Debate-Ezekiel's Temple

[Ltanner09]

There are generally three schools of thought when discussing Ezekiel's Temple:

In order to be concise, those thoughts are:

1. The Temple will be built after (or shortly before) the 2nd coming and will exist during a 1,000 year earthly reign of Christ.

2. The Temple was to be built in Ezekiel's day, but Israel didn't adhere to the conditions applied to building it. Therefore it will never be built.

3. The Temple verses are spiritual in nature and should be applied as such.

Core and I will likely agree to dismiss option 3.

Core will defend his beliefs that option 1 is accurate and l will be defending option 2.

(Notice I didn't offer the more confrontational "Core will be attacking option 2 and I will be attacking option #1) It's all about detente :D

[Ltanner09]

Again, in an effort to keep the posts to a minimum in length I'll start the debate off touching on only one aspect on why I believe Ezekiel's Temple will never be built to the extent that God would ever recognize it as "holy" or a "temple of God".

First and foremost is the pre millennial's belief that animal sacrifices will return.
Not only do they believe such abolished rituals will return but that they also believe those sacrifices will be approved by God himself.

"Sin offerings" are mentioned by Ezekiel on 14 occasions from chapters 40-48.

But Hebrews tells us:

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

In Christ sin is forgiven, but pre millers would have us believe that sin offerings will return and point to Ezekiel as their proof. Yet hebrews tells us that God has no pleasure in such sacrifices:

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.


Of course there are numerous additional verses that tell us that Christ is the only acceptable sacrifice, but in the interest of brevity I won't list them all, yet.

The pre mill argument for such sacrifices is astounding. In fact Core will be by to astound you with them.

[CoreIssue]

:D

The Temple will be built, or should I say the Trib Temple will be rebuilt, into the Ezekiel described Temple.
Daniel 12
9 He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.
11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.


At the Second Coming those with the Mark will die by the multitudes. Some will run.

1,290 days is 30 days after the Second Coming.

Remember, Christ first gathers Israel to Jerusalem and then assigns them their Tribes. Only specific clans of Tribes can work on the Temple by Law.

The work begins 30 days after the Second Coming, with the cleansing of the Temple of the AoD.

1,335 is 75 days after the Second Coming. The hunting down of those with the Mark is finished. So blessed means they live and enter the MK.
Daniel 8
9 Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. 11 It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. 12 Because of rebellion, the host of the saints [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-21974a)] and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"
14 He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."


Exact description of the events at Mid Trib in Revelation and the 70 Weeks of Daniel.

Mid Trib - Day 1,260 + 1,261
1,260 + 1,260 is Second Coming
2,300 days - 1,260 = 1,040.

1,040 days after the Second Coming the Temple is full cleansed and rededicated to God.

Then bring in the OT prophecies about the nations who attacked Israel having to go to Jerusalem annually, the restoration of the House of David to the Throne, meaning Christ and so forth.

All fits quite well together.

Revelation was written long after the annulment of the Mosaic Covenant. Yet, the Temple is there, as is the MK on the earth.

As well Hebrews was written well after the annulment. The New Covenant with the Houses of Israel and Judah is there, a future covenant.

The Ezekiel Temple is not a glorified OT Temple. It is different.

[Ltanner09]

Core, before I reply to your synopsis of the left behind series, did you want to offer your biblical verses that support the animal sacrifices for sin offerings as seen in Ezekiel?

[CoreIssue]

Core, before I reply to your synopsis of the left behind series, did you want to offer your biblical verses that support the animal sacrifices for sin offerings as seen in Ezekiel?
Really, I should not have to since by definition the Temple is the place of offerings and sacrifices.

Remember, the Holy Spirit is the Comforter and imparter of the blood. And Christ said he had to leave for the Holy Spirit could not come in the new way. So, when Christ comes that would mean the Holy Spirit could not be here in that way he is in the Church. That is confirmed by a return to the Temple.

Blood is symbolic of the born-again experience to come. But in the MK they have to wait, not getting it in the flesh. So the symbolism returns.

But, with that said, Ezekiel 45-56 says their will be guilt and sin offerings. So does Zarariah 14. That is blood sacrifice.

Both are prophetic and future.

And I never read the Left Behind series nor do I fully agree with it per the summaries I have read.

To say that Temple will not exist is to dismiss vast parts of the OT and NT.

[Ltanner09]

Remember, the Holy Spirit is the Comforter and imparter of the blood. And Christ said he had to leave for the Holy Spirit could not come in the new way. So, when Christ comes that would mean the Holy Spirit could not be here in that way he is in the Church. That is confirmed by a return to the Temple.

Blood is symbolic of the born-again experience to come. But in the MK they have to wait, not getting it in the flesh. So the symbolism returns.

Core you believe animal sacrifices will exist again because you believe a temple will exist. Then, for what purpose are animal sacrifices?
Is it your claim that animal sacrifices (sin offering) somehow supercede the blood of Christ?

Certainly people aren't running around slaughtering sheep because they see a temple. Certainly Jesus isn't telling people to slaughter sheep to cover their sins. The only acceptable sacrifice for sin is Christ.

This is only question pose for now until I can better understand your position on why animal sacrifices occur.

Don't know why I thought this issue would just zip on down the bible freeway.
:p

[CoreIssue]

[quote]Remember, the Holy Spirit is the Comforter and imparter of the blood. And Christ said he had to leave for the Holy Spirit could not come in the new way. So, when Christ comes that would mean the Holy Spirit could not be here in that way he is in the Church. That is confirmed by a return to the Temple.

Blood is symbolic of the born-again experience to come. But in the MK they have to wait, not getting it in the flesh. So the symbolism returns.Core you believe animal sacrifices will exist again because you believe a temple will exist.
Demanded by definition. That and coming before God is its purpose. It is not a church building.
Then, for what purpose are animal sacrifices?
Is it your claim that animal sacrifices (sin offering) somehow supercede the blood of Christ?
No. The animal blood never actually forgave sin. It was symbolic of Christ's blood to come and when a saint would receive it. As when the OT saints received it when Christ ascended.

We receive it during life and become temples of Christ and God. Receive it to become temples since God cannot dwell in an unclean temple.

In the MK they do not receive the blood of Christ immediately. They have to wait, thus, as stated, are back under Law and need an external Temple in which God/Christ dwells, which he will.

The Holy Spirit came when Christ left and leaves before Christ returns, when the 70th Week of Daniel brings in the New Covenant to Israel and Judah.

Even in the Church Age, the unsaved are under Law and do not escape it until born-again. Delay the receiving of the Blood and you delay born-again, thus stay under Law but possessing the promise of the blood, just as they did in the OT
Certainly people aren't running around slaughtering sheep because they see a temple.
There is no Temple today.
Certainly Jesus isn't telling people to slaughter sheep to cover their sins. The only acceptable sacrifice for sin is Christ.
You are making the error of trying to turn all time into Church. It isn't. No Church before Israel, during Israel, during the Trib or the MK. Israel covenant never becomes Church ever, OT saints or otherwise.
This is only question pose for now until I can better understand your position on why animal sacrifices occur.
The key is in understand what the sacrifices were for and when blood is received.
Don't know why I thought this issue would just zip on down the bible freeway.
:p
:D Because, I think, you see Church from now on out when it is not the case. Or one group only in the Body of Christ, when there are two.

[Ltanner09]

In the MK they do not receive the blood of Christ immediately. They have to wait, thus, as stated, are back under Law and need an external Temple in which God/Christ dwells, which he will.

Ezekiel's temple was to be built upon Israel's release from captivity but failed to adhere to the conditions applied:

Eze 43:9 Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever.

10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.

11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

Israel instead continued down their path of rebellion, culmination by having their kingdom taken away from them.

Your theory, that Israel will have to wait before accepting Christ (at any time) is unbiblical. If you have a scripture where Israel is told to "wait" I'd be very interested in seeing it. I'd be interested in a verse where ANYONE is told to "wait".

The Holy Spirit came when Christ left and leaves before Christ returns, when the 70th Week of Daniel brings in the New Covenant to Israel and Judah.

There are dozens of directions this statement can take us. The Holy Spirit never leaves and the new covenant is already in place, a covenant confirmed by Christ in the 70th week, that one week the covenant was to be made. Pre mill believes the covenant is FOR one week, however translators added the word "for", which lends understanding to the theory of a future 7 year covenant.

The literal interpretation describes the 7 weeks, the 62 weeks and "he shall confirm a covenant with many one week".

It was that one week wherein the covenant was confirmed, by Christ with His blood.
Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Lu 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament(covenant) in my blood, which is shed for you.


1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament (covenant) in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament (covenant) ; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament,( covenant) that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

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.

Repeatedly we are told that Jesus confirmed the covenant, yet pre mill waits for another.


2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Pre mill proposes placing a vail where it isn't needed, it is removed in Christ.

A return to animal sacrifices, as sin offering, diminishes the sacrifice Christ made for us.
Such a faulty teaching sent me running for cover from the pre mill camp.

Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Yet Pre mill contends such rituals will return. Rituals that God has no pleasure in.

[CoreIssue]

In the MK they do not receive the blood of Christ immediately. They have to wait, thus, as stated, are back under Law and need an external Temple in which God/Christ dwells, which he will.Ezekiel's temple was to be built upon Israel's release from captivity but failed to adhere to the conditions applied:

Eze 43:9 Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever.

10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.

11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

Israel instead continued down their path of rebellion, culmination by having their kingdom taken away from them.
Yes. But has nothing to do with the future. It happened in the past.

The end of the 69th Week and 70 AD took away Israel as covenant and nation.

They have returned as nation, as prophecied and will return as covenant, as prophecied.

The Mosaic Covenant is gone. The future Covenant to Israel and Judah remains future.

Len, you do not deal with that future covenant.
Your theory, that Israel will have to wait before accepting Christ (at any time) is unbiblical.
No. Israel as a national identity does have to wait because they do not accept.

They didn't even exist as a nation for about 1900 years. So during that time it was impossible for them to be a Godly nation, in example.

Not talking individuals here.

Israel will accept Christ at the Second Coming. The following has never taken place yet in full.

Israel now is a nation, now is source of issues for surrounding nations, but not yet has accepted Christ.

This is talking about the Second Coming.

Zechariah 12
1 This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares: 2 "I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. 3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves. 4 On that day I will strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness," declares the LORD. "I will keep a watchful eye over the house of Judah, but I will blind all the horses of the nations. 5 Then the leaders of Judah will say in their hearts, 'The people of Jerusalem are strong, because the LORD Almighty is their God.' 6 "On that day I will make the leaders of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among sheaves. They will consume right and left all the surrounding peoples, but Jerusalem will remain intact in her place.
7 "The LORD will save the dwellings of Judah first, so that the honor of the house of David and of Jerusalem's inhabitants may not be greater than that of Judah. 8 On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the LORD going before them. 9 On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.
Mourning for the One They Pierced

10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=zech%2012;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23056a)] of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, 14 and all the rest of the clans and their wives.

If you have a scripture where Israel is told to "wait" I'd be very interested in seeing it. I'd be interested in a verse where ANYONE is told to "wait".
I never said they were told to wait. You are totally missing the point. They rejected Christ. They have imposed their own exile and God dealt with it at the end of the 69th Week of Daniel.
The Holy Spirit came when Christ left and leaves before Christ returns, when the 70th Week of Daniel brings in the New Covenant to Israel and Judah.There are dozens of directions this statement can take us. The Holy Spirit never leaves and the new covenant is already in place, a covenant confirmed by Christ in the 70th week,
No. The 70th Week has never taken place. You are spiritulizing those verses.

You are declaring the Church Covenant to be the New Covenant to the Houses of Israel and Judah. That is Replacement Theology because Gentiles are not Israel or Judah unless Gentiles usurp their positions.

Paul, in Hebrews, speaks of the covenant to the Church in the present tense. He speaks of the New Covenant in the future tense. So, again you are merging two covenants into one.

You are forgetting Hebrews is written to Jews, and Jews only. Gentiles can learn from it and are included in the Church and saints overall issues. But they are not included in the New Covenant issues.

Are you saying you all in the Church are in the Houses of Israel of Judah?
Further,
that one week the covenant was to be made.
No. No 7 year covenant/contract ever made for the Church Age.

Christ died at the end of the 69th Week. He never lived in the 70th. The event following the 69th is 70 AD, so there was no Temple to enter since that date, no sacrifices to end or any of the other issues. The 70th Week events have never occurred in history.

You are spiritualizing those verses.
Pre mill believes the covenant is FOR one week, however translators added the word "for", which lends understanding to the theory of a future 7 year covenant.
Incorrect. The KJV writters were Amil and used the word phrase for one week. Other non Pre-Mil linquists also translate it for one week.

So that argument is a non starter.

The literal interpretation describes the 7 weeks, the 62 weeks and "he shall confirm a covenant with many one week".
No way. Never translated that way.

On top of that it says the contract will be broken in the middle of the week. That is not an ongoing time frame but a time frame of fixed duration, one week, 7 OT Hebrew years.

You forget there is no such thing as one to one word translations for accurate meaning. Language does not work that way.
It was that one week wherein the covenant was confirmed, by Christ with His blood.

Nope. Christ was not alive during the 70th, yet to be, Week.
Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Lu 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament(covenant) in my blood, which is shed for you.


1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament (covenant) in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament (covenant) ; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Yep. But again you are merging covenants. Not understanding the distinction between the Mosaic Covenant, Abrahamic Covenant, Church Covenant and the New Covenant to the Houses of Israeal and Judah.

Covenants are not salvation, Len. They are how God deals with Man.

In the OT, the Blood was future, in Church immediate and in the future New again future to when received. Nothing to do with the blood reality or the fact salvation has always been by repetence through grace by faith. Never has law saved anyone, it condemns only.
Heb 9:15 And for this cause [B]he is the mediator of the new testament,( covenant) that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

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.

Repeatedly we are told that Jesus confirmed the covenant, yet pre mill waits for another.
And repeatedly you delete the fact there is one covenant to the Church and a future covenant the Houses of Israel and Judah.

Are you of the House of Israel or Judah or not? Do you not see, in Hebrews, all references to the Covenant to Israel and Judah are future tense and this book was written to Jews only?
2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
And there is no vail in the MK Temple because Christ is right there among them.

You do not see that reality, it seems.
Pre mill proposes placing a vail where it isn't needed, it is removed in Christ.
Wrong. You are inventing something not believed. There is no vail in the MK Temple.
A return to animal sacrifices, as sin offering, diminishes the sacrifice Christ made for us.
No. That offering never forgave sin. It is symbolic, as baptism is symbolic.
Such a faulty teaching sent me running for cover from the pre mill camp.
Never taught it or believed it, Len.
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Yet Pre mill contends such rituals will return. Rituals that God has no pleasure in.
God also hates sin but created us anyway, gave a way out for us and the Holy Spirit indwells and works with us even though we are in sinful flesh and sin every day.

You are giving a parsed view of the issue, as in what God does not like but what he does for our benefit.

The problem I have with many 'Christian' doctrines are they elevate Man, specifically Christians, in ways not justified.

Many Amils and Post-Mils add works to salvation. Post-Tribbers turn Church into super beings that earn their wings, so to speak, in the Trib, and become superiors in the pecking order of Heaven. And the farther one moves from Pre-Trib the more they are non literal.

The Bible says in the last days people will stop looking for the imminent return of Christ. That is extremely true in Post-Mils and Amils. Even more true in Idealists, who see this earth just going on forever because Man will just keep getting better and better.

Israel is there now, prophetic. No getting around it. Those who claim their day is gone do not deal with that reality very well or at all.

[Ltanner09]

Core if you told someone you were going to do something after the 1st of the year, would that that sonething occur on or before the 1st of the year? No, it would be after.

Da 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, ....

After the 69th week Christ would be cut off, not during. He was cut off in week 70.

The Mosaic Covenant is gone. The future Covenant to Israel and Judah remains future.

Len, you do not deal with that future covenant.

I did deal with it. If I tell you I'll see you the day after Thanksgiving, then obviously it is AFTER Thursday Nov 27th, not the 26th.

Christ confirmed the covenant in the 70th week....he was crucifiied AFTER the 69th week, which clearly makes it the 70th.

You're ignoring something so "literal" it's amazing.

And because of that you fail to see the new covenant...amazing x 2.

[Ltanner09]

Core if you told someone you were going to do something after the 1st of the year, would that that something occur on or before the 1st of the year? No, it would be after.

Da 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, ....

After the 69th week Christ would be cut off, not during. He was cut off in week 70.

The Mosaic Covenant is gone. The future Covenant to Israel and Judah remains future.

Len, you do not deal with that future covenant.

I did deal with it. If I tell you I'll see you the day after Thanksgiving, then obviously it is AFTER Thursday Nov 27th, not the 26th.

Christ confirmed the covenant in the 70th week....he was crucifiied AFTER the 69th week, which clearly makes it the 70th.

You're ignoring something so "literal" it's amazing.

And because of that you fail to see the new covenant...amazing x 2.

[CoreIssue]

Core if you told someone you were going to do something after the 1st of the year, would that that sonething occur on or before the 1st of the year? No, it would be after.

Da 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, ....

After the 69th week Christ would be cut off, not during. He was cut off in week 70.

After means next in order. You demand is sometime after, but not said.
Strong's Number: 0310 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=310&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin rxafrom (0309 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=309&version=kjv)) Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0310&version=kjv#Legend) Entry 'acharTWOT - 68b, 68c Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech akh-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





Plus the Hebrew word for prince referring to Christ is the one used for Jewish princes. The next prince is a different word used fo Gentiles.

If it were the same person it would be the same word both times.
Strong's Number: 04899 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=4899&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin xyXmfrom (04886 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=4886&version=kjv)) Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04899&version=kjv#Legend) Entry MashiyachTWOT - 1255c Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech maw-shee'-akh http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=4899h) Noun Masculine 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



Strong's Number: 05057 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=5057&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin dygnfrom (05046 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=5046&version=kjv)) Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05057&version=kjv#Legend) Entry NagiydTWOT - 1289b Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech naw-gheed' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5057h) Noun Masculine Definition


leader, ruler, captain, prince

ruler, prince
prince-overseer
ruler (in other capacities)
princely things



The event after the cutting of is the Roman invasion of 70 AD. A prince, Titus, came with his people, the Roman army, and they destroyed the Temple and city. Christ and the Apostles did not destroy either.

There you spiritialize the verse to mean other than Jerusalem and the Temple.

After 70 AD the next listed event is 70 AD

So, your use of after does not work since two intervening events is not after, but down the road.

Plus, no AoD from Christ and no 7 year contract/covenant. Plus the events of 70 AD overlay perfectly on the Trib of Revelation.

Christ dieing and the army in 70 AD are historical events. No quessing involved.

None of 70 AD taking place is also a historical reality.

Again, I can read all of this literally by rules of grammar with absolutely no conflict in flow, history or anything else. You cannot, nor can you offer any actual proof for your claim.
The Mosaic Covenant is gone. The future Covenant to Israel and Judah remains future.

Len, you do not deal with that future covenant.I did deal with it.Nope. Paul talks of that covenant in the future tense and the Church in present tense.

Nor did you answer me if you are of the House of Israel or Judah. Please answer.
If I tell you I'll see you the day after Thanksgiving, then obviously it is AFTER Thursday Nov 27th, not the 26th.
That made no sense.

There is a gap between the 69th and 70th Weeks. Laid out in the verses.

