face with Him).

Your reasoning demands are shaping our doctrine.

The Bible does not agree with your reasoning.
No Core it is the new earth which only comes after Judgement Day;
Isa:65:17:

There is farming, birth, death sin and so on declared in Isaiah 65 on that earth.

It is the remade 'new' earth of the MK. Not the eternal earth after the White Throne.

And in many things you say it is obvious you add works to salvation and believe the saved can be lost again, in contradiction to Romans 8.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14293#post14293)

Oh, come on. If something is the first, that means there is a second.

Otherwise it is just THE resurrection.

You yourself have said there is one death and one resurrection, don't blame the wording in Scripture for your no understanding, the blessed are raised together and later those who weren't in the first group, one resurrection for each man, as well as one gathering for each man.

No. I never said that.

There is one death then judgement. But two resurrections.

Again, you don't want to abide by semantics and grammar. For something to be first there has to be at least a second.

Later

MHz

08-30-2006, 09:16 PM

I reset the time out to 2 hours. Sometimes 1 hour just isn't enough.
I copy the post to notepad and do the 'amswers' there, two hours is nothing compared to the time needed for some responces. I even have word perfect which would benifit in the spelling errors, but spelling is a minor issue, the context of the reply is the important part. It sometimes takes me several day to do a post. Some topics I should be able to answer 'off the top of my head' but I refuse to do so anymore without going to the revelant verses and re-reading them (and maybe a few more on each side just for the insurance I don't end up be 'uniformed'. All this takes time but the issues are important so it is time well spent.
Anyway that is my way around 'losing a post'.
Later my friend (even if I do not appear as one most of the time)

CoreIssue

08-30-2006, 09:54 PM

MHz

08-31-2006, 12:12 AM

Hi Core,

With that said, much of what you said has been discussed between us

many time. My answers still apply for those and not really much point

in us continuing to go in circles over them.
True, if something new isn't introduced we are 'spinning our wheels'.

Another part of the 'big picture' can (or at lest should )be explored

after three explorations of one small piece.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions and I am not the ultimate

authority. Neither are you.
I'm pleased to hear that, and you are right, I'm not even an authority,

let alone ultimate, that is why most of my words are a responce to

something said by somebody, a question of clarity, if 69 verses 'agree

about a topic' why doesn't the 70th also agree. Do I plan to have my

version 'corrected' by the one who does have that authority, certainly.

Will I be shy, hopefully not so much that I won't be able to speak

after hearing all that will be said.

But, with that said, there are some things that can be said with 100%

accuracy. And those things prove you are wrong in your

doctrines.
A small question, if the word of God was meant to be understood in more

than the simple terms (as a book about salvation it is unquestioned)

then why is there even more than one version of times yet to be,

shouldn't it be a singular agreement?

1. The Bible was written in the language of the times, using proper

word definitions and rules of grammar. Otherwise no one could read

anything literally. The Bible most assuredly says we can and should

read as stated.
Time over how many thousands of years. You say thye KJV is outdated

because it is hundreds of years old. We probably differ on how the

Scripture came to be, I think that God and the Holy Spirit was with

each author when the 'books' were written, every single one of them.

Guidance being that certain words and phrases were there because they

were meant to 'harmonise' with what would be written later by a totally

different writer, hundreds if not thousands of years later. Before I

get to your first example the word 'rest'is used for those under the

altar. I used a quote from Christ to try and show that 'rest' and

'sleep'can mean the same thing. Thousand of years earlier Jod said

this;
Job:3:17:
There the wicked cease from troubling;
and there the weary be at rest.
Job:3:18:
There the prisoners rest together;
they hear not the voice of the oppressor.
Job:3:19:
The small and great are there;
and the servant is free from his master.
Job:3:20:
Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery,
and life unto the bitter in soul;
Job:3:21:
Which long for death,
but it cometh not;
and dig for it more than for hid treasures;
Job:3:22:
Which rejoice exceedingly,
and are glad,
when they can find the grave?
Job:3:23:
Why is light given to a man whose way is hid,
and whom God hath hedged in?
Job:3:24:
For my sighing cometh before I eat,
and my roarings are poured out like the waters.
Job:3:25:
For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me,
and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.
Job:3:26:
I was not in safety,
neither had I rest,
neither was I quiet;
yet trouble came.

Job:17:13:
If I wait,
the grave is mine house:
I have made my bed in the darkness.
Job:17:14:
I have said to corruption,
Thou art my father:
to the worm,
Thou are my mother,
and my sister.
Job:17:15:
And where is now my hope?
as for my hope,
who shall see it?
Job:17:16:
They shall go down to the bars of the pit,
when our rest together is in the dust.

This would then lead to reading verses about 'hope' and what Scripture

says is 'hoped for'.

2. You violate word definitions all the time.
I use other other Scripture to see how 'a word' was used, I don't see

that as a violation, quite the opposite it confirms a defination that

is consistant throughout Scripture.

First example is there are two princes/rulers spoken of from the end of

the 69th week and into the 70th. Word definition demands the first is

Jewish and the second is Gentile.

You declare both Christ.
While when Jesus was alive He was in Israel exclusively, His disciples

did carry His message to the Gentiles. Daniel was written long before

Peter had his vision from God in Acts. Given the details of that vision

would you call Romans (from that moment on) 'unclean' or not belonging

to Christ? If you can't then why would tha not make them the people of

the prince to come?

Second example is the word 'after.' Unless a conditional is given it

means the immediate next thing in sequence to occur.
I don't deny that the middle of the 70th week is after the end of the

69th week.

After the 69th Week the Messiah dies. It states that.
Does it state that it is 'after' or 'at the end of'?

There are no conditionals to allow any intervening event. Yet, you

interpose 3.5 years, including half of another week of listed

issues.
You did notice that I haver given up on trying to introduce any breaks

in the 70 weeks, that does not mean the end of sacrifice is not

Christ's death. It means 3 1/2 years after the cross "and for the

overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate" the message

was no longer given to those in the temple, after all they had just

recently murdered Stephen for his message. As a side note (and to get

you to re-read that message) what in that message would make them so

angry as to murder him?

That is not after by word demand.
By word demand after cannot be during. After Monday is Tuesday, they

cannot occupy the same time. If I do something after Monday it has to

at least be Tuesday, even if I do it on Wedsday or Thursday it is still

after Monday.

That is but 2 examples within two back to back verses that change the

whole meaning of what is said. And to do it you attempt to drag in

other verses, put your doctrinal position on them, and declare them the

definitions of prince and after.
Well Core, rarely, if ever, is a subject mentioned in just one verse,

if several passages mention the same subject they shoul all be

considered. Even in the first four books of the NT if you don't read

all accounts of the same event something might be overlooked. An

example, the first three 'jump' from when Jesus comes back from the

wilderness to when John is imprisoned, Only the book of John covers

events between when He came back from the wilderness and when John was

imprisioned, John doesn't cover that event BTW. The first three do not

cover the first time Jesus overturned the moneychangers tables.

You cannot do that grammatically, semantically or logically.
Established by whom?

Thus, when you do that, anyone who understands grammar and such

immediately know you are wrong.
I would it rather be that way than to ignore Jesus saying rest and

sleep are the same.

3. You violate rules of grammar.
Which book explains all of this, I assume that is why we have a brain,

to accept the word of God on and by its own words.

An example is Revelation. You pull it apart and then, based on your

thinking, reassemble it into some order that cannot be justified

grammatically.
Do you mean the chapter that details who from Israel as being saved and

then going to the last that will be saved or do you mean Ch:12 as being

the three times Satan has been the most involved with mankind? It is

only your version of things where something has to be torn down, these

things were quite clear after a bit of honest thought.

Even worse when reading in given grammatical order is clear, precise

and logical.
Let alone it conflicts with your version.

Again, you try to justify it by bringing in other verses, putting you

doctrine on them, and attempt to say that properly changes the order.

Does not work that way.
Would you try and form an opinion about grace before reading all the

revelant verses, even if one or two sum it up quite nicely?

I'll cover the rest in another post as it will take some time to

re-read those chapters since you forgot to give the key verses.
Later

MHz

08-31-2006, 12:14 AM

Don't think I link doctrinal agreement to friendship or anything else. I don't.

Whatever that means

CoreIssue

08-31-2006, 09:47 AM

Don't think I link doctrinal agreement to friendship or anything else. I don't.

Whatever that means
It means that even though we disagree strongly we can still be friends! :D

CoreIssue

08-31-2006, 10:55 AM

Hi MHz,

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions and I am not the ultimate

authority. Neither are you.
I'm pleased to hear that, and you are right, I'm not even an authority,

let alone ultimate, that is why most of my words are a responce to

something said by somebody, a question of clarity, if 69 verses 'agree

about a topic' why doesn't the 70th also agree. Do I plan to have my

version 'corrected' by the one who does have that authority, certainly.

Will I be shy, hopefully not so much that I won't be able to speak

after hearing all that will be said.

Ah, but if one does not read the 69 verses correctly by grammar and word meaning, then maybe those verses do not all agree. Maybe none of them mean what the reader thinks if the begin with an incorrect key word understanding of meaning.

But, with that said, there are some things that can be said with 100%

accuracy. And those things prove you are wrong in your

doctrines.
A small question, if the word of God was meant to be understood in more

than the simple terms (as a book about salvation it is unquestioned)

then why is there even more than one version of times yet to be,

shouldn't it be a singular agreement?

I don't see more than one version of times to be. Not at all.

I see such as the 70th Week as a quick outline upon which Daniel expands in other chapters. And I recognize Daniel is writing ONLY to Jewish future, not Gentiles.

I see Revelation also giving a time outline that is more inclusive of Gentiles, but still chiefly written to Jews, because this is a book about the return of Israel as covenant nation, with the Church gone.

Other OT books fill in details of events within the Trib and MK. But none give more than one version of events.

One must remember the Bible is written to two groups, Gentiles and Jews. Each have always been treated differently.

The BIG mistake many make is trying to apply the Church Age NT statements to believers as applying from Adam to the end of time. A huge mistake.

Under Mosaic, 70th Week and MK, Israel is covenant. It is a time of legalism and Temple. No born-again and indwelling Holy Spirit. The Temple is physical.

Under Church, the Church, a Gentile based system, is covenant. It is a time of grace, meaning with being re-born while still in the flesh, law is dead. The Temple is spiritual, within each believer by virtue of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

God cannot reside in and unclean Temple. So, with Israel, the Temple is made pure. With Church, the believers spirit is made pure while still in the flesh.

There is no conflict, multiple versions of the future or any such thing. It is right down the line. But from Abraham on, two lines, Israel and Gentile, as sublines of one big main line.

69th Week ends with death of Christ and Israel is no longer Covenant Nation. It is dead. Valley of many bones.

Church Age. Gentiles are covenant nation and Jews who repent are alive, but Church, not Israel.

70th Week restarts Israel as Covenant nation. Church is gone. First Resurrection begins.

Second Coming, Israel turns to Christ as a nation, so they nation is 'resurrected' to life.

MK, Israel is the ruling nation with Christ on the Throne. Temple worship again. God rebuilds the earth and humans. Humans live for centuries again, no death in birth, farming prospers, but there is still sin.

Short Time, Satan is released and Man rebells openly again. Again attacks Jerusalem. Again a Thief in the Night event.

Destruction of the Heavens and the earth. First Resurrection ends.

White Throne Judgement. Second Resurrection occurs.

New Earth and Heavens created. NJ descends. Eternity.

A very clear time line IF one read grammatically and semantically defining their words correctly.

1. The Bible was written in the language of the times, using proper

word definitions and rules of grammar. Otherwise no one could read

anything literally. The Bible most assuredly says we can and should

read as stated.
Time over how many thousands of years.

Does not change the reality. Makes us dependent on competent linquists, which God provides.

You say thye KJV is outdated

because it is hundreds of years old.

Linquistically, for us, it is. Language evolves. It uses words and phrases that have different meanings now.

We probably differ on how the

Scripture came to be, I think that God and the Holy Spirit was with

each author when the 'books' were written, every single one of them.

Guidance being that certain words and phrases were there because they

were meant to 'harmonise' with what would be written later by a totally

different writer, hundreds if not thousands of years later.

No. I believe that exactly.

Before I

get to your first example the word 'rest'is used for those under the

altar. I used a quote from Christ to try and show that 'rest' and

'sleep'can mean the same thing.

And there is your problem.

You take the context of awake beings from one place and dead bodies from another and equate them.

Different contexts, different applications, but you insist one using one portion of what the word can mean and force it onto both.

That is grammatical and semantical error.

Gather is used for resurrection, rapture, gathering of living flesh, harvesting of crops and so on.

But many, doing what you have done, demand every statement of gathering saints is resurrection or Rapture. A totally flawed logic.

Thousand of years earlier Jod said

this;

So what?

It is a different contextual application for a different purpose.

No where does it say anything faintly upholding Soul Sleep.

Your error is you try to force your view of Job onto Revelation, in example, instead of asking how can both be true while keeping it literal.

Answer is simple. Bodies sleep and spirits do not.

This would then lead to reading verses about 'hope' and what Scripture

says is 'hoped for'.

Right. Hope for the resurrection purifying of our bodies to be like Christ and then in union with him. But no where does it say our spirits sleep.

2. You violate word definitions all the time.
I use other other Scripture to see how 'a word' was used, I don't see

that as a violation, quite the opposite it confirms a defination that

is consistant throughout Scripture.

That is your problem. You look for the word and then try to force the contexts into singular meaning. The is wrong.

You find the where used, see the contexts and determine if the word is used in the same context. If so you do not force them together, you see how you can add both contexts together for a greater one.

If the contexts are different, you move on. Same word can be used in totally unrelated contexts.

Like gather. It is used to denote:
Resurrection
Rapture
Gathering of Living Israel
Gathering for worship
Gathering of crops.

First two are related. So we can gain a bigger picture by seeing how resurrection and Rapture work together. Rapture does not mean resurrection. One means to raise and the other to snatch away.

The rest are the same word but have no relationship to each other.

As with New Earth. You demand they mean the same event. They do not. New means to remake, rebuild, renew, totally new and such.

The New Earth of the MK is a remade earth. The eternal one is a totally new one. Same word but in two totally different contextual usages.

First example is there are two princes/rulers spoken of from the end of

the 69th week and into the 70th. Word definition demands the first is

Jewish and the second is Gentile.

You declare both Christ.
While when Jesus was alive He was in Israel exclusively, His disciples

did carry His message to the Gentiles. Daniel was written long before

Peter had his vision from God in Acts. Given the details of that vision

would you call Romans (from that moment on) 'unclean' or not belonging

to Christ? If you can't then why would tha not make them the people of

the prince to come?

You just did it again! You are trying to redefine Daniel using NT issues as if they are definitions for prince in Daniel.

You cannot do that. You cannot change the meaning of prince. You cannot violate grammar, word meaning and such.

The Bible never hints at doing what you are doing.

First Prince in Daniel is Christ. Second is a Gentile, thus cannot be Christ. Simple as that.

Even moreso, we have a historical Roman Gentile Prince that fulfills what was prophesied. He marched in with his men in 70 AD and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.

Second example is the word 'after.' Unless a conditional is given it

means the immediate next thing in sequence to occur.
I don't deny that the middle of the 70th week is after the end of the

69th week.

Again, you violate grammar.

After does not mean anytime after. It means immediately next unless a conditional is given to allow for later. No such conditional is given.

After the 69th Week the Messiah dies. It states that.
Does it state that it is 'after' or 'at the end of'?

Immediately next. Which Mid 70th Week is not.

What is 'after' in your doctrine is the 70th Week with his death being a Mid event. But the death is not after/next in your doctrine.

There are no conditionals to allow any intervening event. Yet, you

interpose 3.5 years, including half of another week of listed

issues.
You did notice that I haver given up on trying to introduce any breaks

in the 70 weeks, that does not mean the end of sacrifice is not

Christ's death. It means 3 1/2 years after the cross "and for the

overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate" the message

was no longer given to those in the temple, after all they had just

recently murdered Stephen for his message. As a side note (and to get

you to re-read that message) what in that message would make them so

angry as to murder him?

Still got it wrong. There is no '3.5 years after his death...' statement in any form in the passage.

The 70th Week is still totally future. And will be 7 years long.

Stephan and those things are not relevant to Daniel.

The Jews wanted to murder Christ because he called himself God. Said he was the promised Messiah, but he did not come as conquering king, as they wanted the Messiah to be.

That is not after by word demand.
By word demand after cannot be during. After Monday is Tuesday, they

cannot occupy the same time. If I do something after Monday it has to

at least be Tuesday, even if I do it on Wedsday or Thursday it is still

after Monday.

Wrong context.

The 70 Weeks set the conditional the next event after the 69th Week is the 70th.

But between the 69th and 70th Daniel adds two events as occuring to interupt this set calendar. After the 69th Christ will die and then the Prince will destroy Jersulem and the Temple. Then back to given sequence, the 70th Week.

They must occur in the order of
69th Week
Death of Christ
Destruction of Jerusalem
70th Week.

You violate the stated sequence.

That is but 2 examples within two back to back verses that change the

whole meaning of what is said. And to do it you attempt to drag in

other verses, put your doctrinal position on them, and declare them the

definitions of prince and after.
Well Core, rarely, if ever, is a subject mentioned in just one verse,

if several passages mention the same subject they shoul all be

considered. Even in the first four books of the NT if you don't read

all accounts of the same event something might be overlooked. An

example, the first three 'jump' from when Jesus comes back from the

wilderness to when John is imprisoned, Only the book of John covers

events between when He came back from the wilderness and when John was

imprisioned, John doesn't cover that event BTW. The first three do not

cover the first time Jesus overturned the moneychangers tables.

Yes. It is often spoken of in different places.

But you CANNOT violate the grammar and semantics of one place by forcing another into the verses.

You add together the contexts. You do not pile them all together as one big passage and then interpret.

You cannot do that grammatically, semantically or logically.
Established by whom?

The norms of language. Which God used to create the Bible.

Thus, when you do that, anyone who understands grammar and such

immediately know you are wrong.
I would it rather be that way than to ignore Jesus saying rest and

sleep are the same.

He didn't say that.

I can point to grammar and semantics.

What can you point to? Your logic and feelings?

And don't say the verses just say that, because one reads grammatically and semantically, coming right back to my point.

3. You violate rules of grammar.
Which book explains all of this, I assume that is why we have a brain,

to accept the word of God on and by its own words.

Where and how did you learn to read? School.

What did they teach you? Grammar and semantics.

An example is Revelation. You pull it apart and then, based on your

thinking, reassemble it into some order that cannot be justified

grammatically.
Do you mean the chapter that details who from Israel as being saved and

then going to the last that will be saved or do you mean Ch:12 as being

the three times Satan has been the most involved with mankind? It is

only your version of things where something has to be torn down, these

things were quite clear after a bit of honest thought.

No. They are per your thinking. Not per any norms of reading.

Even worse when reading in given grammatical order is clear, precise

and logical.
Let alone it conflicts with your version.

By your invented reading style.

Again, you try to justify it by bringing in other verses, putting you

doctrine on them, and attempt to say that properly changes the order.

Does not work that way.
Would you try and form an opinion about grace before reading all the

revelant verses, even if one or two sum it up quite nicely?

I'll cover the rest in another post as it will take some time to

re-read those chapters since you forgot to give the key verses.

Again, there is a huge difference between comparing contexts and trying to pick a verse here and force its meaning into another.

Later

MHz

08-31-2006, 10:57 PM

Don't think I link doctrinal agreement to friendship or anything else. I don't.

Whatever that means
It means that even though we disagree strongly we can still be friends! :D
Have you ever PM'd any on this board (that you are in agreement on doctrine)about what we have discussed? For myself you have read all I have to say on the subjects.

CoreIssue

08-31-2006, 11:04 PM

Actually, no.

I have never done any verse or doctrine discussion about what we have talked about.

Only thing that has been said, by a couple, is they have no idea where you are coming from.

MHz

09-02-2006, 12:33 PM

Hi Core,

Ah, but if one does not read the 69 verses correctly by grammar and word meaning, then

maybe those verses do not all agree. Maybe none of them mean what the reader thinks if

the begin with an incorrect key word understanding of meaning.

Hebrews 12 has 29 verses that all deal with one single matter, a certain time and

place where people are being chastised, you say this is for only the living, just what

state are people in when they are brought out of death, those in hell are alive

already but they still stand before God (Lord God Almighty) in their time of

judgement.
The book of Zephaniah has 53 verses that deal with one subject that occurs at one

time, yet you say sinners can be (as in remain alive) in the thousand years. I don't

need more than commen sense to know that is the way it will stay for the whole

thousand years.

But, with that said, there are some things that can be said with 100%
accuracy. And those things prove you are wrong in your doctrines.

Do you mean like going outside Scripture to prove Scripture?

I don't see more than one version of times to be. Not at all.
And you have never argued with anybody about the 'rapture timing'?

I see such as the 70th Week as a quick outline upon which Daniel expands in other

chapters. And I recognize Daniel is writing ONLY to Jewish future, not

Gentiles.
From the time of Daniel it was all future. Does this mean that you deny that by the

time the temple was destroyed Romans were part of Christ's people?

I see Revelation also giving a time outline that is more inclusive of Gentiles, but

still chiefly written to Jews, because this is a book about the return of Israel as

covenant nation, with the Church gone.
If you read the 7 letters closely you will notice many of them have some things to

overcome, failure to do so for one Church will result in;
Re:2:16:
Repent;
or else I will come unto thee quickly,
and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

(The above are certainly on Earth when Christ arrives and His sword takes many

people.)

Re:2:22:
Behold,
I will cast her into a bed,
and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation,
except they repent of their deeds.

(If the above will see great tribulation is she doesn't overcome then she is also on

Earth at the time of Christ's return as that is what is called great tribulation)

The way Israel accepts Christ is because they will be resurrected from the dead, all

of them, right back to when they were first called 'my people. by God. For somebody

who claims to be a literalist you certainly haven't been able to see this event as

literal;
(in part)
Eze:37:4:
Again he said unto me,
Prophesy upon these bones,
and say unto them,
O ye dry bones,
hear the word of the LORD.
Eze:37:5:
Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones;
Behold,
I will cause breath to enter into you,
and ye shall live:
Eze:37:6:
And I will lay sinews upon you,
and will bring up flesh upon you,
and cover you with skin,
and put breath in you,
and ye shall live;
and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
Eze:37:7:
So I prophesied as I was commanded:
and as I prophesied,
there was a noise,
and behold a shaking,
and the bones came together,
bone to his bone.
Eze:37:8:
And when I beheld,
lo,
the sinews and the flesh came up upon them,
and the skin covered them above:
but there was no breath in them.
Eze:37:9:
Then said he unto me,
Prophesy unto the wind,
prophesy,
son of man,
and say to the wind,
Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Come from the four winds,
O breath,
and breathe upon these slain,
that they may live.
Eze:37:10:
So I prophesied as he commanded me,
and the breath came into them,
and they lived,
and stood up upon their feet,
an exceeding great army.
Eze:37:11:
Then he said unto me,
Son of man,
these bones are the whole house of Israel:
behold,
they say,
Our bones are dried,
and our hope is lost:
we are cut off for our parts.
Eze:37:12:
Therefore prophesy and say unto them,
Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Behold,
O my people,
I will open your graves,
and cause you to come up out of your graves,
and bring you into the land of Israel.

Given the number of times graves are mentioned and live is also mentioned there is no

possibility this is anything but resurrection from the grave. Spiritulise this all you

want, it is a literal gathering of the whole house of Israel from the graves back into

physical bodies with breath. So your little theory about OT Israel going with you at a

pre-trib catching up is false.

You don't even recognise when the bride (Gentiles) is given white. If you think it is

any sooner than Isreal has paid in full for her sins then you are mistaken.

Other OT books fill in details of events within the Trib and MK. But none give more

than one version of events.
It takes both the NT and OT to get all the details.

One must remember the Bible is written to two groups, Gentiles and Jews. Each have

always been treated differently.
Don't you mean Jews, Church, and sinners.

The BIG mistake many make is trying to apply the Church Age NT statements to believers

as applying from Adam to the end of time. A huge mistake.
1Co:15:22:
For as in Adam all die,
even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Under Mosaic, 70th Week and MK, Israel is covenant. It is a time of legalism and

Temple. No born-again and indwelling Holy Spirit. The Temple is physical.
It's going to be pretty empty if Israel is in the grave, and really you should do some

reading on who builds Christ's house of prayer, He does, all by Himself;
Zec:6:12:
And speak unto him,
saying,
Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts,
saying,
Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH;
and he shall grow up out of his place,
and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec:6:13:
Even he shall build the temple of the LORD;
and he shall bear the glory,
and shall sit and rule upon his throne;
and he shall be a priest upon his throne:
and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Under Church, the Church, a Gentile based system, is covenant. It is a time of grace,

meaning with being re-born while still in the flesh, law is dead. The Temple is

spiritual, within each believer by virtue of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
If grace is forgiveness of sins, and sin is only acomplished by breaking a law, then

how can you say law is dead. The penality for sin is what is dead. As Christians we

have two Laws to follow, any infractions of those Laws will be noted and chastisement

will also be forthcoming, and forgiveness for those infractions only because of grace.

Grace does not cover all sins, as a Christian knowing about grace and you then sin

thinking grace will 'automatically' cover that sin you are in for a very rude

awakening;
Ro:6:1:
What shall we say then?
Shall we continue in sin,
that grace may abound?
Ro:6:2:
God forbid.
How shall we,
that are dead to sin,
live any longer therein?
Ro:6:3:
Know ye not,
that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Ro:6:4:
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Ro:6:5:
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Ro:6:6:
Knowing this,
that our old man is crucified with him,
that the body of sin might be destroyed,
that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Ro:6:7:
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Ro:6:8:
Now if we be dead with Christ,
we believe that we shall also live with him:
Ro:6:9:
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more;
death hath no more dominion over him.
Ro:6:10:
For in that he died,
he died unto sin once:
but in that he liveth,
he liveth unto God.
Ro:6:11:
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,
but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Ro:6:12:
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body,
that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Ro:6:13:
Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin:
but yield yourselves unto God,
as those that are alive from the dead,
and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Ro:6:14:
For sin shall not have dominion over you:
for ye are not under the law,
but under grace.
Ro:6:15:
What then?
shall we sin,
because we are not under the law,
but under grace?
God forbid.
Ro:6:16:
Know ye not,
that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey,
his servants ye are to whom ye obey;
whether of sin unto death,
or of obedience unto righteousness?
Ro:6:17:
But God be thanked,
that ye were the servants of sin,
but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Ro:6:18:
Being then made free from sin,
ye became the servants of righteousness.

God cannot reside in and unclean Temple. So, with Israel, the Temple is made pure.

With Church, the believers spirit is made pure while still in the flesh.
The last temple was destroyed, the next on that will be is the one Christ builds.
Prayer to God has never been taken away from the Jews while in exile.

There is no conflict, multiple versions of the future or any such thing. It is right

down the line. But from Abraham on, two lines, Israel and Gentile, as sublines of one

big main line.
The big one goes back to Adam.

69th Week ends with death of Christ and Israel is no longer Covenant Nation. It is

dead. Valley of many bones.
So now Christ died during the 69th week? That their power was prophecised to be broken

also tells for how long, that would still make them under a covenant, the same time

that their blindness is lifted.

Church Age. Gentiles are covenant nation and Jews who repent are alive, but Church,

not Israel.
Gentiles come from many nations, that would make us a covenant people.

70th Week restarts Israel as Covenant nation. Church is gone. First Resurrection

begins.
Their blindness is not lifted before Satan's time is over, except for the 144,000.

Second Coming, Israel turns to Christ as a nation, so they nation is 'resurrected' to

life.
The accept Christ because He brings them out of their graves.

MK, Israel is the ruling nation with Christ on the Throne. Temple worship again. God

rebuilds the earth and humans. Humans live for centuries again, no death in birth,

farming prospers, but there is still sin.
With Satan bound so he can't decieve the nations who would lead some people into sin.

it would have to be Israel since you say they are 'ruling'. Hogwash.

Short Time, Satan is released and Man rebells openly again. Again attacks Jerusalem.

Again a Thief in the Night event.
At this time you are most likely going to the giants resurrected as well as those

whose bones are gathered (from in Israel and throughout the world)and put into one

pile;
Eze:39:11:
And it shall come to pass in that day,
that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel,
the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea:
and it shall stop the noses of the passengers:
and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude:
and they shall call it The valley of Hamon-gog.
Eze:39:12:
And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them,
that they may cleanse the land.
Eze:39:13:
Yea,
all the people of the land shall bury them;
and it shall be to them a renown the day that I shall be glorified,
saith the Lord GOD.
Eze:39:14:
And they shall sever out men of continual employment,
passing through the land to bury with the passengers those that remain upon the face

of the earth,
to cleanse it:
after the end of seven months shall they search.
Eze:39:15:
And the passengers that pass through the land,
when any seeth a man's bone,
then shall he set up a sign by it,
till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamon-gog.
Eze:39:16:
And also the name of the city shall be Hamonah.
Thus shall they cleanse the land.

Destruction of the Heavens and the earth. First Resurrection ends.
Those blessed to spend the thousand years with Christ would all have to be raised by

the time the thousand years starts, if somebody is raised at the end of the thousand

years then they didn't spend a thousand years with Christ, nor could any of them die

during that thousand years or they would not have spent a thousand years with Christ.

[QUOTE=CoreIssue;14346]
White Throne Judgement. Second Resurrection occurs.
As per Hebrews 12 and Isaiah 65.

New Earth and Heavens created. NJ descends. Eternity.
As per Isaiah 65

A very clear time line IF one read grammatically and semantically defining their words

correctly.

[quote=CoreIssue;14333]
1. The Bible was written in the language of the times, using proper

word definitions and rules of grammar. Otherwise no one could read

anything literally. The Bible most assuredly says we can and should

read as stated.
You only do that when it suits you, you don't read the valley of bones as being

literal.

Does not change the reality. Makes us dependent on competent linquists, which God

provides.
Oh Yeah, many translations make it easier, NOT.

Linquistically, for us, it is. Language evolves. It uses words and phrases that have

different meanings now.
So the 72 were not 'competent linquists'?

And there is your problem.

You take the context of awake beings from one place and dead bodies from another and

equate them.

Different contexts, different applications, but you insist one using one portion of

what the word can mean and force it onto both.

That is grammatical and semantical error.
M't:9:24:
He said unto them,
Give place:
for the maid is not dead,
but sleepeth.
And they laughed him to scorn.

Joh:11:11:
These things said he:
and after that he saith unto them,
Our friend Lazarus sleepeth;
but I go,
that I may awake him out of sleep.

Eph:5:14:
Wherefore he saith,
Awake thou that sleepest,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give thee light.

Psalms:4:8:
I will both lay me down in peace,
and sleep:
for thou,
LORD,
only makest me dwell in safety.

Psalms:13:3:
Consider and hear me,
O LORD my God:
lighten mine eyes,
lest I sleep the sleep of death;

Proverb:6:10:
Yet a little sleep,
a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to sleep:

Proverb:6:22:
When thou goest,
it shall lead thee;
when thou sleepest,
it shall keep thee;
and when thou awakest,
it shall talk with thee.

Notice that 'talking' comes after sleep is no more but the person has been awakened

It is a different contextual application for a different purpose.

No where does it say anything faintly upholding Soul Sleep.

Your error is you try to force your view of Job onto Revelation, in example, instead

of asking how can both be true while keeping it literal.

Answer is simple. Bodies sleep and spirits do not.
Proverb:6:22:
When thou goest,
it shall lead thee;
when thou sleepest,
it shall keep thee;
and when thou awakest,
it shall talk with thee.

Notice that 'talking' comes after sleep is no more but the person has been awakened

As with New Earth. You demand they mean the same event. They do not. New means to

remake, rebuild, renew, totally new and such.

The New Earth of the MK is a remade earth. The eternal one is a totally new one. Same

word but in two totally different contextual usages.
Isaiah says new heavens and new earth, there is only one time this can occur, God does

make a new earth only to destroy it a thousand years later, let alone also destroy the

new heaven at the same time;
Isa:66:22:
For as the new heavens and the new earth,
which I will make,
shall remain before me,
saith the LORD,
so shall your seed and your name remain.

Neither does the below occur more than once;
Isa:65:19:
And I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
and joy in my people:
and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her,
nor the voice of crying.

Re:21:3:
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying,
Behold,
the tabernacle of God is with men,
and he will dwell with them,
and they shall be his people,
and God himself shall be with them,
and be their God.
Re:21:4:
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;
and there shall be no more death,
neither sorrow,
nor crying,
neither shall there be any more pain:
for the former things are passed away.

You just did it again! You are trying to redefine Daniel using NT issues as if they

are definitions for prince in Daniel.

You cannot do that. You cannot change the meaning of prince. You cannot violate

grammar, word meaning and such.

The Bible never hints at doing what you are doing.

First Prince in Daniel is Christ. Second is a Gentile, thus cannot be Christ. Simple

as that.

Even moreso, we have a historical Roman Gentile Prince that fulfills what was

prophesied. He marched in with his men in 70 AD and destroyed Jerusalem and the

Temple.
There you go again, going outside of Scripture to prove Scripture. You don't even get

how this went down right.
http://www.biblehistory.net/Chap6.htm
The destruction of the Jewish Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. was recorded by the first century historian Josephus, who witnessed the events first hand.
Josephus writes in his history entitled the 'Jewish War':
"In the morning Titus commanded that the fires should be put out and that a road should be built to the gates to allow entry for his troops. His generals then came together to discuss what should be done with the temple. Some wanted to destroy it, because it would give the Jews a reason for uprising. Others argued that if the Jews would clear out of the temple it should be allowed to stand, but if they were to use it as a fortress, it should be destroyed. Titus then gave the command that no matter what happened, the temple should be spared, because it would always be a great tribute to the empire. Three of his chief generals agreed, and the meeting was disbanded.
.....Titus then went into Antonia, intending the next morning to attack and overwhelm the temple with his entire force. But on that day, the tenth of Lous [August30, 70AD], the same day on which Solomon’s temple had been destroyed by the king of Babylon, the structure was doomed. The rebels again attacked the Romans after Titus retreated, and a battle took place between the temple guards and the Roman troops who were trying to put out the flames in the inner court. The Romans scattered the Jews and pursued them into the sanctuary. At the same time, a soldier recklessly grabbed a torch . . . He hurled the firestick through the doors made of gold on the north side which allowed entry to chambers around the sanctuary. On seeing the flames, a cry went up from the Jews, and caring nothing for their lives, they rushed forward to put out the fire.
A messenger rushed to the tent of Titus to inform him of the fire. Immediately, Titus ran to the temple to put out the flames. But because of the battle that raged on, the soldiers either could not or would not hear his commands. The wrath of his troops could not be stopped, and at the doorway many soldiers were trampled by their own forces. There among the burning ruins they fell, sharing the same fate as their enemies.
Pretending not to hear the commands of their general, and filled with hatred, the soldiers rushed on, hurling their torches into the temple. The helpless rebels made no attempt at defense. Fleeing for their lives, with bloodshed all around, many civilians were caught in the battle. Even the steps of the altar were stained with the blood of the dead.
When Caesar could not hold back his troops, he and his generals entered the temple and viewed for the last time the Most Holy Place. Since the fire had not yet reached the inside, but was still feeding the outside chambers, Titus made one last effort to save the structure. Ordering a centurion to club anyone if they disobeyed his commands, he rushed forward and pleaded with his soldiers to put out the flames.
But because of their hatred of the Jews and their desire for riches, the soldiers disregarded the orders of their general. Seeing that all the surroundings were made of gold, they assumed that inside there would be great treasures. Titus then ran out to hold back his troops, but one of those who had entered with him thrust a torch into the hinges of the temple gate, and mighty fire shot up inside. Caesar and his generals fled for safety, and thus, against his wishes, the sanctuary was burned."
....... The city and the temple was then leveled to the ground by the command of Caesar. Only the highest towers and part of the western wall remained to show all mankind how the Romans overpowered such a strong fortress."

Here you have the 'people of the prince' doing just the opposite of what they were told to do, rather doing what they were told NOT to do.

Again, you violate grammar.

After does not mean anytime after. It means immediately next unless a conditional is

given to allow for later. No such conditional is given.

Immediately next. Which Mid 70th Week is not.

What is 'after' in your doctrine is the 70th Week with his death being a Mid event.

But the death is not after/next in your doctrine.
How much of a 'time gap' was between the 7 and the 62? None whatsoever, when the 7 ended was the beginning of the 62. By what rules do you get to introduce a 'timegap'?

The 70th Week is still totally future. And will be 7 years long.

Stephan and those things are not relevant to Daniel.

The Jews wanted to murder Christ because he called himself God. Said he was the

promised Messiah, but he did not come as conquering king, as they wanted the Messiah

to be.
No.

Wrong context.

The 70 Weeks set the conditional the next event after the 69th Week is the 70th.

But between the 69th and 70th Daniel adds two events as occuring to interupt this set

calendar. After the 69th Christ will die and then the Prince will destroy Jersulem and

the Temple. Then back to given sequence, the 70th Week.

They must occur in the order of
69th Week
Death of Christ
Destruction of Jerusalem
70th Week.

You violate the stated sequence.
"he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."
After Spephen's murder no attempt was made to 'enlighten' those who controled the temple, that is desolate, that the structure wasn't taken apart for a number of years isn't important, but God won't be around there untill the second coming of Christ.

By your invented reading style.
You already know that Re:12 covers Christ's time and the end time (2nd and 3rd woman). That makes that chapter subject based, not time based.

Later

CoreIssue

09-02-2006, 02:43 PM

Hi MHz,

You did it again. All you said was your using one passage and verse to set word definitions and meaning in another.

Please provide your proofs God did not use everyday grammar, word defintions and semantics to state what he wanted to say.

You keep claiming they do not apply, and that the Bible is to be read differently Prove that claim.

Now, what is not proof:
1. You declaring the Bible says such and such and means such and such. That is just more of what you have been doing. all along.

And a test.

By rules of grammar with proper word definitions, tell me what this says on its own, about the 69th through 70th Weeks.

If you try to tell me it cannot be read by itself. Then give the justification, per my opening statement and question, as to why.

I will do it as well, to be fair.

Daniel 9
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22014f)] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, [g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22014g)] the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. [h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22015h)] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' [i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22016i)] In the middle of the 'seven' [j (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22016j)] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. [k (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22016k)] " [l (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22016l)]

My go at it:
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22014f)] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, [g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22014g)] the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'
It says the Annointed One will come at a time during the last of the first 69 Weeks. Not after, but during this specified time.
It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.
The Messiah dying will be the next event following the close of the 69th Week. No intervening events allowed.
Messiah, verse 26
Strong's Number: 04899xy#mOriginal WordWord Origin xy#m from (04886 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=004886))Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Mashiyach maw-shee'-akh http://www.studylight.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.studylight.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=4899h.rm) Parts of SpeechTWOT Noun Masculine 1255c Definition

anointed, anointed one
of the Messiah, Messianic prince
of the king of Israel
of the high priest of Israel
of Cyrus
of the patriarchs as anointed kings

After
Strong's Number: 0310rx)Original WordWord Origin rx) from (0309 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=00309))Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling 'achar akh-ar' http://www.studylight.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.studylight.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=0310h.rm) Parts of SpeechTWOT Adverb PrepositionConjunction 68b, 68c Definition

after the following part, behind (of place), hinder, afterwards (of time)
as an adverb
behind (of place)
afterwards (of time)
as a preposition

behind, after (of place)
after (of time)
besides
as a conjunction
after that
as a substantive

hinder part
with other prepositions

from behind
from following after

After means next in sequence. Not any time following.
af‧ter /ˈæfhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtər, ˈɑf-/Pronunciation Key (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/) - Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/)[af-ter, ahf-]Pronunciation Key (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/) - Show IPA Pronunciation (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/)

–preposition 1.behind in place or position; following behind: men lining up one after the other.
Not any time after. There is no conditional allowing for any intervening event. His death is the very next event.
[h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22015h)] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
Will come. States after the Messiah has died. So future to his death.
The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
History advances. Wars and destruction will continue until the prophesied end.
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' [i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22016i)]
7 year covenant/treaty/contract with many. Not all, but many 'He' will make it.
In the middle of the 'seven' [j (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22016j)]
Half way into the 7.
he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation,
He ends Temple activities. That demands a Temple exists and is fully functioning for him to end these activities and set up things.

until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. [k (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22016k)] " [l (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=31#fen-NIV-22016l)]

He keeps going until his end.

Do you agree that is exactly what is said grammatically and by word definition?

No importing other verses. No adding any details. Just what it says here, by itself.

MHz

09-06-2006, 11:03 PM

Ho Core,

Do you agree that is exactly what is said grammatically and by word definition?
Scripture says 69 'sevens' until the anointed one, it doesn't say any week can be split, to arrive any sooner than a full 69 weeks (483 years) is 68 weeks as the counting of time is by 7 years. 7 full years must pass after the 68th week before you have 69 weeks. This isn't said in 'defence'f my doctrine (but is is one of a few points that make me 'very' reluctant to accept what is commonly refered to as 'correct').

Know and understand this:
From the issuing of the decreeto restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,
the ruler,
comes,
there will be seven ‘sevens,’
and sixty-two ‘sevens.’
It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench,
but in times of trouble.

Footnote:
a Or word
b Or an anointed one; also in verse 26

(There will be 69 weeks (483 years)completed untill Christ, the ruler arrives.)

After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’
the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end will come like a flood:
War will continue until the end,
and desolations have been decreed.

Footnote:
Or off and will have no one; or off, but not for himself
(This gives a sequence of events that will occur after Christ is present. Given that Christ is called the ruler in the previous verse I have no problem with 'the ruler' being Christ in this verse as the ruler who will come.)

He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’
In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

Footnote:
a Or ‘week’
b Or ‘week’
c Or it
d Or And one who causes desolation will come upon the pinnacle of the abominable temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city

(An sequence of events that will occur during the (69+1=70th week, it Was God Himself that replied to Daniels prayer, it was God Himself that determined the 70 weeks, if 69 pass it is time for God to 'make true' His words, which He did (in part) by having the births of both Christ and His witness occur many years before (4 weeks or so). The he is God in this verse)

No importing other verses. No adding any details. Just what it says here, by itself.
There, done for the most part per your specifications.
Now, do you have an expanded version that does allow just what you have dis-allowed?
Starting with just Daniel are there verses that cover this period in time. IMHO there should be something, after all Daniel does cover time from Neb's time untill Christ is back.

Later

CoreIssue

09-07-2006, 10:22 AM

Hi MHz,

Do you agree that is exactly what is said grammatically and by word definition?
Scripture says 69 'sevens' until the anointed one, it doesn't say any week can be split, to arrive any sooner than a full 69 weeks (483 years) is 68 weeks as the counting of time is by 7 years. 7 full years must pass after the 68th week before you have 69 weeks. This isn't said in 'defence'f my doctrine (but is is one of a few points that make me 'very' reluctant to accept what is commonly refered to as 'correct').

You are reading wrong.

It does not say the Annointed One comes 'after' the 69 Weeks. It says there will be 69 until he appears.

Appearing in the 69th Week makes it until the 69th Week. There is no 'after' demand.

In fact, contextually, it demands until is during the 69th Week by stating he will die after the 69th Week, which means immediately next in sequence.

So, grammatically, you doctrine creates a contradiction. He cannot both come after and die after when after means immediately next.

See for yourself. Until is inclusive of the 69th Week. It does not mean after.
Strong's Number: 05704d(Original WordWord Origin d( properly, the same as (05703 (http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=005703)) (used as prep, adv or conj)Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling `ad ad http://www.studylight.org/images/audio.gif (http://www.studylight.org/cgi-bin/Lexicon.pl?id=5704h.rm) Parts of SpeechTWOT N/A 1565c Definition prep
as far as, even to, until, up to, while, as far as
of space
as far as, up to, even to
in combination
from...as far as, both...and (with 'min' - from)
of time
even to, until, unto, till, during, end
of degree
even to, to the degree of, even like conj
until, while, to the point that, so that even
Every meaning is during, at the point of, while, inclusive of and so on. None means after.

'Until you clean you room.'
'Until the sun goes down.'
Until tomorrow.'

Until always refers to the event, not after the event.

Know and understand this:
From the issuing of the decreeto restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,
the ruler,
comes,
there will be seven ‘sevens,’
and sixty-two ‘sevens.’
It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench,
but in times of trouble.

Footnote:
a Or word
b Or an anointed one; also in verse 26

(There will be 69 weeks (483 years)completed untill Christ, the ruler arrives.)

Yes, until, not after.

After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’
the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end will come like a flood:
War will continue until the end,
and desolations have been decreed.

Footnote:
Or off and will have no one; or off, but not for himself

Yes. He does not come until the 69th Week and dies after.
(This gives a sequence of events that will occur after Christ is present. Given that Christ is called the ruler in the previous verse I have no problem with 'the ruler' being Christ in this verse as the ruler who will come.)
You should.

He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’
In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

Footnote:
a Or ‘week’
b Or ‘week’
c Or it
d Or And one who causes desolation will come upon the pinnacle of the abominable temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city

(An sequence of events that will occur during the (69+1=70th week, it Was God Himself that replied to Daniels prayer, it was God Himself that determined the 70 weeks, if 69 pass it is time for God to 'make true' His words, which He did (in part) by having the births of both Christ and His witness occur many years before (4 weeks or so). The he is God in this verse)

Hey! You are going outside of the verses, again, and bringing in non context to interpret.

You were ONLY suppose to deal with EXACTLY what was said.

You prove my point. You are unable to read a passage for what it says on its own.

No importing other verses. No adding any details. Just what it says here, by itself.
There, done for the most part per your specifications.

No. Not done. You imported to achieve your interpretation.

You did not abide by pure grammar.

Now, do you have an expanded version that does allow just what you have dis-allowed?
Starting with just Daniel are there verses that cover this period in time. IMHO there should be something, after all Daniel does cover time from Neb's time untill Christ is back.

I don't get your meaning here. Allow the disallowed?e

Later

MHz

09-08-2006, 12:11 AM

Hi Core,

You are reading wrong.
Your personal opinion.

It does not say the Annointed One comes 'after' the 69 Weeks. It says there will be 69 until he appears.
How many years is 69 weeks? What does 'will be' mean? "there will be 7 more days before payday." Do you get paid after 6 days?

Appearing in the 69th Week makes it until the 69th Week. There is no 'after' demand.
So at what time after the 68th week did the anointed one appear?

In fact, contextually, it demands until is during the 69th Week by stating he will die after the 69th Week, which means immediately next in sequence.
What verse says he dies, you are adding things from other verses? Death is only one meaning of cut off,

So, grammatically, you doctrine creates a contradiction. He cannot both come after and die after when after means immediately next.
My 'version' does allow for an imediate event even with a full 69 weeks,

Every meaning is during, at the point of, while, inclusive of and so on. None means after.
Like your examples?

'Until you clean you room.'
After the room is clean, doesn't cover the time it takes to clean the room.

'Until the sun goes down.'
After the sun can no longer be seen, doesn't cover any time that the sun is going down.

Until tomorrow.'
A second into the next day is as soon as 'until tomorrow' can occur, it could also include every second of that day as being a part of 'until tomorrow' right up until the last second of that day.

Until always refers to the event, not after the event.

Do other verses from Daniel support this?
Da:7:25:
And he shall speak great words against the most High,
and shall wear out the saints of the most High,
and think to change times and laws:
and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

In the above verse does the whole time elapse?

Yes, until, not after.

Does Daniel allow for a division of any week other than the one stated?

Yes. He does not come until the 69th Week and dies after.

I really think you are reaching.

Hey! You are going outside of the verses, again, and bringing in non context to interpret.

You were ONLY suppose to deal with EXACTLY what was said.

You prove my point. You are unable to read a passage for what it says on its own.

Thy giving the whole passage and not just your selective verses, this passage starts when Daniel decides to pray, so as far as passage goes you might want to start right there, deal with the whole passage even if it requires more reading, more thought.
Who was the author of the 70 weeks being deteremined?

No. Not done. You imported to achieve your interpretation.
It's God's book.

You did not abide by pure grammar.

Little compared to what you insist is done to Scripture.

I don't get your meaning here. Allow the disallowed?e

Starting small what verses from Daniel give more information, or are there any?

Later

CoreIssue

09-08-2006, 12:50 AM

Hi MHz,

You just keep proving my point.

You keep inserting after where it says until. And you refuse to accept the definitions of after and until.

Until means at that point in time, not after that point in time.

After means next, not any time after.

And you are demanding other verses as if they define the meaning of after and until.

Yes. You are proving my point you will not abide by normal rules of word meaning, grammar and semantics. You are demanding to bring in other verses to attempt to change meanings.

Until 69 Weeks is not after 69 Weeks. After 69 Weeks is not any time after, but the next event following.

Until we meet again.

Until a month passes.

Until the car arrives.

Until the 69th Week. Not after the 69th Week, the Annointed One comes.

Then after the 69th Week he is cut off.

You have after the 69th Week comes and after the 69th Week he is cut off. Contradiction.

MHz

09-09-2006, 12:25 AM

Hi Core,
So Jesus was anointed at the beginning of the 69th week, now explain His seven years untill He was cut off.
Later

CoreIssue

09-09-2006, 12:47 AM

Hi Core,
So Jesus was anointed at the beginning of the 69th week, now explain His seven years untill He was cut off.
Later
It does not say he was annointed at the beginning of the 69th Week. It says until the 69th Week, which means any time in it.

His ministry was the last 3.5 years of the 69th Week. His ministry, life, the 69th Week and the covenant with Israel all were 'cut off' on the cross.

Israel rejected and killed him. So God rejected Israel until the 70th Week.

'I won't do that until Friday' does not demand I do it at Mid Night. As long as I do it on Friday I have not done it until Friday.

MHz

09-10-2006, 10:10 PM

Hi Core,

It does not say he was annointed at the beginning of the 69th Week. It says until the 69th Week, which means any time in it.
So 'until' can be anytime past the start of an event, yet there can be no time when something occurs 'after'? Two verses right next to each other have two totally different sets of rules.
The verse after this says 3 1/2 years of the last week mentioned (concerning a total of 70 weeks, 69 have been addressed). The need for sacrifice either ended at the cross or it did not. It either happened 3 1/2 after John was called or it didn't.

His ministry was the last 3.5 years of the 69th Week. His ministry, life, the 69th Week and the covenant with Israel all were 'cut off' on the cross.
While I would agree that there are three passovers mentioned in John, these verses would indicate a shorter period than 6 months;
Joh:1:38:
Then Jesus turned,
and saw them following,
and saith unto them,
What seek ye?
They said unto him,
Rabbi,
(which is to say,
being interpreted,
Master,)
where dwellest thou?
Joh:1:39:
He saith unto them,
Come and see.
They came and saw where he dwelt,
and abode with him that day:
for it was about the tenth hour.
Joh:1:40:
One of the two which heard John speak,
and followed him,
was Andrew,
Simon Peter's brother.
Joh:1:41:
He first findeth his own brother Simon,
and saith unto him,
We have found the Messias,
which is,
being interpreted,
the Christ.
Joh:1:42:
And he brought him to Jesus.
And when Jesus beheld him,
he said,
Thou art Simon the son of Jona:
thou shalt be called Cephas,
which is by interpretation,
A stone.
Joh:1:43:
The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee,
and findeth Philip,
and saith unto him,
Follow me.
Joh:1:44:
Now Philip was of Bethsaida,
the city of Andrew and Peter.
Joh:1:45:
Philip findeth Nathanael,
and saith unto him,
We have found him,
of whom Moses in the law,
and the prophets,
did write,
Jesus of Nazareth,
the son of Joseph.
Joh:1:46:
And Nathanael said unto him,
Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?
Philip saith unto him,
Come and see.
Joh:1:47:
Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him,
and saith of him,
Behold an Israelite indeed,
in whom is no guile!
Joh:1:48:
Nathanael saith unto him,
Whence knowest thou me?
Jesus answered and said unto him,
Before that Philip called thee,
when thou wast under the fig tree,
I saw thee.
Joh:1:49:
Nathanael answered and saith unto him,
Rabbi,
thou art the Son of God;
thou art the King of Israel.
Joh:1:50:
Jesus answered and said unto him,
Because I said unto thee,
I saw thee under the fig tree,
believest thou?
thou shalt see greater things than these.
Joh:1:51:
And he saith unto him,
Verily,
verily,
I say unto you,
Hereafter ye shall see heaven open,
and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
Joh:2:1:
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee;
and the mother of Jesus was there:
Joh:2:2:
And both Jesus was called,
and his disciples,
to the marriage.
Joh:2:3:
And when they wanted wine,
the mother of Jesus saith unto him,
They have no wine.
Joh:2:4:
Jesus saith unto her,
Woman,
what have I to do with thee?
mine hour is not yet come.
Joh:2:5:
His mother saith unto the servants,
Whatsoever he saith unto you,
do it.
Joh:2:6:
And there were set there six waterpots of stone,
after the manner of the purifying of the Jews,
containing two or three firkins apiece.
Joh:2:7:
Jesus saith unto them,
Fill the waterpots with water.
And they filled them up to the brim.
Joh:2:8:
And he saith unto them,
Draw out now,
and bear unto the governor of the feast.
And they bare it.
Joh:2:9:
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine,
and knew not whence it was:
(but the servants which drew the water knew;)
the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
Joh:2:10:
And saith unto him,
Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine;
and when men have well drunk,
then that which is worse:
but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
Joh:2:11:
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee,
and manifested forth his glory;
and his disciples believed on him.
Joh:2:12:
After this he went down to Capernaum,
he,
and his mother,
and his brethren,
and his disciples:
and they continued there not many days.
Joh:2:13:
And the Jews' passover was at hand,
and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

Israel rejected and killed him. So God rejected Israel until the 70th Week.
Jesus was prophecised to die on the cross. Many in Jerusalem believed in Him.

'I won't do that until Friday' does not demand I do it at Mid Night. As long as I do it on Friday I have not done it until Friday.
So Jesus could have had a 7 year ministry yet God would only allow Him half of that? As much as Jesus did accomplish in the time He had, it would seem quite likely He could have done at least twice as much given twice the time.

Depending on how important what you have to do on Friday, it will either be done sooner if time has any importance or later if it has little importance.

Jesus did have a limit on time if the last week has His ministry written into it.

Later

CoreIssue

09-11-2006, 07:39 PM

Hi MHz,

It does not say he was annointed at the beginning of the 69th Week. It says until the 69th Week, which means any time in it.
So 'until' can be anytime past the start of an event, yet there can be no time when something occurs 'after'? Two verses right next to each other have two totally different sets of rules.

No. Not any time when the stipulation is until followed by a second stipulation saying his cutting off is after.

That locks into the 3.5 years being the last half of the 69th Week with his death at its close.

There is no other way to make those two statements compatible grammatically.
The verse after this says 3 1/2 years of the last week mentioned (concerning a total of 70 weeks, 69 have been addressed). The need for sacrifice either ended at the cross or it did not. It either happened 3 1/2 after John was called or it didn't.
The issue is not need for, but when the actually Temple is destroyed and the sacrifices end. You are adding to the statement.

His ministry was the last 3.5 years of the 69th Week. His ministry, life, the 69th Week and the covenant with Israel all were 'cut off' on the cross.
While I would agree that there are three passovers mentioned in John, these verses would indicate a shorter period than 6 months;

No. You are interpretting by your spiritualized doctrine on the destruction of the Temple and the stopping of sacrifices. Literal, not figurative.

Israel rejected and killed him. So God rejected Israel until the 70th Week.
Jesus was prophecised to die on the cross. Many in Jerusalem believed in Him.

The majority rejected him and wanted him dead. The issue is national Israel, not individuals.

'I won't do that until Friday' does not demand I do it at Mid Night. As long as I do it on Friday I have not done it until Friday.
So Jesus could have had a 7 year ministry yet God would only allow Him half of that? As much as Jesus did accomplish in the time He had, it would seem quite likely He could have done at least twice as much given twice the time.

Pointless speculating.
Depending on how important what you have to do on Friday, it will either be done sooner if time has any importance or later if it has little importance.
But it will be done on Friday.
Jesus did have a limit on time if the last week has His ministry written into it.
It didn't. He died at the close of the 69th Week. Clearly stated.

Later

MHz

09-13-2006, 12:19 AM

CoreIssue

09-13-2006, 12:39 AM

Hi Core,

It does not say he was annointed at the beginning of the 69th Week. It says until the 69th Week, which means any time in it.
I know He wasn't annointed at the beginning, my question was 'why not?' Your version has the possibility of Jesus, after being anointed, having a ministry for a full 7 years.

I believe, but we are not told, it was timed so his death closed the 69th Week. That began the time of the Church, leaving one week future.
From just these verses you can't determine how long His ministry was. Until 69 weeks is a full 7 years before it is 'after'.
No. You cannot.

We have to gain extra knowledge from elsewhere to know it was 3.5 years. Which is adding knowledge to, not rewriting what is said.

No. Not any time when the stipulation is until followed by a second stipulation saying his cutting off is after.
If I do something after Friday it can be anytime after Friday, time certainly doesn't stand still in that Saturday still comes right after Friday. Where is the justification for a time gap in those few verses.

You dodging the point.

It says UNTIL followed by AFTER. Both are in relationship to the 69th Week.

There is NO time gap on those issues.

That locks into the 3.5 years being the last half of the 69th Week with his death at its close.

There is no mention of 3 1/2 years being the length of His ministry in those verses until the last week if taken into account.

That is nonsense. There is no mention of it being 3.5 years at all in any of those verses. We have to gain that knowledge elsewhere.

You are trying to add words and meaning, still, into those verses, themselves.

It is a very big difference to gain knowledge elsewhere and see how it implies compared to trying to make the elsewhere part of the verses themselves.

There is no other way to make those two statements compatible grammatically.

Only if you consider until as being the completionof 69 weeks and after being some point after this but before the completion of another 7 full years.

It is STATED. It says AFTER the 69th Week. Not in the 70th Week. After means NEXT. And what comes next AFTER his death is the destruction of the Temple and end of sacrifices in 70 AD. Then AFTER that is the 70th Week.

You are still trying to defy word meaning and grammar. Will not work.

The verse after this says 3 1/2 years of the last week mentioned (concerning a total of 70 weeks, 69 have been addressed). The need for sacrifice either ended at the cross or it did not. It either happened 3 1/2 after John was called or it didn't.
The issue is not need for, but when the actually Temple is destroyed and the sacrifices end. You are adding to the statement.