Further, it obviously is the 27th, not the 28th. Daniels says 69th - death - destruction - 70th Week. That is not the next event.

Between the death of Christ and the close of the 69th Week were zero other events. If there are then it is not after, but sometime after. But there is an event listed between the death and the 70th Week.
Christ confirmed the covenant in the 70th week....he was crucifiied AFTER the 69th week, which clearly makes it the 70th.Nope.
You're ignoring something so "literal" it's amazing.Actually, I am not, you are.
And because of that you fail to see the new covenant...amazing x 2.Now answer are you of the House of Israel or the House of Judah, please.

If you say yes then that is Replacement Theology.

[Ltanner09]

Core, IT really becomes annoying when you continually refer to my belief as replacement theology.
I've stated on record here that I absolutely do not believe Israel has been "replaced" by anyone.
I do not believe in "replacement theology" (last time I'll state that fact here).

Don't know if you label me that because your debating skills are lacking here and you're looking to smear me on this board or what, but you need to put that angle to rest.

Now that I've vented, back to to our friendly debate.

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.


In order to further prove to you that Christ confirmed the covenant, spoken of in Dan 9, I will present biblical that ALL of the above in the 70 weeks.

I may break this into two posts because of it's length, but will start with:

Da*9:24
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression


Was this accomplished by Christ?

"TO FINISH THE TRANSGRESSION"

In these words we see the complete fulfillment of the heavenly transaction for sin and transgression. This was totally perfected in Christ’s sinless life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection.

I John 3:4-5 explains, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he (Christ) was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”

Christ came to take away that awful curse that afflicted man from the Garden. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “for he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

Our sin was imputed to Christ; His righteousness was imputed to us. Christ’s perfect once all-sufficient sacrifice secured a full, real and perfect redemption for his own, whether Old or New Testament saints. He was made a curse for us (Gal 3:13). The shedding of the blood satisfied the Father and reconciled the sinner to God, securing eternal redemption. Christ the sinless Lamb of God was made sin on the sinner’s behalf.

Christ met all the just demands of the Law by his vicarious atonement, ensuring no legal charges can justly be brought against those for whom he paid the price.

As Jesus was dying, he cried: "It is finished." At Calvary, Jesus finished transgression by becoming sin for us. No future sacrifice can or will ever finish transgression; it was completely and perfectly finished at Calvary.

Isaiah 53:5-8 predicated, “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment : and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.”

This great focal was perfectly fulfilled by Christ.

The once all-sufficient satisfactory sacrifice occurred through Christ at Calvary. The old system of repeated sacrifices (types) where thus terminated (in God’s economy) when God’s only begotten Son became the final sacrifice for sin. While the Jews continued their divinely abolished temple sacrifices for forty more years, God did not recognize them. Such imperfect sacrifices would never again appease the wrath of Almighty God, as the death of Christ perfectly satisfied the one all-sufficient, final atoning sacrifice for sin forever.

Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

But Pre Mill proposes a return to the law in their MK, a law that works wrath.

Hebrews 9:13-15 declares, “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause[COLOR="Red"] he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

[Ltanner09]

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to..... make an end of sins,

Was this fulfilled by Christ?

"TO MAKE AN END OF SINS."

Jeremiah first prophesied the coming and character of the new covenant, in Jeremiah 31:31-33, saying, “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Jeremiah continues in the next verse, saying, “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34).

The writer of the Hebrews addresses this passage directly, quoting it and applying it to Christ and His atoning work at Calvary.

The animal sacrifices were done away forever. Hebrews 10:4-12 explains, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”
The old covenant with its unsatisfactory imperfect animal sacrifices have now been replaced by the new covenant with its one individual all-sufficient perfect eternal sacrifice. Paul outlines an important New Testament principle in 1 Corinthians 15:46, which is evident in every aspect of God’s plan and purpose with mankind, “that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.”

Hebrews 7:19-22 declares, “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”

Hebrews 8:6-8 says, of Christ and His vicarious atonement, “now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry (than those exercised by the Old Testament priests with their imperfect sacrifices), by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant.” The writer of the Hebrews then quotes our opening passage in Jeremiah 31, thus demonstrating its actual fullfilment.


Hebrews 8:13 continues, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” Not long after this epistle was written, the temple with its inbuilt sacrifices was finally destroyed. With the destruction of the temple of few years later in AD 70, the temple sacrifices vanished forever.

Hebrews 10:10-12 significantly continues, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ‘once for all’ (or) ‘ephapax’ (or) ‘upon one occasion only’. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”

The Temple with all its resplendent adornments and its meticulous ceremonies and sacrifices was a beautiful physical, yet temporal, figure, shadow and type of the Lord Jesus Christ and His one all-sufficient sacrifice at the cross. Calvary wrought it all. It finished forever the earthly need for a physical Jewish temple that embodied imperfect shadow sacrifices. Hebrews 10:14-20 then affirms, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”

Hebrews 10:26 says, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

If we understand the glorious implication of what was accomplished at Calvary, we know that there was truly an end of sins made. Jesus truly came to "save his people from their sins" (Matthew. 1:21). That’s why John the Baptist introduced Him at the commencement of the 70th week as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world" (John 1:29).

Notwithstanding, this great transaction was fully accomplished after 3½ years of ministry at Calvary, when He “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself … so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” ( Hebrews 9:26 & 28 ).

Mark 15:37 says, “Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God."

It was the cross-work that ended sin from a divine perspective, in relation to His elect. 1 Peter 3:18 says, “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit.”

Hebrews 7:26-27 says, “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

Hebrews 9:11-14 says, “But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

Hebrews 9:24-28 continues, “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment : so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”

Romans 6:9-10 says, “Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.”

We can therefore testify of Calvary, "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3), where He "bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (l Peter 2:24). Therefore, "He was manifested to take away our sins" (l John 3:5). The predicted "end of sins" that we read of in Daniel was therefore fully accomplished at Calvary.

From a human experiential point of view, sin still exists in the elect, although from a heavenly perspective the one perfect all-sufficient eternal sacrifice for sin has been fully and finally made at Calvary, so that all who come unto Christ in repentance (past, present, or future) will be totally forgiven on the sole basis of Christ’s Calvary transaction. This occurred in the midst of Daniel’s final week as he accurately predicted

[Ltanner09]

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to ..... make reconciliation for iniquity,

Was this fulfilled by Christ in the 70 weeks?

Micah 7:19 predicted of Christ: “He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.”

This Old Testament prophecy like, Daniel 9, was looking to an approaching event in which Messiah would appear to fully atone for man’s sin, to once-and-for-all destroy the power and penalty of sin. This momentous transaction was undoubtedly fully secured at the Cross in Christ’s one all-sufficient sacrifice. Hebrews 10:12-16 says, “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God … This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”

This New Testament passage confirms that this substitutionary transaction is indeed completely and finally “finished.” Hebrews 8:12 also says, “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.”

God’s elect within the nation of Israel were fully reconciled to God (as we are) by the blood of Jesus. The Christ-rejecting Jew, like the Christ rejecting Jew will NEVER be reconciled to God outside of Calvary.

The word reconciliation used here is the same word that is used so frequently in the book of Leviticus where it is rendered “to make atonement.” This, too, was part of our Lord's redemptive work. Reconciliation is clearly a present reality because of Calvary. Hebrews 2:17 says, “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

Romans 5:8-10 says, “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”

Ephesians 2:13-16 says, “in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.”

Colossians 1:20-22 says, “having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight.”

2 Corinthians 5:17-19 says, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new and all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”

Titus 2:13-14 says, “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”

[Ltanner09]

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to bring in everlasting righteousness,

Was this fulfilled by Christ within the 70 weeks?


The great redemption chapter of Isaiah 53 had prophesied of Calvary: "my righteous servant shall make many righteous."

A question that all futurists should consider when analyzing this matter is this: Did Christ in His coming to earth provide righteousness through His redemptive work?

2 Corinthians 5:21 provides the answer, saying, “for he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

This part of the prophecy was accomplished by the earthly life of Christ!
When Christ approached John (at the beginning of the final week of Daniel) for him to baptise Him, John immediately refused, to which the Master declared, “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil ALL righteousness” (Matthew 3:15).

Christ has expressly fulfilled every demand that the Father made of Him in His sinless life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection.

A second question that should be considered is: Was that righteousness “everlasting” as predicted or temporal?

2 Corinthians 9:9 addresses our query, saying, “As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.”

Here in this reading, we note the eternal nature of the righteousness that Christ brought at His first Advent. The reading confirms, as predicted in Daniel 9 of His first Advent, that the righteousness that Christ brought was assuredly “everlasting righteousness,” not temporal as some would try and argue. This is in total keeping with the eternal character of the kingdom He ushered in.

Likewise, Hebrews 1:8-9 says, “unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”

Christ ushered that eternal kingdom in at the beginning of the 70th week. Jesus testified, in Luke 16:16, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the Kingdom of God is preached, and every man ‘presseth’ (or biazetai – or suffereth violence) into it.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 says, of God’s people – period (including those of Daniel’s day), “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

Our sin was imputed to Christ; His righteousness was imputed to us. Christ’s perfect once all-sufficient self sacrifice secured a full, real and perfect redemption for his own, whether Old or New Testament saints. He was made a curse for us (Gal 3:13). The shedding of the blood satisfied the Father and reconciled the sinner to God, securing eternal redemption. Christ the sinless Lamb of God was made sin on the sinner’s behalf. 1 John 2:29 declares, "Everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him"

Moreover, the “everlasting righteousness” that is found in Christ has now been graciously imputed to His elect through mystical union in salvation Romans 4:20-24 declares, talking about Abraham the father of the faith, “He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”

This righteousness which comes from God through Christ is appropriated by grace through faith. Romans 3:22 declares, “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.”

The righteousness the believer has is not his own it is imputed (or put into us) of the Lord. Christ is our righteousness. Romans 5:21 says, “as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” This “imputed” righteousness is also expressly of an “eternal” nature.

I John 3:7 says, “let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.”

It was Calvary however that fully realised the imputation of eternal righteousness into the child of God. 1 Peter 2:24 says, “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”

Calvary was the event that ensured that God’s elect would enter into the unending rest of “everlasting righteousness.”

Q. Was not this righteousness that he brought in everlasting?
. Romans 5:17-21 says:

Ro 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Calvary was the specific event that brought “in everlasting righteousness” for mankind. Our sin was imputed to Christ; His righteousness was imputed to us! Christ’s perfect once all-sufficient self sacrifice secured a full, real and perfect redemption for his own, whether Old or New Testament saints. The righteousness that Christ ushered in was undoubtedly ETERNAL or EVERLASTING. Romans 3:24-25 declares of His elect, “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.”

Calvary secured the imputation of that righteousness.

This eternal or everlasting righteousness is contrasted to the old sacrifices under the law, which were only of a temporary nature. But Christ, once for all time, offered himself thus providing, as the prophecy of Daniel had said, "everlasting righteousness."

There is therefore absolutely no basis for the futurist teaching that none of these things have yet been fulfilled. To teach such is highly unscriptural and totally undermines the great redemptive work that Christ wrought at Calvary.

[Ltanner09]

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to.....seal up the vision and prophecy:

Was this accomplished by Christ within the 70 weeks?

Paul then goes on to tell these Jews what Israel did with their king, in Acts 13:27-30, saying, “For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead.”

Paul then enlarges and explains, “And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise (the actual act of him being raised from the dead), I will give you the sure mercies of David” (vv 32-34).

The use of the metaphor "to seal" is derived from the ancient custom of attaching a seal to a document to show that it was genuine (See 1 Kings 21:8; Jer. 32:10, 11; cf. John 6:27; 1 Cor. 9:2). Christ "sealed" Old Testament prophecy by fulfilling what was written of him.

Repeatedly we read concerning him: "... that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets."

1 Peter 1:7-12 says, speaking to the New Testament saints about our common salvation in Christ, “the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the holy ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.”

Acts 3:18 says: "Those things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer he hath so fulfilled:"

Truly Jesus fulfilled what was written in the visions and prophecies of the Old Testament concerning him, and thus he "sealed" them showed that they were genuine. 'They are they", he said, "which testify of me" (John 5:39). "All the prophets and the law prophesied until John" (Mt. 11:13), then John presented Jesus as he that was to be "made manifest to Israel." Jesus was the one that was to come and we look for none other. He is the fulfilment of vision and prophecy.
================================================== ==================================
Christ was prophesied to come in Daniel 9:27 and to cause the sacrifice and offering to stop.

Christ was prophesied to come in Daniel 9:27 and make that abomination desolate.

Christ was prophesied to come in Daniel 9:27 and to make it remain desolate forever; until the consumation of time.

Hebrews is but a reminder of the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27; just like these other NT passages tell us as well.


Hebrews 9:20 "Then he said, 'This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.'"

Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ"

Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many"

Matthew 26:28 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Luke 22:20 "After supper he took another cup of wine and said, "This wine is the token of God's new covenant to save you--an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you."

Romans 11:27 "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Hebrews 10:18 "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh"

Mark 15:37 "And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom."

[Ltanner09]

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to anoint the most Holy.

And, this was accomplished within the 70 weeks:

Luke 1:34-35 records of Jesus, “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Mark 1:23-25 says of Jesus, “And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.”

I John 2:20 says of Jesus, “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.”

Peter declared of Jesus on the day of Pentecost, in Acts 2:27, “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.”

Peter declared of Jesus to the unbelieving Jews, in Acts 3:14, “ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you.”

Revelation 3:7 says of Christ, “to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.”

In Revelation 6:10 the Lord is described in similar terms, “And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?”

(b) When was the most holy to be anointed?
The anointing of Messiah ushered in the commencement of His earthly ministry and saw the beginning of the 70th week. When Jesus appeared on the scene, John cried: "Behold the Lamb of God." From the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto Messiah was to be 483 years. When this time was fulfilled, those who knew this prophecy were expecting the appearance of the Messiah, that is, the Christ (Christ being the Greek form of the Hebrew word Messiah). Thus when John came baptizing, "the people were in EXPECTATION, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or not" (Lk. 3:15). John plainly told them that he was not the Christ he was only the forerunner.

The time had now come that Jesus should be “made manifest to Israel” (John 1:29 31). He was then baptized and after He had prayed: “the heaven was opened. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased” (Luke 3:21,22).

This was Christ’s heavenly vindication on the Son of God. He had appeared to Israel right on time! Thus Jesus, in evident reference to the time prophecy of Daniel, said, “The time is fulfilled” (Mark 1:15) and as the Messiah, the Christ, the “anointed one,” he preached the gospel.

Peter testified of this truth to the other Apostles in Acts 10:36-38, “The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all). That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”

When he entered the synagogue of Nazareth, he announced: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath anointed me" (Lk. 4:18-22).

The disciples prayed to Father, whilst speaking of Christ, in Acts 4:27-28, “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.”

Daniel's prophecy revealed that the time period unto the Messiah would be 69 weeks (483 years). This clearly measured to the time when Jesus was baptized and anointed to begin his ministry as the Messiah, the Christ, the "Anointed One.

To answer your previous question on whether I am of Judah or Israel, it matters not.

The covenant is open to all who believe in Christ. That includes Israel, Judah and all of humanity.


Will all of the previous verses change your position on the 70 weeks? Not likely.

But if even one member here searches for themselves, hopefully they'll discover which view is most biblical.

[CoreIssue]

Len, you posted a lot of verses on being born-again. I do not disagree with them.

But that is not the issue. Nor is how things are done in the Church Age. The issue is your denial of a literal future 70th Week of Daniel and a literal return to a New Covenant with Israel.
To answer your previous question on whether I am of Judah or Israel, it matters not.

The covenant is open to all who believe in Christ. That includes Israel, Judah and all of humanity. It does matter, Len. House designates it as physical, not spiritual. Neither you or I are members of either of those houses.

Church Age encompassing both Jew and Gentile is a fact. We are not discussing Church Age.

But by your demand you are practicing Replacement Theology. You have transferred the Abrahamic Covenant as regards the land and some other issues to Gentiles as well as Jews. You cannot do that.

Yes, Christ is for all, not just Jews. But we are talking covenant bodies, not salvation. You do not understand the difference.

There is zero mention of Christ in the 70th Week. Christ did not destroy Israel or the Temple, Titus and the Roman Army did.

After does not mean anytime after, it means next in order. Next in order is the destruction of Israel. Even in the 70th Week his death would not be next it order, it would be after the covenant make by 'he' and 3.5 years later. Not next in order as the word meaning demands.

John wrote Revelation after the annulment of the Mosaic Covenant, yet he says Israel, Jerusalem, etc. He did affirmed their return as covenant body.

Paul wrote of the New Covenant in Hebrews in the future tense for Israel and on Church issues there, and in other books, in the present tense. Two covenant issues, not one.

You want to equate covenant to salvation. The is just plan wrong to do.

You jump over the tenses used in the sentences, present versus future. You cannot do that.

You disregard history, sentence order, context and more in the 70 Weeks, in example two words used for prince/leader, not one, thus two men, not one. And you strip literal meaning and change it to spiritual.

You just are disregarding or spiritulizing too many facts and demands here. Only dealing with the parts you see as fitting your thinking and not dealing with the rest.

That is where we part company on studying, Len. Literal by grammar and word meaning. Not Christ didn't literally destroy the Temple or Jerusalem, but did it in a spiritual way. Not House of Israel and Judah are irrelavent words and means now, not later.

Israel means physical desecendents. Judah means physical descendants. The two are significant because they represent an ancient split in Israel. Significant because prophecy says the broken staff will be rejoined into one.

And a staff is significant because they use to carve the family lineage into the patriarchs staff to show lineage.
Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Israel has not been reconciled to God yet. All you have to do is look at Israel to see that.

The 70 Weeks are upon Israel, not Gentiles.

The second you transfer it to include Gentiles you have replaced Israel with Church.

We have very different views here, Len. Does not mean we are not friends. Just means we do not see eye to eye on these thing. :D

[CTZonEdit]

Yep, and I dont get it either.

Instead of reading things literally, this whole 4 page 'doctrine' has to be posted in order to get around what is literally stated.

I dont get it. I dont get the effort one has to put into believing such a doctrine and I dont get the rejection of something as simple as a literal reading.

Doesnt make any sense. If the temple is never going to be rebuilt, and the Jews would know much better about Jewish tradition and history don't you think, then why do they worship at the Wall today and so desire for it to be rebuilt if God has said it will never again?

Why would God instill a desire for them to rebuild and return to those traditions if its all for naught?

[Ltanner09]

Doesnt make any sense. If the temple is never going to be rebuilt, and the Jews would know much better about Jewish tradition and history don't you think, then why do they worship at the Wall today and so desire for it to be rebuilt if God has said it will never again?

Why would God instill a desire for them to rebuild and return to those traditions if its all for naught?

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

To come to the Father is to obtain his favour, to have access to his throne by prayer, and finally to enter his kingdom. No man can obtain any of these things except by the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, to answer your question, Israel, as a nation, rejects Christ. If one rejects Christ they reject the One who sent Him.

I dont get it. I dont get the effort one has to put into believing such a doctrine and I dont get the rejection of something as simple as a literal reading.

The literal reading places no gap between the 69th and 70th week. Your entire doctrine is based on a faulty interpretation of what is simply written.

Your doctrine teaches an antichrist will confirm a covenant in the 70th week, where Christ already confirmed one.