The 7 years ends with the 'overspreading of abominations', that was what determined that the temple would be destroyed until Christ's retrurn.

It does not say that! It says the overspreading is at Mid 70th Week. Not the end of the 70th or the 69th.

It says the Temple is destroyed BEFORE the 70th Week even begins.

UNTIL the 69th, AFTER the 69th, then the destruction and then the 70th Week. Plain and simple grammar.

While I would agree that there are three passovers mentioned in John, these verses would indicate a shorter period than 6 months;

No. You are interpretting by your spiritualized doctrine on the destruction of the Temple and the stopping of sacrifices. Literal, not figurative.
What are you going on about. The days mentioned in those verses give a day here, another 3 days, a wedding (7 days) a few more days and then passover is mentioned. This is very literally not 6 months.

John does NOT apply to the 70th Week.

The majority rejected him and wanted him dead. The issue is national Israel, not individuals.
It what was left of the leadership of Israel that wanted Him dead, even the Romans were 'reluctant'.

Garbage. Nation Israel rejected in the vast majority.

[quote]
So Jesus could have had a 7 year ministry yet God would only allow Him half of that? As much as Jesus did accomplish in the time He had, it would seem quite likely He could have done at least twice as much given twice the time.

Pointless speculating.
Only the last week gives a clue as to how long His ministry would be. There is nothing pointless as to why He could not have had the full 7 years.

It does not. Could have is meaningless. What was was.

[quote=CoreIssue]
It didn't. He died at the close of the 69th Week. Clearly stated.
Clearly not

Learn rules of grammar and word meaning.

You never gave me you proofs for you method of intepretation. You just keep using them though.

If you are not going to use grammar and word meanings, we are in an endless, pointless cyle of repetition.

Later

MHz

09-15-2006, 02:25 AM

Hi Core;

I believe, but we are not told, it was timed so his death closed the 69th Week. That began the time of the Church, leaving one week future.
Peter's vision about what is clean and took place in Acts. How much time after the cross did this occur?

No. You cannot.
Then why bring 3 1/2 years (His ministry) into the conversation?

We have to gain extra knowledge from elsewhere to know it was 3.5 years. Which is adding knowledge to, not rewriting what is said.
What verses give you a full 3 1/2 years?

You dodging the point.

It says UNTIL followed by AFTER. Both are in relationship to the 69th Week.

There is NO time gap on those issues.
[/QUOTE]
I was talking about a gap between 69 and 70

You are trying to add words and meaning, still, into those verses, themselves.

It is a very big difference to gain knowledge elsewhere and see how it implies compared to trying to make the elsewhere part of the verses themselves.
That chapter gives a certain amount of days, the 1/2 year has to be before the passover mentioned in those verses.

It is STATED. It says AFTER the 69th Week. Not in the 70th Week. After means NEXT. And what comes next AFTER his death is the destruction of the Temple and end of sacrifices in 70 AD. Then AFTER that is the 70th Week.
So you don't believe temple sacrifices should have stopped after the cross?

The issue is not need for, but when the actually Temple is destroyed and the sacrifices end. You are adding to the statement.
Only Vs 27 talks about the end of sacrifice

It does not say that! It says the overspreading is at Mid 70th Week. Not the end of the 70th or the 69th.
It says the end of sacrifice is at the middle "In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering", There is no indication that some time does not pass until "And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation". Since the first half is mentioned why would what occurs in the second half also not be mentioned?

It says the Temple is destroyed BEFORE the 70th Week even begins.

UNTIL the 69th, AFTER the 69th, then the destruction and then the 70th Week. Plain and simple grammar.

Vs 26 also says this "The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed." With your 'timing' all these things should also be past before the next verse can begin.

While I would agree that there are three passovers mentioned in John, these verses would indicate a shorter period than 6 months;

No. You are interpretting by your spiritualized doctrine on the destruction of the Temple and the stopping of sacrifices. Literal, not figurative.
What are you going on about. The days mentioned in those verses give a day here, another 3 days, a wedding (7 days) a few more days and then passover is mentioned. This is very literally not 6 months.

John does NOT apply to the 70th Week.

[QUOTE=CoreIssue]
The majority rejected him and wanted him dead. The issue is national Israel, not individuals.
Garbage. Nation Israel rejected in the vast majority.
Joh:11:45:
Then many of the Jews which came to Mary,
and had seen the things which Jesus did,
believed on him.
Joh:11:46:
But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees,
and told them what things Jesus had done.
Joh:11:47:
Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council,
and said,
What do we?
for this man doeth many miracles.
Joh:11:48:
If we let him thus alone,
all men will believe on him:
and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
Joh:11:49:
And one of them,
named Caiaphas,
being the high priest that same year,
said unto them,
Ye know nothing at all,
Joh:11:50:
Nor consider that it is expedient for us,
that one man should die for the people,
and that the whole nation perish not.
Joh:11:51:
And this spake he not of himself:
but being high priest that year,
he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
Joh:11:52:
And not for that nation only,
but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
Joh:11:53:
Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
Joh:11:54:
Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews;
but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness,
into a city called Ephraim,
and there continued with his disciples.

Joh:12:42:
Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him;
but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him,
lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
Joh:12:43:
For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

The individuals loved Him;

M't:21:8:
And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way;
others cut down branches from the trees,
and strawed them in the way.
M't:21:9:
And the multitudes that went before,
and that followed,
cried,
saying,
Hosanna to the Son of David:
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord;
Hosanna in the highest.
M't:21:10:
And when he was come into Jerusalem,
all the city was moved,
saying,
Who is this?
M't:21:11:
And the multitude said,
This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
M't:21:12:
And Jesus went into the temple of God,
and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple,
and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers,
and the seats of them that sold doves,
M't:21:13:
And said unto them,
It is written,
My house shall be called the house of prayer;
but ye have made it a den of thieves.
M't:21:14:
And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple;
and he healed them.
M't:21:15:
And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did,
and the children crying in the temple,
and saying,
Hosanna to the Son of David;
they were sore displeased,

Pointless speculating.
It does not. Could have is meaningless. What was was.

Vs 27 does give a possible explanation for a 3 1/2 year period of time.

Learn rules of grammar and word meaning.
From the same book and the same writer the use of until is used to denote the end of a set period of time, your method would allow them to be 'freed' at the beginning of the 'dividing of time' rather than at the end of that period;
Da:7:25:
And he shall speak great words against the most High,
and shall wear out the saints of the most High,
and think to change times and laws:
and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

You never gave me you proofs for you method of intepretation. You just keep using them though.
How do you prove a verse (or passage) is based on subject. Even when a reference to something after a 'new Earth' is mentioned you just say well then there must be two 'new earths' rather than simply allow a plain reading as allowing what is said about after the new earth is mentioned as being applied to what will be after Judgement Day

If you are not going to use grammar and word meanings, we are in an endless, pointless cyle of repetition.

I place more value on how a word is used in other verses to help define it's meaning than your method.

Later

CoreIssue

09-15-2006, 09:07 AM

Hi Core;

I believe, but we are not told, it was timed so his death closed the 69th Week. That began the time of the Church, leaving one week future.
Peter's vision about what is clean and took place in Acts. How much time after the cross did this occur?

We need to stay focused on what Daniels said about the 69th & 70th Week.

Your desire to change the words and meanings because of other verses is the whole issue of our discussion here.

I still want you to point to the source that justifies you not using normal rules of grammar and word definitions, when reading the Bible.

No. You cannot.
Then why bring 3 1/2 years (His ministry) into the conversation?

A valid point. I did so because I thought we agreed it was 3.5 years.

If I am in error, the we return to the simple statement the Annointed One comes in the 69th Week. And died at its end.

That is sufficient to deny your pushing these events into the 70th.

We have to gain extra knowledge from elsewhere to know it was 3.5 years. Which is adding knowledge to, not rewriting what is said.
What verses give you a full 3 1/2 years?

Let us stay with the Daniel verses until you can justify, from them, your position on what is said.

Still waiting for justification for you non compliance with grammar and word definitions.

You dodging the point.

It says UNTIL followed by AFTER. Both are in relationship to the 69th Week.

There is NO time gap on those issues.

I was talking about a gap between 69 and 70
[/QUOTE]
OK.

But that is still dodging the point that until puts the coming in the 69th Week and after places his death at its end.

Please deal with that reality.

You are trying to add words and meaning, still, into those verses, themselves.

It is a very big difference to gain knowledge elsewhere and see how it implies compared to trying to make the elsewhere part of the verses themselves.
That chapter gives a certain amount of days, the 1/2 year has to be before the passover mentioned in those verses.

It is STATED. It says AFTER the 69th Week. Not in the 70th Week. After means NEXT. And what comes next AFTER his death is the destruction of the Temple and end of sacrifices in 70 AD. Then AFTER that is the 70th Week.
So you don't believe temple sacrifices should have stopped after the cross?

What has that got to do with reality? They didn't.

They stopped when Rome marched in and ended them.

End of meaning and end of reality are two different issues.

The issue is not need for, but when the actually Temple is destroyed and the sacrifices end. You are adding to the statement.
Only Vs 27 talks about the end of sacrifice

The Temple is destroyed in verse 26, as is Jerusalem. That was in 70 AD.

Verse 27 is future to that. Has not happened yet, ever.

It does not say that! It says the overspreading is at Mid 70th Week. Not the end of the 70th or the 69th.
It says the end of sacrifice is at the middle "In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering", There is no indication that some time does not pass until "And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation". Since the first half is mentioned why would what occurs in the second half also not be mentioned?

It does show Mid. It says what happens at Mid and then he will continue until his end.

Be that debatable, as it is, the point is that it has nothing to do with the Annointed Ones ministry or death.

It says the Temple is destroyed BEFORE the 70th Week even begins.

UNTIL the 69th, AFTER the 69th, then the destruction and then the 70th Week. Plain and simple grammar.

Vs 26 also says this "The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed." With your 'timing' all these things should also be past before the next verse can begin.

That is your bad reading.

It says the problems of the earth will continue until the 70th Week. It does not say those events are in the 70th Week.

[quote]
While I would agree that there are three passovers mentioned in John, these verses would indicate a shorter period than 6 months;

No. You are interpretting by your spiritualized doctrine on the destruction of the Temple and the stopping of sacrifices. Literal, not figurative.
What are you going on about. The days mentioned in those verses give a day here, another 3 days, a wedding (7 days) a few more days and then passover is mentioned. This is very literally not 6 months.

John does NOT apply to the 70th Week.

The majority rejected him and wanted him dead. The issue is national Israel, not individuals.
Garbage. Nation Israel rejected in the vast majority.

Again, theose verse do not define Daniel. Stay with Daniel.

Pointless speculating.
It does not. Could have is meaningless. What was was.

Vs 27 does give a possible explanation for a 3 1/2 year period of time.

No. It does not.

You are not grammatical.

Learn rules of grammar and word meaning.
From the same book and the same writer the use of until is used to denote the end of a set period of time, your method would allow them to be 'freed' at the beginning of the 'dividing of time' rather than at the end of that period;

You are doing it again. Imposing your doctrinal thinking as if it is grammatically allowable.

Where does your concept of grammar and word meaning, for the Bible come from? Sure not rules of grammar and word meaning.

You never gave me you proofs for you method of intepretation. You just keep using them though.
How do you prove a verse (or passage) is based on subject. Even when a reference to something after a 'new Earth' is mentioned you just say well then there must be two 'new earths' rather than simply allow a plain reading as allowing what is said about after the new earth is mentioned as being applied to what will be after Judgement Day

Not by your way of trying to combine two passages into one and then interpretting.

EACH has its own meanings. You determine what EACH says by themselves. Then you add compare meanings and see how they will agree.

But you NEVER change the meaning of individual verse and passages. Which you do.

If you are not going to use grammar and word meanings, we are in an endless, pointless cyle of repetition.

I place more value on how a word is used in other verses to help define it's meaning than your method.

Which means you have created your own rules of grammar.

How a word is used in another verse can aid in understanding another verse. But it NEVER becomes the dictionary or grammar of the other.

When you alter word meanings, context and so on, as you have done in the order presented in the events of the 69th through 70th Weeks, you have violated grammar.

I have no problem reading grammatically. You do, because it does not fit what you want to find.

Later

MHz

09-16-2006, 11:40 PM

Hi Core,

We need to stay focused on what Daniels said about the 69th & 70th Week.
That would be nice, but Daniel is not the only book that deals with Jesus's ministry or with what you believe is the, yet future, 70th week.

Your desire to change the words and meanings because of other verses is the whole issue of our discussion here.
This latest round is more or less focused on 'until' and 'after'. My version has the 62 weeks being complete before Jesus was anointed. Even this does not point to which time, at conception, 8 days after His birth, His baptism of the Holy Spirit, or the time Mary anointed Him just after Lazarus was raised from his sleep. To fit your timeline it has to be sometime during the 62 weeks.
After 69 weeks would be the start of the next week (70th), yet you suddenly switch to the anti-christ as who 'he' references. If this chapter 'normal rules' (like a letter would) it starts with a greeting and then it goes on to detail something. When a subject is introduced in one verse the next verse can add more detail. If a person is mentioned (by name or title) they can be referenced by the word 'he' in a later verse. (in this case God is mentioned earlier than the verses in question so 'he' can't be eliminated as to who 'he' refers to, and it is certainly who has made covenants with Israel before so He could certainly 'confirm one' if it ties into one already made earlier. If 69 weeks pass then God could confirm a (earlier)covenant and still have it be the 70th week. I know, the 70 weeks were determined and your opinion would work against this being a 'covenant'. My own opinion would be that if God has determined something for 'me personally' then that is the way it will turn out, I have been entered into a covenant.
Since this is about a Messiah then you might have to look through other 'covenants' that mention sending the Messiah. The time from John the Baptist (if the covenant that is being confirmed speaks about a 'witness) until the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles is quite hard to determine, especially the time from the cross until Peter recieved his vision.
Under rules of 'good grammar' you don't suddenly switch topics, which is what it would be if the he was the anti-christ. The book of Daniel covers time right up to Christ's return and the resurrection of some people. Other chapters deal with the last kingdom before Christ, that is where you will find information about him.
True the destruction did take place more than 7 years after Jesus was anointed, if what occured during those 7 years determined that it would be destroyed then it matters little if it was a few years later, even 40 years later would not be unheard of to allow for some to 'come around'.

I still want you to point to the source that justifies you not using normal rules of grammar and word definitions, when reading the Bible.

It's called prayer and a prayer for a better understanding usually comes back as 'keep reading'. As for word definations, until' is found in other verses in Daniel, that is the first place to look.
There are several places where time, times, and a half (or dividing of a time)Da:7:25: & Da:12:7: because time is referenced as a year for a day in Ch:9 people simply apply this method for every place 'time' is mentioned. Since Ch:7 is before the explanation of 1day/1year how can you say that time, times, and dividing of a time cannot refer to some other period of 'time', in this case 3 1/2 days since this does refer to the last kingdom. The reference in Ch:12 doesn't even have to follow the above format, either of them. The power of those in the temple was scattered at the moment of death on the cross. Time (7 weeks), times (62 weeks), half (of the confirmed week).

A valid point. I did so because I thought we agreed it was 3.5 years.
Since you don't agree with what I say about how it could be 3 1/2 years (that fullfills 1/2 of a week) because of those verses in John then please do this, since you have mentioned this, what verses show 3 1/2 years?

That is sufficient to deny your pushing these events into the 70th.
It would appear that way until some things are considered. John was 6 months older than Jesus so it is reasonable to assume that God called on him that same amount of time before Jesus was baptised in the river.

Let us stay with the Daniel verses until you can justify, from them, your position on what is said.

Still waiting for justification for you non compliance with grammar and word definitions.

Hopefully this was addressed earlier in this post, if not, just point out what isn't clear and I will go from there until it is clear and after that we can cover the other points.

But that is still dodging the point that until puts the coming in the 69th Week and after places his death at its end.

Please deal with that reality.

Starting at 68 1/2 weeks is not 69 weeks, the only mention about a half week is after the 69 are complete.

That is your bad reading.
Why is mentioning the things in a verse that you neglect to cover 'bad reading'? These are in the verse before the 'one week', according to you they should be fullfilled in full before the next verse can start.

It says the problems of the earth will continue until the 70th Week. It does not say those events are in the 70th Week.One mentioned is 'desolations are determined', they relate to Christ as being the one who desolates.

Again, theose verse do not define Daniel. Stay with Daniel.

If they are part of a reply I can address those words.

You are not grammatical.

Learn rules of grammar and word meaning.
Da:4:32:
And they shall drive thee from men,
and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field:
they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen,
and seven times shall pass over thee,
until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men,
and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Was Neb going to know who ruled before the 7 times had 'passed over him' or once the 7 times had 'passed over him'?

Da:7:21:
I beheld,
and the same horn made war with the saints,
and prevailed against them;
Da:7:22:
Until the Ancient of days came,
and judgment was given to the saints of the most High;
and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Does the 'horn' prevail over the saints right up until the Ancient of days comes?

Where does your concept of grammar and word meaning, for the Bible come from? Sure not rules of grammar and word meaning.

I really don't think God makes understanding any harder than need be, as large as the Bible is in words it is still a brief document when it comes to learning about God
Proverb:8:6:
Hear;
for I will speak of excellent things;
and the opening of my lips shall be right things.
Proverb:8:7:
For my mouth shall speak truth;
and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
Proverb:8:8:
All the words of my mouth are in righteousness;
there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
Proverb:8:9:
They are all plain to him that understandeth,
and right to them that find knowledge.
Proverb:8:10:
Receive my instruction,
and not silver;
and knowledge rather than choice gold.

Not by your way of trying to combine two passages into one and then interpretting.

EACH has its own meanings. You determine what EACH says by themselves. Then you add compare meanings and see how they will agree.

But you NEVER change the meaning of individual verse and passages. Which you do.

If Jesus is called 'the ruler' in one verse and there is mention of 'the ruler' within two verses (from the very same passage) you say I shouldn't relate the two as being a reference to both being the same person. You have introduced both the anti-christ and a Roman into a passage that hasn't introduced them before. If not introduced 'he' cannot be used, 'he' is used to describe somebody already introduced, that is the way of proper grammar in the plainest sense.

Which means you have created your own rules of grammar.

How a word is used in another verse can aid in understanding another verse. But it NEVER becomes the dictionary or grammar of the other.

When you alter word meanings, context and so on, as you have done in the order presented in the events of the 69th through 70th Weeks, you have violated grammar.
A perfect example being 'new earth', you create several meanings, as do you for lake of fire, when only one exists for both the above examples. Why would you do that if not to apply them to your 'desired version'?
I don't see Daniel being any different.

Later

CoreIssue

09-17-2006, 12:31 AM

Hi MHz,

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
We need to stay focused on what Daniels said about the 69th & 70th Week.

That would be nice, but Daniel is not the only book that deals with Jesus's ministry or with what you believe is the, yet future, 70th week.

True. But until we get the contextual meaning of Dan 9:26-27 established, it is futility to look at anything else.
Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Your desire to change the words and meanings because of other verses is the whole issue of our discussion here.

This latest round is more or less focused on 'until' and 'after'.
Exactly. And I won't move on as long as you keep trying to change their meaings and rearrange the grammar.
My version has the 62 weeks being complete before Jesus was anointed.
Which violates the meanings of until and after.
Even this does not point to which time, at conception, 8 days after His birth, His baptism of the Holy Spirit, or the time Mary anointed Him just after Lazarus was raised from his sleep. To fit your timeline it has to be sometime during the 62 weeks.

Which is the meaning of until.
After 69 weeks would be the start of the next week (70th),
False.

It does not say the 70th Week is next. It says after he dies, then Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed and after that the 70th Week begins.

Pure grammar, plain and simple.
yet you suddenly switch to the anti-christ as who 'he' references. If this chapter 'normal rules' (like a letter would) it starts with a greeting and then it goes on to detail something. When a subject is introduced in one verse the next verse can add more detail.
Can, but does not. Until and after deny your attempts here.
If a person is mentioned (by name or title) they can be referenced by the word 'he' in a later verse. (in this case God is mentioned earlier than the verses in question so 'he' can't be eliminated as to who 'he' refers to,
Can, but doesn't. Grammar does not allow you to do that.
and it is certainly who has made covenants with Israel before so He could certainly 'confirm one' if it ties into one already made earlier.
No. It says with many. Israel is but one. And the context and words until and after seal out your attempts here.

It is not vague about that. Until and after nail it down solidly.
If 69 weeks pass then God could confirm a (earlier)covenant and still have it be the 70th week. I know, the 70 weeks were determined and your opinion would work against this being a 'covenant'.
Covenant means agreement, contract and binding agree. What he makes is such.
My own opinion would be that if God has determined something for 'me personally' then that is the way it will turn out, I have been entered into a covenant.

Not arguing that.
Since this is about a Messiah then you might have to look through other 'covenants' that mention sending the Messiah.
No. I don't have too.

All I am interested in is what is said about the 69th and 70th Weeks, with intervening events.

You are to one violating grammar and word meaning by trying to drag in other verses, as if they change word meaning and grammar. They don't
The time from John the Baptist (if the covenant that is being confirmed speaks about a 'witness) until the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles is quite hard to determine, especially the time from the cross until Peter recieved his vision.

Has nothing to do with the grammatical meanings of these verses.
Under rules of 'good grammar' you don't suddenly switch topics, which is what it would be if the he was the anti-christ.
Read back. Daniels switches subjects several times in the 70 Weeks.

He begains with the decree, by the ancient king, to rebuild. Then progresses on through a number of issues.
The book of Daniel covers time right up to Christ's return and the resurrection of some people. Other chapters deal with the last kingdom before Christ, that is where you will find information about him.

Yep. But we are not dealing with them. We are dealing with the 69th through 70th Weeks, per Daniel 9:26-27.
True the destruction did take place more than 7 years after Jesus was anointed, if what occured during those 7 years determined that it would be destroyed then it matters little if it was a few years later, even 40 years later would not be unheard of to allow for some to 'come around'.

Not going there. You are wandering off topic.
Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue
I still want you to point to the source that justifies you not using normal rules of grammar and word definitions, when reading the Bible.

It's called prayer and a prayer for a better understanding usually comes back as 'keep reading'. As for word definations, until' is found in other verses in Daniel, that is the first place to look.

And I pray too. My answers do not agree with yours.
So, we are back to deciding who is right and who is wrong with the God given brains to read and understand by the rules of word meanings and grammar he created the Bible using.
There is no such thing as a Heavenly Dictionary and Grammar that the Bible was written. It was written with God using human communications methods.
There are several places where time, times, and a half (or dividing of a time)Da:7:25: & Da:12:7: because time is referenced as a year for a day in Ch:9 people simply apply this method for every place 'time' is mentioned.
Nope. I don't.
Since Ch:7 is before the explanation of 1day/1year how can you say that time, times, and dividing of a time cannot refer to some other period of 'time', in this case 3 1/2 days since this does refer to the last kingdom.
Because words used in a common and know figurative way gives them literal meanings.
No one argues, that has any knowledge of ancient Hebrew ways, that it is any other meaning than a Week of Years.
The reference in Ch:12 doesn't even have to follow the above format, either of them. The power of those in the temple was scattered at the moment of death on the cross. Time (7 weeks), times (62 weeks), half (of the confirmed week).

Not talking about chapter 12.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
A valid point. I did so because I thought we agreed it was 3.5 years.

Since you don't agree with what I say about how it could be 3 1/2 years (that fullfills 1/2 of a week) because of those verses in John then please do this, since you have mentioned this, what verses show 3 1/2 years?

My mistake. I went off topic. I will remain on topic now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
That is sufficient to deny your pushing these events into the 70th.

It would appear that way until some things are considered. John was 6 months older than Jesus so it is reasonable to assume that God called on him that same amount of time before Jesus was baptised in the river.

Off topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Let us stay with the Daniel verses until you can justify, from them, your position on what is said.

Still waiting for justification for you non compliance with grammar and word definitions.

Hopefully this was addressed earlier in this post, if not, just point out what isn't clear and I will go from there until it is clear and after that we can cover the other points.

I know what you said. But I still have not seen you post a source justifying it.
It is your thinking and decisions determining the rules, as you go. But you have no firm source to show me where you got it from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
But that is still dodging the point that until puts the coming in the 69th Week and after places his death at its end.

Please deal with that reality.

Starting at 68 1/2 weeks is not 69 weeks, the only mention about a half week is after the 69 are complete.

That does not allow you to change the meaning of until and after.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
That is your bad reading.

Why is mentioning the things in a verse that you neglect to cover 'bad reading'? These are in the verse before the 'one week', according to you they should be fullfilled in full before the next verse can start.

Covering what is not in the verse as if it is there is a bad thing. Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
It says the problems of the earth will continue until the 70th Week. It does not say those events are in the 70th Week.

One mentioned is 'desolations are determined', they relate to Christ as being the one who desolates.

Nope. It does not say that.
Besides, it says the one who does this comes to a bad end. But Christ already died at the end of the 69th Week.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Again, theose verse do not define Daniel. Stay with Daniel.

If they are part of a reply I can address those words.

No. Going to John is not part of Daniel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
You are not grammatical.

Learn rules of grammar and word meaning.

Da:4:32:

Not part of verses 26-27

Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Where does your concept of grammar and word meaning, for the Bible come from? Sure not rules of grammar and word meaning.

I really don't think God makes understanding any harder than need be, as large as the Bible is in words it is still a brief document when it comes to learning about God

He doesn't. But you sure do.
Your constantly dragging verses together, throwing them in a pot, stirring, and calling them one passage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Not by your way of trying to combine two passages into one and then interpretting.

EACH has its own meanings. You determine what EACH says by themselves. Then you add compare meanings and see how they will agree.

But you NEVER change the meaning of individual verse and passages. Which you do.

If Jesus is called 'the ruler' in one verse and there is mention of 'the ruler' within two verses (from the very same passage) you say I shouldn't relate the two as being a reference to both being the same person.

Not when one is called the Annointed One, and then, after his death, the second one appears.
You have introduced both the anti-christ and a Roman into a passage that hasn't introduced them before. If not introduced 'he' cannot be used, 'he' is used to describe somebody already introduced, that is the way of proper grammar in the plainest sense.

Neither are defined. They are just declared.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Which means you have created your own rules of grammar.

How a word is used in another verse can aid in understanding another verse. But it NEVER becomes the dictionary or grammar of the other.

When you alter word meanings, context and so on, as you have done in the order presented in the events of the 69th through 70th Weeks, you have violated grammar.

A perfect example being 'new earth', you create several meanings, as do you for lake of fire, when only one exists for both the above examples. Why would you do that if not to apply them to your 'desired version'?
I don't see Daniel being any different.

No. I don't.

I simply take what each means, but do not demand they always cross refer to the same thing. But you do just because of the words.

Bad mistake.

Later ;)

MHz

09-17-2006, 01:43 PM

Hi Core,
True. But until we get the contextual meaning of Dan 9:26-27 established, it is futility to look at anything else.
Alright, from your chart on Daniels 70 weeks you date the beginning of the 7 weeks as 457BC. 483 years after this is 27AD, as there is no year '0'. Since Jesus was baptised before one of three mentioned passovers that should be 4 years before making it 23AD. From Luke we are given an indication of when John was called;
Lu:3:1:
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea,
and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee,
and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea
and of the region of Trachonitis,
and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Tiberius Caesar is said to have started his reign in 14AD, add 15 years to that and you get 29AD (as he co-reigned for two years this might mean 12AD and 15 years from then would be 27AD)

Pontius Pilate didn't become governor until 26AD.

Any search engine will provide the dates mentioned, one that covers some possibilities is this one,
http://doig.net/NTC12.htm

I looked at several sites and all state that Pilate didn't become governor until 26AD, he was governor when John was called.
Wouldn't this rule out Christ's death in 26AD, nor could He have started in 23AD because John was not called yet as this would have only been the 9th-11th year of Tiberius's reign.

Later

CoreIssue

09-17-2006, 02:29 PM

We are talking about the 69th and 70th Weeks as written about HERE only. Setting the meaning of THESE verses.

We do not need to know any other verses to read what they say for themselve.

Yes, other verses can add knowledge and understand about these issues. But they NEVER change any words definition or grammar of THESE verses to say anything but what they say.

Adding to and expanding understanding is very different from using them to create word definition and grammar for them.

They are ALWAYS free standing in what they say for themselves. The are NOT part of John, Revelation or any other book.
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22014a)] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem
A decree was given to rebuilt Jerusalem. That is the starting point.
until the Anointed One, [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22014b)] the ruler, comes,
UNTIL. Means not before and not after. UNTIL means until.
there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'
69 Weeks UNTIL the Annointed One comes. Not 68, 68 plus some time and not 70.
It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
The decree to rebuild that started the 70 Weeks will be fulfilled during the 69 Weeks.
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off
AFTER the 69 Weeks. Not after the until he comes, but after the 69th Week. Next event. No intervening eventbetween the end of the 69th Week and his death.
and will have nothing.
Loss of everything he had. Life, by as shown in the cutting off, one of the things lost.
[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22015c)] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
WILL come. Not has come, as would be the case in referring to the Annointed One. The Annointed One has already come and died. So this cannot be the Annointed One.
The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
Until the end comes. Stated after the coming of the ruler who destroys Jerusalem who comes after the cutting off of the Annointed One who did not come until the 69th Week.

Time flow stated firmly. Until -After-Will Come-Until- Each moves the clock forward to after the prior event.
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.'
Will confirm. That makes it future. A treaty, not the treaty, if past tense. For ONE seven, thus eliminating any past treaty, and affirming it is a new one.
[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22016d)] In the middle of the 'seven'
That shows the treaty either lasts the full 7 years or he breaks it half way. But it most assuredly shows it did not exist prior to the beginning of the 70th Week. And does not go past 7 years maximum.

That eliminates both Israel and Church.

[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22016e)] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. [f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22016f)] " [g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22016g)]

Still the HE who started the 70th Week Treaty. No change of identity here.

God does not do AoDs. And these are set up in the Temple. Has not happened in history.

Continues to the end of the 7 years and the end poured out on him, showing an not good end.

So HE begins the 7 years, acts at Mid and HE comes to his end at the 7 years.

A clearly stated grammatical time line.
Decree through end of 69 Week with included envents of:
1. Rebuilding Jerusalem - Happened historically
2. Coming of the Annointed One - Happened in Christ - UNTIL sets it in the 69th Week.
3. Cuttin off of Christ - Happened historically - AFTER the 69th Week.
4. Ruler comes with his mean and destroyed Jerusalem - Happened historically in 70 AD -WILL COME stated for AFTER the cutting off.
5. 70th Week - HE will begin it with a covenant/treaty/contract, act at Mid and come to his end at its end. None of this has happened yet.

I did not post history to define and interpret the verses. I posted history to show that it agrees with a grammatical and by word meaning reading of the verses.

Read the verse, see what they say and then see history agrees.

Not pull in verses from all over the place, try to impose them into the verses, redefine meanings and reorganize grammatical flow while still having to spiritualize meanings to get any kind of agreement.

I have rules of grammar and word meaning. Concepts that have been regulating language and communications since the beginning of Man. You have a belief that you can do what you do and make it apply.

Problem is there are many who do as you do. And none of you guys agree. You have no way to prove your claims since they are based on your way of doing things, which changes person to person.

I wish you would see the point of that. Then you would understand why no one is buying into what you are thinking.

MHz

09-17-2006, 05:20 PM

Hi Core,
We are talking about the 69th and 70th Weeks as written about HERE only. Setting the meaning of THESE verses.
You have to at least go back to the beginning of the chapter to get the information on how long a week is.

We do not need to know any other verses to read what they say for themselve.
You have to at least have the whole passage to set context.

Yes, other verses can add knowledge and understand about these issues. But they NEVER change any words definition or grammar of THESE verses to say anything but what they say.
Since you had to look up the defination you have already gone outside these verses.

Adding to and expanding understanding is very different from using them to create word definition and grammar for them.
Making them more complex than they are meant to be doesn't work either. From those few verses there is nothing to indicate that Jesus will come any sooner than a full 69 weeks or that there is any time gaps in any of the three sets of time that are given.

25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22014a)] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem
A decree was given to rebuilt Jerusalem. That is the starting point.

Okay.

until the Anointed One, [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22014b)] the ruler, comes,
UNTIL. Means not before and not after. UNTIL means until.
Until means when something starts.

there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'
69 Weeks UNTIL the Annointed One comes. Not 68, 68 plus some time and not 70.
Since these are sets of 7"s the counting in years is also by 7, in this case 483 years

It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
The decree to rebuild that started the 70 Weeks will be fulfilled during the 69 Weeks.It was rebuilt to a certain extent, it doesn't say all work would be done.

We are talking about the 69th and 70th Weeks as written about HERE only. Setting the meaning of THESE verses.
You have to at least go back to the beginning of the chapter to get the information on how long a week is.

We do not need to know any other verses to read what they say for themselve.
You have to at least have the whole passage to set context.

Yes, other verses can add knowledge and understand about these issues. But they NEVER change any words definition or grammar of THESE verses to say anything but what they say.
Since you had to look up the defination you have already gone outside these verses.

Adding to and expanding understanding is very different from using them to create word definition and grammar for them.
Making them more complex than they are meant to be doesn't work either. From those few verses there is nothing to indicate that Jesus will come any sooner than a full 69 weeks or that there is any time gaps in any of the three sets of time that are given.

25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22014a)] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem
A decree was given to rebuilt Jerusalem. That is the starting point.

Okay.

until the Anointed One, [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22014b)] the ruler, comes,
UNTIL. Means not before and not after. UNTIL means until.
Until means when something starts.

there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'
69 Weeks UNTIL the Annointed One comes. Not 68, 68 plus some time and not 70.
Since these are sets of 7"s the counting in years is also by 7, in this case 483 years

26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off
AFTER the 69 Weeks. Not after the until he comes, but after the 69th Week. Next event. No intervening eventbetween the end of the 69th Week and his death.
This verse details some events that will occur after Jesus was anointed, it covers more than one period of time, there is no reason to know at this point how long after He was anointed that He will be cut off, only that it the next event that will happen in the given list of things.
At some time after coming He will be cut off.

and will have nothing.
Loss of everything he had. Life, by as shown in the cutting off, one of the things lost.
He didn't appear to have much after the Disciples ran away in the garden.

[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22015c)] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
WILL come. Not has come, as would be the case in referring to the Annointed One. The Annointed One has already come and died. So this cannot be the Annointed One.
Like I said this verse gives a list of events, this is the second important event after the end of the 69th week. The one referenced has the same 'title' as somebody in the verse just before "the ruler who will come" "until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes" There is no reason to not connect the two as being the same.

The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
Until the end comes. Stated after the coming of the ruler who destroys Jerusalem who comes after the cutting off of the Annointed One who did not come until the 69th Week.

Time flow stated firmly. Until -After-Will Come-Until- Each moves the clock forward to after the prior event.

The third & fourth events that will occur after the ruler has come.

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.'
Will confirm. That makes it future. A treaty, not the treaty, if past tense. For ONE seven, thus eliminating any past treaty, and affirming it is a new one.
This is detail on the first event listed in the above verse there is no reason to not think this also starts right at the end of the 69 that have been said to be past. That you wish to not look at previous verses means you miss having God as being the 'he' in this verse; for example;

Da:9:3:
And I set my face unto the Lord God,
to seek by prayer and supplication,
with fasting,
and sackcloth,
and ashes:

Da:9:4:
And I prayed unto the LORD my God,
and made my confession,
and said,
O Lord,
the great and dreadful God,
keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him,
and to them that keep his commandments;

Da:9:9:
To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses,
though we have rebelled against him;

Da:9:17:
Now therefore,
O our God,
hear the prayer of thy servant,
and his supplications,
and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate,
for the Lord's sake.

Da:9:18:
O my God,
incline thine ear,
and hear;
open thine eyes,
and behold our desolations,
and the city which is called by thy name:
for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses,
but for thy great mercies.

Da:9:19:
O Lord,
hear;
O Lord,
forgive;
O Lord,
hearken and do;
defer not,
for thine own sake,
O my God:
for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.

Da:9:20:
And whiles I was speaking,
and praying,
and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel,
and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God;

Verse 4 tells us He is a keeper of covenants, based on this why would you eliminate Him from being the'he' in this verse?
[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22016d)] In the middle of the 'seven'
That shows the treaty either lasts the full 7 years or he breaks it half way. But it most assuredly shows it did not exist prior to the beginning of the 70th Week. And does not go past 7 years maximum.

That eliminates both Israel and Church.

In the middle of the week Jesus suffered the cross, the confirmation from God that put an 'the need for blood sacrifice', forgiveness from sin was now via repenting through prayer.

[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22016e)] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. [f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22016f)] " [g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:25-27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22016g)]

Still the HE who started the 70th Week Treaty. No change of identity here.

God does not do AoDs. And these are set up in the Temple. Has not happened in history.

Continues to the end of the 7 years and the end poured out on him, showing an not good end.
This would have to occur before the second thing in the list as the temple is still standing. God does consider killing His prophets a proper thing to do, He states this as being an abomination to Him. It covers the destruction and how long it will last.

If there are foot-notes in your translation shouldn't they also be included?
Vs:25
Footnote:
a Or word
b Or an anointed one; also in verse 26
Vs:26
Footnote:
Or off and will have no one; or off, but not for himself
Vs:27
Footnote:
a Or ‘week’
b Or ‘week’
c Or it
d Or And one who causes desolation will come upon the pinnacle of the abominable temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city

Later

CoreIssue

09-17-2006, 07:52 PM

Hi MHz,

You said nothing new. So my answers are simply dittoed here.

No point in going on with this when you reject all the norms of language. :scratch:

Later

MHz

09-19-2006, 11:50 AM

CoreIssue

09-19-2006, 02:34 PM

Hi MHz,

You said nothing new. So my answers are simply dittoed here.

No point in going on with this when you reject all the norms of language. :scratch:

Later
Hi Core,
The last post was the first time I have asked you why you reject God as being the one that confirms the covenant when in this same chapter (and this whole chapter is one single passage) a verses say God is the "keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him" and many people from Israel did have faith that Jesus was sent by God, the promised Messiah. The 70 applies only to Israel, that is where the many came from.

Later
I just want to stay on topic. That is a different topic.

There isn't the slightest indication God had anything to do with the covenant of the 70th Week. In fact, it clearly shows he did not, because it was only a 7 year covenant, was broken by the one who offered it to many, not just Israel, God does not do AoD's and the Annointed One did not come to an end at the end of the 70th Week, but at the end of the 69th Week.

Nothing allows for that covenent to be from the Annointed One.

The Annointed One came to Israel, not the Gentiles.

MHz

09-19-2006, 10:30 PM

Hi Core,

There isn't the slightest indication God had anything to do with the covenant of the 70th Week.
I'm still not sure why He is not considered. God was the one who originally 'determined' that there would be 70 weeks, one would also have to assume He would control what happened through all 70 weeks.

In fact, it clearly shows he did not, because it was only a 7 year covenant, was broken by the one who offered it to many, not just Israel,
If the time before the cross is 3 1/2 years and another 3 1/2 years after the cross before Peter was given the vision that resulted in the Gospel being taught to Gentiles why wouldn't that fullfill all 70 weeks, one continueous string of unbroken time. Even after this time the Apostles still went to synagogues in other places outside Israel, it is only that the Gospel was no longer exclusive to Israel.
How many Israelies would Jesus have to have 'gathered' before you would consider it 'many'?

God does not do AoD's
"And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation,", Stephen was brought before the 'council' (which would meet somewhere in the Temple) where false witnesses were presented. God has, in earler times, hardened a heart so that God's will would be fullfilled, and He will harden some hearts in the future of some that will believe Satan's lies. Believe it or not God sees having those who He has 'favored' being killed by His 'chosen people' as an abomination.
Joh:12:40:
He hath blinded their eyes,
and hardened their heart;
that they should not see with their eyes,
nor understand with their heart,
and be converted,
and I should heal them.
Joh:12:41:
These things said Esaias,
when he saw his glory,
and spake of him.
Joh:12:42:
Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him;
but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him,
lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

and the Annointed One did not come to an end at the end of the 70th Week, but at the end of the 69th Week.
He went to the cross in the middle, His death was the taking away (the need for) sacrifices.

Nothing allows for that covenent to be from the Annointed One.
Not from, via;
1Tm:2:5:
For there is one God,
and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus;

The Annointed One came to Israel, not the Gentiles.
And His Disciples only 'taught' Israel for some time after the cross, some time did expire and the Gospel could then be openly taught to any Gentile.

Later

CoreIssue

09-19-2006, 10:47 PM

Hi MHz,

You are doing it again.

Until does not mean after the 69th Week.

After does not during the 70th Week.

Until you can show until and after, by definition and grammar, allows the 70th Week, we are at a dead end.

I showed you the definitions and you simply turned a blind eye to them.

Later

MHz

09-21-2006, 12:18 AM

You are doing it again.
That is one of the reasons the Bible has so many verses that refer to so many topics in so many places

Until does not mean after the 69th Week.
Until I'm convinced this will go on. Now does that mean until you start trying to convince me or does it mean once I am convinced?
Since Scripture doesn't mention a 68th week, but it does mention two of the three time periods, the 7 and 62. Obviously the 7 pass in full before the 62 start, if the 7 is in full why isn't the 62 in full?

After does not during the 70th Week.
This is another thing that puzzles me, there were attempts made by Jesus's Disciples to 'enlighten' those who controled the Temple after the cross, according to you Daniel doesn't cover this (my version has the last half week as still being an attempt to accomplish this, not that it goes very well).

Until you can show until and after, by definition and grammar, allows the 70th Week, we are at a dead end.
Well it wouldn't be the first thread I've been on where it ends with we agree that we can disagree.
Perhaps the least welcome way I could show how that word is defined is by exploration of all the revelant verses (IMHO) that apply to this one topic. Would I try and determine a whole base for a theory from these few verses, no. Until is mentioned hundreds of times throughout Scripture so it is very likely that no one single verse has one single defination for that one word. I trust you would not want me to accept something where I still have questions and it is going to take other verses that define those words (plainly). In this case until meaning something can begin before a specified period of time is past.

I showed you the definitions and you simply turned a blind eye to them.
And how convinced are you that 'sons of God' are exclusively Angels in the first book of the Bible, even with a reference from the Hebrew lexicon that references those very verses.
How convincing are these words,
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Dan/9/25.html

seven weeks The seventy weeks are here divided into three periods. 1. Seven weeks, or 49 years, for the restoration of Jerusalem. 2. Sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, from that time to the announcement of the Messiah by John the Baptist. 3. One week, or seven years, for the ministry of John and of CHRIST himself to the crucifixion.

BTW I only saw this within the last week, but it does show I am not alone.

Later

CoreIssue

09-21-2006, 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14609#post14609)
You are doing it again.

That is one of the reasons the Bible has so many verses that refer to so many topics in so many places

Different issue from proper use of word definition and grammar.

You have no justification for violating either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14609#post14609)
Until does not mean after the 69th Week.

Until I'm convinced this will go on. Now does that mean until you start trying to convince me or does it mean once I am convinced?

It means when you start using proper definitions and rules of grammar.
Since Scripture doesn't mention a 68th week, but it does mention two of the three time periods, the 7 and 62. Obviously the 7 pass in full before the 62 start, if the 7 is in full why isn't the 62 in full?

Because it says until, not after, the 69th Week. The 7 is first, followed by the 62. Also defined by grammar.
Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14609#post14609)
After does not during the 70th Week.

This is another thing that puzzles me, there were attempts made by Jesus's Disciples to 'enlighten' those who controled the Temple after the cross, according to you Daniel doesn't cover this (my version has the last half week as still being an attempt to accomplish this, not that it goes very well).

It does not.

Your version has zero content on this issue. You are trying to import and alter the meaning of Daniel to fit your version.

The work of the Apostles, you mentioned, is during the Church Age. The time between the cross and the beginning of the 70th Week, when Israel is restored as covenant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14609#post14609)
Until you can show until and after, by definition and grammar, allows the 70th Week, we are at a dead end.

Well it wouldn't be the first thread I've been on where it ends with we agree that we can disagree.

Agree.
Perhaps the least welcome way I could show how that word is defined is by exploration of all the revelant verses (IMHO) that apply to this one topic. Would I try and determine a whole base for a theory from these few verses, no. Until is mentioned hundreds of times throughout Scripture so it is very likely that no one single verse has one single defination for that one word. I trust you would not want me to accept something where I still have questions and it is going to take other verses that define those words (plainly). In this case until meaning something can begin before a specified period of time is past.

And you will continue to get bad doctrine after bad doctrine by violating word meaning and grammar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14609#post14609)
I showed you the definitions and you simply turned a blind eye to them.

And how convinced are you that 'sons of God' are exclusively Angels in the first book of the Bible, even with a reference from the Hebrew lexicon that references those very verses.

They are not angels in Genesis. They are saints.
How convincing are these words,
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Dan/9/25.html

seven weeks The seventy weeks are here divided into three periods. 1. Seven weeks, or 49 years, for the restoration of Jerusalem. 2. Sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, from that time to the announcement of the Messiah by John the Baptist. 3. One week, or seven years, for the ministry of John and of CHRIST himself to the crucifixion.

BTW I only saw this within the last week, but it does show I am not alone.

Yep. There are some who do read that way. Such as Preterists, in example.

But, as with you, all who do share one thing in common. None read literally. The spiritualize everything.

And, they violate grammar and word defintions, just as you do.

No one who reads literally by proper grammar and definition has your position. No one.

By the way, who wrote this commentary you are referencing?

MHz

09-21-2006, 10:05 PM

CoreIssue

09-22-2006, 12:00 AM

By the way, who wrote this commentary you are referencing?
No idea, it from the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/tsk.html

I suppose this translation is in error;
Now listen and understand! Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven will pass from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One comes. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and strong defenses, despite the perilous times.
Footnote:
a) Hebrew Seven sevens plus 62 sevens.
b) Or an anointed one.
c) Or and a moat, or and trenches.

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
I asked because the Blue Letter uses many sources that are centuries old. Knowledge gained since then has change some understandings.

Not to mention it makes a difference to be able to see what doctrinal background the author harkens from.

As for the translation, that adds up to 69, not 70. Which is correct.

The decree was given in either 456 or 457 BC.
69 Weeks - 483 years.
483 - 457 BC = 26 AD
483 - 456 BC = 27 AD

Christ was born 3-7 BC, with most scholars 5-7 BC with 7 being more and more dominate as more historical information comes out.

33 years of age - 7 BC = 26 AD

John preceeded Christ and Christ did not come until the 69th Week. He died after the 69th Week.

Which brings us back to 26/27th AD.

Grammar, word definition, history and all the rest are in complete harmony.

Just further proof you MUST read by rules of grammar and word definition. Otherwise you end up completely wrong.

Christ died in 26/27 AD. The Temple was destoyed by the Ruler who comes with his men, in 70 AD. None of the 70th Week has yet occured.

The 70th Week is the same time as the Book of Revelation, where, again reading by rules of grammar and word meaning gives you the correct outcome.

I can read ANY of the End Times verses from ANY book, doing so literally, and they all harmonize with each other, add knowledge to each other and so on. And there is never a need to redefine any works improperly or violate common, normal, rules of grammar.

The meanings of independent verses cannot be changed. But that does not stop them from fitting like puzzle pieces, together, to build an even bigger picture.

MHz

09-22-2006, 11:03 AM

Hi Core,

No idea, it from the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/tsk.html

I suppose this translation is in error;
Now listen and understand! Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven will pass from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One comes. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and strong defenses, despite the perilous times.
Footnote:
a) Hebrew Seven sevens plus 62 sevens.
b) Or an anointed one.
c) Or and a moat, or and trenches.

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
I asked because the Blue Letter uses many sources that are centuries old. Knowledge gained since then has change some understandings.
Such as?

Not to mention it makes a difference to be able to see what doctrinal background the author harkens from.
It was written before 1928 by R.A.Torrey

As for the translation, that adds up to 69, not 70. Which is correct.
I was trying to have you see these times 'pass' before the Anointed ones comes.

The decree was given in either 456 or 457 BC.
69 Weeks - 483 years.
483 - 457 BC = 26 AD
483 - 456 BC = 27 AD

Christ was born 3-7 BC, with most scholars 5-7 BC with 7 being more and more dominate as more historical information comes out.

33 years of age - 7 BC = 26 AD

John preceeded Christ and Christ did not come until the 69th Week. He died after the 69th Week.

Which brings us back to 26/27th AD.

Grammar, word definition, history and all the rest are in complete harmony.
Do you have some links to a few sites that promote the 7BC date? Three or four are better than just one, just so I can see what doctrine they promote (if there is one).

The above statement certainly doesn't agree with this point, in regards to history;
Lu:3:1:
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea,
and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee,
and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis,
and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
Lu:3:2:
Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests,
the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

"PONTIUS PILATE, the Roman governor of Judaea under whom Jesus Christ suffered crucifixion. Of equestrian rank, his name Pontius suggests a Samnite origin, and his cognomen in the gospels, pileatus (if derived from the pileus or cap of liberty), descent from a freedman. In any case he came in A.D. 26 from the household of Tiberius, through the influence of Sejanus, to be procurator over part of the imperial province of Syria, viz. Judaea, Samaria and Idumea. "
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pontius_Pilate

"Pilate was governor of Judea for the years 26-37CE. His appointment as governor indicates that he came from a wealthy, powerful, elite Roman family. "
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Carter-Pontius_Pilate_Roman_Governor.htm

Pontius Pilate
died AD 36

Roman prefect (governor) of Judaea (AD 26–36) under the emperor Tiberius; he presided at the trial of Jesus and gave the order for his crucifixion.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9060010

All three of the above point to 26AD as being the year one of the conditions that was in effect, and can be dated accurately. If John was just being called then Jesus has not even been baptised in the river Jordan yet.

Just further proof you MUST read by rules of grammar and word definition. Otherwise you end up completely wrong.
Shouldn't somebody tell the above sourses they are in error?

Christ died in 26/27 AD. The Temple was destoyed by the Ruler who comes with his men, in 70 AD. None of the 70th Week has yet occured.
In the year Jesus suffered the cross passover should have been on a Friday and Saturday being a 'regular Sabbath'. If He died Thursday afternoon that was the 1st day He was in the grave, add the two Sabbaths and you have the 3 days, The tomb was empty on Sunday morning would give you the 3 nights.
Did passover fall on a Thursaday in either of thes two dates?

The 70th Week is the same time as the Book of Revelation, where, again reading by rules of grammar and word meaning gives you the correct outcome.
So you keep saying.

I can read ANY of the End Times verses from ANY book, doing so literally, and they all harmonize with each other, add knowledge to each other and so on. And there is never a need to redefine any works improperly or violate common, normal, rules of grammar.
Yet when verses say the whole house of Israel will be called from the graves into living bodies it suddenly becomes symbolic language, even with no indication that is the way God intended it to be read, as in no verses that explain the 'vision' as is done for other visions that are symbolic.

The meanings of independent verses cannot be changed. But that does not stop them from fitting like puzzle pieces, together, to build an even bigger picture.

Translations can change the meaning of verses, a change in one verse usually cannot change (usually) the message that a passage presents.
For example;
KJV
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

King James Version 1611, 1769

NKJV - Luk 3:6 -
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.'"

Footnote:
Isaiah 40:3-5

New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NLT - Luk 3:6 - And then all people will see the salvation sent from God.' "
Footnote:
Isa 40:3-5.

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV - Luk 3:6 -

And all mankind will see God's salvation.’ ”

Footnote:
Isaiah 40:3-5

New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV - Luk 3:6 -

“‘and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’”

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

Mankind is not all flesh according to two of the definations of flesh,
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts

2) the body

a) the body of a man

b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship

1) born of natural generation

c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"

1) without any suggestion of depravity

2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin

3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering

3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast

4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

The Bible gives this defination of 'all flesh';

KJV - 1Cr 15:39 - All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

King James Version 1611, 1769

NKJV - 1Cr 15:39 - All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.
Footnote:
NU-Text and M-Text omit of flesh.

New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NLT - 1Cr 15:39 - And just as there are different kinds of seeds and plants, so also there are different kinds of flesh-whether of humans, animals, birds, or fish.

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV - 1Cr 15:39 -

All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV - 1Cr 15:39 -

For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

When the verse below is made manifest, are the fowl and beasts of the earth 'aware' of who has 'provided' all these dead bodies?

Jer:34:20:
I will even give them into the hand of their enemies,
and into the hand of them that seek their life:
and their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven,
and to the beasts of the earth.

When a sparrow dies does it's 'breath of life' return to God from whense it originally came?

M't:10:29:
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?
and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

Lu:12:6:
Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings,
and not one of them is forgotten before God?

Later

CoreIssue

09-22-2006, 11:59 AM

The problem here is you see a believed opening and jump on it immediately.

None of these other issues has squat to do with reading by grammar and word meaning. You want to use doctrinal argument, again and again, to redefine words and grammar rather than abide by proper rules of language.

I will see what I can dig up, but it has no bearing on violating grammar or word meaning.

CoreIssue

09-22-2006, 12:40 PM

Even those who place his birth in 5/6 BC reject your making Christ 27 in 27 AD. That has him born at least 4 years after Herod's death in 4 BC.

There is no dispute from anyone Herod died in 4 BC. No one.

But the question arises, can we know the actual year of the Lord's birth? From my studies I conclude that we can know with relative (yet not absolute) certainty from the evidence in scripture, and make a strong Biblical case that Christ was born in 7 B.C. The circumstantial evidence in the scriptures also point to that year, and secular information agrees favorably. From the Biblical record, there are some things that we can know with certainty.
More (http://members.aol.com/twarren20/birth.html)

No account can authenticate the exact date of Christ's birth, nor can it be denied that Christ was born between 7-4 B.C., unless a human error was made in Roman records.
More (http://www.alochona.org/magazine/2001/december/special3.htm)

At the time Jesus was born, </SPAN>
Chapter 9
7 B.C. – A.D. 33 Christ's Birth and Ministry
More (http://209.10.202.163/public/en_time_has_an_end_ch09.html)

All three of the above point to 26AD as being the year one of the conditions that was in effect, and can be dated accurately. If John was just being called then Jesus has not even been baptised in the river Jordan yet.

No. It fully allows for Pilate trying Christ is 26/27 AD.

MHz

09-22-2006, 03:09 PM

Hi Core,
Even those who place his birth in 5/6 BC reject your making Christ 27 in 27 AD. That has him born at least 4 years after Herod's death in 4 BC.

There is no dispute from anyone Herod died in 4 BC. No one.
Who is saying He was 27 in 27AD.
What I posted dated when Pontius Pilate became governor 26AD, just as Jesus was not called until He was 'about 30' then neither would John have been call before being 'about 30', actually after 30. If John was 30 in 26AD then he would have been born in 5BC as there is no year '0'. Six months after John being born, Jesus was born, this could have been still in 5BC or some part of 4BC, but before Herod died.
The point is Jesus could not have been baptised before Pontius was acting governor, and that rules out His death in 26/27AD as there are 3 passovers mentioned in the Gospel of John.

No. It fully allows for Pilate trying Christ is 26/27 AD.
Your dating puts the end of the 69 weeks at the time John was called. This is at least 3 years before the cross.

The problem here is you see a believed opening and jump on it immediately.

Why, because I posted a verse that says 'pass'?

We have talked about dating long before this, last year we covered this very issue about when John was called.

I will comment on your links later, once I see if they are trying to prove something that is needed to support other parts of their beliefs.

Later

CoreIssue

09-22-2006, 03:51 PM

Hi MHz,

Who is saying He was 27 in 27AD.
What I posted dated when Pontius Pilate became governor 26AD, just as Jesus was not called until He was 'about 30' then neither would John have been call before being 'about 30', actually after 30. If John was 30 in 26AD then he would have been born in 5BC as there is no year '0'. Six months after John being born, Jesus was born, this could have been still in 5BC or some part of 4BC, but before Herod died.
The point is Jesus could not have been baptised before Pontius was acting governor, and that rules out His death in 26/27AD as there are 3 passovers mentioned in the Gospel of John.

That is just plain false.

The ONLY mention of Pilate, in the Bible, is when he tried Jesus. There is absolutely no mention of him in any connection to John.

Why? John was dead 3.5 years earlier, before Pilate even entered the picture.

Christ died at the end of the 69th Week. Absolutely not in the 70th.

Pilate has nothing to do with the Baptism of Christ, in any manner.

No. It fully allows for Pilate trying Christ is 26/27 AD.
Your dating puts the end of the 69 weeks at the time John was called. This is at least 3 years before the cross.

Nonsense! I have said plainly where it puts it.

456/7 BC to 26/27 is the full 483 years of the 69 Weeks.

John was called DURING the 69th Week. Christ, the Annointed One, came during the 69th Week. He died at the close of the 69th Week.

Plain and simply math. Yours does not work. It violates grammar and word definition. Not to mention simple math.

The problem here is you see a believed opening and jump on it immediately.

Why, because I posted a verse that says 'pass'?

Because you turn a blind eye to until and after, as concerns the 69th Week.

We have talked about dating long before this, last year we covered this very issue about when John was called.

And you made a ton of false and erroneous claims based on thin air.
I will comment on your links later, once I see if they are trying to prove something that is needed to support other parts of their beliefs.
Simple rules or grammar and word meaning couples with history.

Herod died in 4 BC. There is no way around that.

Move back 2 years for his allowance for time by the Maji. Move back because when they came he was no older and in a house. 4 + 2 minimum, is 6 BC.

No way around it.

Later

CoreIssue

09-22-2006, 04:21 PM

Now. Let us get back on topic. These other points do not have any issues with defining until and after.

How ever you want to cut it, Daniel says he did not come until the 69th Week and died upon it close. Nothing but nothing grammatically allows for entering the 70th Week.

There is no debate Herod died in 4 BC. That demands Christ was born in 6/7 BC, not later.

33 years from 6/7 BC is 26/27 AD.

The command to rebuild Jerusalem was in 456/7 BC.

They are firm points. The arguments over passovers, how they are related to, and the rest, are subjects of heavy debate among many.

But we have it FIRM on 456/7, 6/7 and until the 69th Week and after the 69th Week.

Now, one last question, before I give up on this topic.

Please post the Hebrew word definition that allows you to read until as after and after as any point of time past a set issues or date.