Jesus virtually quoted Daniel when confirming the covenant. But you don't see it .... your doctrine would unravel if you did.

Israel has not been reconciled to God yet. All you have to do is look at Israel to see that.

Core, the bible tells us who the true Israel of God is:

Mt 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

The above is a fulfillment of:

Ho 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

The NT is very simply showing who the TRUE Israel of God is, it is Christ.

[CTZonEdit]

So, to answer your question, Israel, as a nation, rejects Christ. If one rejects Christ they reject the One who sent Him.


That doesnt make any sense. If in the OT the temple is never going to be rebuilt according to the prophecy from God, then why do they seek its return even today. They reject the NT altogether so of course they reject Christ, yet they are told in the OT (according to you) that the temple is never to exist again.

Yet they continue to worship at it and desire for it to be rebuilt.

Why?

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Israel has not been reconciled to God yet. All you have to do is look at Israel to see that.
Core, the bible tells us who the true Israel of God is:

Mt 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

The above is a fulfillment of:

Ho 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

The NT is very simply showing who the TRUE Israel of God is, it is Christ.
No, Len. Christ is never called Israel, ever. Period.

Israel is a people, a nation. Not God.

Christ is King of Israel, not Israel itself.

Israel is the Wife of the Father, as shown in standing before the Father on the Throne in Revelation. The Church, and only the Church, is the Bride of Christ, as shown in the Wedding and many other statements. No one else is ever given either of those titles.

You are not of the House of Israel or Judah. Paul says many times in many ways God is not through with Israel, that they have never ceased to be a unique people.

God did not waste his time giving all the prophecies to Israel about the future. Did not waste his time on describing the Ezekiel Temple of the MK only to toss it out. Did not make a stupid mistake by giving the Book of Revelation after Israel became a moot covenant issue as you claim. Did not write in terms of Israel when he meant Church.

You have made many claims without proof. Posted many verses in an attempt at proof, but had to redefine word meanings and change grammatical construction to get to your results. That is no proof at all, Len.

I posted the meaning of 'after.' You cannot get your demand out of it. After means next. It does not say the 70th Week is 'after' the 69th. It states his death is. And the one who dies in the 70th Week does so in the 7th year. So there is no 'after' the 69th death here at all.

Yes, the 70th follow th 69th in the Weeks. But no, the numerical sequence is not attached to the word 'after', his death is. And the passage defines the intervening events between the 69th and 70th as his death and the prince coming and destroying the Temple and Jerusalem. That is Titus in 70 AD. So your attempt at trying to make after mean the 70th Week next is grammatical erroneous.

We are not going to agree on your spinning of word meanings here. They are literal and there is absolutely no reason to read them otherwise.

We are not going to agree, Len. I say that with all respect. :tiphat:

[Ltanner09]

No, Len. Christ is never called Israel, ever. Period.

Ah, but Matt says He is and Ho 11:1 confirms the fact. Literally, Matt is a fulfillment of Ho 11:1 and the bible makes that very clear.....literally.

Why do think God changed Jacob to Israel? He was defining a nation that would be His people. It was a shadow( OT) of the future nation (NT) of God.

Where the nation of Israel (OT)was disobedient and rebellious, the people of the TRUE Israel of God (NT) are not.

I remember CindyW, on Rapture Ready, trying to drill that into my head....I thought she was dead wrong. After a couple of years of studying and praying about it I saw she was right.

Had a lot of further studying to do....being pre trib/pre mill for almost 30 years, it took a lot to readjust and re-read scriptures in the new light where everything fit into place without assigning gaps where none existed.

Two people of God became one, in Christ. So simple, yet it took so long for me to grasp.

The Church never replaced Israel, Israel is now all in Christ. All in Christ are saved. All in Christ (the TRUE Israel of God) are saved.

All of Israel''s (OT) sacrifices and feasts pointed to Christ, He is the fulfillment of all. Christ is the cornerstone of God's Temple. All in Christ make up the Temple.

It is the most simple message of all, but my previous understanding and teachings that I received muddied the waters.

I know you and I will never agree. I'm not here to fight with you, but to discuss these issues on an open forum where members may want to further search these issues on their own.

That's why I keep telling you I do NOT believe in Replacement theology....Israel can never be replaced.

[CoreIssue]

No, Len. Christ is never called Israel, ever. Period.Ah, but Matt says He is and Ho 11:1 confirms the fact. Literally, Matt is a fulfillment of Ho 11:1 and the bible makes that very clear.....literally.

You parsed and pulled the verse out of context and spun it.
13When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%202&version=31#fen-NIV-23185f)]
Read ALL of Hosea 1 plus the following chapters and see the full context. Israel failed after coming out but will succeed via Christ being called out.

Egypt is a long known figurative descriptive for the world. And at the Second Coming Israel is called out of the world by Christ.

It is not calling Christ Israel.
Why do think God changed Jacob to Israel? He was defining a nation that would be His people. It was a shadow( OT) of the future nation (NT) of God.
Absolutely Replacement Theology when you make Gentiles Israel or equal to Israel under the flesh covenant with Abraham.

Church is never called Israel.
Where the nation of Israel (OT)was disobedient and rebellious, the people of the TRUE Israel of God (NT) are not.

Never is the Church called Israel, ever. Even in the Body of Chris it is Israel AND Church, never Israel IS Church.
I remember CindyW, on Rapture Ready, trying to drill that into my head....I thought she was dead wrong. After a couple of years of studying and praying about it I saw she was right.
No. She was wrong and never proved her case. Ever. And she admitted to replacing Israel, at least.
Had a lot of further studying to do....being pre trib/pre mill for almost 30 years, it took a lot to readjust and re-read scriptures in the new light where everything fit into place without assigning gaps where none existed.
Of course when you let yourself to be free to redefine word definitions and not abide by rules of grammar you can make it say anything you want.

A lot of people do that and never agree with with each other. But their case is just a solid as yours since it is totally non literal.

I do not have the problem. Rules of grammar abiding by correct word definition is exactly what it states, literally. No contradiction, no flow problem or any other issue.

But you have all those literal prophecies you do not agree with fulfilled now. Never before all together, as demanded. You have Israel staring you in the face on the world screen.
wo people of God became one, in Christ. So simple, yet it took so long for me to grasp.
In the Church Age, Jews, not Israel, and Church are one. But those before Moses are not the Israel or Church covenants. Israel covenant is not Church covenant. Church covenant is not Israel covenant. And it literally says a New Covenant to Israel and Judah IS coming, not now exists.
The Church never replaced Israel, Israel is now all in Christ. All in Christ are saved. All in Christ (the TRUE Israel of God) are saved.
All are Body of Christ but not the same covenant. And a New Covenant is coming, which you deny and say Israel is a done deal. Not true.
All of Israel''s (OT) sacrifices and feasts pointed to Christ, He is the fulfillment of all. Christ is the cornerstone of God's Temple. All in Christ make up the Temple.

Yes, OT issues pointed to Christ. Yes, all saved are in the Body of Christ. No, it does not say Christ is the cornerstone of God's Temple, it says of the Church. Christ is the High Priest within the Temple.

No, Church does not make up the Temple.

You are constantly merging covenant issues together where they cannot be merged. There are distinctions within the Body that will never cease to exist.
It is the most simple message of all, but my previous understanding and teachings that I received muddied the waters.
But it is an erroneous message that began with Catholicism.
I know you and I will never agree. I'm not here to fight with you, but to discuss these issues on an open forum where members may want to further search these issues on their own.
No problem. All are free to ask questions, etc. They will be answered and challenged as well.

That's why I keep telling you I do NOT believe in Replacement theology....Israel can never be replaced.
Call it by any name you want but in the New Covenant to the Houses of Israel and Judah you have replaced Israel with Church.

Why? Because Israel is one distinct nation apart from Gentiles. Church has both Jews, not Israel, and Gentiles, within it.

There was no Israel for about 1900 years, Len. Jews yes, but no Israel.

You are redefining the meaning of Israel.

[Ltanner09]

Core,
The Old Covenant has passed away - gone, finished, kaput, and the New Covenant is in place.

Christ is the fulfillment of all Covenants. ( 2 Corinthians 1:20; Luke 24:25-27; Acts 13:29-33)

He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. He is the seed of Abraham and all who believe and follow Him are the true children of Abraham and heirs of all Covenant promises. (Galatians 3:15-29)

Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring. ( Romans 9:6-13)

Israel and the Church have become one body, with one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism, with one God and Father of all. ( Ephesians 2:11-3:6)

This had been the “mystery” that had been hidden since the beginning. It was given to the Apostle Paul the privilege of making it known in his day. The Church, the bride of Christ, made of up Jews and Gentiles has become the True Israel of God.

The Pharisees were certain of being part of the Israel of God because they could trace their physical descent back to Abraham. John the Baptist declared that they were resting on a false confidence. ". . . think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father," he warned them, "for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Matt. 3:9. Mere physical descent would give them no claim on God and no right to be included in the Israel of God.

The Pharisees said to Jesus, "Abraham is our father." John 8:39. But Jesus denied their confident claim, saying, "It ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." John 8:39. Jesus categorically denied that they were children of Abraham.

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly: and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Rom. 2:28, 29.

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed by called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Rom. 9:7, 8.

. . . even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. Gal. 3:6,7.

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal. 3:29.

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Gal. 6:15,16.

[CoreIssue]

Core,
The Old Covenant has passed away - gone, finished, kaput, and the New Covenant is in place.
Yep. The Mosaic is gone.

Nope. The New is not here.

Christ is the fulfillment of all Covenants. ( 2 Corinthians 1:20; Luke 24:25-27; Acts 13:29-33)
Has nothing to do with the New Covenant being future.
He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. He is the seed of Abraham and all who believe and follow Him are the true children of Abraham and heirs of all Covenant promises. (Galatians 3:15-29)
Same again.
Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring. ( Romans 9:6-13)
Same answer again.
Israel and the Church have become one body, with one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism, with one God and Father of all. ( Ephesians 2:11-3:6)
One Body but two distinct covenants and heirs within it.
This had been the “mystery” that had been hidden since the beginning. It was given to the Apostle Paul the privilege of making it known in his day. The Church, the bride of Christ, made of up Jews and Gentiles has become the True Israel of God.
Absolutely false. Never said anywhere. I see no verse for that claim.
The Pharisees were certain of being part of the Israel of God because they could trace their physical descent back to Abraham. John the Baptist declared that they were resting on a false confidence. ". . . think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father," he warned them, "for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Matt. 3:9. Mere physical descent would give them no claim on God and no right to be included in the Israel of God.
Correct.
The Pharisees said to Jesus, "Abraham is our father." John 8:39. But Jesus denied their confident claim, saying, "It ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." John 8:39. Jesus categorically denied that they were children of Abraham.
Correct.
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly: and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Rom. 2:28, 29.
Yep. To be a true Jew it had to be internal as well as external.
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed by called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Rom. 9:7, 8.
Yep. Abraham was promised TWO sets of nations. One physical and others not.
. . . even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. Gal. 3:6,7.
Yep. But not Israel. You keep forgetting the full covenant with Abraham dealt with Gentiles as well. But in a different way.
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal. 3:29.
Yep, thus the TWO heirs in the Body of Christ.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Gal. 6:15,16.
Yep. But has nothing to do with the covenant issues we are talking about.

You keep describing salvation issues as if they equate to covenant issues.

[Ltanner09]

(Getting in as much as I can before my work week begins tomorrow):p

God made promises to Abraham's seed (Gal. 3:19).

Christ is the Seed of Abraham. ("Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of One, And to thy Seed, which is Christ.")

This is why Christ is called the Mediator of the covenant. It is only by Him, in Him and through Him that God carries out any of His promises to Abraham.

The Seed of Abraham is Jesus Christ. It includes all who are in Christ and excludes all outside of Christ. So the apostle affirms, ". . . if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29.

When the apostle declares, "And so all Israel shall be saved . . . " (Rom. 11:26), he is certainly not teaching us that every member of the Jewish race will be saved. But the seed of Israel shall be saved — that is to say, all those who are in Jesus Christ — and not one shall be lost.


Gentiles who believe the gospel become "fellow heirs" with the faithful Jews.

They do not make up a separate body, but they become "fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel ..." Eph. 3:6.

The Gentiles, "being a wild olive tree, were graffed in among them [the Jews], and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree . . . " Rom. 11:17.

Once "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise," the Gentiles are "made nigh by the blood of Christ." Eph. 2:12, 13. Being now children of Abraham, part of the commonwealth of Israel and partakers of God's promises to Israel, believing Gentiles make up "the house of Israel" to whom the new covenant promise is given:

One isn't save, Core, because one is/was born Jewish.

God's children are not one of national origin, but one spiritual, with faith in Christ.

[CoreIssue]

(Getting in as much as I can before my work week begins tomorrow):p
:tiphat:

God made promises to Abraham's seed (Gal. 3:19).
Yep.

Christ is the Seed of Abraham. ("Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of One, And to thy Seed, which is Christ.")
OK. Which has nothing to do, again, with the nation of Israel issues.
This is why Christ is called the Mediator of the covenant. It is only by Him, in Him and through Him that God carries out any of His promises to Abraham.
OK.
The Seed of Abraham is Jesus Christ. It includes all who are in Christ and excludes all outside of Christ. So the apostle affirms, ". . . if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29.
Spiritual heirs, yes. Nothing to do with physical covenant issues.
When the apostle declares, "And so all Israel shall be saved . . . " (Rom. 11:26), he is certainly not teaching us that every member of the Jewish race will be saved. But the seed of Israel shall be saved — that is to say, all those who are in Jesus Christ — and not one shall be lost.
Now read the context of the passage. It is addressed to believing Israel. NOT Gentiles.

And it will be fulfilled at the Second Coming as declared in prophecy.

'Shall be' is future tense, Len.
Gentiles who believe the gospel become "fellow heirs" with the faithful Jews.
But not Israel.
They do not make up a separate body, but they become "fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel ..." Eph. 3:6.
You are not paying attention. One Body but TWO heirs, Church and Israel. Literally stated.
The Gentiles, "being a wild olive tree, were graffed in among them [the Jews], and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree . . . " Rom. 11:17.
But they remain wild limbs. They never become the domestic limb. Feed by that same root but never the same branches.
Once "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise," the Gentiles are "made nigh by the blood of Christ." Eph. 2:12, 13. Being now children of Abraham, part of the commonwealth of Israel and partakers of God's promises to Israel, believing Gentiles make up "the house of Israel" to whom the new covenant promise is given:
Partakers, not Israel itself. Read the words.
One isn't save, Core, because one is/was born Jewish.
No.
God's children are not one of national origin, but one spiritual, with faith in Christ.
Again you do not pay attention. Covenant IS NOT salvation.

Len, those before Israel are born-again since being led from Paradise by Christ. But they were NEVER under a covenant. Israel was a covenant. Church is a covenant. New is a future covenant. Three covenants but all saved by the blood of Christ. Different promises, different levels of sin demand, different levels of rewards, but all saved by repentance through grace by faith.

Those before Israel are never mentioned in covenant issues? Why? Because the didn't have a covenant.

[Ltanner09]

I wrote:


The Seed of Abraham is Jesus Christ. It includes all who are in Christ and excludes all outside of Christ. So the apostle affirms, ". . . if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29.

Core replied:
Spiritual heirs, yes. Nothing to do with physical covenant issues.

Core, don't know why your stuck on the physical when eternity deals with the spiritual.

We've been through this. The land promise, which was physical, was delivered.

Israel lost it through disobedience. Rebellion continued.

Their rebellion against God culminated with:

Mt 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The nation bringing forth the fruits are all in Christ, Jews and Gentiles, who make up the true Israel of God,.

There is not a future time when everyone in national Israel (in the middle east) will be saved......that would be salvation based on race.

There comes a time when all the saved are of Israel (in Christ, who is the true Israel of God).

[Ltanner09]

Let's try this another way.

The first time “Israel” was used, it was a spiritual name given to one man whose name was Jacob. The name had to do with Jacob’s spiritual victory. So now, in the N.T., that name is being applied to one Man, the Victorious One, Jesus Christ. (matt 2:15, which fulfilled Ho 1:11 and claims Jesus is Israel)

When God called Israel out of Egypt, He called that nation “my son.”(Ex.4:22) When Jesus came out of Egypt, God said, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.”

When the nation of Israel left Egypt, the people went through the Red Sea. They were “baptized…in the sea.” (1Cor.10:2). In the 3rd chapter of Matthew, Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River “to fulfill all righteousness.” And then God calls Jesus, “My beloved Son.”

After the Israelites passed through the Red Sea, they spent 40 years in the wilderness. Immediately after Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, He was taken by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days.

At the end of the 40 days, Jesus resisted Satan’s temptations by quoting three Scriptures—all from Deuteronomy—the very book God gave to Israel at the end of their 40 years in the wilderness!

What is happening here? In Matthew’s book, Jesus is repeating the history of Israel, point by point, and is overcoming where they had failed.

He is becoming the new Israel, the one victorious Man who overcomes all sin.

Furthermore, Matthew tells us in his chapter 12 by quoting from Isaiah 42:1-3 that what was once a text about God’s servant Israel, is now fulfilled by God’s “servant” Jesus Christ!

Israel called a “vine”(Ps.80:8), now Jesus says, “I am the true vine.”(Jn.15:1)

Nation of Israel called by God “My son, even my firstborn”(Ex.4:22), now through Paul the Holy Spirit calls Jesus “the firstborn of every creature.”(Col.1:15).

Isaiah called Israel “the seed of Abraham”(Is.41:8), now Paul writes, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. The Scripture does not say, ‘and to seeds’ meaning many people, but, ‘and to your seed’ meaning one person, who is Christ.”(Gal.3:16)

And so we learn that in the N.T., what originally applied to the nation of Israel is now applied to Jesus Christ. The Messiah is now the “seed.” Jesus is Israel!

But remember our O.T. history. “Israel” at first referred to one man—Jacob. But later came to include his descendants.

The same is true and revealed in the N.T.!! Paul told Christian converts, “If you are Christ’s, they you are Abraham’s seed.”(Gal.3:29). So, in the N.T. the name Israel not only applies to the one victorious Man, the True Seed who would crush Satan’s head(Gen.3:15), but also to those who are in Christ. Believers in Jesus become part of “the seed.” In other words, Christians (Jews and Gentiles) are now God’s spiritual Israel.

God made a covenant with the twelve tribes of Israel at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Animal sacrifices were offered. Then Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you.” (Ex. 24:8).

At the end of His ministry, Jesus made a covenant with the twelve apostles in the upper room on Mt. Zion. Before offering Himself as the great Sacrifice, our Lord declared, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Jesus was making a new covenant with a new Israel to take the place of the old covenant and the old Israel.

The old Israel doesn’t cease to exist, but Scripture now refers to two separate Israels.

And yet, another truth must be declared: Even in the O.T. non-Israelites were incorporated into the spiritual Israel. It included servants and proselytes. Hosea includes Lo-Ammi, Not-my-people in his prophecy. Ex.12:48-50 incorporates non-Israelites into the spiritual kingdom. Isaiah 44 and 56:3 has Gentiles calling themselves “Israel” showing it to be “spiritual” especially as it moves toward the N.T.

Paul says in Romans 9:6, “They are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Basically there is now an Israel according to the flesh(unbelieving Jews), and an Israel according to the Spirit(believers, Jew or Gentile).