Strong's Number: 5704 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=05704&version=nas) Original WordWord Origind[properly, the same as (05703 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=5703&version=nas)) (used as prep, adv or conj)Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05704&version=nas#Legend) Entry`adTWOT - 1565cPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechad http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5704h) Definitionprep
as far as, even to, until, up to, while, as far as
of space
as far as, up to, even to
in combination
from...as far as, both...and (with 'min' - from)
of time
even to, until, unto, till, during, end
of degree
even to, to the degree of, even like conj
until, while, to the point that, so that even
Note NONE of the definitions allow for pushing past the stated time, even or otherwise. After is not a part of the meaning in any manner.

There is zero allowance for meaning after the 69th Week.
Strong's Number: 310 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=0310&version=nas) Original WordWord Originrxafrom (0309 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=309&version=nas))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0310&version=nas#Legend) Entry'acharTWOT - 68b, 68cPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechakh-ar' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0310h) Adverb PrepositionConjunction Definition
after the following part, behind (of place), hinder, afterwards (of time)
as an adverb
behind (of place)
afterwards (of time)
as a preposition
behind, after (of place)
after (of time)
besides
as a conjunction
after that
as a substantive
hinder part
with other prepositions
from behind
from following after
And where do you see, in the meaning of after, any allowance for simply any time after? Not there.

It means next in line.

Do not come out with doctrinal statements. I ONLY want to know where you find after in this words meaning.
Main Entry: 1af·ter http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?after001.wav=after'))
Pronunciation: 'af-t&r
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English æfter; akin to Old High German aftar after, and probably to Old English of of
: following in time or place :
There is absolutely no grammatical or word meaning allowance for your claims.

No. You cannot read somewhere else and try to use it a dictionary meaning or change on grammar or context.

I repeat. I have no problems harmonizing any verses you have brought up.

Really, I am tired of this long worn out discussion on until and after. You just refuse to deal with them grammatically and by definition, because they cannot so be made to fit your doctrine.

MHz

09-22-2006, 05:14 PM

Hi Core,

Please post the Hebrew word definition that allows you to read until as after and after as any point of time past a set issues or date.

Note NONE of the definitions allow for pushing past the stated time, even or otherwise. After is not a part of the meaning in any manner.
I never said past, I said at the end of the 69th week, like in this,
1 c
1 of time
1. even to, until, unto, till, during, end (see the word just before this note)

See the last word, it says 'end', at the 'end' of 62 weeks is not one day before nor one day after.

/SIZE][/FONT]from (0309 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=309&version=nas))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0310&version=nas#Legend) Entry'acharTWOT - 68b, 68cPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechakh-ar' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0310h) Adverb PrepositionConjunction Definition
after the following part, behind (of place), hinder, afterwards (of time)
as an adverb
behind (of place)
afterwards (of time)
as a preposition
behind, after (of place)
after (of time)
besides
as a conjunction
after that
as a substantive
hinder part
with other prepositions
from behind
from following after
And where do you see, in the meaning of after, any allowance for simply any time after? Not there.
What does 'afterwards' mean? It means at some point after.

Really, I am tired of this long worn out discussion on until and after. You just refuse to deal with them grammatically and by definition, because they cannot so be made to fit your doctrine.
Then let it die, just be aware that your own data isn't compatable with what you promote and there is no firmer proof than you saying Jesus died in 26/27AD. Pontius would have to be governor for the whole time since John was called. I don't have to work out the issues, you do.

Later

CoreIssue

09-22-2006, 09:46 PM

Hi MHz,

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14722#post14722)
Please post the Hebrew word definition that allows you to read until as after and after as any point of time past a set issues or date.

Note NONE of the definitions allow for pushing past the stated time, even or otherwise. After is not a part of the meaning in any manner.

I never said past, I said at the end of the 69th week, like in this,
1 c
1 of time
1. even to, until, unto, till, during, end (see the word just before this note)

See the last word, it says 'end', at the 'end' of 62 weeks is not one day before nor one day after.

End does not mean any time after. You just keep doing that error.

It says END of, not after the end of.

Quote:
Quote:
/SIZE][/font]from (0309 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=309&version=nas))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0310&version=nas#Legend) Entry'acharTWOT - 68b, 68cPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechakh-ar' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0310h) Adverb PrepositionConjunction Definition
after the following part, behind (of place), hinder, afterwards (of time)
as an adverb
behind (of place)
afterwards (of time)
as a preposition
behind, after (of place)
after (of time)
besides
as a conjunction
after that
as a substantive
hinder part
with other prepositions
from behind
from following after
And where do you see, in the meaning of after, any allowance for simply any time after? Not there.
What does 'afterwards' mean? It means at some point after.

No it does not!

It means next, not anytime after with any amount of intervening events. Next, nothing inbetween, which is what you keep doing.

Death is next, not ministry followed by death. Not John, then ministry and then death. Next, period.

Quote:
Really, I am tired of this long worn out discussion on until and after. You just refuse to deal with them grammatically and by definition, because they cannot so be made to fit your doctrine.
Then let it die, just be aware that your own data isn't compatable with what you promote and there is no firmer proof than you saying Jesus died in 26/27AD. Pontius would have to be governor for the whole time since John was called. I don't have to work out the issues, you do.

Oh, good grief! You keep interjecting John in where he is never stated. No where does it ever say John was under Pilate. Ever.

My data is fully compatible. Yours is not. Your problem, as in adding demands not found in the Bible or history.

Yea, time to let it drop.

Go find yourself and English teacher and let them explain grammar and definitions to you. Show them Daniel 9:25-27, in the NIV or NASB, and ask them to tell you the time flow stated.
Enough on this one. We have held onto it way too long.

MHz

09-23-2006, 02:36 AM

Hi Core,

End does not mean any time after. You just keep doing that error.
It says END of, not after the end of.
From the day the 7 weeks started until 173880 days later, that is the last day of those two combined periods of time. Not one day before, nor one day later.
One day after is not day 173880, it has to be at least 173881 days, what follows the 69th week is the 70th. Christ is said to be cut off after the 69th week, God can stop the sun crossing the sky anytime He wishes to do so, on the day Jesus gave up His life the day continued from the latter part afternoon until dark. Had time stopped, as you wish it, Jesus could not have had His 3 days and nights in the grave, He would still be there. But He was resurrected right on time, just as all prophecy given by God is right on time, not about or close to, specific in many cases, down to the hour in some cases.

No it does not!
Fine, ignore your own references.
It means next, not anytime after with any amount of intervening events. Next, nothing inbetween, which is what you keep doing.
Of the 69 weeks that had passed, how many had 'nothing inbetween', answer all of them, each and every week was imediately followed by the next in sequencial order. The 70th week is after the 62 weeks, the 62 weeks is after the 7 weeks, the 7 weeks is after the vision (and the time until the decree was given).

Go find yourself and English teacher and let them explain grammar and definitions to you. Show them Daniel 9:25-27, in the NIV or NASB, and ask them to tell you the time flow stated.
I'm quite convinced God does an excellent job on providing all I need to understand His book.
That each passage might give me just a tiny bit of information, that is enough to be a complete piece of a larger set of words that cover a subject. That other books of the Bible need to be read to gather all the words is time consuming, so be it, all the words are there, the only thing needed is the desire to learn more.
If you are going to be this adamant about one word you should also make sure all translations use the very same word, which they don't.

Enough on this one. We have held onto it way too long.
What year was John called by God?

CoreIssue

09-23-2006, 10:36 AM

MHz, you just keep inserting your assumptions as if they were fact. They are not.

You keep rejecting rules of linquistics. Don't expect others to do so with you.

There is no need to do what you do. The verses and passages read just fine and in harmony buy using norms of language.

And yes. There is most assuredly a literally stated gap between the 69th and 70th Week. A grammatically and properly stated pause.

Just not going along with your linquistic violations that you cannot even provide a proof foundation for using. Your assumptions it is allowed does make it so, when it is never even hinted at, Biblically. ;)

MHz

09-23-2006, 09:11 PM

Okay, this thread is dead, we will carry this over to DOTL about John.

That you can't or won't give a date for John being called is enough for this thread. A search for meaning for those two words cannot be complete until you explore how it actually played out. To do that you have to explore the NT, what was said and what order of events occured. This thread doesn't allow for that.

As a parting note I would like to say this. If you assume I find any delight in finding a 'possible error' in your doctrine that isn't what it is about. It only takes one error to put something as being 'unfound'. It is more a matter of my own personal search for what Scripture says. I simply refuse to accept something where all questions do not have a very plain answer (as in a passage that says something 'is so'). Don't assume I have no questions that still require answers, I do.
If you really want to convince me of what God has to say, show me the passages that explain your position, telling me to take a course in basic English does squat except tell me how niave you are to understanding basic Scripture.
Daniel has much to say about the same thing Revelations teaches, Chapter 9 isn't part of it though.
Later

CoreIssue

09-23-2006, 09:35 PM

If you really want to convince me of what God has to say, show me the passages that explain your position, telling me to take a course in basic English does squat except tell me how niave you are to understanding basic Scripture.
No one can post anything to your acceptance if they do not accept your unfounded manner of reading. Simple as that.

It is not naive to not accept your assuptions and theories.

We will not agree on this. And you will find very few, if any, that agree with your End Time's outline of events for Revelation, the MK or so on.

Later. ;)

MHz

09-23-2006, 11:02 PM

Well Core, simply put, you haven't ever been a part of a thread where that did happen, not that it has never happened, just that you weren't there.
That you simply deny my version because it conflicts with yours is paramount to wearing blinders.
I don't care if you do accept them at face value (hense the numerous quotes from the Bible), that you reject them in that your version might be affected is no cause of concern for me. Over the time we have talked numerous times a point I made goes unanswered. Whatever the reason a non responce does not put that point in error.
Using the term niave was taken as an insult by you even though I admited I still have some questions, that makes me niave also, a point you missed. As you once said 'in light of new information' the old version washes away, come hell or high water you will retain your version rather than be enlightened. You proved that by the verse that describes those who see the Earth below as being the 3rd part of your two part resurrection.
Don't kid yourself about whether your words have any hold over me, they don't. Really, telling me to take English lessons when Scripture came in either Hebrew or Greek and some in Jesus's own dialect. For those few verses there are probably a hundred or more that add detail to those verses.

What is more important to you, that people agree with you or Scripture agrees with you, sometimes the two are not compatable, for myself Scripture wins every single time. If you have a version all points must be in harmony, not most, all.
The post you made by Tony Warren from the mountain retreat was from a site that my membership got 'cancelled' simply because one thread was written by Tony and, while it was a very good article there was one point that was not in harmony with Scripture, it was either that Jesus baptised some before the cross or to do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit in some way. The point is he was in error according to a very specific verse that directly stated something different. What effect did pointing that out make, post deleted, membership cancelled. Not a big deal really(the membership), but rather than change to allow that Scripture another course of action was taken, silence those not in total agreement.

Thankfully you are above that kind of action, but Scripture must remain above all else, including any amount of lessons in the English language.

If this was widespread then it would not be new. My question is why weren't the issues I bring up resolved long ago.
Later

CoreIssue

09-23-2006, 11:17 PM

I don't ban anyone for disagreeing with me. Not answering questions, only preaching and so on, yes. But never disagreeing.

You have never done any of those things. You have always been a gracious poster. Thanks.

But, I have answered all your issues. Yes, I stopped when they go repeated over and over as if my answers were not answers. But they were answers.

I didn't take naive as an insult. I took it as how you felt. I, also, epressed my puzzlement over how you approach things.

What is important to me is rightly divining the word of God. Which demands using proper rules of language. Which, you plainly, do not.

I asked repeatedly for you to provide any linquistic sources that justify your approach. You gave none. I asked for verses backing your claims then norms of language do not apply to the Bible. You gave none.

I posted word definitions. And I abided by rules of grammar. You always launched off elsewhere to try to prove your point.

We are simply not going to see eye to eye on that, unless you can provide proof of non norm way of approaching things is correct and valid. But you cannot.

I have thousand of years of norms of language and word definitions backing me. I have the fact that reading the Bible in that manner gives straight forward, non contradictory answers.

Again. We do not agree on that simple point. And thus a brick wall to progress.

Here is some simple math, to illustrate my point, here is some simple math.

457 BC (decree made) - 490 years (your claim all fulfilled) = 67 AD as the year of Christ's death. NO one with any historical knowledge buys that date.

Even reducing by 3.5 years, it is still way late for any historical perspective to allow.

You dwell on arguments about Passovers, in you way of going at it. You do so to the simple math of beginning of 457 BC.

I have no problems, in any manner, with 27 AD. Even those into the Passovers and such list that as one plausible date.

So, we move on and hope for agreement elsewhere.

You can have the last word here. I will remain silent. :D

MHz

09-24-2006, 01:16 PM

Hi Core,

Here is some simple math, to illustrate my point, here is some simple math.
457 BC (decree made) - 490 years (your claim all fulfilled) = 67 AD as the year of Christ's death. NO one with any historical knowledge buys that date.
Even reducing by 3.5 years, it is still way late for any historical perspective to allow.
Interesting how you did the math on this one. 69 weeks (using this method) would result in 60AD (7 years earlier than the end of a full 490 years) . Now if you use 33AD and go back 490 years you end up at 457BC, same method you use for getting a 26AD date for 69 full weeks.
26AD - 483 years= 457BC. (hopefully this method doesn't allow for a year '0')
Or if you start with (-457) and the add 490 you get 33AD.

There is more information the bible gives that can be of help (provided accurate historical document can be obtained)
On what day of the week was passover on the year Jesus suffered the cross. If memory serves me correct we do agree on some of this. The day Jesus actually gave up the Ghost is counted as day 1. That night was the 1st night, followed by two days and two nights.
The tomb was empty on the morning of the first day of the week (Sunday). This would seem to point to passover and the 'regular' Sabbath being the 6th and 7th days of the previous week and Jesus's death being on the 5th day of that week, ( a Thursday).
If the above is a valid then passover was on a Friday in the year Jesus died.

Another bit of information that is usefull in determining if these two Sabbaths were back to back are these verses about when the women prepared some spices;
Lu:23:52: This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
Lu:23:53: And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
Lu:23:54: And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
Lu:23:55: And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
Lu:23:56: And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

The above points to the spices being prepared on the same day Jesus died.

In all fairness, if you have some way of finding when passover was for that period of time (25AD-33AD) there should be a date where passover Sabbath and the 'regular' Sabbath were in two back-to-back days.
I tried hebcal.com but they say those dates might not be accurate. I tried another site that is supposed to be accurate for the phases of the new moons in Israel but I do not understand why in some years passover (the date they give) varies from being on the same day as the full moon to being upto two and three days after what date is given for the full moon. Anyway this is the link to that site,
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/index.html?year=26&country=34

You dwell on arguments about Passovers, in you way of going at it. You do so to the simple math of beginning of 457 BC.
The only point I made about passovers (before this post) is that there were 3 mentioned after Jesus came back from the 40 days in the wilderness.

I have no problems, in any manner, with 27 AD. Even those into the Passovers and such list that as one plausible date.
And I have no problem with Jesus having to be born on or before Herod's death in 4BC.

So, we move on and hope for agreement elsewhere.
Or we can keep exploring this aspect in the search for what is meant by 'until'.

You can have the last word here. I will remain silent. :D
I hate repeated things as much as you do but other topics which are tied to this can also be explored.

Later

CoreIssue

09-24-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14760#post14760)
Here is some simple math, to illustrate my point, here is some simple math.
457 BC (decree made) - 490 years (your claim all fulfilled) = 67 AD as the year of Christ's death. NO one with any historical knowledge buys that date.
Even reducing by 3.5 years, it is still way late for any historical perspective to allow.

Interesting how you did the math on this one. 69 weeks (using this method) would result in 60AD (7 years earlier than the end of a full 490 years) . Now if you use 33AD and go back 490 years you end up at 457BC, same method you use for getting a 26AD date for 69 full weeks.
26AD - 483 years= 457BC. (hopefully this method doesn't allow for a year '0')
Or if you start with (-457) and the add 490 you get 33AD.
Had to comment on this.
Wow! My math was bad on that. Agree. Stand corrected.
But, now you face the problem of having Christ born at year 1 BC. So, even with my error you still cannot apply 490 years, because Christ was born in 6/7BC.
Move back from the full 70 to the 69th Week, as stated by Daniel, and you are at the correct time of death, 26/27 AD.
On what day of the week was passover on the year Jesus suffered the cross. If memory serves me correct we do agree on some of this. The day Jesus actually gave up the Ghost is counted as day 1. That night was the 1st night, followed by two days and two nights.
The tomb was empty on the morning of the first day of the week (Sunday). This would seem to point to passover and the 'regular' Sabbath being the 6th and 7th days of the previous week and Jesus's death being on the 5th day of that week, ( a Thursday).
If the above is a valid then passover was on a Friday in the year Jesus died.
Which would have begun Thursday, at Sunset.
Another bit of information that is usefull in determining if these two Sabbaths were back to back are these verses about when the women prepared some spices;
Lu:23:52: This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
Lu:23:53: And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
Lu:23:54: And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
Lu:23:55: And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
Lu:23:56: And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

The above points to the spices being prepared on the same day Jesus died.

But would have been before Sunset, thus actually making it the day before in Jewish recogning.
In all fairness, if you have some way of finding when passover was for that period of time (25AD-33AD) there should be a date where passover Sabbath and the 'regular' Sabbath were in two back-to-back days.

There is a lot of debate as to exactly how the Sabbaths fell, and what was being called a Sabbath.
Can make the head hurt.
But, no matter how you slice it, you cannot dismiss 457 and 483 years from the forumula.

Those are firm time not subject to debate.
I tried hebcal.com but they say those dates might not be accurate. I tried another site that is supposed to be accurate for the phases of the new moons in Israel but I do not understand why in some years passover (the date they give) varies from being on the same day as the full moon to being upto two and three days after what date is given for the full moon. Anyway this is the link to that site,
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/...=26&country=34
I have tried to decipher all the ends and outs on Sabbaths. The Majority of Sabbaths, Saturday, never took full moon's into acount. Others did and others did not.
So, trying to base it all on moon phases is a recipe for mistakes.
Quote:
You dwell on arguments about Passovers, in you way of going at it. You do so to the simple math of beginning of 457 BC.
The only point I made about passovers (before this post) is that there were 3 mentioned after Jesus came back from the 40 days in the wilderness.

Correct. By you cannot lock them all into being governed by moon phases. That is a mistake.
Quote:

I have no problems, in any manner, with 27 AD. Even those into the Passovers and such list that as one plausible date.
And I have no problem with Jesus having to be born on or before Herod's death in 4BC.

OK. Good.
Quote
So, we move on and hope for agreement elsewhere.
Or we can keep exploring this aspect in the search for what is meant by 'until'.

Nothing to explore. The word means what the word means.
It is not defined by other verses. It is defined by its own meaning within the grammatical context used, there.
Quote:
You can have the last word here. I will remain silent. :D
I hate repeated things as much as you do but other topics which are tied to this can also be explored.

Sorry for answering. You went a direction I did not expect and I had to comment on my math error.

Later

MHz

09-24-2006, 10:48 PM

Hi Core,
But, now you face the problem of having Christ born at year 1 BC. So, even with my error you still cannot apply 490 years, because Christ was born in 6/7BC.
That isn't the way those times are figured. 33AD was the end of the 490 year period. Jesus would have died 31/2 years prior to this. The mid-week event that took away sacrifice. Jesus would have been at least 33 in 30AD. That would mean taking 4 (because 3 1/2 is more than 3)years away from 30AD which puts it back to 26AD. 30 years prior to this would be 4BC, the year Herod died.

Move back from the full 70 to the 69th Week, as stated by Daniel, and you are at the correct time of death, 26/27 AD.
Now it is going to appear that I am harping on about this, but the verse that gives events that were in place when John was called are 'correctly' dated(if they are dated correctly in our history books). As noted, Pontius was governor (which any site I've looked at points to 26AD as being his first year.
"in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" is dated as 14AD which would put it at 29AD, this date is to late for almost every date of Jesus being just 30, even though Scripture does say "about 30" I doubt He was even 31. Some sites say there was a two year period where he 'co-ruled', if that can be considered into this then this puts the date back two years 27AD, which is back into a time period that is within the time of Herod's death. There was an eclipse on the night Herod died, from one site these dates are given,
"There are 2 possible eclipses in the period 7 BC to AD 6
A total eclipse on the 23rd March 5 BC at 7:45 pm
A partial eclipse on the 13th March 4 BC at 2:41 am."
Am I correct in that both these dates are at the end of a year? From what I know about Abib it is the first new moon in summer (in that God originally gave only two seasons, summer starting after the March equinox, before the equinox would be considered winter).

Which would have begun Thursday, at Sunset.
Agreed, a Jewish new day starts at sundown.

There is a lot of debate as to exactly how the Sabbaths fell, and what was being called a Sabbath.
Can make the head hurt.
But, no matter how you slice it, you cannot dismiss 457 and 483 years from the forumula.
Those are firm time not subject to debate.
I'm not trying to dismiss those times. This set of verses does indicate that the first day of passover no work can be done;
Le:23:3:
Six days shall work be done:
but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest,
an holy convocation;
ye shall do no work therein:
it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.
Le:23:4:
These are the feasts of the LORD,
even holy convocations,
which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.
Le:23:5:
In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.
Le:23:6:
And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD:
seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
Le:23:7:
In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation:
ye shall do no servile work therein.

In the NT passover seems to be called a Sabbath, but not a Sabbath of rest, which the 7th day of the week is called in the OT;
Joh:19:31:
The Jews therefore,
because it was the preparation,
that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day,
(for that sabbath day was an high day,)
besought Pilate that their legs might be broken,
and that they might be taken away.

I have tried to decipher all the ends and outs on Sabbaths. The Majority of Sabbaths, Saturday, never took full moon's into acount. Others did and others did not.
So, trying to base it all on moon phases is a recipe for mistakes.
I only use the moon for finding the Sabbath attached to passover, based on these verses;
Ex:12:2:
This month shall be unto you the beginning of months:
it shall be the first month of the year to you.
Ex:12:3:
Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel,
saying,
In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb,
according to the house of their fathers,
a lamb for an house:
Ex:12:6:
And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month:
and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

Ex:12:18:
In the first month,
on the fourteenth day of the month at even,
ye shall eat unleavened bread,
until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.

From the above Jesus would seem to have died on the 13th day after the first new moon after the 'spring' equinox. That is the reason for considering on what day the new moon was. This would also seem to be that a full moon would be the Sabbath of passover, coming 14 (or 15th)days after the new moon. This Sabbath would not be on the same day of the week every year.

Correct. By you cannot lock them all into being governed by moon phases. That is a mistake.
It is by the new moon that passover is determined, 14 days after the first new moon after the equinox. (Actually it when a barley stem can be broken and farmers know that this is relatively consistant year after year);
Ex:9:27:
And Pharaoh sent,
and called for Moses and Aaron,
and said unto them,
I have sinned this time:
the LORD is righteous,
and I and my people are wicked.
Ex:9:28:
Intreat the LORD (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thunderings and hail;
and I will let you go,
and ye shall stay no longer.
Ex:9:29:
And Moses said unto him,
As soon as I am gone out of the city,
I will spread abroad my hands unto the LORD;
and the thunder shall cease,
neither shall there be any more hail;
that thou mayest know how that the earth is the LORD's.
Ex:9:30:
But as for thee and thy servants,
I know that ye will not yet fear the LORD God.
Ex:9:31:
And the flax and the barley was smitten:
for the barley was in the ear,
and the flax was bolled.
Ex:9:32:
But the wheat and the rie were not smitten:
for they were not grown up.
Ex:9:33:
And Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh,
and spread abroad his hands unto the LORD:
and the thunders and hail ceased,
and the rain was not poured upon the earth.

Barley has to be 'in the ear' before passover. In the years when there was 13 months passover would be the maximun number of day after the equinox. A problem that comes from having Abib start in winter (the new moon closest to the spring equinox) is that the timing of the fall festivels is out by an even larger margin.

Later

CoreIssue

09-25-2006, 12:13 AM

Hi MHz,

Your all over the place, which makes it hard to follow. Let me boil this down.

457/8 to 26/27 AD is 483 years, which agrees with dying after the 69th Week.
457/8 to 33/34 AD is 490 years, which, for you, ends the 70 Weeks.
457/8 to 29/30 AD is 486.5 years, which for you, is Mid 70th Week.

Now, Christ had to be born in 6/7 BC. No later.
Yet, using your numbers:
33.5 - 29/30 is 4.5/3.5 BC

So, your numbers are impossible.

Why? Because Herod died in 4 BC and the Wise Men dated Christ's birth to 2 years prior, upon which Herod based his command.

We further know this is true because Christ, when the Wise Men went to him, was now a child/toddler, no longer an infant, and in a home, not homeless, in a stable.

6/7 BC + 33 = 26/27 AD. Plain math. No way around it.

The known facts of 457/8 BC, 6/7 BC, 4 BC, 26/27 AD and 33 1/2 years old do not allow for you timing.

Yet, you keep trying to play with the numbers because of your perception of the 15 year of Tiberious. A vague meaning number that is one of the most debated issues of Biblical history. No one but no one knows exactly when it is dated from. There are dates from 10 to 14 AD out there.
As noted, Pontius was governor (which any site I've looked at points to 26AD as being his first year.

Which is absolutely acceptable for a 26/27 death year.

"in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" is dated as 14AD which would put it at 29AD, this date is to late for almost every date of Jesus being just 30, even though Scripture does say "about 30" I doubt He was even 31.

14 is but one of MANY theorized dates. We don't know because the records all conflict as to what event is held to be his first years.

But now, about everyone agrees it did not mean they year he ascended to the throne. But a year he was given some form of co-regency, which a study of history shows dates back, in various form, to way before 14 AD.

Dwelling on what is so vague to the exclusion of what is solidly know is bad logic. And only being used to try to support your dating system.

It will not work. The only numbers that work is Christ dying at the end of the 69th Week in 26/27 AD.

Your numbers cannot work.

Your obsession with the beginning of John's ministry by your way of calculating it is a dead end.

Later.

MHz

09-25-2006, 04:39 AM

Your all over the place, which makes it hard to follow. Let me boil this down.
Nobody said all the pieces were in one part of the Bible.

Why? Because Herod died in 4 BC and the Wise Men dated Christ's birth to 2 years prior, upon which Herod based his command.
I'm not sure where you came up with the two year prior for the wise men, Herod gave his order to kill all the male children under two because he wanted to make sure he got all possible children. The wise men found Jesus in Bethlehem. Jesus was only there for a very few days;
M't:2:1:
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,
behold,
there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
M't:2:2:
Saying,
Where is he that is born King of the Jews?
for we have seen his star in the east,
and are come to worship him.
M't:2:3:
When Herod the king had heard these things,
he was troubled,
and all Jerusalem with him.
M't:2:4:
And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together,
he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
M't:2:5:
And they said unto him,
In Bethlehem of Judaea:
for thus it is written by the prophet,
M't:2:6:
And thou Bethlehem,
in the land of Juda,
art not the least among the princes of Juda:
for out of thee shall come a Governor,
that shall rule my people Israel.
M't:2:7:
Then Herod,
when he had privily called the wise men,
enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
M't:2:8:
And he sent them to Bethlehem,
and said,
Go and search diligently for the young child;
and when ye have found him, bring me word again,
that I may come and worship him also.
M't:2:9:
When they had heard the king,
they departed;
and,
lo,
the star,
which they saw in the east,
went before them,
till it came and stood over where the young child was.
M't:2:10:
When they saw the star,
they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
M't:2:11:
And when they were come into the house,
they saw the young child with Mary his mother,
and fell down,
and worshipped him:
and when they had opened their treasures,
they presented unto him gifts;
gold,
and frankincense,
and myrrh.
M't:2:12:
And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod,
they departed into their own country another way.

The above shows they found Him in Bethlehem, these next set of verses tell how long Jesus was there;
Lu:2:21:
And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child,
his name was called JESUS,
which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Lu:2:22:
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished,
they brought him to Jerusalem,
to present him to the Lord;
Lu:2:23:
(As it is written in the law of the Lord,
Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
Lu:2:24:
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord,
A pair of turtledoves,
or two young pigeons.
Lu:2:25:
And,
behold,
there was a man in Jerusalem,
whose name was Simeon;
and the same man was just and devout,
waiting for the consolation of Israel:
and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
Lu:2:26:
And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost,
that he should not see death,
before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
Lu:2:27:
And he came by the Spirit into the temple:
and when the parents brought in the child Jesus,
to do for him after the custom of the law,
Lu:2:28:
Then took he him up in his arms,
and blessed God,
and said,
Lu:2:29:
Lord,
now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word:

According to that Law Mary would have not been allowed into the temple for the amount of days indicated in the below verses;
Le:12:2:
Speak unto the children of Israel,
saying,
If a woman have conceived seed,
and born a man child:
then she shall be unclean seven days;
according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
Le:12:3:
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
Le:12:4:
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days;
she shall touch no hallowed thing,
nor come into the sanctuary,
until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
Le:12:5:
But if she bear a maid child,
then she shall be unclean two weeks,
as in her separation:
and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
Le:12:6:
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled,
for a son,
or for a daughter,
she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering,
and a young pigeon,
or a turtledove,
for a sin offering,
unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,
unto the priest:
Le:12:7:
Who shall offer it before the LORD,
and make an atonement for her;
and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.
This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

Mary could have been in the temple (Lu:2:27:) 42 days after she gave birth to Jesus.
Joseph recieved his dream just after the wisemen left (M't:2:13:). They would have been on their way to Egypt when they stopped in Jerusalem (Lu:2).