The following verses serve to prove that there are legitimately two “Israels” spoken of in the New Testament. Galatians 3:6-7; Matthew 3:1,7-10; John 8:39-47; Romans 2:17-29; Philip. 3:3.

The question is, to which Israel is the promise made by God in the Old Testament?

If we conclude that flesh Israel is to be the recipient of God’s promises, then He has yet to fulfill His promise, and literal Jerusalem and the modern Jewish nation will eventually become the center of the final battle of Armegeddon.

But if we conclude that those promises are legitimately fulfilled to spiritual Israel, then Christ is the answer!
Paul helps with this in Romans 9:2-8. In verse 6 Paul declares, “They are not all Israel(The spiritual Israel of God) which are of Israel(the Jewish nation).”
But he continues in verse 7, “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: On the contrary, ‘It is through Isaac that your offspring shall be reckoned.’” In other words, since not all descendants of Abraham are automatically God’s children, therefore His promises are for those who are “in Isaac.”

Abraham had two sons: Ishmael, who was born after the flesh, and Isaac, who was born when Abraham had faith in God’s promise. In Galatians 4:22-31, Paul reveals that Ishmael represents unbelieving Jews(or, flesh Israel), while Isaac represents both Jews and Gentiles who have faith.

“Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”(Gal 4:28). Therefore, the Israel that is “in Isaac” is the Israel of God in the Spirit!

This concludes my scripture references on this thread, Core.

Will likely start another topic by the end of this weekend.

Hope this thread has been interesting and informative to the members here.

[CoreIssue]

I wrote:


The Seed of Abraham is Jesus Christ. It includes all who are in Christ and excludes all outside of Christ. So the apostle affirms, ". . . if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29.Core replied:
Spiritual heirs, yes. Nothing to do with physical covenant issues.Core, don't know why your stuck on the physical when eternity deals with the spiritual.
Because God also deals with the physical and covenants deal with our physical realities. As I said you keep trying to make covenants salvation issues when they are not.
We've been through this. The land promise, which was physical, was delivered.

Israel lost it through disobedience. Rebellion continued.And will end one day. The land promise has never been fulfilled. I stated it before and state it again.
Their rebellion against God culminated with:

Mt 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.But not eternally as you are claiming here. Only for a time, the Church Age.

Christ and Paul both firmly state Israel will return.
The nation bringing forth the fruits are all in Christ, Jews and Gentiles, who make up the true Israel of God,.Again you make the false claim the Church is Israel. That is Replacement Theology. No where is Church EVER called Israel.
There is not a future time when everyone in national Israel (in the middle east) will be saved......that would be salvation based on race.No. It is at the Second Coming when all the non believing Jews are dead, 2/3 of Israel. Only the believers are left.

Prophecy says it WILL happen.
There comes a time when all the saved are of Israel (in Christ, who is the true Israel of God).Again you play games with the grammar. It does not say all saved become Israel. It says there will be a time when all of Israel will be saved. That is literally stated to happen at the Second Coming.

You do not read literally, Len. You assume meanings by spiritualizing text.

You throw out massive amounts of the OT by saying annulled. No longer relevant or real.

[CoreIssue]

Let's try this another way.

The first time “Israel” was used, it was a spiritual name given to one man whose name was Jacob. The name had to do with Jacob’s spiritual victory. So now, in the N.T., that name is being applied to one Man, the Victorious One, Jesus Christ. (matt 2:15, which fulfilled Ho 1:11 and claims Jesus is Israel)
It was not spiritual. It became his worldly name.

His victory was both spiritual and earthly.
When God called Israel out of Egypt, He called that nation “my son.”(Ex.4:22) When Jesus came out of Egypt, God said, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.”
Already dealt with that one. It does not make Christ Israel.
When the nation of Israel left Egypt, the people went through the Red Sea. They were “baptized…in the sea.” (1Cor.10:2). In the 3rd chapter of Matthew, Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River “to fulfill all righteousness.” And then God calls Jesus, “My beloved Son.”
Because God via the Holy Spirit created the male side of his flesh. So that is a physical fact, not a spiritual term.
After the Israelites passed through the Red Sea, they spent 40 years in the wilderness. Immediately after Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, He was taken by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days.
Yep. Symbolic of Christ to come.

But as with the Temple High Priest being symbolic of Christ he was never more than a shadow of a future reality. Stated in the Bible.

Christ was also of the priesthood of Mechelzidek (sp), who was never of Israel but superior to even Abraham. What does that do to your thinking?
At the end of the 40 days, Jesus resisted Satan’s temptations by quoting three Scriptures—all from Deuteronomy—the very book God gave to Israel at the end of their 40 years in the wilderness!
And Christ is the Second Adam as well. Did he literally become Adam? No.

Explanation by contrast and shadow type do not make the reality the Shadow. It simply shows the superiority and purpose of the reality.
What is happening here? In Matthew’s book, Jesus is repeating the history of Israel, point by point, and is overcoming where they had failed.
And compared to Adam and Mechelzidek (sp) as well. You are being selective of your usage of such examples, eliminating two because the one you can try to use to make an argument.
He is becoming the new Israel, the one victorious Man who overcomes all sin.

Never said. It says he is the Seed of Israel, not Israel itself. The son does not become the father.
Furthermore, Matthew tells us in his chapter 12 by quoting from Isaiah 42:1-3 that what was once a text about God’s servant Israel, is now fulfilled by God’s “servant” Jesus Christ!

Israel called a “vine”(Ps.80:8), now Jesus says, “I am the true vine.”(Jn.15:1)
Again shadow types of a past man to the future man and the vine is still fed by the root Abraham.
Nation of Israel called by God “My son, even my firstborn”(Ex.4:22), now through Paul the Holy Spirit calls Jesus “the firstborn of every creature.”(Col.1:15).
And Israel is also the Wife of God. You forget that. We see the wife role before the Throne in the 24 Elders.

Two different usages of the son role. One the firstborn nation and the other the first born flesh/person.

Isaiah called Israel “the seed of Abraham”(Is.41:8), now Paul writes, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. The Scripture does not say, ‘and to seeds’ meaning many people, but, ‘and to your seed’ meaning one person, who is Christ.”(Gal.3:16)

Seed means coming from, not the father. Clearly declares Christ as the ultimate descendent, which does not negate or replace the source.
And so we learn that in the N.T., what originally applied to the nation of Israel is now applied to Jesus Christ. The Messiah is now the “seed.” Jesus is Israel!
Totally false logic and conclusion.
But remember our O.T. history. “Israel” at first referred to one man—Jacob. But later came to include his descendants.
And Christ is the ultimate descendent, no Jacob. Christ did not end the existence of national Israel. The Woman in Revelation clearly illustrates that.
The same is true and revealed in the N.T.!! Paul told Christian converts, “If you are Christ’s, they you are Abraham’s seed.”(Gal.3:29). So, in the N.T. the name Israel not only applies to the one victorious Man, the True Seed who would crush Satan’s head(Gen.3:15), but also to those who are in Christ. Believers in Jesus become part of “the seed.” In other words, Christians (Jews and Gentiles) are now God’s spiritual Israel.
Which seed of Abraham? Israel or the many nations prophecy? The many nations.

As with the tree, grafted in by never adopting the nation of the tree grafted into. Always the wild and domestic branches remain separate while being fed by one source.
God made a covenant with the twelve tribes of Israel at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Animal sacrifices were offered. Then Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you.” (Ex. 24:8).

Not Gentiles.
At the end of His ministry, Jesus made a covenant with the twelve apostles in the upper room on Mt. Zion. Before offering Himself as the great Sacrifice, our Lord declared, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Jesus was making a new covenant with a new Israel to take the place of the old covenant and the old Israel.
Israel rejected the covenant, thus the gap between the 69th and 70th with the Church Age.

You forget the Apostles will all Jews. The never were sent to Gentiles while Christ was on the earth. Christ did not come to the Gentiles on the earth.
The old Israel doesn’t cease to exist, but Scripture now refers to two separate Israels.
False. Church is never called Israel.
And yet, another truth must be declared: Even in the O.T. non-Israelites were incorporated into the spiritual Israel. It included servants and proselytes. Hosea includes Lo-Ammi, Not-my-people in his prophecy. Ex.12:48-50 incorporates non-Israelites into the spiritual kingdom. Isaiah 44 and 56:3 has Gentiles calling themselves “Israel” showing it to be “spiritual” especially as it moves toward the N.T.
But they did not share in the covenant.
Paul says in Romans 9:6, “They are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Basically there is now an Israel according to the flesh(unbelieving Jews), and an Israel according to the Spirit(believers, Jew or Gentile).
Let us get the phrasing into modern English to show it does not say they are Isael.
6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%209&version=31#fen-NIV-28148b)] 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
You can be the fruit of Israel without being a Jew is what is said. And you can be of Israel but be fruitless.

All who believe in God are God's children. But it makes it clear they are not natural children, but adopted. Christ is the promise and is the ONLY true child of God. All the rest of us are adopted. But not all are Israel in the adoption.
The following verses serve to prove that there are legitimately two “Israels” spoken of in the New Testament. Galatians 3:6-7; Matthew 3:1,7-10; John 8:39-47; Romans 2:17-29; Philip. 3:3.
No two Israels there.
The question is, to which Israel is the promise made by God in the Old Testament?
The Flesh descendents who believe.
If we conclude that flesh Israel is to be the recipient of God’s promises, then He has yet to fulfill His promise, and literal Jerusalem and the modern Jewish nation will eventually become the center of the final battle of Armegeddon.
False. There a number of promises made. But not all to just Israel.
But if we conclude that those promises are legitimately fulfilled to spiritual Israel, then Christ is the answer!
Parsed thinking, thus the problem.
Paul helps with this in Romans 9:2-8. In verse 6 Paul declares, “They are not all Israel(The spiritual Israel of God) which are of Israel(the Jewish nation).”
But he continues in verse 7, “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: On the contrary, ‘It is through Isaac that your offspring shall be reckoned.’” In other words, since not all descendants of Abraham are automatically God’s children, therefore His promises are for those who are “in Isaac.”

As I posted in modern English, it is clear Israel is distinct from Gentiles covenant wise, past and future.
Abraham had two sons: Ishmael, who was born after the flesh, and Isaac, who was born when Abraham had faith in God’s promise. In Galatians 4:22-31, Paul reveals that Ishmael represents unbelieving Jews(or, flesh Israel), while Isaac represents both Jews and Gentiles who have faith.

False conclusion.
“Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”(Gal 4:28). Therefore, the Israel that is “in Isaac” is the Israel of God in the Spirit!
Yes, all believers from Adam to the end of time take part in the promise. That has nothing to do with covnenant issues.
This concludes my scripture references on this thread, Core.

Will likely start another topic by the end of this weekend.

Hope this thread has been interesting and informative to the members here.OK.

[CTZonEdit]

It's Temple time, Call to Rebuild Jewish Temple

Built by King Solomon about 950 BCE and destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE because of flagrant sin in the nation, the Temple was rebuilt about 70 years later but razed by the Romans in 70 CE... this time, according to the Talmud, because of causeless hatred of one Jew for another.
It's difficult for modern man to understand what the Temple was: A material dwelling place for the immaterial God, visible proof that God was with His people. It was a site suffused by the Holy Spirit, where, according to the Talmud, 10 standing miracles could be witnessed by all visitors, and to which all the nations are destined to flock in order to experience the divine. When the Second Temple was lost, the whole world was darkened.
For millennia Jews have remembered and mourned the destruction of the Temple on Tisha Be'Av by fasting and reading Lamentations, and by traditions such as crushing a glass at weddings or leaving a patch of wall opposite the entrance to one's home unpainted - each stressing that no joy can be perfect or complete without the Temple.
Talmud scholar Rabbi Yochanan wrote: "During these times that the Temple is demolished, a person is not allowed to fill his mouth with laughter. This is because the verse (Psalms 126) says, 'then our mouths will be filled with laughter,' and does not say 'now our mouths will be filled with laughter.'
The rabbi continues: "And when is 'then?' 'Then' will be when the Third Temple is rebuilt."
Many believe that just as the re-establishment of Israel moved from being an ancient prophecy to a whispered prayer to a dream to a wild hope to a controversial movement and finally blossomed into a stunning, miraculous though still incomplete reality, so too will the Temple - the jewel in the crown of God's nation - move from the pages of the Bible into the here and now. Two thousand years of persecution and exile will become as insubstantial as smoke, and "we shall be as people in a dream." Rabbi Chaim Richman is one such man. His reason is as simple as it is profound: "Jewish life without the Temple is like fish out of water."

Head of the Temple Institute's International Department and author of 10 books on the subject, Richman is arguably the English-speaking world's foremost authority on the Temple. He explains: "Do you realize that 202 of our 613 commandments require the Temple's existence in order to be fulfilled? Without the Temple, Judaism is a skeleton of what it's supposed to be."
Consequently, the Temple Institute began in 1987 with the long-term objective of rebuilding the Temple... nothing mystical, nothing symbolic, but the actual building, with all its attendant vessels. The institute will employ no violent or unlawful means to achieve this goal, but is presently involved in education, research and the construction (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)) of ritual objects for use in the future Temple.
Richman relates a story about institute founder Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, a paratrooper who helped liberate the Old City of Jerusalem (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)), including the Temple Mount, in June 1967. A Jordanian Muslim led the soldiers around the Mount, explaining where the Temple and other fixtures such as the menora and altar had stood. When asked why he was being so helpful, the guide explained: "We have a tradition that one day the Jews would win a war and rebuild the temple. This is my contribution. I assume you're starting tomorrow."
Called lunatics, zealots and racists by some, the Temple Institute staff maintains there is nothing more natural for faithful Jews than to make practical, physical preparations for the third Temple.
Chaim Richman counters his accusers: "The hallmark of the Third Temple is unparalleled peace and harmony. I believe that the best a Jew can do is to have the integrity to believe and do as much as possible toward building the Temple."
According to Rabbi Richman, the first step is soul-searching. "The answer involves returning to our spiritual roots. This amounts to building up the Holy Temple. It's the vehicle that builds reconciliation between God and Man … not just Jewish people."
Currently the Temple Institute wants "to rekindle the flame of the Holy Temple in the hearts of mankind." This occurs through education which he hopes will prompt a spiritual rebirth. Toward that end, the institute invests about $500,000 yearly in publications, tours and seminars as well as maintenance of its website - one of Israel's most thorough and best maintained.
But the long-term goal, in Richman's words, is "to do all in our limited power to bring about the building (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)) of the Holy Temple in our time."
It prompts many questions.
Much of the misunderstanding stems from the manner in which that goal will be attained. Even among Orthodox Judaism there's much disagreement on the topic. According to Temple Institute Director Yehuda Glick, many devout Jews believe the Temple "will come down somehow from Heaven." He insists a legend like that can be very hard to overcome, even though no Jewish sources (biblical or rabbinic) support it.
"We must understand that heavenly doesn't automatically mean mystical, or magic. During the Six Day War, the people of Israel were facing a major catastrophe and, in human eyes, we had no chance; we were to be wiped out. In six days we overcame enemies on every border and reunited Jerusalem as the capital of the state. That is no less a miracle," Glick preaches, stressing human action was vital.
"So too when we look back at 1938 [the Holocaust] and see we were almost wiped out, who would have believed we were just 10 years from seeing the words of the prophets coming out of the Book and materializing? We have total faith that we are to do what we are obligated to do. He has His ways of surprising us, but it must come from a wide-range call and action."
Glick maintains that this is equally true when it comes to building "The House of Prayer for All Nations."
RABBI MOSHE Silberscheim, professor of rabbinic literature at both Jerusalem University College (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)) and Hebrew Union, affirms the educational efforts of the Temple Institute. "I think the institute has educational value, helping children to see with their own eyes what they read about in the Bible and Mishnah. It has value in helping them visualize what the sacred service was like during the Second Temple period."
Silberscheim does have misgivings "once the institute goes beyond teaching history, heritage and sacred texts, and starts talking about building the third Temple." The source of Silberscheim's reservations concern the manner in which the Temple will be established.
Currently a Muslim shrine, the Dome of the Rock (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)), sits atop the anticipated site.
Moving to clear the path for the building of a third Temple "is tantamount to starting World War III. This is hardly an auspicious way to fulfill the biblical verse in Isaiah 56: 'For My House shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations.'"
Pastor Al Nucciarone of Jerusalem Baptist Church (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)) insists "the Jewish people have every right in the world to pursue the planning for the Temple." But Nucciarone does add caveats: "Of course, there is a debate over where the temple should be placed. Right now, Muslims hold the right to the Temple Mount, and that right must be respected. It would be sheer speculation to suggest that the Third Temple would be built on the present Temple Mount."
Still, the pastor has "no problem with Christian Zionists contributing to this work. Of course, I do not think it should replace what one gives to his local congregation."
As to just how the temple will be rebuilt, he responds: "How will this come about? I don't do scenarios. I'm not shying away from the question. The Temple is not up to the Temple Institute, but up to the people (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)) of Israel. They have a representative government. Whether they'll act in accordance with what it means to be a Jew, I don't know."
Richman wants it stressed, however, that nothing in this article or in institute literature should be taken as a solicitation for funds.
During a visit to the Temple Mount, Richman notes a bulldozer. Another member of the party mentions it's driven by a Muslim, prompting chagrin as recent tractor-propelled terrorism in Jerusalem is remembered. In spite of this, Richman ventures the Temple can be built without violence. He quotes the late Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, who said: "If we were the people we're supposed to be, the Muslims would come to us and ask, 'Please build us a Temple.'"
Minutes later Richman is asked about the timetable for construction. Richman, an ordained rabbi who quotes Rambam on Temple matters but draws popular wisdom from "rabbis" Mark Twain or Yogi Berra, laughs as he says, "I don't know, but I think we're behind schedule."
Until construction is possible, the Temple Institute is focusing its energies on education and preparing the vessels that will be required. A team of researchers, rabbis and scientists work together to ensure the needed items match all scriptural and rabbinic criteria. Beyond those standards, the craftsmen have artistic license to construct vessels as they deem appropriate.
"It's a very complex process," Richman explains. "Some items have taken over 10 years of research. We have groups of scholars who sift through superfluous information regarding concepts that have become completely forgotten or of which little is known. We are taking a section of Torah wisdom and reactivating it."
Knowledge of the construction of Temple objects is so obscure that "many people have asked us if we're allowed to do it. They ask, 'Isn't God supposed to do that?'"
Construction of the High Priest's breastplate is a good example of the complexity involved. According to Exodus 28, the garment had to be woven of "gold, sky-blue, dark-red, and crimson dyed wool, and of twisted linen."
Metalsmiths beat the gold into thin sheets, then cut it into fine threads to be woven into the material. The sky-blue color ([I]techelet in Hebrew, said by the Mishnah to resemble indigo) was a dye obtained from a snail known as the chilazon. The exact identification of this animal and the method used to produce the dye is the subject of extensive research. Presently most scholars believe it to be a Mediterranean snail known as murex trunculus.
"The dark-red color (said by some to closely resemble purple), argaman in Hebrew, is also derived from a snail; possibly the murex trunculus as well. According to this theory, the difference in color is a result of the amount of time the substance is exposed to sunlight.
The crimson color is produced from a worm called by the Bible the "crimson worm," tola'at shani in Hebrew - a mountain worm identified as kermes biblicus.
The Hebrew word for linen is shesh, which means six. Researchers believe this requires each thread to be six-ply.
The 12 stones for the breastplate presented another problem, since linguists don't agree on what the ancient names intend. Extensive research eventually revealed that ancient stones were classified by color, not gem family.
"The final authority is the Midrash, which explains that the 12 tribes of Israel each had a flag, and that the flag color matched the stone representing that tribe on the high priest's breastplate. So maybe more than one stone could fit the requirement of the verse. We look at several criteria and find the best. That's the goal - to find the best possible."
To date, the institute has created more than 60 vessels for use in the Temple; these include the showbread table, incense altar, and head and breast plates for the high priest.
Perhaps the most exciting piece has been the golden menora showcased on a platform near the Western Wall. Made of a single piece of solid gold poured over a metal core, the half-ton fixture contains about 100 pounds of gold and is valued at $3,000,000. Its design and construction (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)) were based on rabbinic sources as well as Roman-Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, himself a priest who had served in the Temple.
The Temple items are not intended to sit as museum pieces, but have been fashioned for actual use. The absence of a red heifer presents a problem, as its ashes must purify the priests, people and articles in accordance with Numbers 19. Citing security concerns, Richman would not comment on the search for a red heifer.
The most recent development has been the mass production of priestly garments (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)) (see "Workshop opens to make Third Temple (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)) garments," August 2008). Recently the Temple Institute received rabbinic authorization to use special sewing machines (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)) to produce the apparel, bringing the price of each garment down from about $10,000 to $800. To date, dozens of Cohens (the word cohen means "priest" in Hebrew, indicating a direct descendent of Moses' brother Aaron) and derivatives such as Kowans, Kahanas, Canes, and Korens have placed orders.
All these articles are exhibited at the Temple Institute in the Old City's Jewish Quarter. About 100,000 visitors, about half Christian, visit the institute yearly to learn about past Temples and preparations for the final one.
Until construction of the Third Temple can begin, the institute seeks to build a World Center for Temple Knowledge outside Jaffa Gate. Partially subterranean, the 2,500-meter facility would not interfere with the view of the Old City walls, but would beautify an overlooked and often trash-cluttered lot. Slated to begin construction in 2012, the center would offer a 3-D virtual-reality experience of "going up to the Temple," as well as in-depth exhibits and galleries.
Still, the long-term goal is to rebuild the Temple. Richman insists a paradigm shift in thinking is necessary.
"Everything that goes on in this country relates to the spiritual struggle... especially within the people of Israel. It's all about who we are and what our destiny is. We weren't called to be doctors, lawyers or movie producers. That's not our destiny. We're called to be a nation of priests.
"A Jew's attitude toward the Temple is a litmus test. We're talking about the big question: Who are we?"

http://www.dittowire.com/beyond_the_headlines/2008/10/its-temple-time.html

Sorry Len, but the temple is going to be rebuilt. God told the Jews its going to be rebuilt, they expect the temple to be rebuilt, they cannot return to God without the temple being rebuilt and God cannot fulfill His promise to them of a Messiah until that temple is rebuilt.

[Ltanner09]

CTZ, the Temple that the unbelieving Jews await is already under construction.

It isn't a building made with human hands, but a Temple consisting of all in Christ:

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.


No need to fight clear scripture.

Believing Jews and Gentiles are one and make up the Temple of God with Christ as it's cornerstone.

When the very last person comes to Christ, the construction of the new temple is completed. Then all Israel (all in this new Temple) will be saved.

[CTZonEdit]

According to Temple Institute Director Yehuda Glick, many devout Jews believe the Temple "will come down somehow from Heaven." He insists a legend like that can be very hard to overcome, even though no Jewish sources (biblical or rabbinic) support it.


No Jewish sources support it, Len. I think they would know if it did.

Who would know better than what is literally stated than the Jews?

It makes no sense that God would demand and document in great detail the methods by which a temple and its system will be implemented and then say "Oh nevermind, I meant this instead."

You dont need to make garmnets, and breastplates and such if the temple is spiritual and you certainly would not tell your people to do such tasks if its all spiritual. God is not a God of confusion and I cannot imagine a more confusing scenario than what you present.

[Ltanner09]

No Jewish sources support it, Len. I think they would know if it did.
Who would know better than what is literally stated than the Jews?

Lots of Jews got it wrong in the 1st century.

Remember, Israel wouldn't /couldn't meet the conditions to build the temple Ezekiel wrote about in chapters 40-48.

Eze 43:10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.

A safe assumption that Ezekiel followed the Lord's command in verse 10.

11 And ]if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

We know Israel didn't follow Ezekiel's blueprint to build the temple described (at best there's no evidence they did).

Israel had to meet certain conditions to build the temple Ezekiel speaks of....and it was to be built when they left captivity from Babylon (before the 2nd temple was built).

Never happened.

You didn't refute the Eph verses I posted, which describes the current temple...according to the New testament. You did post verses from Jewish sources (Jewish sources that, apparently, still reject Christ.)

Not a document I'd be waving to support a Christian viewpoint.

Does ANYONE here not think of a question, except the administrators of the board? I enjoy discussing points with Core and CTZ but there are lots of members who don't participate. Maybe the Rapture Ready board spoiled me.

I'd be interested to hear any member's viewpoint/ question or comment.
Even to leave a note to say (ala Frasier Crane ) "I'm listening"

[Ltanner09]

CTZ wrote:
According to Rabbi Richman, the first step is soul-searching. "The answer involves returning to our spiritual roots. This amounts to building up the Holy Temple. It's the vehicle that builds reconciliation between God and Man … not just Jewish people."

No, a temple built with human hands is not the vehicle that that builds reconciliation between God and man.

That was accomplished in Christ:

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

[CoreIssue]

Len, you continue to try to merge salvation and covenant issues as the same thing. Gross error there.

Tell me, Len. What is the function of a covenant?

[kay-gee]

Ltanner...I am listening!

all the best...

[kay-gee]

I believe this is the best debate/thread I've seen on CTZ. Very organized and followable. It is better left to 2 princible opponents. I find with too many people in the fray, the thread just goes down the drain really fast.
However, I would like to start a sister thread. Sort of like a jury room where things can be interjected and questions put to the debaters for clarification. I try to retain a neutral position and allow myself to go where the biblical evidence leads and draw a conclusion that way.

all the best...

[Ltanner09]

Kay Gee wrote:
I try to retain a neutral position and allow myself to go where the biblical evidence leads and draw a conclusion that way.

KG, that is certainly the correct way to ascertain whether or not the positions here are based on biblical truth or man made doctrines.

Most (on any board) spend more energy DEFENDING their doctrines instead of weighing the evidence presented to see which is correct. I know because I was guilty of that, initially, on the Rapture Ready site. Unless a study is conducted with an open mind the ability to see errors in our own understanding is minimal.

I appreciate your post. NIce to know Core and I aren't talking to ourselves.:):

[Ltanner09]

Kay Gee wrote:
I would like to start a sister thread. Sort of like a jury room where things can be interjected and questions put to the debaters for clarification

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[CoreIssue]

Len and CTZ, unless I am gravely mistaken, this debate has reached the repeating stage, meaning nothing new, just repeating old statements.

Therefore, is there any harm just asking the questions here, now, and not adding the confusion of more than one thread on the same discussion?

[Jessie]

best not to spiritualize the literal.

[Ltanner09]

Len, you continue to try to merge salvation and covenant issues as the same thing. Gross error there.

Tell me, Len. What is the function of a covenant?

Core, there are a variety of covenants in the bible each with different purposes.

There is no confusion when Ephesians tells us that a temple is being built.

It is the most glorious of all Temples with Christ as it's cornerstone, yet many wait for a Temple (built by those who reject Christ, no less) as a vehicle to become closer to God.

There are many Jews in Christ and that provides proof that God has not cut them off (as some teach).
However there are many Jews that reject Christ yet believe they can gain favor with God (or accomplish God's command) by building a temple. That ship sailed after their release from captivity in Babylon.
They didn't meet the conditions to build the Temple Ezekiel had the blueprint for.

God brought the destruction of the second Temple in AD70. The OT way of worship was replaced by Christ and His covenant with mankind. The Temple we await is under construction and is being filled daily with those who come to Christ.

The only way to the Father is through Christ, not a man built temple.




.

[Ltanner09]

Jessie wrote:
best not to spiritualize the literal.

Most of the teachings of Jesus dealt with the spiritual, yet they are literal.

Many of the Jews couldn't understand Christ because His teachings were spiritual and they tried applying literal/physical meanings to what He taught.

Do you interpret Ephesians 2 literal or spiritual?

[CoreIssue]

Len, you continue to try to merge salvation and covenant issues as the same thing. Gross error there.

Tell me, Len. What is the function of a covenant?Core, there are a variety of covenants in the bible each with different purposes.
That is not an answer. Is a covenant the source of salvation or not?
There is no confusion when Ephesians tells us that a temple is being built.Church Age verse dealing with the Church. We are living Temples, but you cannot extrapolate this to get rid of the literal MK Temple. It is addressed to then living saints, not the New Covenant which is future.
It is the most glorious of all Temples with Christ as it's cornerstone, yet many wait for a Temple (built by those who reject Christ, no less) as a vehicle to become closer to God.Christ will indwell the MK Temple as High Priest and King. Different covenant.
There are many Jews in Christ and that provides proof that God has not cut them off (as some teach).And there you go again treating covenants as salvation issues.
However there are many Jews that reject Christ yet believe they can gain favor with God (or accomplish God's command) by building a temple. That ship sailed after their release from captivity in Babylon.
They didn't meet the conditions to build the Temple Ezekiel had the blueprint for.Future issue and a very spiritualized reading of the Bible. Strange how your beliefs are forced to throw away much of the Bible while mine do not.
God brought the destruction of the second Temple in AD70.Yep. And John afterwards prophesied a new Temple during the Trib, to which the Two Witnesses would go.
The OT way of worship was replaced by Christ and His covenant with mankind. Church Covenant, not the New Covenant, which you have spiritualized Gentiles into now being of the nations of Israel and Judah. That is what House means in this context.
The Temple we await is under construction and is being filled daily with those who come to Christ.Church Age issue.
The only way to the Father is through Christ, not a man built temple.No problem, either in the OT, Church or MK Temple.

[CoreIssue]

Jessie wrote:
best not to spiritualize the literal.Most of the teachings of Jesus dealt with the spiritual, yet they are literal.

Many of the Jews couldn't understand Christ because His teachings were spiritual and they tried applying literal/physical meanings to what He taught.

Do you interpret Ephesians 2 literal or spiritual?
Literally defining both physical and spiritual truths.

Your interpretation depends on meanings you have assigned for which you cannot give literal proofs. You assume, which is a disaster.

We read by rules of grammar, not rules of spiritualized doctrine or a Holy Book of Grammar, of which there are no copies out there for us to study.

But if there were, that would make the book a literally worded book, would it not? Thus a literal proof.

That is your problem, Len. You have no literal foundation. You assume meaning in that are never literally stated anywhere and proceed to interpret everything from those base assumptions.

You cannot prove you base assumptions so your doctrine is flawed, unless you are declaring yourself a prophet of God, possessing secret definitions and meanings the rest of us can only get by listening to you or having it revealed secretly to us individually.

But the Bible states there are no such secret interpretations.

You cannot defend all this spiritulizing you are doing. You are just trying to convince others it sounds good, reasonable and sound. But cults' existences hinge on such an approach, with none of them agreeing with each other.

Not saying you are a cult, but I am saying your methodology is what cults use, and you findings are wrong.

Why did John keep using the literal Israel and Temple model in Revelation when, per your demands, they are dead issues? Why did he prophecy all these physical plagues upon Man if they are not going to happen? Why did he prophecy a literal Second Coming when there will be none? All after your supposed removal of any literal Israel or Temple in the future?

Your argument does not make sense.

Nor did you really answer CTZ challenges.

[Ltanner09]

Core, we're going in circles.

Your arguments and mine are fully covered in the first 3-4 pages of this thread.
Rehashing them isn't going to make things any clearer.

[CoreIssue]

Core, we're going in circles.

Your arguments and mine are fully covered in the first 3-4 pages of this thread.
Rehashing them isn't going to make things any clearer.
Agree. And if you note the questions and challenges to you are in the same vein I have stated and your answers are repetitions as well.

Unless someone has a really new question or issue, I think this is basically done.

[Jessie]

Jessie wrote:
best not to spiritualize the literal.Most of the teachings of Jesus dealt with the spiritual, yet they are literal.

Many of the Jews couldn't understand Christ because His teachings were spiritual and they tried applying literal/physical meanings to what He taught.

Do you interpret Ephesians 2 literal or spiritual?

have to get back to you probably thursday.

[CTZonEdit]

You didn't refute the Eph verses I posted, which describes the current temple...according to the New testament. You did post verses from Jewish sources (Jewish sources that, apparently, still reject Christ.)


What?

How do the verses in Eph apply to Ezek? Explain that please.

Now you've just lost me. One is speaking of literally of a literal temple the other is literally speaking about a spiritual temple.

Now you say that the verses speak of both. Huh?

If the literal temple in Ezek is "spiritual" there is no need for God to tell them about garments, walls, altars, etc if Christ it the "literal" temple in these "spiritual" verses.

And if the Eph verses are talking about the "physical reality of a spiritual temple" (which I assume is your logic here), you lose again. God made a mistake telling them in Ezek that a physical temple was to be built so God redefined what was meant in Ezek with the verses in Eph and now the Jews should just follow that instead. Meaning God made not only a mistake but is woefully confusing.

God doesnt make mistakes or is a God of confusion.

If I can poke holes at this level in your argument then there is no need for me to refute the literal verses, since you dont read them literally anyways.

[Ltanner09]

What?

How do the verses in Eph apply to Ezek? Explain that please.

Never said Ephesians applied to Ezekiel.

Now you've just lost me. One is speaking of literally of a literal temple the other is literally speaking about a spiritual temple.

I've already mentioned these points early on in this thread. Ezekiel's temple was conditional upon Israel meeting the trems to build it. The instructions were given, Israel didn't comply.

What Israel failed to do, Jesus accomplished by building a more glorious temple.

[CTZonEdit]

Never said Ephesians applied to Ezekiel.

Then why are you bringing up verses about Eph in a discussion about Ezekiel's temple to begin with if they do not literally apply?

You claim the temple is a "spiritual reality" physically manifested in Christ and that the Ezek temple was never to be rebuilt since the "spiritual temple" exists now in Christ.

Or do you not even understand your own logic now?

I've already mentioned these points early on in this thread. Ezekiel's temple was conditional upon Israel meeting the trems to build it. The instructions were given, Israel didn't comply.

What Israel failed to do, Jesus accomplished by building a more glorious temple.

And just how exactly were they supposed meet the exacting and detailed commands on what was required of them at the time if the verses are of a prophetic future where Christ is the "physical temple" according to you.

God gave them a pointless command they would never be able to fulfill in the first place if this "temple" is "spiritual".

[Ltanner09]

I wrote:
Never said Ephesians applied to Ezekiel.

CTZ replied:
Then why are you bringing up verses about Eph in a discussion about Ezekiel's temple to begin with if they do not literally apply?

The temple in Ephesians demonstrates that there is no need for any other temple, Ezekiels or any other. Pre Mill foresees Ezekiel's temple in the future (where it was to be built upon Israel's exile from Babylon).


CTZ wrote:
You claim the temple is a "spiritual reality" physically manifested in Christ and that the Ezek temple was never to be rebuilt since the "spiritual temple" exists now in Christ.
Or do you not even understand your own logic now?

How can Ezekiel's temple be "rebuilt" since is was never built to begin with?



I wrote:
I've already mentioned these points early on in this thread. Ezekiel's temple was conditional upon Israel meeting the trems to build it. The instructions were given, Israel didn't comply.

What Israel failed to do, Jesus accomplished by building a more glorious temple.

CTZ replied:
And just how exactly were they supposed meet the exacting and detailed commands on what was required of them at the time if the verses are of a prophetic future where Christ is the "physical temple" according to you.

God gave them a pointless command they would never be able to fulfill in the first place if this "temple" is "spiritual".

CTZ, obviously you are either
1. Confused or
2You haven't read the thread.

I never stated (nor implied) that the temple in Ephesians is Ezekiel's temple.

I have stated, over and over ad nauseum, that Ezekiel's temple will not be built as Israel failed to meet the conditions to build it, when they left Babylon.

It is pre mill that insists Ezekiel's temple will be built in the future, which is in direct conflict with the temple we are told is now being built with those in Christ, with Christ as it's cornerstone.

THere is no return to abolished sacrifices for sin offering, as pre mill proposes, in some future earthly temple built with human hands.

To do so would be a rejection of Christ's accomplishment on the cross.

I did say, in a reply to your post citing Jewish sources for a rebuilt temple, that the temple the Jews are awaiting to be built is already under construction through Christ.

Maybe you interpreted that to mean Ezekiel's temple. That wasn't my intention.

The temple that reconciles man to God is the one found in Ephesians, not a temple built with human hands.

[Willy]

To do so would be a rejection of Christ's accomplishment on the cross.

But they do reject that very thing. (and of course they are wrong)

They are just playing out what they believe to be a correct view of their Scripture.

... an extremely good reality about being grafted out .... they do not have the means to understand what they read. ... That ability is God given (Spirit) and indeed the vail is done away in Christ.

I think we have to remember that it was for us (me) that they were grafted out. I was a Gentile. Now I am a new creature.

I also believe they are representative of all man in dealing with God by works or the letter of the law. ...interesting sidelight that they did not and still do not fully understand the larger part of the Law ... that being the offerings.

What's that verse ...God winked ... with respect to Gentiles. Well He didn't wink at Israel. They bore the brunt of a Holy God, and as we read, we see that it was no picnic to be "Chosen".

I see any person Jew or Gentile as being neither, when born again, but a new creature.

With respect to Israel, did they do anything that God did not know they would do? ... In the way they rejected the Lord Jesus?

I think it will be an amazing thing when "They look upon Him Whom they have pierced" and realize that the very thing that has been a reproach to them for 2000 years is exactly the thing God chose them to do. Present His Son an offering for Sin. ... All that is left is to apply the offering to themselves knowing God knew everything they would do and still loved them and used them.

They did nothing to Him that isn't being done moment to moment daily in any part of this Old Dying World. ...Rejecting Christ. "Away with Him, we will not have Him rule over us." Louder every day.

They are having a bit of a time with it because they have no sacrifice, so no atonement, so what they are planning on doing makes perfect sense given the vail that is over their understanding of their own scripture.

Is it not also a testimony that there is indeed a seal over God's Word?

Because the scripture tells us something is going to happen, does not mean God condones it.

It's late ... so if something does not make sense .. I do apologize in advance!

:):

[CTZonEdit]

I have stated, over and over ad nauseum, that Ezekiel's temple will not be built as Israel failed to meet the conditions to build it, when they left Babylon.

How do they fail to meet conditions that were not even applicable to them to begin with, Len? The prophecy doesnt apply to them directly. Its a future fulfillment.

It is pre mill that insists Ezekiel's temple will be built in the future, which is in direct conflict with the temple we are told is now being built with those in Christ, with Christ as it's cornerstone.

I dont insist anything. You reject a literal reading and understanding of what is written. It literally states a future temple, for a future time and people. The only one seeing a conflict is you because you are replacing what is literally stated with something else.