Herod fullfills a prophecy when he orders the male children under two to be killed;
M't:2:16:
Then Herod,
when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,
was exceeding wroth,
and sent forth,
and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem,
and in all the coasts thereof,
from two years old and under,
according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
M't:2:17:
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
saying,
M't:2:18:
In Rama was there a voice heard,
lamentation,
and weeping,
and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children,
and would not be comforted,
because they are not.
M't:2:19:
But when Herod was dead,
behold,
an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
M't:2:20:
Saying,
Arise,
and take the young child and his mother,
and go into the land of Israel:
for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

According to Thayer's Lexicon a 'young child', if a male, could be an infant so there is nothing to indicate they were in Egypt for years, it could have been just a few days.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1159164954-3967.html

We further know this is true because Christ, when the Wise Men went to him, was now a child/toddler, no longer an infant, and in a home, not homeless, in a stable.
Perhaps you don't know in those days animals were kept on the ground floor of a 'house', this might be enough to convince you of this but not everybody who had animals also could afford to have a seperate 'barn',
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a012.html

6/7 BC + 33 = 26/27 AD. Plain math. No way around it.
The math is right, just no proof that Jesus was in Bethlehem at any time other than at His birth. Matthew says at the end of Ch:2 that they were in Nazareth, that would be after coming back from Egypt. Luke says in Vs:39 they went to Nazareth, not back to Bethlehem.

The known facts of 457/8 BC, 6/7 BC, 4 BC, 26/27 AD and 33 1/2 years old do not allow for you timing.
The Scripture above does not allow for Jesus to be in His place of birth more than 42 days, Mary would have taken Him there as soon as she was 'purified' not several years later, they never went back there.

Yet, you keep trying to play with the numbers because of your perception of the 15 year of Tiberious. A vague meaning number that is one of the most debated issues of Biblical history. No one but no one knows exactly when it is dated from. There are dates from 10 to 14 AD out there.
The date that comes up consistantly is the one for Pontious becoming governor, 26AD.

Which is absolutely acceptable for a 26/27 death year.
If John was called in the 15th year then Jesus would have given up the Ghost in the 18th or 19th year of Tiberious's reign raising the date to 28/29 to 32/33

14 is but one of MANY theorized dates. We don't know because the records all conflict as to what event is held to be his first years.
What date range do you have for Pontious becoming governor?

Your obsession with the beginning of John's ministry by your way of calculating it is a dead end.
Why would you say that Verse is a 'dead end', it is an event that was in place before Jesus was baptised, that and the number of passovers tells how many years pass before the cross.
This seems to be the one given date that you refuse to acknowledge.

Later

CoreIssue

09-25-2006, 10:53 AM

Hi MHz,

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14792#post14792)
Your all over the place, which makes it hard to follow. Let me boil this down.

Nobody said all the pieces were in one part of the Bible.

Agree. But that is not what I meant.

I meant, you touch part here, nothing there and just avoid other parts.

Quote:
Why? Because Herod died in 4 BC and the Wise Men dated Christ's birth to 2 years prior, upon which Herod based his command.
I'm not sure where you came up with the two year prior for the wise men, Herod gave his order to kill all the male children under two because he wanted to make sure he got all possible children. The wise men found Jesus in Bethlehem. Jesus was only there for a very few days;

Not correct.
He had them killed because the Wise Men saw his birth revealed 2 years prior. That is what he based his command upon.
M't:2:1:
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,
behold,
there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
M't:2:2:
Saying,
Where is he that is born King of the Jews?
for we have seen his star in the east,
and are come to worship him.
M't:2:3:
When Herod the king had heard these things,
he was troubled,
and all Jerusalem with him.
M't:2:4:
And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together,
he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
M't:2:5:
And they said unto him,
In Bethlehem of Judaea:
for thus it is written by the prophet,
M't:2:6:
And thou Bethlehem,
in the land of Juda,
art not the least among the princes of Juda:
for out of thee shall come a Governor,
that shall rule my people Israel.
M't:2:7:
Then Herod,
when he had privily called the wise men,
enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
M't:2:8:
And he sent them to Bethlehem,
and said,
Go and search diligently for the young child;
and when ye have found him, bring me word again,
that I may come and worship him also.
M't:2:9:
When they had heard the king,
they departed;
and,
lo,
the star,
which they saw in the east,
went before them,
till it came and stood over where the young child was.
M't:2:10:
When they saw the star,
they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
M't:2:11:
And when they were come into the house,
they saw the young child with Mary his mother,
and fell down,
and worshipped him:
and when they had opened their treasures,
they presented unto him gifts;
gold,
and frankincense,
and myrrh.
M't:2:12:
And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod,
they departed into their own country another way.

The above shows they found Him in Bethlehem, these next set of verses tell how long Jesus was there;
Lu:2:21:
And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child,
his name was called JESUS,
which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Lu:2:22:
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished,
they brought him to Jerusalem,
to present him to the Lord;
Lu:2:23:
(As it is written in the law of the Lord,
Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
Lu:2:24:
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord,
A pair of turtledoves,
or two young pigeons.

He is a child here. Not a baby.
They are now living in a house. They had no house when he was born.
Lu:2:25:
And,
behold,
there was a man in Jerusalem,
whose name was Simeon;
and the same man was just and devout,
waiting for the consolation of Israel:
and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
Lu:2:26:
And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost,
that he should not see death,
before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
Lu:2:27:
And he came by the Spirit into the temple:
and when the parents brought in the child Jesus,
to do for him after the custom of the law,
Lu:2:28:
Then took he him up in his arms,
and blessed God,
and said,
Lu:2:29:
Lord,
now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word:

Does nothing to set his age at the time of the Wise Men.
According to that Law Mary would have not been allowed into the temple for the amount of days indicated in the below verses;
Le:12:2:
Speak unto the children of Israel,
saying,
If a woman have conceived seed,
and born a man child:
then she shall be unclean seven days;
according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
Le:12:3:
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
Le:12:4:
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days;
she shall touch no hallowed thing,
nor come into the sanctuary,
until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
Le:12:5:
But if she bear a maid child,
then she shall be unclean two weeks,
as in her separation:
and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
Le:12:6:
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled,
for a son,
or for a daughter,
she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering,
and a young pigeon,
or a turtledove,
for a sin offering,
unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,
unto the priest:
Le:12:7:
Who shall offer it before the LORD,
and make an atonement for her;
and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.
This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

Does nothing to set the Wise Men date.
Mary could have been in the temple (Lu:2:27:) 42 days after she gave birth to Jesus.

So what?
Joseph recieved his dream just after the wisemen left (M't:2:13:). They would have been on their way to Egypt when they stopped in Jerusalem (Lu:2).

He was a child in a house. Not a baby with no home.
Herod fullfills a prophecy when he orders the male children under two to be killed;
M't:2:16:
Then Herod,
when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,
was exceeding wroth,
and sent forth,
and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem,
and in all the coasts thereof,
from two years old and under,
according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

They gave him the time of birth. Two years prior.
M't:2:17:
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
saying,
M't:2:18:
In Rama was there a voice heard,
lamentation,
and weeping,
and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children,
and would not be comforted,
because they are not.

Does not set the age.
M't:2:19:
But when Herod was dead,
behold,
an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
M't:2:20:
Saying,
Arise,
and take the young child and his mother,
and go into the land of Israel:
for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

Exactly! They were in Egypt when Herod died in 4 BC.
This demands a date for Christ's birth of more than 2 years before his death.
The Wise Men said 2 years earlier, Christ moved into a house and was a child, they had time to fulfill the requirements of circumcision and move and settle in Egypt.
According to Thayer's Lexicon a 'young child', if a male, could be an infant so there is nothing to indicate they were in Egypt for years, it could have been just a few days.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...4954-3967.html (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1159164954-3967.html)

Which has you completely disregarding all the other time demands stated.
Your dating does not work.

Quote:
We further know this is true because Christ, when the Wise Men went to him, was now a child/toddler, no longer an infant, and in a home, not homeless, in a stable.
Perhaps you don't know in those days animals were kept on the ground floor of a 'house', this might be enough to convince you of this but not everybody who had animals also could afford to have a seperate 'barn',
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a012.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a012.html)

Pointless issue. They did not have a house when he was born and the Wise Men pushed his birth back 2 years prior to seeing Herod. And they were in Egypt when he died.

Again, you are trying to justify your concept of the 70 Weeks by forcing time frames that cannot have happened.

Quote:
6/7 BC + 33 = 26/27 AD. Plain math. No way around it.
The math is right, just no proof that Jesus was in Bethlehem at any time other than at His birth. Matthew says at the end of Ch:2 that they were in Nazareth, that would be after coming back from Egypt. Luke says in Vs:39 they went to Nazareth, not back to Bethlehem.
Nonsense! The verses you posted showed him in Bethlehem 2 years after his birth.

It is also a misleading argument.

The dates clearly show Christ died in 26/27 AD, which is the point. Which refutes your time table.

Quote:
The known facts of 457/8 BC, 6/7 BC, 4 BC, 26/27 AD and 33 1/2 years old do not allow for you timing.
The Scripture above does not allow for Jesus to be in His place of birth more than 42 days, Mary would have taken Him there as soon as she was 'purified' not several years later, they never went back there.
False! It shows him there 2 years. Now living in a house.

The the journey to Egypt and the later return at Herod's death. your numbers do not work.
Quote:
Yet, you keep trying to play with the numbers because of your perception of the 15 year of Tiberious. A vague meaning number that is one of the most debated issues of Biblical history. No one but no one knows exactly when it is dated from. There are dates from 10 to 14 AD out there.
The date that comes up consistantly is the one for Pontious becoming governor, 26AD.
Which is fully acceptable for Christ dying in that year. Stop pretending this argument negates his death then.

Quote:
Which is absolutely acceptable for a 26/27 death year.
If John was called in the 15th year then Jesus would have given up the Ghost in the 18th or 19th year of Tiberious's reign raising the date to 28/29 to 32/33
Again you turn a blind eye to the fact the year the 15 year is computed from is highly debated. You pick one date that most now undertstand is incorrect, being 14 AD.

If you cannot concede the point you don't know the absolute date there is nothing more to talk about. You are basing your whole scheme on 14 AD, which cannot work with the firm other known dates.

As I said, you are only hanging onto dates you can make work for you, to the rejection of actual known dates that deny you.

Quote:
14 is but one of MANY theorized dates. We don't know because the records all conflict as to what event is held to be his first years.
What date range do you have for Pontious becoming governor?
What is with the argument!!! 26 AD is perfectly acceptable for Christ dying in that years, or 27 AD.

What is your point?
It only says he was governor. It does not tie his starting date with 15th year of Tiberius.

Quote:
Your obsession with the beginning of John's ministry by your way of calculating it is a dead end.
Why would you say that Verse is a 'dead end', it is an event that was in place before Jesus was baptised, that and the number of passovers tells how many years pass before the cross.
This seems to be the one given date that you refuse to acknowledge.

I am not disputing the reference. I am disputing your demand it is based on 14 AD.
14 AD cannot be harmonized with the other dating. It is the most vague date out there. Yet you make it the focal point of your argument because you need it for your doctrine.
It CANNOT be harmonzied with any other dates given, as in Herod's death, for just one example.
I calculated out the dates. You did not reply to the calculations. You just lapsed back into obsessing over 14 AD, which I have shown, repeatedly, is an assumed date not accepted by many as the date meant.
This is the sole issue from the Bible you can attempt to use. You throw all the other facts out the window to dwell on it.
14 AD is NOT the correct date.
Herod died 4 BC
Christ HAD to be born at least 2 years earlier. Had to be.
Pilate was governor in 26/27 AD, when Christ died.
6/7 BC says Christ died 26/27 AD. But you only have him 30 years old then.
You cannot reconcile your dating with the known facts.
Tiberius is obviously dated from about 8 AD.
It does not say Tiberius was in his 15th year as Emporer. It says he was in his 15 year as ruler. History shows he was a ruler long before he was an Emporer.
Later

MHz

09-26-2006, 01:38 AM

Hi Core,
When in the town of Bethelem where would you find a manger"
Define manger.
He had them killed because the Wise Men saw his birth revealed 2 years prior.
The ones killed for being 'under two' was for what? That it included other places other than Bethelem was for what?
So what?
Tell me you are not serious about this statement.
Tell me you are not serious about this statement.
Tell me you are not serious about this statement.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, would not have taken her child to the temple in Jerusalem as soon as time allowed. Why in Earth do you not see that is the whole point about even mentioning purification.
Tell me you are not serious about this statement. This will so do you in.

They gave him the time of birth. Two years prior.
M't:2:16:
Then Herod,
when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,
was exceeding wroth,
and sent forth,
and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem,
and in all the coasts thereof,
from two years old and under,
according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

The under two was for what?

What is with the argument!!! 26 AD is perfectly acceptable for Christ dying in that years, or 27 AD.
So Pontious could serve in his first year as govenor and John could be called to baptise Jesus and Jesus could see three passovers all in the same year. You can fly this all you want, I ain't buying it.

Later

CoreIssue

09-26-2006, 10:51 AM

Hi MHz,

Hi Core,
When in the town of Bethelem where would you find a manger"
Define manger.
In a barn. A manger is a hay holder in a stall.

I have never heard anyone debate that issue.
Luke 2
7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Quote:
He had them killed because the Wise Men saw his birth revealed 2 years prior.
The ones killed for being 'under two' was for what? That it included other places other than Bethelem was for what?

Paranoia by Herod.

It does nothing to negate the fact of what the Wise Men reported.

It does nothing to negate Christ was no longer a baby, in a barn and now had a house to live in.

Nor the fact that they jouneyed to Egypt, was living there, and the journeyed back, after Herolds death.

You cannot possibly have Christ 30 years old in 27 AD. It is impossible.

Quote:

So what?
Tell me you are not serious about this statement.
Tell me you are not serious about this statement.
Tell me you are not serious about this statement.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, would not have taken her child to the temple in Jerusalem as soon as time allowed. Why in Earth do you not see that is the whole point about even mentioning purification.
Tell me you are not serious about this statement. This will so do you in.

No. It does not do me in for any reason. None.
Christ born in 6/7 BC with the Wise Men showing up 2 years later makes this information, but no effect on computing his date of birth.
Quote:
They gave him the time of birth. Two years prior.
M't:2:16:
Then Herod,
when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,
was exceeding wroth,
and sent forth,
and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem,
and in all the coasts thereof,
from two years old and under,
according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

The under two was for what?

You have already been answered.

You answer why 2 years old if that is not when the Wise Men said he was born?

Or, do you forget the shephard saw the star standing over Bethelehem when Christ was born? And they sas him IN the manger? Which is the same star the Wise Men say two years earlier.

That makes is birth 2 years prior to seeing Herod. Not a two year advanced warning.

Your dating is wrong.

Quote:
What is with the argument!!! 26 AD is perfectly acceptable for Christ dying in that years, or 27 AD.
So Pontious could serve in his first year as govenor and John could be called to baptise Jesus and Jesus could see three passovers all in the same year. You can fly this all you want, I ain't buying it.

John was called at age 30, correct? Had to be since that is the legal age of manhood for Jews, back then. Christ began at age 30, correct? How much older was John? 6 months.

Do the math.

Later

MHz

09-29-2006, 10:56 PM

In a barn. A manger is a hay holder in a stall.
I have never heard anyone debate that issue.
Back then there were also mangers in probably just about every house, on the ground floor, living quarters for the people were in the upper rooms.

He had them killed because the Wise Men saw his birth revealed 2 years prior.
You have these men not arriving in Bethelem for two years, Mary, Jesus and Joseph were in Jerusalem about 40 days after He was born. No Scripture ever has them going back to Bethelem. Scripture goes on to say they returned to their home, the place they were before they even went to Bethelem. If they were there for a month then that would have been more than enough time to do what they went there for.

Paranoia by Herod.
But the reason he had those killed from new-born until two was that the wise-men had said the star was seen within a month of them actually seeing Jesus.

It does nothing to negate Christ was no longer a baby, in a barn and now had a house to live in.
Nor does it negate that He was still called a young child when called from Egypt. So it looks like we get to cover more pages to define 'young child'. The defination I supplied included infants.

Nor the fact that they jouneyed to Egypt, was living there, and the journeyed back, after Herolds death.
If Jesus was born in the fall and Herod died around the end of March all that could have been fullfilled before the first passover after His birth, and there is Scripture that say they did take Him to Jerusalem for passovers.

You cannot possibly have Christ 30 years old in 27 AD. It is impossible.
Born in 4BC makes Him 30 in 27AD

No. It does not do me in for any reason. None.
Christ born in 6/7 BC with the Wise Men showing up 2 years later makes this information, but no effect on computing his date of birth.
The time is given for how long it was before they were in Jerusalem, 42 days.
Isn't that Scripture specific enough for you?
Ther is no two years they stayed in Bethlehem, what does you in is that Mary is (is allowed by Law) to present her baby in the temple, if you think she would have delayed this you are sooo wrong. This takes them out of Bethelem.
What does you in is that this verse has zero meaning to you. This isn't your first remark about negating verses that are about women in Scripture.

John was called at age 30, correct?
It would be reasonable to go with a point in time after he was actually in his 30 year, by a very slim margin.

Had to be since that is the legal age of manhood for Jews, back then.
They could fight in wars from the age of 20 but Temple service was 30 as the earliest and 50 as the latest.

Christ began at age 30, correct?
Correct, about 30 being a point after being 30.

How much older was John? 6 months.
Okay.

Do the math.
From the time given in John until the first passover from when He was baptised might be 2 months. That would leave time in that year (previous to the two months before Jesus first passover) for John to be called. If Pontious only became Governor in 26 AD the John could not have been called in 23AD, nor could he have baptised Jesus before 26AD, the first year for Pontious. Jesus would have to have suffered the cross in the 3rd ot 4th year of Pontious being Governor.

Later

CoreIssue

09-30-2006, 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
In a barn. A manger is a hay holder in a stall.
I have never heard anyone debate that issue.

Back then there were also mangers in probably just about every house, on the ground floor, living quarters for the people were in the upper rooms.
Stated there was no room. They were not in a house then.

You are the first I have ever heard that suggested what the Bible says allows for Christ to have been born in a house.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
He had them killed because the Wise Men saw his birth revealed 2 years prior.

You have these men not arriving in Bethelem for two years, Mary, Jesus and Joseph were in Jerusalem about 40 days after He was born. No Scripture ever has them going back to Bethelem. Scripture goes on to say they returned to their home, the place they were before they even went to Bethelem. If they were there for a month then that would have been more than enough time to do what they went there for.
Yes. They did not arrive for two years after his star appeared.

We know it was two years because they told Herod the star appeared two years prior and we know when the star appeared Christ was in the manger and the shephard found him there, in Bethlehem.

This is not really a debatable point. Which you are trying to make it.

There is no way to make this all happening in 4 AD. Which it would have had to for you timing to be possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
Paranoia by Herod.

But the reason he had those killed from new-born until two was that the wise-men had said the star was seen within a month of them actually seeing Jesus.

The Wise Men said 2 years. You cannot take Herod's paranoia and turn that in to Christ being born right them.

They said 2 years ago.

Your effort here is already in trouble. because you your yourself gave a 40 day time that is more than within a month.

Herod died in 4 BC. Your numbers do not work.
Matthew 2
16When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

There is an absolutely stated 2 year time frame here.
Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
It does nothing to negate Christ was no longer a baby, in a barn and now had a house to live in.

Nor does it negate that He was still called a young child when called from Egypt. So it looks like we get to cover more pages to define 'young child'. The defination I supplied included infants.

The Wise Men said 2 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
Nor the fact that they jouneyed to Egypt, was living there, and the journeyed back, after Herolds death.

If Jesus was born in the fall and Herod died around the end of March all that could have been fullfilled before the first passover after His birth, and there is Scripture that say they did take Him to Jerusalem for passovers.

There are NO passovers associated with his childhood in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
You cannot possibly have Christ 30 years old in 27 AD. It is impossible.

Born in 4BC makes Him 30 in 27AD
Which is impossible for him to be born in BC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
No. It does not do me in for any reason. None.
Christ born in 6/7 BC with the Wise Men showing up 2 years later makes this information, but no effect on computing his date of birth.

The time is given for how long it was before they were in Jerusalem, 42 days.
Isn't that Scripture specific enough for you?

And nowhere does it say they did not return to Behlehem.
Ther is no two years they stayed in Bethlehem,
Prove it.
what does you in is that Mary is (is allowed by Law) to present her baby in the temple, if you think she would have delayed this you are sooo wrong. This takes them out of Bethelem.
What does you in is that this verse has zero meaning to you. This isn't your first remark about negating verses that are about women in Scripture.

So what? They returned to Bethlehem.
Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
John was called at age 30, correct?

It would be reasonable to go with a point in time after he was actually in his 30 year, by a very slim margin.
He was 30.

When he turned 30 Christ was 29.5 years old.
Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
Had to be since that is the legal age of manhood for Jews, back then.

They could fight in wars from the age of 20 but Temple service was 30 as the earliest and 50 as the latest.
He was 30 when called.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
Christ began at age 30, correct?

Correct, about 30 being a point after being 30.
30 years old. Not 31.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
How much older was John? 6 months.

Okay.

Which means John's ministry began 6 months before Christ's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14836#post14836)
Do the math.

From the time given in John until the first passover from when He was baptised might be 2 months.

What is with you trying to interject passovers every where? The key ones are stated.
That would leave time in that year (previous to the two months before Jesus first passover) for John to be called.
Again, you trying to hinge every event on a passover is ridiculous.
If Pontious only became Governor in 26 AD the John could not have been called in 23AD, nor could he have baptised Jesus before 26AD, the first year for Pontious. Jesus would have to have suffered the cross in the 3rd ot 4th year of Pontious being Governor.

There is absolutely no requirement for John to have begun his ministry the first year Pilate was governor. It merely says he WAS governor. Not when he BECAME governor.

And don't try to hinge this on 14 AD for Tiberius. No one can nail the reference date used down. No one.

Your demand Christ was born in 4 BC cannot work. No matter how much you try to reword what the Wise Men said. Or dismiss it in favor of Herod's actions.

Even moving his birth to 5 BC destroys you time line.

Your numbers cannot work. Trying to figure out unmetioined passovers and making them key points in his your is not evidence. It is baseless theory.

And in reading on Passovers, that is such a murky issue. There is the single Passover, the Double Passover, what is a Passover and what is not.

There is no room for doubt Herod died in 4 BC and the Wise Men said 2 years. Which fits most excellently with 7/6 BC as the date of birth.

There is NO evidence against those years.

Later

CoreIssue

09-30-2006, 12:28 AM

This discussion is getting almost silly.

Not in the issue, but the way it never ends.

You are determined to keep your dating for the simple reason to admit it is wrong would destroy your whole view of the 70th Week.

Trying to force the star into one month before seeing Herod when the Wise Men clearly stated 2 makes it very clear you are not going to see a problem in your timing.

So, I believe it is time agree to disagree and move on.

MHz

09-30-2006, 08:33 PM

You are right, this is getting beyond the point of discussion.
Although this could carry on to many words and more than one 'and then' it is clear that I'm not going to be able to present my version, and the effects it has in that it is different, based on verses alone.
Don't get the impression I am at all confinced, in your favor, how our recent conversation will have any effect on the way prophecy is actually fullfilled, but that we are so odds about every word that can affect the way doctrine actually plays out results in two entirely 'different' outcomes is enough reason to stop for a moment. A step back will (should) result in a 'broader view' of the (more complete picture). This topic has reached the end of the branch.
We really should chat about the 'daughters of Eve' at some point.

CoreIssue

09-30-2006, 10:04 PM

Daughters of Eve. A different topic. Start it when you want.

I think I know what you mean, if the common topic.

And true, putting out your full thinking on schedules and such is pretty pointless. We don't even agree on how to properly read a verse.

I will stick with the norms of language. I know you will stick with your way, even though you have no showable foundation to back it.

Later!

MHz

10-06-2006, 10:06 PM

Stated there was no room. They were not in a house then.

You are the first I have ever heard that suggested what the Bible says allows for Christ to have been born in a house.

Scripture doen't say where the manger was. Most houses also had a manger, even if it was for a goat that provided milk.

Yes. They did not arrive for two years after his star appeared.
This verse would not seem to support a 2 year gap between when He was born and the wise men's arrival in Jerusalem;
M't:2:1:
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,
behold,
there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

We know it was two years because they told Herod the star appeared two years prior and we know when the star appeared Christ was in the manger and the shephard found him there, in Bethlehem.

They came from the East and from where they were when they saw the star, it was in which direction;
M't:2:2:
Saying,
Where is he that is born King of the Jews?
for we have seen his star in the east,
and are come to worship him.

This same star also led them straight to where Jesus was;
M't:2:9:
When they had heard the king,
they departed;
and,
lo,
the star,
which they saw in the east,
went before them,
till it came and stood over where the young child was.
M't:2:10:
When they saw the star,
they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

Doesn't seem like a 'star in the Heavens', nor does it seem to have been seen all the time.

This is not really a debatable point. Which you are trying to make it.
The way you 'read' makes all verses debatable.

There is no way to make this all happening in 4 AD. Which it would have had to for you timing to be possible.
Yes it all could happen in one single year, from birth to being called back from Egypt.

The Wise Men said 2 years. You cannot take Herod's paranoia and turn that in to Christ being born right them.
Scripture doesn't tell us what the men said, it only tells how Herod reacted to what they said, that being to kill all male children from just born upto two years.

They said 2 years ago.
Prove it, post the verse that quotes them saying they saw the star two years from when they were talking to Herod.

Your effort here is already in trouble. because you your yourself gave a 40 day time that is more than within a month.
Actually the time was 42 days, the wise men could have been there on the 41st day as travel to Jerusalem looks like it could be done in 1 day.

Herod died in 4 BC. Your numbers do not work.
Yes they do, Herod died near the end of March, this is very close to the end of the Jewish year.

There is an absolutely stated 2 year time frame here.
No there isn't, you are going by Herod's reaction.

The Wise Men said 2 years.
Then post the verse that says so, not the one about Herod reacting, the one where they give the time.

There are NO passovers associated with his childhood in the Bible.
Lu:2:41:
Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

So what? They returned to Bethlehem.
You don't have a verse for this point either, Scripture does say they went to ;
Lu:2:39:
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,
they returned into Galilee,
to their own city Nazareth.

This is after going to Egypt and this is where they went when they came back;
M't:2:22:
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod,
he was afraid to go thither:
notwithstanding,
being warned of God in a dream,
he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
M't:2:23:
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,
He shall be called a Nazarene.

There is absolutely no requirement for John to have begun his ministry the first year Pilate was governor. It merely says he WAS governor. Not when he BECAME governor.
That first year was 26AD, Jesus didn't suffer the cross for at least three passovers after John was called, the point is John could not have been called before 26AD. If called at 30 then both he and Jesus were born in 4BC, the same year Herod died.

Your numbers cannot work. Trying to figure out unmetioined passovers and making them key points in his your is not evidence. It is baseless theory.
They do work, as a side-effect it puts most if not all of your time-lines in the trash.

And in reading on Passovers, that is such a murky issue. There is the single Passover, the Double Passover, what is a Passover and what is not.
If the Gospel of John mentions 3 passovers then that is a period of 3 full years.

There is NO evidence against those years.
None if you want to put His baprism in the River Jordan at 32/33 years of age and the cross at 35/36.

Who are in these verses?
2Jo:1:1:
The elder unto the elect lady and her children,
whom I love in the truth;
and not I only,
but also all they that have known the truth;
2Jo:1:13:
The children of thy elect sister greet thee.
Amen.

Later

CoreIssue

10-06-2006, 11:36 PM

I already posted the verse where Herod based his 2 years upon when they say the star.

Matthew 2
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

Luke 2
and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Why the emphasis on manger because no room in the Inn?

Really. Your logic here is totally flawed.

If a crib in any house, then manger has no meaning or significance in counterpoint to no room at the end. Or being a sign to the shepherds that he would be found in a manger.

But it most assuredly does if a feeding trough because the Inn had no room.

Herod killed the 2 year olds based on when they reported his star to them.

Herod died in 4 BC. You would have Christ born, gone to the Temple after 40 days (over month already), return to Bethlehem (that is where Herod sent them), Herod realize he had been tricked, go to Egypt and live there until Herod was reported dead (no instant communications then) and then return home. All in the same year, when we know Christ was not born in cold weather. September latest by all recognings.

Please, use some logic here.

MHz

10-07-2006, 01:15 PM

Hi Core,
(no instant communications then)
Yes they did, for certain messages;
M't:2:19:
But when Herod was dead,
behold,
an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

All in the same year, when we know Christ was not born in cold weather. September latest by all recognings.
This would mean that by November Jesus would have been taken to the temple after the 41 days needed for Mary to be purified. From this event they went to Egypt, 4 or 5 months later Herod dies and Joseph recieves word to return to Israel, they do not go to Bethelem, they go to Nazareth, the same place they were living before they went to Bethelem to 'register so they could be taxed by Rome'.

Please, use some logic here.
Would logic demand that it take at least two years to be 'registered'?
Would logic demand that they return to Bethelem after being in Jerusalem when Scripture says they go to another place in Israel?
Would logic demand that if Jesus lived in Bethelem for two years then He would be considered to be from there (not just being born there as Scripture says) and would not be a 'Nazarene'?