You are the only one that sees how a restored Temple system + Christ within it is something problematic becase you evidently never understood how they worked together to begin with.

There is no return to abolished sacrifices for sin offering, as pre mill proposes, in some future earthly temple built with human hands.

To do so would be a rejection of Christ's accomplishment on the cross.


Yet that is what is literally written about.

What it would mean is that your understanding is rejected. Christ's accomplishments will never be rejected or replaced.

The MK temple is not a replacement, its a fulfillment to Israel that God promised them.

Its all of God's established order working together in perfection as it was written would be.

And please respond to what Core stated:

Why did John keep using the literal Israel and Temple model in Revelation when, per your demands, they are dead issues? Why did he prophecy all these physical plagues upon Man if they are not going to happen? Why did he prophecy a literal Second Coming when there will be none? All after your supposed removal of any literal Israel or Temple in the future?

The temple that reconciles man to God is the one found in Ephesians, not a temple built with human hands.

Yet you keep bringing this verse up?

You do alot of explaining without answering anything.

[CoreIssue]

Len, CTZ is right. Willy made excellent points. You are the one missing the issues here.

The realities of the saved exclude the lost. But covenants deal with both the lost and saved. Their chief function is to lead people to being saved.

I kept asking you the function of a covenant over and over. You never answered. I kept pointing out covenant and salvation are to distinct issues. You ignored the point. I also pushed there is a physical and spiritual reality on this world, but you tried to make all of it spiritual.

A physical temple is a physical reality for a physical world of both lost and saved. You don't get that point.

Even we, living temples, are here to deal with the physical lost world as well.

You also didn't deal with Revelation. John wrote that book around 20 years after you declared the physical issues of Jerusalem, temple and Israel dead, gone and irrelevant. Yet John dealt with them as future very relevant issues.

Revelation has a physical temple 20 years after 70 AD. And a physical Jerusalem. And a nation called Israel, with 12 Tribes, that you declared no longer an issue, replaced by the Church. It has physical judgment upon the earth, the Second Coming with a millennium following and more. But you dismiss it all, spiritualize it.

Before you say it, if you were going to, Revelation was written about 90 AD, not in the 60 AD time frame. Even Iraneus states that in his writing around in the early 200's. Plus the text supports that date as well.

It also fits the historical data surrounding the 7 churches.

[Ltanner09]

Started 3 different replies before coming to the conclusion that any of them would blossom into issues not pertaining to the topic at hand. (Dating the book of Revelation, et al).

If any of your members have an interest in the topic of Ezekiel's temple there are an ample amount websites presenting both views.

Nowhere to go but downhill on this thread.

[Ltanner09]

On second thought I suppose it's downhill this thread will go, but I won't be debating any further topics here until we can get set rules in place to limit the amount of posts per topic, as I initially proposed.

Before I reply to Core, I'm going to suggest that, in any future debate, we each get an opening comment, 2-3 posts tops and each get a closing comment.

The longer a debate continues the less it resembles the issues that it was intended to address. Such as this thread, which now evolves into dating the book of Revelation.
==============================
Core wrote:
Before you say it, if you were going to, Revelation was written about 90 AD, not in the 60 AD time frame. Even Iraneus states that in his writing around in the early 200's. Plus the text supports that date as well.


Core points to the temple standing in REV 11 as proof positive that a future temple must be built, as John allegedly writes this book in AD95. Core then points to Irenaeus as proof that John wrote Revelation late in the 1st century.

The only grounds anyone has for purporting this date are a single statement, quite obscure, written by Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cesarea . He quoted Irenaeus, who lived from 130 AD to 202 AD.

The bottom line is that there is some degree of uncertainty regarding what Irenaeus meant. Was it Domitian or Domitius (Nero) that Irenaeus was referring to? Where the book of Revelation is included in the Syriac versions it is referred to as "The Revelation which was made by God to John the evangelist in the island of Patmos, into which he was thrown by Nero Caesar."

At any rate, here is what Eusebius quoted:

"In this persecution [of Christians under Domitian], it is handed down by tradition, that the apostle and evangelist John, who was yet living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, indeed, in his fifth book against the heresies, ...speaks in the following manner respecting him: 'If, however, it were necessary to proclaim [the name of the Anti-Christ], ... it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation, for it is not long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign." (Eusebius, III, XVII)

Irenaues did not speak from firsthand experience, but heard this thought from Polycarp. Polycarp allegedly knew John personally.

Notice the statement: "it is not long since it was seen."

The problem here is that the word "it" in the Greek could refer to the visions John saw, the book he wrote, or John himself. He could have meant, "John, who saw the revelation, was seen," or he could have meant, "John experienced the visions," or thirdly, that "the revelation document that John wrote was seen." And even if he was talking about the book of Revelation being seen at that time, this does not demand the book to have been written then. John did live until the time of Domitian.

At any rate, it is absolutely inconclusive to say the book was written then. We cannot tell if he meant that he saw John then, or saw the book at the time. And we cannot tell if he meant the book was written at the time.

Why grasp for this straw to propose that Revelation was written in 95 AD?

It's too ambiguous. It's certainly not something to put your interpretive stocks in. Even if tradition has ascertained that this is what Irenaeus meant, we still have no grounds for anything solid along those lines.

Irenaeus is infamous, anyhow, for error in dates and times. He wrote a very strange and ridiculous dating for the age of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus taught that Jesus lived to the age of 50 years
From: Irenaeus Against Heresies

Chapter 22 is headed as follows:

"Chapter XXII.-The Thirty Aeons are Not Typified by the Fact that Christ Was Baptized in His Thirtieth Year: He Did Not Suffer in the Twelfth Month After His Baptism, But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died."

"...but they mentioned a period near His real age , whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old ..."

If Irenaeus did imply the book was written in 96 A.D., how reliable is his dating anyway? Saying Jesus died at fifty years of age is a similar type of dating error that Irenaeus proposed.

Of course if revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem, it would certainly explain the existence of the temple standing and the mention of the subsequent trampling of the Holy City for 42 months.

I wrote:
I have stated, over and over ad nauseum, that Ezekiel's temple will not be built as Israel failed to meet the conditions to build it, when they left Babylon.

CTZ replied:
How do they fail to meet conditions that were not even applicable to them to begin with, Len? The prophecy doesnt apply to them directly. Its a future fulfillment.

Where do you see a postponement option to the instructions given to Ezekiel, CH 43 specifically? Where do you see "future fulfillment" in that chapter? God made an offer to Israel when they left their captivity in Babylon and Israel simply didn't follow through to accept it.

There is not one mention in the New Testament of any instructions to build another temple. Not one mention of returning to animal sacrifices for sin offering. Not one mention of returning to the law. In fact the NT argues against all of the above.

The pre mill belief is anchored on a faulty understanding that Rev was written in AD95 and, since a temple is seen, a theory has to be built around it's existence.
Even though the theory includes returning to Mosaic Law (for the most part).

Acts 15:9,10 - Judaizers wanted to bind the Old Testament on Gentiles (v5). Peter said that law was a yoke that neither our fathers nor we were able to bear, so God replaced it with the system of faith (the gospel). To put this yoke again on disciples would be to test God. Why go back to it?

2 Corinthians 3:6-11 - The law was the ministry of death and condemnation, written and engraved on stones. This is the law given by Moses when people could not look upon his face because it shone (v13). How can it be superior to the system that is "more glorious"?

Colossians 2:14 - Jesus removed the handwriting of requirements because they were against us and contrary to us. Why go back to them?

Ephesians 2:14-16 - The Old Testament was the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, because it gave a favored status to Jews that was not available to Gentiles. To go back to that system would be to place Jews again in a favored position above Gentiles. This is exactly what premillennialism says will happen, but to do so would build again the barrier that Jesus died to remove.

[CoreIssue]

Len, prior to 70 AD is not held many people, scholars included.

Your attempt, here, also fails in the fact that in claiming Christ is the Prince whose man destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple were not his men. They were the men of Prince Titus, who later became the Roman Emperor.

Any attempt to call them men of Christ fails in logic and grammar, since, again, two, not one word, for Prince is used, and they have differences in meaning.

And no, none of the plagues of the seals befell the earth and world wide deaths of the earth's population did not happen.

It also fails because the 24 Elders are at the Seals to open the Trib. They are resurrected, glorified and rewarded. A non starter situation since none but Christ have been resurrected to date.

Nor were the Two Witnesses on the earth at the Temple for 3.5 years as stated.

And what 144,000 virgin males of the Tribes of Israel, who were not Gentiles? Were not there.

You have to reinvent so many literal statements it is shocking. Really.

All just to escape the return of Israel. That is why the RCC invented that theology. To make them inheritors of the mantle of Israel, justify their priesthood and try to escape who the Harlot literally is.

You cannot even begin to justify your claims, Len. You have to take Church statements and treat them as if the Church Age never ends.

I have no idea what else I could possibly say, since I know you will not agree with me. And that is your right.

But literal is literal, you are not being literal, and the Bible says it is not of private interpretation by anyone.

Really, Len, you have turned the Bible into a giant crypto puzzle. In an debate with a Historicist or a Preterist you would all just be throwing unproven claims at each other. Each as valid as the others as regards proof, since all are based on assumptions never stated in the Bible.

OK. Enough said by me. You are right that his is going no where, as I said before. So, you can get the last word in. I have no idea what else I could possibly add.

Moving on! :D

[Ltanner09]

Core I have no problem continuing as I've accepted the fact that this thread is perpetually off topic :):

Len, prior to 70 AD is not held many people, scholars included.

Actually the issue is fairly evenly split. If you perform a search on "when was revelation written"....or something similar without looking for a biased view from the jump....you'll probably get close to a 50/50 split.

Your attempt, here, also fails in the fact that in claiming Christ is the Prince whose man destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple were not his men. They were the men of Prince Titus, who later became the Roman Emperor.

All of Daniel 9 deals with Israel's captivity and God's plan for them and what the Messiah will accomplish.

The context of the chapter is simple enough to follow without assigning the one who confirms a covenant to someone other than Christ. Christ is the central issue of CH 9.

Any attempt to call them men of Christ fails in logic and grammar, since, again, two, not one word, for Prince is used, and they have differences in meaning.

Core, you need to step out of the pre trib/pre mill world and do some research before you hurt yourself by tripping over your words (and claims too....still scratching my head over your Ireneaus reference).:p

Daniel 9:25 uses the EXACT word for Messiah the Prince as is used in the very next verse, where prince is used.

Not only that but the "he" in verse 27, who confirms the covenant, is clearly Christ and HE virtually quoted Daniel word for word while confirming it.

And no, none of the plagues of the seals befell the earth and world wide deaths of the earth's population did not happen.

I need a GPS system to keep track of where your issues are going. Don't know the relevance of the seals in this discussion, but if you read Josephus there are quite a few similarities between REV 6 and the destruction of Jerusalem.

It also fails because the 24 Elders are at the Seals to open the Trib. They are resurrected, glorified and rewarded. A non starter situation since none but Christ have been resurrected to date.

Nor were the Two Witnesses on the earth at the Temple for 3.5 years as stated.

And what 144,000 virgin males of the Tribes of Israel, who were not Gentiles? Were not there.

You have to reinvent so many literal statements it is shocking. Really.

Literal, in the most SYMBOLIC book of the bible?

OK...Re 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

Literal locusts?
Re 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

Do these literal locusts speak and understand a certain language and understand commands?

Re 9:7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.

Are these literal locusts in shapes like horses? Do they literally wear literal tiny crowns? Faces of men too, clean shaven we hope.

Re 9:8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

Honestly, Core, do you really insist on literal every step of the way?
There is no "demand" here to take these locusts as symbolic, but common sense dictates they are.


Core wrote:
You have to reinvent so many literal statements it is shocking. Really.

I know, I should invest in the little ol' crown maker's shop. Wonder if those locusts hair is braided. Hate to think the hair is blowing into their little crowns. Split ends and all.....can be a real pain

All just to escape the return of Israel. That is why the RCC invented that theology. To make them inheritors of the mantle of Israel, justify their priesthood and try to escape who the Harlot literally is.

Core forces 3rd gear without using the clutch. Now the RCC is the harlot?

Harlot rides the beast, the beast burns the harlot with fire. Didn't Jerusalem play the harlot? Wasn't the Roman Empire a beast? Didn't Rome burn Jerusalem to the ground? Oh, BTW Core, I'm not Catholic, in case you were wondering.

You cannot even begin to justify your claims, Len. You have to take Church statements and treat them as if the Church Age never ends.

We should have some doosies for debates (or is it doozies)?

You have the church age ending, then people in the trib with the faith in Jesus. Please.
Pre trib believes that no mention of the church for several chapters in REV means it's gone.
Guess the church is raptured throughout the NT as many chapters omit "church"

I have no idea what else I could possibly say, since I know you will not agree with me. And that is your right.

But literal is literal, you are not being literal, and the Bible says it is not of private interpretation by anyone.

Maybe if those locusts use hairclips. Bandanas? Is there a little locust hair salon?

Really, Len, you have turned the Bible into a giant crypto puzzle. In an debate with a Historicist or a Preterist you would all just be throwing unproven claims at each other. Each as valid as the others as regards proof, since all are based on assumptions never stated in the Bible.

Core, just curious if you ever step out of the safe confines of CTZ to debate, or do you just stay here where most people just agree with you?
It's a serious question, BTW.

OK. Enough said by me. You are right that his is going no where, as I said before. So, you can get the last word in. I have no idea what else I could possibly add.

Moving on!

Not looking for the last word, Core. I've found that pre mill uses a future MK as a dumping ground for prophecies they believe were never fulfilled (land promises for one and Ezekiel's temple for another, as examples).

I didn't leave the pre trib/ pre mill belief because I was bored with it. Other views made much more sense, biblically, without the verbal gymnastics needed to make pre mill appear to fit.

You somehow believe Isreal building another temple will bring them to the Lord. At best it places them in the exact position they were in back in the first century, in denial of Christ with a building no longer required for worship.
Groundhog day, pre mill style.

And good grief, you have the church ending before Christ returns.
Why? Because "church" isn't mentioned from chapters 4-21?

Re 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Re 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

At which time does faith in Jesus prohibit one from being included in His body?

One last thing:

Re 9:9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.

They definitely need to tie their hair back. Getting it caught in a beastplate....ouch!

[CoreIssue]

Len, not going to repeat issues dealt with multiple times already. Pointless.
And no, none of the plagues of the seals befell the earth and world wide deaths of the earth's population did not happen.I need a GPS system to keep track of where your issues are going. Don't know the relevance of the seals in this discussion, but if you read Josephus there are quite a few similarities between REV 6 and the destruction of Jerusalem.
Revelation deals with world wide issues. They did not happen in 70 AD, as you claim.

Again with the Shopping Cart approach. Grab out what you think works for you and toss the rest. You have to deal with the whole.

It is relevant because not happening back then disproves your pre 70 AD beliefs.
It also fails because the 24 Elders are at the Seals to open the Trib. They are resurrected, glorified and rewarded. A non starter situation since none but Christ have been resurrected to date.

Nor were the Two Witnesses on the earth at the Temple for 3.5 years as stated.

And what 144,000 virgin males of the Tribes of Israel, who were not Gentiles? Were not there.

You have to reinvent so many literal statements it is shocking. Really.Literal, in the most SYMBOLIC book of the bible?
Only in your mind, Len.

What imagery there is has a literal definition contained in the Bible elsewhere, or in the definitions of the words themselves.
OK...Re 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

Literal locusts?
Demons in locust form. Yes? And who are you to say otherwise? Based on what?

Look at the context, the Pit. What is the Pit and what is in the Pit?
Re 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

Do these literal locusts speak and understand a certain language and understand commands?
Demons are smarter than us, Len. They can assume any form, just like angels can.
Re 9:7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.

Are these literal locusts in shapes like horses? Do they literally wear literal tiny crowns? Faces of men too, clean shaven we hope.
Like means similar, not identical. So similar to horses in shape with head parts that resemble crowns is no problem at all.

Again, what is your point? How can you say they are not what is stated? You cannot accept it personally? If not literal then what is your PROVABLE alternative besides your imagination?
Re 9:8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

Honestly, Core, do you really insist on literal every step of the way?
There is no "demand" here to take these locusts as symbolic, but common sense dictates they are.
Yes, I insist on literal. Don't really give a hoot that someone does not like what they read. It is what it is said to be. Not given to please you or appeal to your personal sense of common sense, Len.

God appeared as a burning bush that did not burn, tongues of fire, whirlwinds, a dove and else. On the throne he looks like living gems. That defies your common sense as well? It must to be consistent.

Yea, Len. I can and do accept it as literal. After what I have seen in my lifetime I have no problem doing so.
Core wrote:
You have to reinvent so many literal statements it is shocking. Really.I know, I should invest in the little ol' crown maker's shop. Wonder if those locusts hair is braided. Hate to think the hair is blowing into their little crowns. Split ends and all.....can be a real pain

How materialist, Len.

Do you struggle as well with the size and appearance of the NJ? Really, a city thousands of miles long on each side, as will as in height?

Stop and think what you are doing here. If you reject one area you have to reject all these areas as well.
All just to escape the return of Israel. That is why the RCC invented that theology. To make them inheritors of the mantle of Israel, justify their priesthood and try to escape who the Harlot literally is.Core forces 3rd gear without using the clutch. Now the RCC is the harlot?

Yea. Look at the clothes, the royal garb and colors worn by the Roman Pontiff's and Emperors. Sitting on 7 Hills, Rome is the City on 7 Hills. Blood of saints, Rome has slaughtered millions over its history. And more.

Rome collapsed into Ten Nations and it says those Ten Toes will be the AC's future Empire, the EU.

RCC at Rome is the Pagan Roman Religious System cloaked in Christianity. It will return to having a godking with the AC, as every nation in the Statue of Daniel had. That is Mystery Babylon, the Statue.
1Harlot rides the beast, the beast burns the harlot with fire. Didn't Jerusalem play the harlot?
Boy, you have gone hook line and sinker with the RCC doctrines.

No. Israel is nowhere in the Statue or Beasts of Daniel, who produce the AC and his Empire.

Yes, they killed, but were mere upstarts compared to Rome.
Wasn't the Roman Empire a beast? Didn't Rome burn Jerusalem to the ground? Oh, BTW Core, I'm not Catholic, in case you were wondering.
A beast and part of the statue, from which the AC will rise.

Yep, it burned Jerusalem, and in the Trib the AC will conquer Israel, sit on the Temple Throne, declare himself god and there will be a living idol set up in the Temple to be worshipped.

Has not happened yet, Len. And to happen a Temple in Jerusalem must still be built in the future.
You cannot even begin to justify your claims, Len. You have to take Church statements and treat them as if the Church Age never ends.We should have some doosies for debates (or is it doozies)?

You have the church age ending, then people in the trib with the faith in Jesus. Please.
Those before Israel now have faith in Christ, as well as the OT saints, and those saved that were part of neither covenant. But none of them are Church.

You are not reading very carefully. Romans 8 says all will be conformed to Christ that are saints, but it never says all saints from all times in history will be Church. Two heirs, not one, in the Body of Christ, Israel and Church.
Pre trib believes that no mention of the church for several chapters in REV means it's gone.
Yep, sure do when temple, Israel and such are back. 70th Week of Daniel leading into a literal MK.