Hopefully you would agree that both accounts, Matthew's and Luke's, need to be 'blended' as neither cover the same events precisely.
One says the wise men see Jesus in Bethelem, the other has Jesus being in Jerusalem on about the 42nd day after being born (an no mention of returning to Bethelem but written that they return to Nazareth). Would logic demand that the wise men would have had to see Jesus at some time during the 42 days?

Would logic demand that an insane ruler would kill some even older than the date of birth given by the wise men? In that if they said they saw the star within 40 days of seeing Herod, he would 'make certain' he killed Jesus by raising the time given to include even older children.

Ever wonder how a 'star' can lead some (shepherds and the wise men) to a specific street address?

Later

CoreIssue

10-07-2006, 02:02 PM

Hi MHz,

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15056#post15056)
(no instant communications then)

Yes they did, for certain messages;
M't:2:19:
But when Herod was dead,
behold,
an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
True.

But it does not say appeared immediately and does not say did not. Just says appeared.

So, neither of us are helped or hurt by this point.

But it remains they had traveled to Egypt and were living there. That took time. And not a short amount.

With the Temple issue and returning to Bethlehem, after, you are months into this just on these points with even considering the birth date.
[/quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15056#post15056)
All in the same year, when we know Christ was not born in cold weather. September latest by all recognings.

This would mean that by November Jesus would have been taken to the temple after the 41 days needed for Mary to be purified. From this event they went to Egypt,
No. They were told to go to Egypt after the Wise Men visited them. In Bethlehem. Not Jerusalem.
4 or 5 months later Herod dies and Joseph recieves word to return to Israel, they do not go to Bethelem, they go to Nazareth, the same place they were living before they went to Bethelem to 'register so they could be taxed by Rome'.

They were in Bethlehem when told to go to Egypt. That was after the Wise Men left.

They told Herod 2 years ago they saw the star. They went and found Christ in Bethlehem, not Nazareth. Herod killed the children in Ramah, where Bethlehem is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15056#post15056)
Please, use some logic here.

Would logic demand that it take at least two years to be 'registered'?
It says the lived in Bethlehem until the left for Egypt. No need for guessing.
Would logic demand that they return to Bethelem after being in Jerusalem when Scripture says they go to another place in Israel?
Wrong. It does not say they went anywhere from Jerusalem other than Bethlehem.

It states the Wise Men saw his star 2 years prior. It states he was in Bethlehem when the found him. It states they left from Bethlehem to Egypt.

No logic required. It is stated.

That is exactly why Herod used 2 years and Bethlehem to determine who he would kill.
Would logic demand that if Jesus lived in Bethelem for two years then He would be considered to be from there (not just being born there as Scripture says) and would not be a 'Nazarene'?

He lived most his childhood in Nazareth.
Hopefully you would agree that both accounts, Matthew's and Luke's, need to be 'blended' as neither cover the same events precisely.
One says the wise men see Jesus in Bethelem,
Correct. Where he was born.
the other has Jesus being in Jerusalem on about the 42nd day after being born (an no mention of returning to Bethelem
It does not say they did not. But that is made clear because he was in Bethlehem when the Wise Men came.
but written that they return to Nazareth).
Your reading puts Matthew and Luke into conflict and contradiction on time lines.

Matthew most assuredly has Christ in Bethlehem when the Wise Men came. And most assuredly has them fleeing to Egypt from Bethlehem.

The key to understand all of this lies here:
39When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.

There is zero mention of fleeing to Egypt. It states they return year after year to Jerusalem.

There is obviously more that was required legally than the purification you are talking about.

It says when all required was done. What does all include at what ages?

Your thinking cannot reconcile Matthew and Luke.

You cannot throw out the 2 year statement, them being in Bethlehem, fleeing from Bethlehem and so on. But you do.

Would logic demand that the wise men would have had to see Jesus at some time during the 42 days?

No. It says 2 years.
Would logic demand that an insane ruler would kill some even older than the date of birth given by the wise men?
False statement. He killed children younger tha the date of birth given by the Wise Men.
In that if they said they saw the star within 40 days of seeing Herod, he would 'make certain' he killed Jesus by raising the time given to include even older children.

False statement. It says 2 years.
Ever wonder how a 'star' can lead some (shepherds and the wise men) to a specific street address?

No. Angels are called stars.

Later

CoreIssue

10-07-2006, 02:51 PM

Also consider, if they did go to Nazareth after the Temple, there is no demand they were not in Bethlehem 2 years later, when the Wise Men showed.

Assumptions can get us both in trouble.

Here is what the Bible does say, iron clad.
1. Born in Bethelem.
2. Angel (star) appeared to shepherds at his birth.
3. Wise Men saw star in the sky.
4. Jeruslem around day 40.
5. Wise Men told Herod they saw his star 2 years prior and followed it. West to East.
6. Wise Men found Christ in Bethlehem, in a house.
7. Wise Men warned and left secretly.
8. Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt.
9. Herold realized he was tricked.
10. Herold had all children, 2 years and younger, in Ramah, which does not include Nazareth, killed. He did so because the Wise Men reported the star appearing 2 years prior.

Now, you want to discard all the other data because of one verse statement.

There is NO demand in Luke they left for Egypt right after the Temple. No demand the went immediately to Nazareth, because of the fulfilling all demand.

And even if they did, there is no demand they stayed in Nazareth. But there are demands of 2 years and being in Bethlehem, which you are trying to escape.

You cannot make your numbers work.

No way you can have the birth before 7/6 BC, earliest.

And that most assuredly puts the death 26/27 AD.

This is getting back into repeating over and over.

Later, MHz, on some other topic, unless you have a new argument to present. ;)

MHz

10-08-2006, 12:14 PM

Hi Core;
But it does not say appeared immediately and does not say did not. Just says appeared.
It does indicate it was when Herod died, not weeks or months or years after, it says when Herod died, so there is no reason to believe it was not the same day.
There would have to be a point to a delay, none is indicated.

So, neither of us are helped or hurt by this point.
I would tend to agree except for your next statement and that, IMHO, Jesus was in Israel for every passover that occurred after His birth, and that they traveled from Nazareth for each one, never from Bethelem;
Lu:2:39:
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,
they returned into Galilee,
to their own city Nazareth.
Lu:2:41:
Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

But it remains they had traveled to Egypt and were living there. That took time. And not a short amount.
How long would it take to travel to Egypt?
They could not have left before taking Jesus to the Temple, that is 42 days after His birth.
If, as you say, He was born in September would leave their departure about November. The wise men would have had to have seen Him during that 42 days.
Say it took a whole month, that would put them in Egypt in December. Herod dies that coming March and that is when they head back to Israel. Both Matthew and Luke say that after fullfilling the Law they went to Nazareth to live. Only one Gospel gives the information that they went to Nazareth after coming back from Egypt (Matthew).

With the Temple issue and returning to Bethlehem, after, you are months into this just on these points with even considering the birth date.
I never said they returned to Bethelem, I said it was from the Temple they left for Egypt, nor did they go to Narazeth until returning from Egypt. As for time, it is 1 month and a week and a half.

No. They were told to go to Egypt after the Wise Men visited them. In Bethlehem. Not Jerusalem.
The wise men could have seen Him in Bethelem only before they went to the Temple on day 42, both Gospels say after this the next place they lived in Israel was Nazareth, only one covers the trip to Egypt.

They were in Bethlehem when told to go to Egypt. That was after the Wise Men left.
Agreed, Luke, who doesn't speak about the wise men, says that after the Temple they went to live in Nazareth.

They told Herod 2 years ago they saw the star. They went and found Christ in Bethlehem, not Nazareth. Herod killed the children in Ramah, where Bethlehem is.
That kind of ignores the time-frame given in this verse, as to when they were in Jerusalem;
M't:2:1:
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,
behold,
there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
"was born" would indicate a time very close to His birth, not years after.

Wrong. It does not say they went anywhere from Jerusalem other than Bethlehem.
Lu:2:39:
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,
they returned into Galilee,
to their own city Nazareth.

It states the Wise Men saw his star 2 years prior. It states he was in Bethlehem when the found him. It states they left from Bethlehem to Egypt.

No logic required. It is stated.

That is exactly why Herod used 2 years and Bethlehem to determine who he would kill.
That is why those under two were included.

He lived most his childhood in Nazareth.
My version puts them in Nazareth about 6 months after His birth, yours is at least two years plus the time they spent in Egypt, a time-line that excludes going to Jerusalem 'every year' for passover.

Your reading puts Matthew and Luke into conflict and contradiction on time lines.
Only for the point that you contend, that the wise men didn't arrive for two years

Matthew most assuredly has Christ in Bethlehem when the Wise Men came. And most assuredly has them fleeing to Egypt from Bethlehem.

The key to understand all of this lies here:
39When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.

There is zero mention of fleeing to Egypt. It states they return year after year to Jerusalem.

There is obviously more that was required legally than the purification you are talking about.

It says when all required was done. What does all include at what ages?
The requirement by law was this;
Lu:2:22:
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished,
they brought him to Jerusalem,
to present him to the Lord;
Lu:2:23:
(As it is written in the law of the Lord,
Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
Lu:2:24:
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord,
A pair of turtledoves,
or two young pigeons.

Can the words spoken by Simeon indicate they were to also fullfill a departure according to the 'word of God';
Lu:2:29:
Lord,
now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word:

Your thinking cannot reconcile Matthew and Luke.

You cannot throw out the 2 year statement, them being in Bethlehem, fleeing from Bethlehem and so on. But you do.

Well at least I don't have them moving back and forth via some unmentioned events. It is not the 2 year statement I'm throwing out, it is your version of what caused Herod to kill those he did kill.

Would logic demand that the wise men would have had to see Jesus at some time during the 42 days?

No. It says 2 years.
Would logic demand that an insane ruler would kill some even older than the date of birth given by the wise men?
False statement. He killed children younger tha the date of birth given by the Wise Men.
In that if they said they saw the star within 40 days of seeing Herod, he would 'make certain' he killed Jesus by raising the time given to include even older children.

False statement. It says 2 years.
Part of your argument for it being two years is that they found Him in a house. Indication that they 'owned' the house.
Joseph would have known people in Bethelem, if the inn was full it would not be uncommon to ask somebody you know to allow you to stay at their 'house';

Lu:2:4:
And Joseph also went up from Galilee,
out of the city of Nazareth,
into Judaea,
unto the city of David,
which is called Bethlehem;
(because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

Later

CoreIssue

10-08-2006, 01:24 PM

Hi MHz;

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
But it does not say appeared immediately and does not say did not. Just says appeared.

It does indicate it was when Herod died, not weeks or months or years after, it says when Herod died, so there is no reason to believe it was not the same day.
There would have to be a point to a delay, none is indicated.
And since nothing is stated neither of us can assume exact timing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
So, neither of us are helped or hurt by this point.

I would tend to agree except for your next statement and that, IMHO, Jesus was in Israel for every passover that occurred after His birth, and that they traveled from Nazareth for each one, never from Bethelem;
Lu:2:39:
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,
they returned into Galilee,
to their own city Nazareth.
Lu:2:41:
Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
It does not say for everyone. It says for everyone after returning to Nazareth.

They were in Bethlehem when the Wise Men came, which was two years after seeing the star. And why Herod set the age and why he had all in Ramah killed.

Nazareth is not in Raham. So your demands are wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
But it remains they had traveled to Egypt and were living there. That took time. And not a short amount.

How long would it take to travel to Egypt?
They could not have left before taking Jesus to the Temple, that is 42 days after His birth.
If, as you say, He was born in September would leave their departure about November. The wise men would have had to have seen Him during that 42 days.
Say it took a whole month, that would put them in Egypt in December. Herod dies that coming March and that is when they head back to Israel. Both Matthew and Luke say that after fullfilling the Law they went to Nazareth to live. Only one Gospel gives the information that they went to Nazareth after coming back from Egypt (Matthew).
Yes, which destroys your point because they were in Bethlehem when the Wise Men came. That was 2 years after seeing the star. And why Herod had the two year olds and under killed.

Nazareth is not in Raham.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
With the Temple issue and returning to Bethlehem, after, you are months into this just on these points with even considering the birth date.

I never said they returned to Bethelem, I said it was from the Temple they left for Egypt, nor did they go to Narazeth until returning from Egypt. As for time, it is 1 month and a week and a half.
The left to Egypt from Bethlehem when the Wise Men left.

And now you contradict yourself. You said they went from the Temple to Nazareth before.
It states they went to Egypt when the Wise Men left. The fled.
They did not stop off in the Temple, right under Herod's nose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
No. They were told to go to Egypt after the Wise Men visited them. In Bethlehem. Not Jerusalem.

The wise men could have seen Him in Bethelem only before they went to the Temple on day 42, both Gospels say after this the next place they lived in Israel was Nazareth, only one covers the trip to Egypt.

Absolutely not. 2 years stated.

You are not going to escape the 2 years by disregarding it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
They were in Bethlehem when told to go to Egypt. That was after the Wise Men left.

Agreed, Luke, who doesn't speak about the wise men, says that after the Temple they went to live in Nazareth.
You just contradicted yourself again.

Above you said they went to Egypt and then Nazareth.
Born in Bethlehem
Temple around 49 days.
Back to Bethlehem for 2 years.
Wise Men
Egypt
Nazareth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
They told Herod 2 years ago they saw the star. They went and found Christ in Bethlehem, not Nazareth. Herod killed the children in Ramah, where Bethlehem is.

That kind of ignores the time-frame given in this verse, as to when they were in Jerusalem;
M't:2:1:
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,
behold,
there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
"was born" would indicate a time very close to His birth, not years after.
Bad reading.

Years from the date of birth during the reign of Herod is no grammatical problem.

You not dealing with his star being seen 2 years BEFORE is.
None of these datings are a problem when you deal with ALL of them. Not hand picking one or two and suppressing the others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
Wrong. It does not say they went anywhere from Jerusalem other than Bethlehem.

Lu:2:39:
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,
they returned into Galilee,
to their own city Nazareth.

Define all things required by Law. You cannot.
And your claim is a disaster. No room for Egypt, no Wise Men or any such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
It states the Wise Men saw his star 2 years prior. It states he was in Bethlehem when the found him. It states they left from Bethlehem to Egypt.

No logic required. It is stated.

That is exactly why Herod used 2 years and Bethlehem to determine who he would kill.

That is why those under two were included.
The star appeared when he was born. Making him 2 years old.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
He lived most his childhood in Nazareth.

My version puts them in Nazareth about 6 months after His birth, yours is at least two years plus the time they spent in Egypt, a time-line that excludes going to Jerusalem 'every year' for passover.
It is future tense. It does not include the time prior to being in Nazareth.

Your version dumps the 2 years prior when the star of his birth appeared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
Your reading puts Matthew and Luke into conflict and contradiction on time lines.

Only for the point that you contend, that the wise men didn't arrive for two years
You don't deal with the star or the two years at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
Matthew most assuredly has Christ in Bethlehem when the Wise Men came. And most assuredly has them fleeing to Egypt from Bethlehem.

The key to understand all of this lies here:
Quote:
39When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
There is zero mention of fleeing to Egypt. It states they return year after year to Jerusalem.

There is obviously more that was required legally than the purification you are talking about.

It says when all required was done. What does all include at what ages?

The requirement by law was this;
Lu:2:22:
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished,
they brought him to Jerusalem,
to present him to the Lord;
Lu:2:23:
(As it is written in the law of the Lord,
Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
Lu:2:24:
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord,
A pair of turtledoves,
or two young pigeons.

Really? You know for a fact that is all that is required?
Also, your version cannot stand up to being in Bethlehem and then fleeing from there to Egypt.

Saying they went via the Temple is foolishness. Right under the nose of Herod.
Can the words spoken by Simeon indicate they were to also fullfill a departure according to the 'word of God';
Lu:2:29:
Lord,
now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word:
A prophecy given to Simeon. Now he can die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
Your thinking cannot reconcile Matthew and Luke.

You cannot throw out the 2 year statement, them being in Bethlehem, fleeing from Bethlehem and so on. But you do.

Well at least I don't have them moving back and forth via some unmentioned events. It is not the 2 year statement I'm throwing out, it is your version of what caused Herod to kill those he did kill.

And your version does not have unmentioned movements?

The exact steps are not laid out for anyone. We have to deal with what is given.

2 years prior was the star of his birth. The blows away your version completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15070#post15070)
Quote:
Would logic demand that the wise men would have had to see Jesus at some time during the 42 days?
No. It says 2 years.
Quote:
Would logic demand that an insane ruler would kill some even older than the date of birth given by the wise men?
False statement. He killed children younger tha the date of birth given by the Wise Men.
Quote:
In that if they said they saw the star within 40 days of seeing Herod, he would 'make certain' he killed Jesus by raising the time given to include even older children.
False statement. It says 2 years.

Part of your argument for it being two years is that they found Him in a house. Indication that they 'owned' the house.

There is no such indication. They could have been renting when the Wise Men came.

But they most assuredly were not in a house when Christ was born and his star, thus blowing out your scenario of them coming at his birth.

Even more so, the star of his birth was 2 years prior. No way around that.
Joseph would have known people in Bethelem, if the inn was full it would not be uncommon to ask somebody you know to allow you to stay at their 'house';
It states in a manger. Manger is a feed trough.

Pointless to even mention the Inn if he found a house to stay out. But critical to understand if he were in the stable.

Simple logic.

Until you can deal with the 2 years, instead of just pushing it to the side, not much else to say. This is merry go round again.

Later

MHz

10-08-2006, 08:08 PM

Hi Core,
While I am considering a reply(or if one is even coming) to your last post perhaps we can focus on this one point.
Of all the various dates given for different events back then the one that is most common (in agreement) is that Pontious was governor when John was called. The consistant given date is 26AD. If you agree with this then the next statement is valid. John would not have been called before he was 30 years of age. 30 years earlier Herod was alive, less than 1 year later he died.
In an effort to find some common ground, we do agree that that both Gospels that cover this time period are correct in every word, true or not?
There is no stated length of time that Jesus would have had to be in Egypt before being 'called out of Egypt', only that He had to be there.

A merry-go-round benifits neither of us but it does have the benifit in that it does not leave any verses unexplored.

I could take you through the 'words that define "inn" ' as it is used in only a few other verses, but really, you have rejected every attempt taken by that route with any other word including the defination for 'young child'.
Simeon called Jesus a child even when Jesus was only less than a month and one-half old;
Lu:2:34:
And Simeon blessed them,
and said unto Mary his mother,
Behold,
this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel;
and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

Later

CoreIssue

10-08-2006, 09:10 PM

Hi MHz,

While I am considering a reply(or if one is even coming) to your last post perhaps we can focus on this one point.
Of all the various dates given for different events back then the one that is most common (in agreement) is that Pontious was governor when John was called. The consistant given date is 26AD. If you agree with this then the next statement is valid. John would not have been called before he was 30 years of age. 30 years earlier Herod was alive, less than 1 year later he died.

Yes, Pilate was appointed in 26 AD. But don't get all excited about that yet.

Here are the problems with basing your dating on the times given for Tiberius and Pilate.

Those that uphold 26 AD for Pilate as being the year John began also uphold 14 AD as when Tiberius became emporer, and use that at their anchor point.

Add 15 years and you have 29 AD as John beginning his ministry.

That places Christ's birth at 1 BC. A non-starter.

There is absolutely no doubt Herod died in 4 BC. You have a problem.

Pontius Pilate is a verfy unknown figure in history. The only dating we have for him is 26 AD when he was appointed governor of Judea.

Take a look at the meaning of two word translated governor.
Strong's Number: 2230 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=2230&version=kjv) Original WordWord OriginhJgemoneuvwfrom (2232 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2232&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2230&version=kjv#Legend) EntryHegemoneuoNonePhonetic SpellingParts of Speechhayg-em-on-yoo'-o http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=2230g) Verb Definition
to be leader, to lead the way
to rule, command
of a province, to be governor of a province
said of a proconsul, of a procurator
That allows plenty of room for Pilate having been a leader or commander of Judea without holding the title procurator.

Tiberius was also a ruler for years and years before he became Emporer.

Titles and recognings in the Roman Empire were very flexible things.

So, Tiberious, as Co-Emporer and Pilate in some other capacity, which historians admit they know nothing about prior to 26 AD, could fulfill Luke in another way than the assumptions you are making.

But, your assumptions cannot work. As I have stated over and over.

You cannot reconile 7/6 BC, 4, BC, 1 BC, 14 AD, 26 AD and 29 AD with Herold's death, in your timing. Either the Bible is wrong or you are looking at this incorrectly.

So, if you give flex to when Tiberius gained rule, you also have to give flex to Pilate.

If you do, then your firm foundation becomes quicksand. If you don't, the numbers do not work.

Your in trouble either way.

In an effort to find some common ground, we do agree that that both Gospels that cover this time period are correct in every word, true or not?

Agree.

There is no stated length of time that Jesus would have had to be in Egypt before being 'called out of Egypt', only that He had to be there.

Correct.
A merry-go-round benifits neither of us but it does have the benifit in that it does not leave any verses unexplored.
OK.

I could take you through the 'words that define "inn" ' as it is used in only a few other verses, but really, you have rejected every attempt taken by that route with any other word including the defination for 'young child'.
Simeon called Jesus a child even when Jesus was only less than a month and one-half old;
Lu:2:34:
And Simeon blessed them,
and said unto Mary his mother,
Behold,
this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel;
and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

The 2 years are not going away.

Later

MHz

10-09-2006, 06:09 PM

Hi Core,

Those that uphold 26 AD for Pilate as being the year John began also uphold 14 AD as when Tiberius became emporer, and use that at their anchor point.
Those like who? Sources that date Pontious do note even mention Tiberius. As you say the dates for Tiberius vary, some earlier than 14AD. I wasn't using Tiberius for that very reason, there is no consistant date, that is not the case for Pontious, every reference gives 26AD, are you saying every single one of them is wrong?

There is absolutely no doubt Herod died in 4 BC. You have a problem.
26-30=-4 Herod died in March of that year, just before the end of a year if you go by when the Jewish year starts/stops. That would leave almost a full year for two births 6 months apart and the events from Luke/Matthew.

From a site that does agree with the 4BC death also says this,
"In Jerusalem, the king built a new market, an amphitheater, a theater, a new building where the Sanhedrin could convene, a new royal palace, and last but not least, in 20 BCE he started to rebuild the Temple."
http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_the_great02.html

From a verse in Scripture that puts Jesus in the Temple after His baptism would seem to make this 26AD;
Joh:2:20:
Then said the Jews,
Forty and six years was this temple in building,
and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

-20+46=26.

Pontius Pilate is a verfy unknown figure in history. The only dating we have for him is 26 AD when he was appointed governor of Judea.

Take a look at the meaning of two word translated governor.

That allows plenty of room for Pilate having been a leader or commander of Judea without holding the title procurator.
Then you would have no problem providing a link to that information.
Unknown would be not even mentioned, he is mentioned in many different historical sources.

Tiberius was also a ruler for years and years before he became Emporer.

Titles and recognings in the Roman Empire were very flexible things.
So how many govornors could there be at any given moment in time, one.

So, Tiberious, as Co-Emporer and Pilate in some other capacity, which historians admit they know nothing about prior to 26 AD, could fulfill Luke in another way than the assumptions you are making.
Anything but deal with the title and time given in historical sources.

But, your assumptions cannot work. As I have stated over and over.

You cannot reconile 7/6 BC, 4, BC, 1 BC, 14 AD, 26 AD and 29 AD with Herold's death, in your timing. Either the Bible is wrong or you are looking at this incorrectly.
Really, 30 years before 26AD Herod was alive.
The fact that you promote Jesus dieing in the first year Pontious is said to be governor would have both John and Himself at the River Jordan 3 years before he came to be governor, and you don't see any timing issues with that?

So, if you give flex to when Tiberius gained rule, you also have to give flex to Pilate.
You only have to give flex to the ones whose dates vary, they vary for Tiberius, they do not vary for Pilate.

If you do, then your firm foundation becomes quicksand. If you don't, the numbers do not work.
Your in trouble either way.
Since there is no reason to redate Pontious then your foundation is the one in trouble by more than 3 years, not only concerning the year Jesus was born but also concerning if He was baptised during the 69th week or at the end of 69 weeks. -457+483=26

[QUOTE=CoreIssue;15091]
The 2 years are not going away.
Was one of your reasons for saying Jesus was two was that He was called a child (and not babe) or not? That verse only says at less than two months somebody called Him a child.

Later

Later

CoreIssue

10-09-2006, 07:41 PM

Hi MHz,

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15091#post15091)
Those that uphold 26 AD for Pilate as being the year John began also uphold 14 AD as when Tiberius became emporer, and use that at their anchor point.

Those like who? Sources that date Pontious do note even mention Tiberius. As you say the dates for Tiberius vary, some earlier than 14AD. I wasn't using Tiberius for that very reason, there is no consistant date, that is not the case for Pontious, every reference gives 26AD, are you saying every single one of them is wrong?

Like every one that I have read that analysis the verse and demands Pontius was 26 AD.

There are many who recognize he could have held power there in another form prior to 26 AD.

They don't hang up on that date being THE pivotal one because they recognize it cannot be reconciled with Herod and the other verses surrounding the birth of Christ.

My point is there is no flexibility on 4 BC for the death. There is flexibility on Tiberius and Pontius.

You cannot reconcile your dates. I can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15091#post15091)
There is absolutely no doubt Herod died in 4 BC. You have a problem.

26-30=-4 Herod died in March of that year, just before the end of a year if you go by when the Jewish year starts/stops. That would leave almost a full year for two births 6 months apart and the events from Luke/Matthew.

You are not getting away with your selective date using.

15th year of Tiberious on that dating schedule is 29, not 26. If you are going firm on one, you are stuck with the other. And it does not work.
From a site that does agree with the 4BC death also says this,
"In Jerusalem, the king built a new market, an amphitheater, a theater, a new building where the Sanhedrin could convene, a new royal palace, and last but not least, in 20 BCE he started to rebuild the Temple."
http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodian...e_great02.html (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_the_great02.html)

Dodging. It says the 15th year of Tiberius. And that makes it 29 AD in your dating set.
From a verse in Scripture that puts Jesus in the Temple after His baptism would seem to make this 26AD;
Joh:2:20:
Then said the Jews,
Forty and six years was this temple in building,
and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

-20+46=26.

Dodging again.

29 AD based on Tiberius.

You conveniently fail to deal with that part of the verse.
Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15091#post15091)
Pontius Pilate is a verfy unknown figure in history. The only dating we have for him is 26 AD when he was appointed governor of Judea.

Take a look at the meaning of two word translated governor.

That allows plenty of room for Pilate having been a leader or commander of Judea without holding the title procurator.

Then you would have no problem providing a link to that information.
Unknown would be not even mentioned, he is mentioned in many different historical sources.

Never before 26 AD when he became governor. Which does not rule out another leadership role in the area. Maybe military.

The Greek word is not limited to governor. It is broader.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15091#post15091)
Tiberius was also a ruler for years and years before he became Emporer.

Titles and recognings in the Roman Empire were very flexible things.

So how many govornors could there be at any given moment in time, one.

The word means more than governor. NOTHING in the verse demands it is limited to governor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15091#post15091)
So, Tiberious, as Co-Emporer and Pilate in some other capacity, which historians admit they know nothing about prior to 26 AD, could fulfill Luke in another way than the assumptions you are making.

Anything but deal with the title and time given in historical sources.

I dealt with the title. The word means more than governor.

You cannot prove it is limited to being govenor. No one can at this time.

You want to got that route, you are stuck with 14 AD for Tiberius, making it 29 AD, which is impossible.

No. You hare not allowed to play with the facts in that way. Either both are recogized as unclear on time beginning or neither are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15091#post15091)
But, your assumptions cannot work. As I have stated over and over.

You cannot reconile 7/6 BC, 4, BC, 1 BC, 14 AD, 26 AD and 29 AD with Herold's death, in your timing. Either the Bible is wrong or you are looking at this incorrectly.

Really, 30 years before 26AD Herod was alive.

Don't work. 29 AD due to Tiberius, and he most assuredly was dead in 1 BC.
The fact that you promote Jesus dieing in the first year Pontious is said to be governor would have both John and Himself at the River Jordan 3 years before he came to be governor, and you don't see any timing issues with that?
None. No problem at all.

You don't see timing problems with 4 BC/14 AD in your thinking?

I sure do. 29 AD does not work. And 14 + 15 is most assuredly 29, not 26.
Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15091#post15091)
So, if you give flex to when Tiberius gained rule, you also have to give flex to Pilate.

You only have to give flex to the ones whose dates vary, they vary for Tiberius, they do not vary for Pilate.

Garbage.
Tiberius became Emporer in 14 AD. there is no flex to that.
But he had rulership roles before then.
You have no idea what roles Pilate had prior.
So, if you demand governor for Pilate, that requires Emporer for Tiberius. Which makes it 29 AD.
You have to be consistant. You are not. You give flex to help you and take it away to try to prove you.
Both are flex or neither are flex.

If you do, then your firm foundation becomes quicksand. If you don't, the numbers do not work.
Your in trouble either way.

Quote:

[QUOTE]Since there is no reason to redate Pontious then your foundation is the one in trouble by more than 3 years, not only concerning the year Jesus was born but also concerning if He was baptised during the 69th week or at the end of 69 weeks. -457+483=26

Nonsense.

There is good reason to redate Pilate. Tiberius. 14 + 15 is 29 AD.

And that is exactly why some try to argue Christ died in 33 AD.