Yet more issues you have to explain away figuratively. Amazing you do not see the problems of credibility your thinking has on these issue.
Guess the church is raptured throughout the NT as many chapters omit "church"

I have no idea what else I could possibly say, since I know you will not agree with me. And that is your right.

But literal is literal, you are not being literal, and the Bible says it is not of private interpretation by anyone.Maybe if those locusts use hairclips. Bandanas? Is there a little locust hair salon?
And if a demon came face to face with you in some form you could not accept would you try to explain it away as well.

Wow, Len. So your problem is you struggle with accepting what you cannot conform to earthly standards.
Really, Len, you have turned the Bible into a giant crypto puzzle. In an debate with a Historicist or a Preterist you would all just be throwing unproven claims at each other. Each as valid as the others as regards proof, since all are based on assumptions never stated in the Bible.Core, just curious if you ever step out of the safe confines of CTZ to debate, or do you just stay here where most people just agree with you?
It's a serious question, BTW.
Len, I can say with assurity that I have been more places and studied more religions and belief systems than you have.

I remember on RR you were of the group that walked away from debates when I pushed issues you could not answer. Did it constantly only to just restart the same old arguments on a new thread, only to walk away from them as well.

I posted on Amil, Post-Trib and other doctrinal boards. Got banned for pushing questions they could not deal with or making headway with some members in questioning the doctrines.

CTZ is a debate board. I created it to end people not being able to finish a debate, regardless of what they believe, as along as the debate and do not just preach.

So, don't go there. Nor have you been banned or edited here for pushing your thinking.
OK. Enough said by me. You are right that his is going no where, as I said before. So, you can get the last word in. I have no idea what else I could possibly add.

Moving on! Not looking for the last word, Core. I've found that pre mill uses a future MK as a dumping ground for prophecies they believe were never fulfilled (land promises for one and Ezekiel's temple for another, as examples).

I didn't leave the pre trib/ pre mill belief because I was bored with it. Other views made much more sense, biblically, without the verbal gymnastics needed to make pre mill appear to fit.

I remember you as Pre, then Mid, then Pre-Wrath, I believe and then this crazy new invention, Post-Trib Amil, which are mutually exclusive doctrines.

No verbal gymnastics. You, on the other hand, have been an acrobat trying to get around literal words by forcing figurative meaning on them.

I read by grammar and rules of language. You do not. Word Israel now reads Church, Ezekiel Temple, just forget, literal Trib Temple, ditch because there is no literal Trib or Temple and so forth. need a translation dictionary to follow all your redefines.

You have made it clear you reject literal because you don't like what it literally says, as in the locusts, in example. You personally cannot buy it so it cannot mean what it says because you don't accept it can.

Sorry, Len, but your likes and such are not enough. God, angels, demons and such are spirits and not subject to our physical laws. Plain as that.
You somehow believe Isreal building another temple will bring them to the Lord.
Absolutely false. It is the events of the last 2,000 years, what happens in the Trib, the testimony of the Two Witnesses and the return of Christ at the head of an army that will sway them to a correct acceptance of Christ, not a temple.

Even then only 1/3 will reach the point they can accept. The rest will be dead.
At best it places them in the exact position they were in back in the first century, in denial of Christ with a building no longer required for worship.
Groundhog day, pre mill style.

False foundation gives you a false conclusion.
And good grief, you have the church ending before Christ returns.
Why? Because "church" isn't mentioned from chapters 4-21?
Because the world will see the Church Raptured to begin the Trib. Some will understand and turn to Christ.

The Two Witnesses will appear in Jerusalem. They will be super men. They will persuade more.

What you miss is that even when Christ is on the earth for 1,000 years people will reject him. At the end of the Short Time of Satan they will attack the saints at Jerusalem again.

Satan and the Fallen were with God. They rejected him.

You fail to see that some will reject God no matter what. So when God says this is the route to go, I accept that.
Re 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Re 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

At which time does faith in Jesus prohibit one from being included in His body?
Never.

Again you see covenant as salvation. A big mistake.
One last thing:

Re 9:9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.

They definitely need to tie their hair back. Getting it caught in a beastplate....ouch!
Check out bugs, many look like they have breast plates.

Your reading skills are lacking if you think it says they are wearing actual manufactured breast plates, crowns, etc.

[Ltanner09]

Core, you've claimed that Dan 9 shows the antichrist confirming a covenant for
7 years, in the final weekof the 70.

I had claimed that Jesus is the one confirming a covenant, in the final week of the 70.

Let's test this using scripture.

I will list the verses that clearly identify Christ confirming a covenant.

I will wait for your reply listing the verses clearly showing the antichrist confirming a covenant.

Ga 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

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 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament (covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament (covenant), which is shed for many.

Lu 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament(covenant) in my blood, which is shed for you.

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament( covenant) in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament(covenant).

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament (covenant), that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.



Now notice Core, no scriptural gymnastics used in the above, simply scriptures, used literally.
They show the covenant, that you believe is future, fulfilled in Christ.

I'll wait for your biblical verses supporting your view.

[CoreIssue]

Core, you've claimed that Dan 9 shows the antichrist confirming a covenant for
7 years, in the final weekof the 70.

I had claimed that Jesus is the one confirming a covenant, in the final week of the 70.

Let's test this using scripture.

I will list the verses that clearly identify Christ confirming a covenant.

I will wait for your reply listing the verses clearly showing the antichrist confirming a covenant.

Ga 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

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 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament (covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament (covenant), which is shed for many.

Lu 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament(covenant) in my blood, which is shed for you.

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament( covenant) in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament(covenant).

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament (covenant), that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.



Now notice Core, no scriptural gymnastics used in the above, simply scriptures, used literally.
They show the covenant, that you believe is future, fulfilled in Christ.

I'll wait for your biblical verses supporting your view.
No, Len, you failed here.

You listed an eternal covenant as the 7 year covenant of Daniel's 70th Week. 7 years duration compared to eternal means not the same.

Further, the AC covenant is with nations, not individuals, while Christ is with individuals, not nations.

And you still got the grammar wrong. Christ died at the end of the 69th but this 7 year covenant is from a man who lives the full 7 years of the 70th Week and dies at the end. Does not fly again.

Christ died about 27 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was 43 years later and the 70th Week still after 70 AD. But you demand the 70th Week begins when the 69th ends, which is impossible with that 43 year gap.

Now, overlay the 70th Week upon the Trib of Revelation. Exact match on start, mid events, and the AC death.

First seal is a rider with bow but no arrows. That is ancient symbolism of making peace without violence, a peace treaty. The He beginning the 70th Week makes a treaty for a period of 7 years, the exact duration of the Trib and 70th Week.

Christ does not break covenants, but the He who begins the 70th Week breaks the treaty mid Trib. He causes a AoD to be set up in the Temple, which in Revelation is described as a statue of the AC that comes to life and receives worship. Which fits Thes. saying he declares himself god on the throne of the Temple. Christ does not do AoD's.

Christ did not do a treaty of 7 years length, but He does. Christ does not break treaties, but He does. Christ does not do AoD's, but He does.

Finally, neither Christ nor his people destroyed the Temple or Jerusalem, but another prince, Titus, did. You cannot get Christ out of anything in 70th Week statement in Daniel, so it isn't Christ. But, it does fit what the AC does in the Trib verses of Revelation. There is no other candidate but the AC.


Again, the Church Covenant is not the New Covenant of Hebrews. Paul deals with the Church in present tense and the New in future tense. So there will be a future covenant to Israel.

And that squares totally with Israel in Revelation and the MK verses.

Christ is not limited to the Church, Len. Never.

[kay-gee]

"just curious if you ever step out of the safe confines of CTZ to debate, or do you just stay here where most people just agree with you?
It's a serious question, BTW."....(quote by Ltanner)

Just for the record Ltanner....not everyone on this site agrees with Core Issue!

all the best...

[InTheWind]

"just curious if you ever step out of the safe confines of CTZ to debate, or do you just stay here where most people just agree with you?
It's a serious question, BTW."....(quote by Ltanner)

Just for the record Ltanner....not everyone on this site agrees with Core Issue!

all the best...

Before Core answers you Kay-Gee I ask that you post pages of biblical text proving your position on things.
If your not ready to put up well then you know the rest.....

[Jessie]

Jessie wrote:
best not to spiritualize the literal.Most of the teachings of Jesus dealt with the spiritual, yet they are literal.

Many of the Jews couldn't understand Christ because His teachings were spiritual and they tried applying literal/physical meanings to what He taught.

Do you interpret Ephesians 2 literal or spiritual?

after reading it, I'm not sure what part you are talking about..

[CoreIssue]

"just curious if you ever step out of the safe confines of CTZ to debate, or do you just stay here where most people just agree with you?
It's a serious question, BTW."....(quote by Ltanner)

Just for the record Ltanner....not everyone on this site agrees with Core Issue!

all the best...

Before Core answers you Kay-Gee I ask that you post pages of biblical text proving your position on things.
If your not ready to put up well then you know the rest.....
That about sums it up.

We have so many that come on claiming something else that either just preach or give opinions or reinvented word meanings and such. Preaching will get one banned and reinvented word meanings and rules of grammar prove nothing, except they do not like literal words.

KG and Len, both of you have made it very clear you either do not like what the literal words say or cannot accept things out of your own comfort zones on what is declared. That is meaningless as regards reality, but is held my many, many people.

Many do not like the concept of demons, so they turn them into disease and other supposed explanations. Many go further and reject God and Christ because they are outside their pride and personal opinion zone as well.

But what all such, including cults, have in common, is they try to reinvent things to conform to their own standards or logic and reality. A non starter.

As I said before, Len, in example of something you reject, a demon looking like a giant locust is trivial for a spirit being. But, you are trying to put a physical limitation perception demand on it, which isn't reality.

Look at all the forms God has appeared in throughout the Bible. I guess those are symbolisms as well, that he really didn't appear that way.

[Ltanner09]

Previously I asked Core to list clear biblical references to where the AC will confirm a covenant. I then listed 10 verses showing Christ confirmed a covenant.

Core produced zero. Core contends the AC's covenant is with nations and Christ's is with individuals. Even so, he produced zero verses showing the AC confirming a covenant with "nations"

No, Len, you failed here.

You listed an eternal covenant as the 7 year covenant of Daniel's 70th Week. 7 years duration compared to eternal means not the same.

AS I showed you previously, the covenant is WITHIN the 70th week not 7 years in duration. You theory is based on misinterpreting Dan 9:27.

Further proof that you're misinterpreting that verse is your inability to produce clear verses showing the AC's covenant anywhere else in the bible.

Further, the AC covenant is with nations, not individuals, while Christ is with individuals, not nations.

Let's see it, show the details of such covenant, without forcing your opinion on the verses, as I have.

And you still got the grammar wrong. Christ died at the end of the 69th but this 7 year covenant is from a man who lives the full 7 years of the 70th Week and dies at the end. Does not fly again.

Christ died AFTER the 69 weeks, which places it...literally....within the 70th week.

Christ died about 27 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was 43 years later and the 70th Week still after 70 AD. But you demand the 70th Week begins when the 69th ends, which is impossible with that 43 year gap.

Core you're ignoring the verses in Daniel. The "covenant" was to be confirmed in the 70th week and it was.
The destruction of Jerusalem was pronounced by Christ to occur within that generation....and it was.

First seal is a rider with bow but no arrows. That is ancient symbolism of making peace without violence, a peace treaty. The He beginning the 70th Week makes a treaty for a period of 7 years, the exact duration of the Trib and 70th Week.

Creative writing 101 Core?

Notice what the verse you're referring to DOESN'T say:
1. peace treaty
2. any mention of the 70th week.
3. no mention of 7 years.
4. no mention of tribulation.

Only through a misinterpretation can you reach that far fetched result.

Christ does not break covenants, but the He who begins the 70th Week breaks the treaty mid Trib.

You can't even produce one piece of scripture showing the AC confirming a covenant never mind him breaking it.

He causes a AoD to be set up in the Temple, which in Revelation is described as a statue of the AC that comes to life and receives worship. Which fits Thes. saying he declares himself god on the throne of the Temple. Christ does not do AoD's.

Christ described the abomination:
The words "abomination of desolation" come from Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14,

Matt: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)"
Mt 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Mark: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:"

Luke "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Lu 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto".


Your misinterpretation of biblical verses has caused a false understanding of
biblical verses clearly demonstrating just what, exactly, the abomination that causes desolation is.

Finally, neither Christ nor his people destroyed the Temple or Jerusalem, but another prince, Titus, did. You cannot get Christ out of anything in 70th Week statement in Daniel, so it isn't Christ. But, it does fit what the AC does in the Trib verses of Revelation. There is no other candidate but the AC.

Core did God ever use a people to desolate Jerusalem in the past?

Again, the Church Covenant is not the New Covenant of Hebrews. Paul deals with the Church in present tense and the New in future tense. So there will be a future covenant to Israel.

We'll deal with this on another thread.

In the meantime we'll wait for some BIBLICAL verses showing the AC confirming a covenant. You say the TEN verses I listed do not pertain to such a covenant.

Obviously your verses must be more clear than mine :snooty:

[CoreIssue]

Previously I asked Core to list clear biblical references to where the AC will confirm a covenant. I then listed 10 verses showing Christ confirmed a covenant.
Actually you listed for two different covenant. Neither of which is the one of the 70th Week. You are just claiming it is without any proof. In fact the grammar and context of Daniel 9 denies your claim.
Core produced zero.
Lame, Len. We all know the verses on the 70th Week and the first Seal. But if it makes you happy.
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22016a)] 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. [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22016c)] " [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209:27;&version=31;#fen-NIV-22016d)]

One covenant for one 7 year period. That eliminates Christ immediately on that issue alone.

And no, no translations says a covenant is confirmed within the 7 years.

And finally, Christ's ministry was only 3.5 years, but you have him dieing after a 7 year active period.
1I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, "Come!" 2I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.
Not Christ. Christ is always associated with a sword, not a bow. No arrow means by peace treaty. And this guys fails and dies at the end of 7 years, just as in the 70th Week verse.

And the resurrected 24 are there at the opening. No one but no one except Christ has been resurrected to date.

Trying to make them from the tombs that opened fails because Paul clearly states, long after the resurrection, that no one but Christ had been resurrected and it is future event to all the saints, no exclusions.
Core contends the AC's covenant is with nations and Christ's is with individuals. Even so, he produced zero verses showing the AC confirming a covenant with "nations"
That is contained within the following verses and chapters in Daniel of the AC dealing with other nations. Plus, the AC is a king who was, and when you go through all the qualifiers that leaves Alexander, whose chief weapon of conquest was peace treaties. And he rode a white horse as well.

Both Daniel and John clearly declare the AC comes out of Mystery Babylon, which is laid out historically in Daniel from Babylon until reformed Rome, where John shows the AC beast as a composite of all the Beasts of Daniel.

Literal Bible coupled with literal history. You have neither on your side, Len.

You also fail to deal with the fact that even your claims about the 70th Week having Christ in it demands a 43 year gap from the cross to 70 AD, where Christ was long resurrected.
No, Len, you failed here.

You listed an eternal covenant as the 7 year covenant of Daniel's 70th Week. 7 years duration compared to eternal means not the same.AS I showed you previously, the covenant is WITHIN the 70th week not 7 years in duration. You theory is based on misinterpreting Dan 9:27.[/QUOTE]
You showed me a claim no linguist or translator agrees with. So you showed me nothing, in fact.

Again, Christ's ministry was only 3.5 years long, period. And the one who dies at the end is at the beginning in a leadership role. Your time frame for Christ's ministry is erroneous.
Further proof that you're misinterpreting that verse is your inability to produce clear verses showing the AC's covenant anywhere else in the bible.
You have not proven it is Christ. Period.

Now read Daniel 11. The man Amils and others try to say is this person cannot be him because he was the son of the king of the land he ruled. This man is not, as the AC will be not.

And read the full passage of all he does, then read Revelation and the 70th Week. You have the events listed here there as well.

And it states the covenant he makes and breaks is with nations, since it is with nations that this covenant allows him to successfully invade by deceit. And says he makes the covenant with a prince, specifically.

Read the whole passage. This is a ruler making covenants with other nations, including Israel, then betraying and invading Israel at Mid Trib.
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.
You have posted not a single verse, historical reality or anything else backing your claims here, Len.

What you have posted does not meet the demands and historical realities. it is pure assumption that even goes so far as to say linquists and translators got it all wrong. All of them.
Further, the AC covenant is with nations, not individuals, while Christ is with individuals, not nations.Let's see it, show the details of such covenant, without forcing your opinion on the verses, as I have.
Look at the verses above.

By the way, you cannot meet your own demands, since this is the only time and situation where a 7 year treaty is stated. Never associated with Christ directly in any way any where.
And you still got the grammar wrong. Christ died at the end of the 69th but this 7 year covenant is from a man who lives the full 7 years of the 70th Week and dies at the end. Does not fly again.Christ died AFTER the 69 weeks, which places it...literally....within the 70th week.
No. After means next event is the death. The He of the 70th Week dies at the end of the 70th Week after 7 years of many, many other events. So the meaning of after will not work. It would have to say something like sometime after, long after or such for your usage to apply. It does not.

Plus, again, Christ's ministry was only 7 years. So this cannot be about Christ.
Christ died about 27 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was 43 years later and the 70th Week still after 70 AD. But you demand the 70th Week begins when the 69th ends, which is impossible with that 43 year gap.Core you're ignoring the verses in Daniel. The "covenant" was to be confirmed in the 70th week and it was.
The destruction of Jerusalem was pronounced by Christ to occur within that generation....and it was.

Christ died at the end of the 70th Week. That is a 7 year period. That eliminates Christ when his ministry was only 3.5 years.

And it says the Prince who comes with his men does the destruction. Titus was the prince and the Roman army was his men, not Christ's.
First seal is a rider with bow but no arrows. That is ancient symbolism of making peace without violence, a peace treaty. The He beginning the 70th Week makes a treaty for a period of 7 years, the exact duration of the Trib and 70th Week.Creative writing 101 Core?

Notice what the verse you're referring to DOESN'T say:
1. peace treaty
2. any mention of the 70th week.
3. no mention of 7 years.
4. no mention of tribulation.
But it is okay for you to read Christ into the 70th Week. Double standard.
Only through a misinterpretation can you reach that far fetched result.
Nope.
Christ does not break covenants, but the He who begins the 70th Week breaks the treaty mid Trib. You can't even produce one piece of scripture showing the AC confirming a covenant never mind him breaking it.
I did already. You just will not accept it.
He causes a AoD to be set up in the Temple, which in Revelation is described as a statue of the AC that comes to life and receives worship. Which fits Thes. saying he declares himself god on the throne of the Temple. Christ does not do AoD's.Christ described the abomination:
The words "abomination of desolation" come from Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14,

Matt: "When ye therefore[B] shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)"
Mt 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Mark: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:"

Luke "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Lu 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto".


Your misinterpretation of biblical verses has caused a false understanding of
biblical verses clearly demonstrating just what, exactly, the abomination that causes desolation is.
Nope. AoD's are referred to in the OT as well. They are what takes away the cleanliness of the Temple. You need to study more on that issue.