There is no doubt he was baptised in the 69th Week. 'Until' for when he comes and 'after' for when he dies. Your failure to use proper word definition and grammar has long been established on that issue. Not revisiting it.

But it stand against you, since you mention it, since Daniel says he died in 26/27 AD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15091#post15091)
The 2 years are not going away.

Was one of your reasons for saying Jesus was two was that He was called a child (and not babe) or not? That verse only says at less than two months somebody called Him a child.

The Wise Men. What you keep pretending is not there.

Later

CoreIssue

10-09-2006, 08:13 PM

A little more, MHz.

A very simple argument.

Daniels says Christ did not come UNTIL the 69th Week and died AFTER the 69th Week.

Take away all the fancy doctrinal arguments some try to redefine those two words and use normal work meaning and grammar.

Now look at known facts in a equations.

457/456 BC - Decree was issued.
69 full weeks later Christ died.
483 years - 456/7 = 26/27 AD.

Wise Men dated star of Christ 2 years prior to their visit to Herod.
Herod killed all 2 and younger.
Herod died thereafter in 4 BC.

4 BC + 2 years = 6/7 BC
33.5 years old - 7/6 BC = 26/27 AD.

Therefore:
483 - 456/7 BC = 33.5 - 7/6 BC
26/27 AD = 26/27 AD

No problems, no arguments, they agree.

14 AD + 15 = 29 AD.
29 AD + 3.5 years = 32/33 AD

Cannot be reconiled with Daniel or Herods death.

I simply read by word definition and grammar. I don't have to try to redefine any words, plays with grammar or change hard facts to achieve an outcome.

There are no hard dates for Tiberius or Pilate as to when they ruled what. There are some knowns. But their prior history is murky.

We know Tiberius was Co-Emporer and other titles prior to 14 AD. Those included forms of rule over Judea.

We know nothing of Pilate prior to 26 AD. But we most assuredly know he held power some where in some form to become govern of Judea in 26 AD.

That power could very well have been in Judea in another form. And what is translated governor would have no problem embacing those other roles.

Basing your whole argument on non-solid points proves nothing. Especially when it requires you to try to manipulate the hard knows.

Doesn't work.

I am not the one who has the tall explaining to do here. You are, since you are forced to redefined words, defy grammar and so on.

The burden is on you here.

MHz

10-10-2006, 09:36 AM

Hi Core,
The burden is on you here.
And here I though you said the death of Herod in 4BC was unquestioned.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-6407%28196803%2937%3A1%3C3%3ASPATDO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8&size=LARGE

From another site,

HISTORICAL ECLIPSES X 5

ECLIPSE #1: 4BC vs 1BC:
4 B.C. eclipse dating Herod's death dismissed. The extremely significant eclipse which dates Herod's death to 4 B.C. is dismissed based upon the actual records. This date would challenge Jesus' birth in 2 B.C. and his appearance in 29 C.E., a pivotal date for the 529 B.C. theory. Basically, this is based solely upon Josephus who records an eclipse event which happens just before Herod's death after which there occurs a Passover. All this fits his actual death on Shebat 2, 1 A.D. but not anything in 4 B.C. Here's why 4 B.C. is totally dismissed.

1) The 4BC eclipse dated March 13/14 would be just a month from Passover in April 13/14. Josephus has to see the eclipse and then die after which he is mourned for 7 days by his son, after which a sedition develops against him and THEN there occurred the Passover. If you allow just 20 days for Josephus to die after the eclipse event in which he executes two rabbis, and then a 7-day mourning period, which is about 27 days, you only have 2- 3 days before Passover. Not enough time for the intervening events to occur with Archelaus, Herod's son. Interestingly enough, the translator of Josephus, William Whiston in his footnotes clearly states because of his, the passover mentioned must be not one month but "13 months later."

2) The traditional date for the death of Herod is Shebat 2, which is the 11th month. The eclipse of March 13/14, 4 B.C. would have occurred on Adar 14, the 12th month. Thus the eclipse event happens approximately six weeks AFTER Herod's traditional date of death. Another contradiction.

3) The events mentioned in Josephus as associated with an annual Jewish FAST. The annual Jewish fasts are only in months four, five, seven and ten! The eclipse in 4 BC happened in the 12th month, so this does not fit at all the background information of this particular eclipse.

However, what Josephus describes is completely compatible with the eclipse occurring on Tebet 14, 1 .B.C. which would date Herod's death about 18 days later after the execution which is consistent with Josephus' history that Herod deteriorated rapidly after this event. The annual fast during the month of Tebet happened just four days earlier on Tebet 10. This fits specifically the general history that Herod died shortly after an eclipse occurring during the month of a fast but slightly before Passover, that is about 10 weeks before, which is enough time for the events described with Archelaus to take place.

In addition, Josephus himself, though he's constantly contradicting himself, says that the battle of Actium occurred in his seventh year. Here is what the footnote says about this (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book I,3, footnote: "This seventh year of the reign of Herod, with the great earthquake in the beginning of the same spring, which are here fully implied to be not much before the fight at Actium, and which is known to have been in the beginning of September, in the 31st year before the christian era, determines the chronology of Josephus as to the reign of Herod-viz, that he began in the year 37."

Of course, if he began in the year 37 and ruled for 37 years, his rule would not run out in 4 B.C. but in 1 B.C- 1 A.D., which is the correct dating.
http://us.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4653/numold.htm

Later

CoreIssue

10-10-2006, 11:14 AM

Hi MHz,

4 BC is the dominate date by far.

And all the other math issues I gave hold true to it.

You are playing game with word definitions, grammar, dating and everything else to support your thinking.

I don't need to do that.

When one has to try to redefine and maneuver around so many things to prove a point, they should realize they have a major problem in their thinking.

Yea, I understand ALL of your End Time doctrine hinges on this.

But, then again, you are also doing the same kind of manipulations with ALL of the issues.

Use proper grammar and word definitions. Then it is a far more simple and clear. Without having to explain away so many.

Per Daniel 26/7 AD is Christ's death.

Holds true to 4 BC, 2 years of the Wise Men and so on.

You have to explain away far too many facts.

CoreIssue

10-10-2006, 11:46 AM

Wow! I forgot to mention a key point! :eek:

Those who claim Herod died in 1 BC admittedly place his death 3 years after he ceased to rule in Judea.

History shows, beyond a doubt, he lost his throne in 4 BC and was succeeded by 3, among whom the rule was divided.

That still has the Wise Men, the killing of the children and so on at 4 BC. Still has the 2 years moving back to 7/6 BC.

The 4 BC date does not go away, even under these claims. It just takes on different meaning.

MHz

10-10-2006, 10:46 PM

Hi Core,
Enough with the numbers. First there is no Scripture involved, that gives us a number of 'events', getting the sequence correct is just as important 'when'. Second you just have to go outside Scripture to 'verify' or wharever we have been doing.
As much as I like doing this, we start from two perspectives, I believe un-Holy Angels have been here before and they will be back doing just what they were doing back then. If four kill 1/3 of the number of men living at that time they are released, then what were they doing back then?

We still need to 'refresh' our stance on the 'pit'. My stance, (second) lake of fire for those sin "after grace and mercy have been extended to whom it will be extended" is it. Same existance as Satan (alive but without God)
To be able to do the above it seems only proper that without knowing God first you cannot commit a sin that is not paid one your first death.

Or we could do something more funner. Since the NT is not recommended reading for some. Those who consider the words of Gods prophets 'words of wisdom' from the OT should consider that the words of John are from a prophet sent from God;
Joh:1:6: There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

This in itself makes him an 'writer' whose pen was guided by the same hand as all OT prophets.
If this prophet has Disciples then anything they viewed by them woud be equifelent to being 'seen and recorded' as if that prophet was actually there. This is based on this verse;
Joh:14:26:
But the Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jesus certainly would have 'cared for' John's Disciples after John was beheaded.

In a lead upto the women in the Gospel, why are Joanna and Susanna mentioned by name but not the others. The answer lies in the previous chapter, one is the one who committed adultery and the other is the one at Simon's house. Do you agree?

If the writings of John can be linked to one of his disciples then does all that this hand wrote hold the same 'authority' as any from the OT?

I would carry on with the number game but it seems pointless from a Scriptural point of view, Scripture gives enough to give the order of the se2uence of events, past and yet to be.

This isn't a concession by any means, just a feeling this is a dead-end road in which nothing is really learned.

Later

Lu:8:3: And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

CoreIssue

10-10-2006, 11:18 PM

Hi MHz,
Enough with the numbers.
Nope. Not enough. The numbers are valid.
First there is no Scripture involved, that gives us a number of 'events', getting the sequence correct is just as important 'when'. Second you just have to go outside Scripture to 'verify' or wharever we have been doing.
Whoa there, guy!

YOU have taken materials from outside the scripture to support your position. So don't go there.

2 years is most assuredly scriptural, in example. And you dodge it.

Your lunar cyles and such come from outside of the scriptures to base your claims upon, as well.

Take away such dating sources and neither of us can set any dates.

As much as I like doing this, we start from two perspectives, I believe un-Holy Angels have been here before and they will be back doing just what they were doing back then. If four kill 1/3 of the number of men living at that time they are released, then what were they doing back then?

Not digging back into that to avoid this issue

The dating is against you. Now you want to retreat to another discussion we have already full discussed.

We still need to 'refresh' our stance on the 'pit'. My stance, (second) lake of fire for those sin "after grace and mercy have been extended to whom it will be extended" is it. Same existance as Satan (alive but without God)
To be able to do the above it seems only proper that without knowing God first you cannot commit a sin that is not paid one your first death.

And now you want to retreat to claims of dead people not having a chance to know God and Christ.

Already discussed that as well.
Or we could do something more funner. Since the NT is not recommended reading for some.
As Christian, I am not going to use Judaism theology concerning Christ and the rest.

Those who consider the words of Gods prophets 'words of wisdom' from the OT should consider that the words of John are from a prophet sent from God;
Joh:1:6: There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

This in itself makes him an 'writer' whose pen was guided by the same hand as all OT prophets.

John the Baptist did not author any writings of the Bible.

If this prophet has Disciples then anything they viewed by them woud be equifelent to being 'seen and recorded' as if that prophet was actually there. This is based on this verse;
Joh:14:26:
But the Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.

No idea your point here. They recorded nothing.
Jesus certainly would have 'cared for' John's Disciples after John was beheaded.
Assumption. Not stated or hinted at.

In a lead upto the women in the Gospel, why are Joanna and Susanna mentioned by name but not the others. The answer lies in the previous chapter, one is the one who committed adultery and the other is the one at Simon's house. Do you agree?

No. I see no foundation laid the make that statement.
If the writings of John can be linked to one of his disciples then does all that this hand wrote hold the same 'authority' as any from the OT?
John the Baptist did not write John. He was very much dead.
I would carry on with the number game but it seems pointless from a Scriptural point of view, Scripture gives enough to give the order of the se2uence of events, past and yet to be.
Actual no. Not on young Christ without the other numbers in place and what the Law was about.
This isn't a concession by any means, just a feeling this is a dead-end road in which nothing is really learned.
Because my numbers are valid. You have no arguement to proceed with.

Sorry, that is just a fact. Your whole End Time doctrine crumbles to dust because Christ died at the close of the 69th Week, in 26/7 AD, in harmony with Herod's death in 4 BC an so on.

Your numbers just do not work.

But, I agree, no need to pursue because you have no intention of admitting the numbers do not support you.

Time to move on to another topic. But remember, if End Times, this subject will arise again.

Later

MHz

10-11-2006, 09:44 AM

Time to move on to another topic. But remember, if End Times, this subject will arise again.
Best to finish it now then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

"Circa 20 BC Expansion starts on the Second Temple. "

46 years later would make 26AD as the years Jesus was in the Temple on the first passover after being baptised and His time in the wilderness.

Sorry, that is just a fact. Your whole End Time doctrine crumbles to dust because Christ died at the close of the 69th Week, in 26/7 AD, in harmony with Herod's death in 4 BC an so on.

Enough reason to continue this.
On the years you mention what was the day of the week for the 'passover sabbath', the site I referenced
(http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/index.html?year=26&country=26)
has Saturday (14 days after the first new moon after the winter/summer equinox).
Year 27 has that day as Thursday

CoreIssue

10-11-2006, 12:05 PM

Hi MHz,

For every year BOTH of us have proposed there were moons and such scholars have deemed present and usable.

That makes those issues very subjective in interpretation and usage.

To bog down exclusively on them, as if they are to sum total of all issues, is a false argument. Completely.

You dismiss the other given facts when you do so.

4BC is firm as when Herold left office. I don't know of any that dispute that.

Other evidence shows that also in 4 BC he killed one of his own sons and that he died 5 days later.

You lock up on 26 AD due to Pilate. Problem there is that it does not say the year Pilate assumed office. It says two conditions. One being Tiberius was in the 15th year of power and that Pilate was in power.

The words used do not demand Tiberius was emporer nor that Pilate was governor. They demand both weilded power.

How do we know that it could not mean emporer and governor? Because Tiberius became emporer in 14 AD. A well known fact.

But that places the time of Pilate as govern in the 15th year of Tiberius as 29 AD. And that is completely impossible for John to have begun his ministry in that years.

Why? Because it has Christ born in 1 AD.

And violates Daniel, who states he died after the 69th Week, word meaning next event, which refutes your dying in the 70th Week, because the death is not the next event. John's ministry, Christ's baptism and his ministry would be after the 69th Week but before his death.

But it says after the 69th Week, which word means next event. Not some time after. Not any time after, not after the 69th Week he came, because it says he comes in the 69th Week.

You totally just dance away from all of these facts and focus on eclipses and passovers, as if the other facts do not matter.

They do.

My math is correct. Your is impossible to work.

Even by the 70th Week of Daniel, per your time line, that places his death in either 30 AD, if Mid, or 33 AD if at the close. Neither is possible when you look at ALL the facts and math.

Only my time line accomodates them all.

CoreIssue

10-11-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15120#post15120)
Time to move on to another topic. But remember, if End Times, this subject will arise again.

Best to finish it now then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

"Circa 20 BC Expansion starts on the Second Temple. "

46 years later would make 26/7AD as the years Jesus was in the Temple on the first passover after being baptised and His time in the wilderness.

Circa means around, not exactly. 23/4 BC meets the definition of circa. Making Christ in the Temple in 26/7 AD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15120#post15120)
Sorry, that is just a fact. Your whole End Time doctrine crumbles to dust because Christ died at the close of the 69th Week, in 26/7 AD, in harmony with Herod's death in 4 BC an so on.

Enough reason to continue this.
On the years you mention what was the day of the week for the 'passover sabbath', the site I referenced
(http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/...=26&country=26 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/interceptor.php?interceptedURL=http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/index.html?year=26&country=26))
has Saturday (14 days after the first new moon after the winter/summer equinox).
Year 27 has that day as Thursday

That was for Japan. Not Israel.

CoreIssue

10-11-2006, 12:42 PM

One last one.

Here (http://www.abdicate.net/dates.aspx) is an argument based on passovers, eclipses and such that shows Christ died in 27 AD.

Now, that gives a counter argument, based purely on timings in Israel, to your proposed datings of eclipses and such.

MHz

10-12-2006, 09:31 AM

Hi Core,
For every year BOTH of us have proposed there were moons and such scholars have deemed present and usable.

That makes those issues very subjective in interpretation and usage.

To bog down exclusively on them, as if they are to sum total of all issues, is a false argument. Completely.
Not the sum total, just a part that has to fit in with the rest of items being considered. Passover and the regular Sabbath had to be two days that were back-to-back.

You dismiss the other given facts when you do so.

4BC is firm as when Herold left office. I don't know of any that dispute that.

Other evidence shows that also in 4 BC he killed one of his own sons and that he died 5 days later.

You lock up on 26 AD due to Pilate. Problem there is that it does not say the year Pilate assumed office. It says two conditions. One being Tiberius was in the 15th year of power and that Pilate was in power.

The words used do not demand Tiberius was emporer nor that Pilate was governor. They demand both weilded power.

How do we know that it could not mean emporer and governor? Because Tiberius became emporer in 14 AD. A well known fact.

But that places the time of Pilate as govern in the 15th year of Tiberius as 29 AD. And that is completely impossible for John to have begun his ministry in that years.

Why? Because it has Christ born in 1 AD.
That would make Him 28, if born in 1BC that would make Him 30. 1BC is one of the dates that can be found to show that dates Herod's death.
The 46 years, your version would have to have the rebuilding of the temple as 23BC. What link to some historical document states this, anything I have found gives 20BC or 19BC.
I found this quote from you in a later post(than the one I'm answering)
"Circa means around, not exactly. 23/4 BC meets the definition of circa. Making Christ in the Temple in 26/7 AD."

Not according to the sourse below, it puts it at 19BC, making it 2&Ad when Jesus is in the Temple at the first passover after the 40 days in the wilderness. From the original link it does give a list of events that did occur in the 20's, the Temple is not mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod%27s_Temple
Herod's Temple in Jerusalem was a massive expansion of the Second Temple along with renovations of the entire Temple Mount. Herod the Great's expansion project began around 19 BC.

I'm sure you can also provide a link that supports your claim. Your defination of what a word (circa) means is not considered 'proof' BTW.

These times also have to fitted into your version, that would make both of the above having to occur in 23AD.
As you nothing can be found about Pilate before 26AD so he certainly didn't hold a title that has been referenced to 26AD.
For Tiberius to be in his 15th year in 23AD then his 1st year would have to have been in 8AD. I doubt very much you can find any documents that support either of these. More than welcome to post the links if you do have them.

And violates Daniel, who states he died after the 69th Week, word meaning next event, which refutes your dying in the 70th Week, because the death is not the next event. John's ministry, Christ's baptism and his ministry would be after the 69th Week but before his death.

But it says after the 69th Week, which word means next event. Not some time after. Not any time after, not after the 69th Week he came, because it says he comes in the 69th Week.

You totally just dance away from all of these facts and focus on eclipses and passovers, as if the other facts do not matter.
Your own timeline says -457-483=26, until the Anointed one, this would make the anointing by Mary (as the cross is only a few days later) and not the baptism of the Holy Spirit that occured at the River Jordan as being when He was 'anointed'. Your version would have to be -457+480=23AD. 480 is short of the time given in Scripture.

Even by the 70th Week of Daniel, per your time line, that places his death in either 30 AD, if Mid, or 33 AD if at the close. Neither is possible when you look at ALL the facts and math.

Only my time line accomodates them all.
30AD at the earliest, it is always at mid-week never at the end of the 70. Depending on which date is accurate for Herod Jesus and John would both be 30 in either 26AD or 29AD with the cross being 3 years later, 4 depending on where the new year begins and we know events were longer than 3 years.

Later

CoreIssue

10-12-2006, 12:47 PM

Hi Core,

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15123#post15123)
For every year BOTH of us have proposed there were moons and such scholars have deemed present and usable.

That makes those issues very subjective in interpretation and usage.

To bog down exclusively on them, as if they are to sum total of all issues, is a false argument. Completely.

Not the sum total, just a part that has to fit in with the rest of items being considered. Passover and the regular Sabbath had to be two days that were back-to-back.
And I showed they fit with my dating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15123#post15123)
You dismiss the other given facts when you do so.

4BC is firm as when Herold left office. I don't know of any that dispute that.

Other evidence shows that also in 4 BC he killed one of his own sons and that he died 5 days later.

You lock up on 26 AD due to Pilate. Problem there is that it does not say the year Pilate assumed office. It says two conditions. One being Tiberius was in the 15th year of power and that Pilate was in power.

The words used do not demand Tiberius was emporer nor that Pilate was governor. They demand both weilded power.

How do we know that it could not mean emporer and governor? Because Tiberius became emporer in 14 AD. A well known fact.

But that places the time of Pilate as govern in the 15th year of Tiberius as 29 AD. And that is completely impossible for John to have begun his ministry in that years.

Why? Because it has Christ born in 1 AD.

That would make Him 28, if born in 1BC that would make Him 30. 1BC is one of the dates that can be found to show that dates Herod's death.

Again you dismiss data. That dating scheme demand 29 AD due to the 15th year of Tiberius.

Be consistant.
The 46 years, your version would have to have the rebuilding of the temple as 23BC. What link to some historical document states this, anything I have found gives 20BC or 19BC.

Again you dismiss critical word meaning. CIRCA means about, not exactly.
I found this quote from you in a later post(than the one I'm answering)
"Circa means around, not exactly. 23/4 BC meets the definition of circa. Making Christ in the Temple in 26/7 AD."

Which was during his ministry.
Not according to the sourse below, it puts it at 19BC, making it 2&Ad when Jesus is in the Temple at the first passover after the 40 days in the wilderness. From the original link it does give a list of events that did occur in the 20's, the Temple is not mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod%27s_Temple
Herod's Temple in Jerusalem was a massive expansion of the Second Temple along with renovations of the entire Temple Mount. Herod the Great's expansion project began around 19 BC.
You did nit again. It states around, which is circa. You keep messing with word definitions to try to make them say what they do not.

I'm sure you can also provide a link that supports your claim. Your defination of what a word (circa) means is not considered 'proof' BTW.
Don't be absurd. Circa and around do not mean exactly that year. A few years either way is still around or circa.

Those words are their own proof.
These times also have to fitted into your version, that would make both of the above having to occur in 23AD.

Which fits the meaning of circa and around.

And harmonized with the 69th Week of Daniel. Yours does not.
As you nothing can be found about Pilate before 26AD so he certainly didn't hold a title that has been referenced to 26AD.
Stop playing games. I already posted the word does not demand 'governor.'
For Tiberius to be in his 15th year in 23AD then his 1st year would have to have been in 8AD. I doubt very much you can find any documents that support either of these. More than welcome to post the links if you do have them.

Tiberius most assuredly held power in 8 AD. Not as full Emporer, but he did have power.
From A.D. 4 to 14 Tiberius was clearly Augustus's (http://www.roman-emperors.org/upload/auggie.htm) successor. When he was adopted, he also received grants of proconsular power and tribunician power; and in A.D. 13 his proconsular power was made co-extensive with that of Augustus (http://www.roman-emperors.org/upload/auggie.htm). [[11]] (http://www.roman-emperors.org/tiberius.htm#note#11) In effect, Tiberius was now co-princeps with Augustus (http://www.roman-emperors.org/upload/auggie.htm) so that when the latter finally died on 19 August A.D. 14, Tiberius's position was unassailable and the continuation of the Principate a foregone conclusion. After 55 years living at the behest of his stepfather, Tiberius finally assumed the mantle of sole power.
Full Article (http://www.roman-emperors.org/tiberius.htm)

Procosular is military power. Tribunician is legislative power.

He most assuredly was in power before 14 AD.

And if you read his history, you see his military career was in the East, which included Judea and such.

So, for them it is logically to see him as being in power.

John beginning his ministry in 23 or 24 AD is no problem as regards Tiberius. He most assuredly held power in 8 and 9 AD. He had power all the way back into BC times. More and increasing power from 4 AD on.

We don't know where Pilate was. My guess would be military in the East. Probably around Judea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15123#post15123)
And violates Daniel, who states he died after the 69th Week, word meaning next event, which refutes your dying in the 70th Week, because the death is not the next event. John's ministry, Christ's baptism and his ministry would be after the 69th Week but before his death.

But it says after the 69th Week, which word means next event. Not some time after. Not any time after, not after the 69th Week he came, because it says he comes in the 69th Week.

You totally just dance away from all of these facts and focus on eclipses and passovers, as if the other facts do not matter.

Your own timeline says -457-483=26, until the Anointed one,
I never said that. Ever. And it does not.

Comes IN the 69th Week and dies on the CLOSE of the 69th Week. Dies in 26/27 AD.
this would make the anointing by Mary (as the cross is only a few days later) and not the baptism of the Holy Spirit that occured at the River Jordan as being when He was 'anointed'.
There was not baptism of the Holy Spirit until Pentecost.
Your version would have to be -457+480=23AD. 480 is short of the time given in Scripture.

Nope. Already laid that out before.

Dies 483 years after the Decree. 26/7 AD. Very clearly stated by Daniel.

70th Week has not even begun yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=15123#post15123)
Even by the 70th Week of Daniel, per your time line, that places his death in either 30 AD, if Mid, or 33 AD if at the close. Neither is possible when you look at ALL the facts and math.

Only my time line accomodates them all.

30AD at the earliest,

Nope. That does not allow for the 2 years of the Wise Men.
it is always at mid-week never at the end of the 70. Depending on which date is accurate for Herod Jesus and John would both be 30 in either 26AD or 29AD with the cross being 3 years later, 4 depending on where the new year begins and we know events were longer than 3 years.

Nope. No allowance for the 2 years of the Wise Men.

And by your Pilate demand, force it to be 29 AD because of Tiberius.

Your number cannot work

Which demonstrates this is nothing but a merry go round discussion.

Dates have been laid out, math done and so on. Others will have to decide for themselves.

All I know is yours does not work. You only want to focus on selected aspects, not harmonize the whole.

I don't want to do this anymore unless some new data is presented. It is a waste of both our times.

When you can actually deal with the 2 years of the Wise Men, not just make some claim of seeing the star a month before, and Herod dying in 4 BC, let me know.

Currently, you have just brushed aside the 2 years. And that is not going to fly with me.
Later

MHz

10-13-2006, 12:50 AM

And I showed they fit with my dating.
Again you dismiss data. That dating scheme demand 29 AD due to the 15th year of Tiberius.
True and if Herod died in 1BC (which is shown to be so in some documents) then 29AD would put Jesus 'about 30' in that year. Now your demand that Tiberius be who he is said to be completely vanishes to accomidate your theory. Suddenly as long as he has 'some authority' that is good enough. You demand that I use 29AD because documents say that is when he got his title. No earlier date is allowed until it comes to you, then you can use whatever date you want with not one linked document that gives your 'opinion' any validity. Yes I said your opinion. You really shouldn't have overlooked that verse before setting your 'doctrine'. Now you scramble to give yourself leeway without extending that anybody but you. Trust me, that is fine with me, by the time we finish this governor will be governor (not someone from the ranks that is never mentioned in any book anywhere because they are not important enough to mention). The arguement against you right now is that you give two power before any printed history book does. If that statement is in error give me the quote from any document that supports what you claim to be true.

Be consistant.
I have been consistant from our first meeting, you are wrong on at least one point, that puts all your other points in serious doubt.

Again you dismiss critical word meaning. CIRCA means about, not exactly.
It means about, 19BC is 'about 20BC'

Which was during his ministry.
The very first passover, two more to go before the cross

You did nit again. It states around, which is circa. You keep messing with word definitions to try to make them say what they do not.
A year either way I 'might accept', you need 4 years from the given date of 19BC. No, might as well mean another century.

Don't be absurd. Circa and around do not mean exactly that year. A few years either way is still around or circa.
Then argue against the date given by producing a link to a document that says so.

Those words are their own proof.

Which fits the meaning of circa and around.

And harmonized with the 69th Week of Daniel. Yours does not.
Meaningless words, provide testimony other than your own.

Stop playing games. I already posted the word does not demand 'governor.'
I'm quite sur is God used the word 'governor' He meant it to be a station held by one person, not somebody 'coming up through the ranks'. This train of thought will gain you nothing, God chose every word to be writen as intended. Deal with it.

Tiberius most assuredly held power in 8 AD. Not as full Emporer, but he did have power.

Procosular is military power. Tribunician is legislative power.

He most assuredly was in power before 14 AD.
Like maybe 12AD?

And if you read his history, you see his military career was in the East, which included Judea and such.

So, for them it is logically to see him as being in power.
No kidding, I don't assume they just appeared from nowhere. Each had a title held by one person at one time.

And I showed they fit with my dating.
Again you dismiss data. That dating scheme demand 29 AD due to the 15th year of Tiberius.
True and if Herod died in 1BC (which is shown to be so in some documents) then 29AD would put Jesus 'about 30' in that year. Now your demand that Tiberius be who he is said to be completely vanishes to accomidate your theory. Suddenly as long as he has 'some authority' that is good enough. You demand that I use 29AD because documents say that is when he got his title. No earlier date is allowed until it comes to you, then you can use whatever date you want with not one linked document that gives your 'opinion' any validity. Yes I said your opinion. You really shouldn't have overlooked that verse before setting your 'doctrine'. Now you scramble to give yourself leeway without extending that anybody but you. Trust me, that is fine with me, by the time we finish this governor will be governor (not someone from the ranks that is never mentioned in any book anywhere because they are not important enough to mention). The arguement against you right now is that you give two power before any printed history book does. If that statement is in error give me the quote from any document that supports what you claim to be true.

Be consistant.
I have been consistant from our first meeting, you are wrong on at least one point, that puts all your other points in serious doubt.

Again you dismiss critical word meaning. CIRCA means about, not exactly.
It means about, 19BC is 'about 20BC'

Which was during his ministry.
The very first passover, two more to go before the cross

You did nit again. It states around, which is circa. You keep messing with word definitions to try to make them say what they do not.
A year either way I 'might accept', you need 4 years from the given date of 19BC. No, might as well mean another century.

Don't be absurd. Circa and around do not mean exactly that year. A few years either way is still around or circa.
Then argue against the date given by producing a link to a document that says so.

Those words are their own proof.

Which fits the meaning of circa and around.

And harmonized with the 69th Week of Daniel. Yours does not.
Meaningless words, provide testimony other than your own.

Stop playing games. I already posted the word does not demand 'governor.'
I'm quite sur is God used the word 'governor' He meant it to be a station held by one person, not somebody 'coming up