So it does not come from the NT. And it is in Daniel 9:27 as well.
Finally, neither Christ nor his people destroyed the Temple or Jerusalem, but another prince, Titus, did. You cannot get Christ out of anything in 70th Week statement in Daniel, so it isn't Christ. But, it does fit what the AC does in the Trib verses of Revelation. There is no other candidate but the AC.Core did God ever use a people to desolate Jerusalem in the past?
There you go changing words and contest. It says 'people of the ruler that comes.' Roman soldiers were not people of Christ.
Again, the Church Covenant is not the New Covenant of Hebrews. Paul deals with the Church in present tense and the New in future tense. So there will be a future covenant to Israel.We'll deal with this on another thread.

In the meantime we'll wait for some BIBLICAL verses showing the AC confirming a covenant. You say the TEN verses I listed do not pertain to such a covenant.
Again you dodge the tense of the Church Covenant versus the New Covenant. Present versus future tense is something you cannot overcome.

The verses you listed pertain to the Church and New Covanant, not the AC covenant of the 70th Week of Daniel.
Obviously your verses must be more clear than mine :snooty:
Try reading in modern English, not that archaic form no one uses today. They are a lot clearer and actually use the rules of grammar we use today. And the appropriate modern words :D

NIV and NASB are excellent, especially when cross read in study.

Really, Len. You have to read grammatically and by normal rules of grammar. You cannot swap out words you don't like or declare everything figurative because it does not appeal to your sense of reality.

Sure, no one gets it all ever, or much immediately. But after 47 years of study I still do not have to throw away literal to get meaning out of it. It is smooth, consistant and makes complete sense when one realizes we are not dealing with everything being governed by the Laws of Physics or our limited perceptions of what true reality is.

[Ltanner09]

I see Core has replied. In short I also see he's supplied no biblical verses but will address his points one by one. I have to work tomorrow, but will sacrifice some sleep to jump on this opening :)


I wrote:
Previously I asked Core to list clear biblical references to where the AC will confirm a covenant. I then listed 10 verses showing Christ confirmed a covenant.
Core replied:
Actually you listed for two different covenant. Neither of which is the one of the 70th Week. You are just claiming it is without any proof. In fact the grammar and context of Daniel 9 denies your claim.

Whether I listed 1, 2 or 10 I listed verses where Christ confirmed a covenant.
So far you're lacking by 10, but who's keeping score :)


I wrote:
Core produced zero.
Core replied:
Lame, Len. We all know the verses on the 70th Week and the first Seal. But if it makes you happy.

Oh yes. I'm happy and will address why later.


I wrote:
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' [a] In the middle of the 'seven' ...b... 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. [c] " [d]
Core replied:
One covenant for one 7 year period. That eliminates Christ immediately on that issue alone.

No, not FOR 7 years and see why next:

Core wrote:
And no, no translations says a covenant is confirmed within the 7 years.

Young's literal translation omits "FOR" seven years.
"FOR" was added by translators.
Daniel speaks of seven weeks, 62 weeks and one week. It is in the "one week" the covenant was to be confirmed.

Da 9:27 And he hath strengthened a covenant with many--one week, and in the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.'

The "one week" the covenant was to be confirmed wasn't 7 years in duration, but during the "one week" not covered in the previous 69 weeks.


Core wrote:
And finally, Christ's ministry was only 3.5 years, but you have him dieing after a 7 year active period.

No I have him being cut off in the 70th week, which is "after" the 69th.


Core wrote:

1I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, "Come!" 2I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.

Not Christ. Christ is always associated with a sword, not a bow. No arrow means by peace treaty. And this guys fails and dies at the end of 7 years, just as in the 70th Week verse.

No arrow means peace treaty? Who's spiritually interpreting verses?

Hmm, a bow is never used in a covenant from God with man? Guess Genesis is mistaken.

And the resurrected 24 are there at the opening. No one but no one except Christ has been resurrected to date.
Trying to make them from the tombs that opened fails because Paul clearly states, long after the resurrection, that no one but Christ had been resurrected and it is future event to all the saints, no exclusions.

Were we even talking about the elders? You jump all over the place in an effort to avoid my simple challenge, which was to simply produce some biblical verses showing the AC making a covenant.



I wrote:
Core contends the AC's covenant is with nations and Christ's is with individuals. Even so, he produced zero verses showing the AC confirming a covenant with "nations"

Core replied:

That is contained within the following verses and chapters in Daniel of the AC dealing with other nations. Plus, the AC is a king who was, and when you go through all the qualifiers that leaves Alexander, whose chief weapon of conquest was peace treaties. And he rode a white horse as well.

Huh? Core my question was simple.

Alexander rode a white horse? So what? He died thousands of years ago and is irrelevant here.

Christ rides a white horse, and (unlike you) I'll produce the relevant verse:

Re 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Both Daniel and John clearly declare the AC comes out of Mystery Babylon, which is laid out historically in Daniel from Babylon until reformed Rome, where John shows the AC beast as a composite of all the Beasts of Daniel.

:sigh:

Core will you PLEASE list a verse showing the AC confirming a covenant?
Your opinions are interesting but NOT RELEVANT to the question.

Literal Bible coupled with literal history. You have neither on your side, Len.

I'm sorry, but for the past few posts I'm the only one listing biblical verses while you're offering your opinion.

You also fail to deal with the fact that even your claims about the 70th Week having Christ in it demands a 43 year gap from the cross to 70 AD, where Christ was long resurrected.

No, the 70 weeks includes the covenant with many and does NOT include the desolation:.

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

The 70 weeks does not include the desolation.

Christ verified that the desolation, mentioned in Dan 9.

for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Daniel 9:24 instructs Daniel on what the 70 weeks is for and desolation is NOT IN the 70 weeks.

Christ pronounced the desolation of Jerusalem in the 70th week :

Mt 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Lu 13:35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.


No, Len, you failed here.

Good grief.

Core wrote:
You listed an eternal covenant as the 7 year covenant of Daniel's 70th Week. 7 years duration compared to eternal means not the same.
I replied:
AS I showed you previously, the covenant is WITHIN the 70th week not 7 years in duration. You theory is based on misinterpreting Dan 9:27.
Core replied:
You showed me a claim no linguist or translator agrees with. So you showed me nothing, in fact.

Hmmm.
I showed you a translation (Young's literal translation, in fact) that shows you're wrong.
Being a stickler for the literal I'd think you'l be performing cartwheels :)

Again, Christ's ministry was only 3.5 years long, period. And the one who dies at the end is at the beginning in a leadership role. Your time frame for Christ's ministry is erroneous.

Are you saying Christ wasn't at a leadership role at the beginning?

Mt 2:2 saying, `Where is he who was born king of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and we came to bow to him.'


I wrote:
Further proof that you're misinterpreting that verse is your inability to produce clear verses showing the AC's covenant anywhere else in the bible.
You have not proven it is Christ. Period.

Core replied;
Now read Daniel 11. The man Amils and others try to say is this person cannot be him because he was the son of the king of the land he ruled. This man is not, as the AC will be not.
And read the full passage of all he does, then read Revelation and the 70th Week. You have the events listed here there as well.

Core are you hitting the caffine? :(

I read the above 4 times. Is a decoder ring included with membership here?

All I asked for was one verse........oh. nevermind.

And it states the covenant he makes and breaks is with nations, since it is with nations that this covenant allows him to successfully invade by deceit. And says he makes the covenant with a prince, specifically.

Uh huh. Is there a verse included here that shows the simplest thing that could be asked for?

We go back 10 years, Core...there are times when it's needed to say " my interpretation is faulty. I was wrong. I MIGHT be wrong."

I know because I had to acknowledge my pre trib/pre mill teachings and understanding was, well, simply wrong. I couldn't produce the biblical proof that was asked of ME when requested.

Oh sure, my opinions were offered, but (despite checking all of the pre trib/pre mill scholars out there) I couldn't find one verse showing what I'm asking YOU for.

Read the whole passage. This is a ruler making covenants with other nations, including Israel, then betraying and invading Israel at Mid Trib.
Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Oh my; Core you're posting verses that speak to Antiochus ]a few thousand years ago.[/U]


You have posted not a single verse, historical reality or anything else backing your claims here, Len.

I posted 10 verses and didn't try using mirrors.

What you have posted does not meet the demands and historical realities. it is pure assumption that even goes so far as to say linquists and

translators got it all wrong. All of them.

I believe Christ quoted exactly what Daniel was told to relate to us.
I even listed the verses. All of them.
Point by point Christ taught us he was, indeed, fulfilling ....all of what Daniel was told to write.

Core wrote:
Further, the AC covenant is with nations, not individuals, while Christ is with individuals, not nations.

I replied:
Let's see it, show the details of such covenant, without forcing your opinion on the verses, as I have.

Core replied:
Look at the verses above.

I did. Antiochus is not a future Ac and he is not someone confirming a covenant with many. He's dead. Has been for thousands of years.

By the way, you cannot meet your own demands, since this is the only time and situation where a 7 year treaty is stated. Never associated with Christ directly in any way any where.

Um, I met the demands and provided all of the verses I need to satisfy anyone looking for an accurate answer.

Christ confirmed the covenant "with many". Christ quotes Daniel.
Christ was indeed cut off AFTER 69 weeks (in the 70th)

Core wrote:
And you still got the grammar wrong. Christ died at the end of the 69th but this 7 year covenant is from a man who lives the full 7 years of the 70th Week and dies at the end. Does not fly again.

I replied:

Christ died AFTER the 69 weeks, which places it...literally....within the 70th week.

Core writes:
No. After means next event is the death.

Don't believe I opt for sleep deprivation to argue this, but I am.

After the 69th week isn't death, but the 70th week.
Christ was cut off after the 69th week. A 6 year old can tell you that AFTER 69 is 70.

No one would assume after 69 is death, especially when the entire prophecy is for 70 weeks.
Daniel wasn't told of a gap.

Core wrote:
The He of the 70th Week dies at the end of the 70th Week after 7 years of many, many other events. So the meaning of after will not work. It would have to say something like sometime after, long after or such for your usage to apply. It does not.

Where, in the BIBLE does it say ANYONE dies after 70 weeks?


Core, you've lost it. Your opinions have replaced scripture.
This isn't like you, so I assume you're reaching. Your 70 week theory is faulty beyond damage repair, at this point.


Christ died about 27 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was 43 years later and the 70th Week still after 70 AD. But you demand the 70th Week begins when the 69th ends, which is impossible with that 43 year gap.

Dan 9:24 gives the specifics included within the 70 weeks.
Dan 9:27 was EXACTLY what Christ prophecied against Jerusalem, but WAS NOT included in Dan 9:24.


I wrote, for the umpteenth time:

Core you're ignoring the verses in Daniel. The "covenant" was to be confirmed in the 70th week and it was.
The destruction of Jerusalem was pronounced by Christ to occur within that generation....and it was.

Core replied:
Christ died at the end of the 70th Week. That is a 7 year period. That eliminates Christ when his ministry was only 3.5 years.

Uh, Christ died in the midst of the 70th week, 3 1/2 years into it.

And it says the Prince who comes with his men does the destruction. Titus was the prince and the Roman army was his men, not Christ's.

Who sent nebuchadnezzar to destroy Jerusalem? God.
Who sent Titus? God.

Core wrote:

First seal is a rider with bow but no arrows. That is ancient symbolism of making peace without violence, a peace treaty. The He beginning the 70th Week makes a treaty for a period of 7 years, the exact duration of the Trib and 70th Week.

I replied:

Creative writing 101 Core?

Notice what the verse you're referring to DOESN'T say:
1. peace treaty
2. any mention of the 70th week.
3. no mention of 7 years.
4. no mention of tribulation.

Core writes:
But it is okay for you to read Christ into the 70th Week. Double standard.[/quote]

My verses are biblical. Yours are a creation without biblical support.

Core writes, in reply to my verses on the AOD:

Really, Len. You have to read grammatically and by normal rules of grammar. You cannot swap out words you don't like or declare everything figurative because it does not appeal to your sense of reality.

Sure, no one gets it all ever, or much immediately. But after 47 years of study I still do not have to throw away literal to get meaning out of it. It is smooth, consistant and makes complete sense when one realizes we are not dealing with everything being governed by the Laws of Physics or our limited perceptions of what true reality is.

Core you can't even post any verses that support your position nor post any relevant verses to my questions.

I post 3 verses showing you what the AOD is, according to Matt, Mark and Luke...and you counter with...well, nothing biblical.

I ask for verses about the AC's confirming a covenant.
You post verses dealing with someone dead a thousand years before Christ is born.

I post 10 verses where Christ not only CONFIRMS a covenant, but QUOTES Daniel in doing so.

You have, well, your opinion.

Sometimes it's more important to defend a position instead of considering the position we hold could be in error.
Like I said earlier, I'm fully aware of that as I used to hold to your doctrine.

I used to defend it until, well, the biblical verses weren't there. No doubt an opinion could be weaved using a verse here and a verse there but when it comes time to tie them together, using biblical verses for what they truly say....the opinion becomes unraveled.

You cannot produce one verse about the AC confirming a covenant for one week because there AREN'T any. I knew before I asked. Been there.

Literal flies out the window when it's time to put the cards on the table.

If there was a literal "covenant with many" by an AC, you would be able to cite the verses. In fact you would jam them down my throat. :D

I posted 10 verses that contain "covenant with many", for "remission of sins" for "transgression".
All of which are mention in DANIEL 9 :24 All QUOTED by Christ..

Like I said when I came here, I'm not looking to change your opinion, but I sincerely hope your members will research these issues on their own.

[CoreIssue]

Len, time to end this one.

You post some verses about covenants and declare them the one in the 70th Week of Daniel and demand they are proof with absolutely no direct verse connections. I actually refer you to other chapters in Daniel and Revelation dealing with the context of the 70th Week and they are unacceptable because they do not use the exact wording you demand. That is a ridiculous double demand standard.

Hmmm. After the 70th Week the Messiah is 'cut off,' which can and does mean killed here. That you accept because it fits your doctrine. But, the HE comes to his end at the end of the 70th Week, which Revelation states is when the AC is cast alive into the Pit, but that is not acceptable as meaning his death. Wow! Double standard, again.

No translator says the covenant was during the 70th Week. All say a covenant for one Week. Yet you keep pushing what none accept as a proof you are right.
NIV
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.'
NASB
27"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week,
KJV
27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:
ESV
27And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week,
NKJV
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
And I could keep listing the rest translations and other issues.

All I will say is that in years of debating Amils, Post-Trib, Post-Mils, Idealists, Historicists, Preterists and others, all share one common trait. That being they all think they are gifted by the Holy Spirit with a deeper spiritual understanding of the Bible that requires having secret meanings revealed to them. Yet none of the different non literalists camps even slightly agree on the key issues. None have even the beginnings of literal proofs they can lay on the table to prove their claims.

I can lay out the literal verses using a literal dictionary by literal and normal rules of grammar. No secrets, just tons of data that require study to put together.

I even read Revelation in presented sequence and timing with no problems. :D

Let others jump in here if they wish. We are going to nowhere, like a dog chasing it tail. :tiphat:

[Jessie]

Again, in an effort to keep the posts to a minimum in length I'll start the debate off touching on only one aspect on why I believe Ezekiel's Temple will never be built to the extent that God would ever recognize it as "holy" or a "temple of God".

First and foremost is the pre millennial's belief that animal sacrifices will return.
Not only do they believe such abolished rituals will return but that they also believe those sacrifices will be approved by God himself.

"Sin offerings" are mentioned by Ezekiel on 14 occasions from chapters 40-48.

But Hebrews tells us:

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

In Christ sin is forgiven, but pre millers would have us believe that sin offerings will return and point to Ezekiel as their proof. Yet hebrews tells us that God has no pleasure in such sacrifices:

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.


Of course there are numerous additional verses that tell us that Christ is the only acceptable sacrifice, but in the interest of brevity I won't list them all, yet.

The pre mill argument for such sacrifices is astounding. In fact Core will be by to astound you with them.

this is not talking to the jews its to the church.
(which believing jew are part of)

of course Christ is the only acceptable sacrifice, but the jews will have none of it. so they want the old ways again.
the temple, sacrifices ect...

they do not accept Him. so they have no other alternative.

[Jessie]

What?

How do the verses in Eph apply to Ezek? Explain that please.Never said Ephesians applied to Ezekiel.

Now you've just lost me. One is speaking of literally of a literal temple the other is literally speaking about a spiritual temple.I've already mentioned these points early on in this thread. Ezekiel's temple was conditional upon Israel meeting the trems to build it. The instructions were given, Israel didn't comply.

What Israel failed to do, Jesus accomplished by building a more glorious temple.

I disagree... with your last statement.
I think the two go hand in hand.
we do live in both realms.

If isreal had built that physical temple, it would not have
taken away the spiritual temples which we are.

the two are separate. not a either or situation.

[Ltanner09]

You post some verses about covenants and declare them the one in the 70th Week of Daniel and demand they are proof with absolutely no direct verse connections.

Then you're not reading my posts.
Not only did I list the relevant verses, those verses QUOTED Dan 9:24 which directly relates to the 70 weeks.

I actually refer you to other chapters in Daniel and Revelation dealing with the context of the 70th Week and they are unacceptable because they do not use the exact wording you demand. That is a ridiculous double demand standard.

All you did was offer your theory without any verses that directly relate to the 70 weeks. That's not debating, that's arguing from silence.

Hmmm. After the 70th Week the Messiah is 'cut off,' which can and does mean killed here.

The first time you stated this I figured you were confused. Now I have to wonder what you're talking about. Messiah was cut off after 69 weeks, not after 70.

That you accept because it fits your doctrine. But, the HE comes to his end at the end of the 70th Week, which Revelation states is when the AC is cast alive into the Pit, but that is not acceptable as meaning his death. Wow! Double standard, again.

Only problem with your theory is you can't produce one verse that ties anyone dying after 70 weeks where it relates to any prophecy and any covenant.
All I will say is that in years of debating Amils, Post-Trib, Post-Mils, Idealists, Historicists, Preterists and others, all share one common trait. That being they all think they are gifted by the Holy Spirit with a deeper spiritual understanding of the Bible that requires having secret meanings revealed to them. Yet none of the different non literalists camps even slightly agree on the key issues. None have even the beginnings of literal proofs they can lay on the table to prove their claims.

As we've seen here, I call you on posting something literal and you cannot.
We have pages and pages of your opinion, but that's not debating.

I can lay out the literal verses using a literal dictionary by literal and normal rules of grammar. No secrets, just tons of data that require study to put together.

Take all of the time you wish. Produce all of the studies you can.
All I asked for was a verse that substantiates your claim, that an antichrist confirms a covenant with many.

You claim my verses aren't relevant, however they QUOTE Daniel which makes them quite relevant. In fact it's called proof.

I even read Revelation in presented sequence and timing with no problems

I believe that you believe that. And it's all based on your incredible misinterpretation of Daniel 9.

You believe in a covenant the AC confirms (without supporting scriptures) and use THAT faulty data to create a theory not supported anywhere in any of the books of the bible.

You can have the last word here. Unless you have any new info, specifically the info I asked for, I won't bother replying.

Just a reminder, page #2 on this thread clearly describes, point by point, Christ's fulfillment of Dan 9:24 (the 70 weeks).
The NT verses quote Daniel.

[CoreIssue]

Only comment I have is that I did a typo on the 70th Week. I meant 69th Week.

Other than that I have refuted you and shown you have a double standard on demands that I am suppose to meet but you do not have to.

Literal versus figurative is the real issue here. Problem with figurative is that it still ultimately demands a literal proof from somewhere, which you do not have. Otherwise it is your opinion, nothing more.