Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What About The Rapture?
The Witness ^ | 1980 | Curtis Dickinson

Posted on 06/18/2010 9:45:21 AM PDT by Ken4TA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-72 last
To: dartuser
Nice strawman here, the most illustrative yet. Replacement theologians call it the "secret rapture" (none of us pre-trib rapturists call it that) and then use scripture to show there is nothing secret about it ... well duh; vapid analysis at best, dishonesty at worst.

I'm amazed that you put forth like you understand the Gospels and the rest of the writings of the NT. You are far from understanding the OT and the NT's explanation of the prophecies of the OT.
You are saying that Jesus and the writers of the NT were building strawman arguments by referencing the OT and applying it to what they said! Amazing, that's all I can say. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for saying that our analysis is vapid at best and dishonest at the worst!

The covenant to Abraham is separate from the Mosaic covenant, no one is getting the two mixed up, except perhaps Curtis.

More strawman argument from you. How do you face yourself in the morning? Curtis (which I agree with here) is not mixed up at all - it is you that is saying he is even though his words are plain enough in showing that he does not mix up the two promises as you say he does! Ridiculous! Don't you understand what you read, or are you just itching for an argument?

Curtis says: But the promise to Abraham had nothing to do with the law nor with national Israel. Paul explained, “For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of Faith” (Rom. 4:13). Three things are revealed here: 1) That the promise has nothing to do with the law, 2) That it does have to do with inheriting the world, and not a mere fraction of it, and 3) The it is through faith, and not through racial descent. Jesus said that Abraham “rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56, cf. 8:44). Obviously Abraham understood that the promise that he was to be the father of many nations and that all families should be blessed through him was a promise concerning Christ and the salvation he would purchase for believers.

Again, notice how to the non-dispensationist, the interpretation of the OT text must be injected with the New Testament understanding of that text.

You in effect are calling Jesus Himself a non-dispensationalist, which I agree with. After all, it was Jesus Himself that brought up Abraham, saying that "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. (John 8:56, and also read verses 57-58!). Apparently you don't believe Jesus Himself! He injected His take on Abraham - so, he is a strawman builder? Ridiculous!

Not only that, but Curtis has also missed the entire point of what Paul was saying in Romans, i.e., justification by faith alone. He just keys on the word "law," finds a NT passage that contains the word "law," and tries to harmonize the two passages.

FYI, Paul does not say by "faith alone". Read Rom. 4:9-5:1 and weep. Curtis is exactly right in what he said in that article! It's just like saying that belief requires obedience to the Gospel - a fact that was first espoused by Jesus Himself in the Gospel: "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him" (John 14:21). Keeping Christ's commandments is obedience, and if you believe in Him you love Him and the Father.

The second highlighted section of Curtis' argument highlights what happens when you read the NT back into the Old ... you begin to insert ideas that are foreign to the text.

Curtis' statement is right on. It's exactly what Paul was trying to get across to his readers - which you apparently aren't. Curtis is actually putting in different words what the Apostel Paul was saying about Abraham Where in the text of Genesis 12 or 17 does it even remotely suggest that Abraham forsaw and understood that the covenant he made with God was really the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31?

I doubt that Abraham saw and/or understood that Jeremiah was going to write about a New Covenant. Jesus said that Abraham “rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56, cf. 8:44). Is that too hard to understand? Is what Paul said also to hard for you to understand? If not, then Curtis is right and you seem to be looking for an argument based upon a speculative theology of dispensationalism.

My patience has run out reading this stuff. Perhaps we should just rejoice that our names are written in heaven.

My thoughts exactly on what you wrote :-)

51 posted on 06/18/2010 9:14:44 PM PDT by Ken4TA (Truth hurts, especially when it goes against what one believes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA

“LIKE A THIEF. Several passages of Scripture mention Christ coming “as a thief in the night”

It’s important to emphasise that as Christians we are warned to be ready whenever He comes - we don’t have to watch out for signs & wonders, in fact Jesus Christ Himself was rather scathing about those who were looking for such. That state of readiness is the nature of the Christian life. His coming “as a thief” is for those who are not ready, ie those who don’t believe.

There is no 2-stage coming, merely 2 types of people. Those who are ready.......and those who are not.


52 posted on 06/18/2010 10:48:19 PM PDT by Diapason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216; Ken4TA

“Unlike Noah and Lot, we won’t be kept from the wrath and judgment of God upon the whole world. Curious because Jesus said that’s exactly what is going to happen. Luke 17:26-29; Rev 3:10. “

Luke 17 - the point there is that salvation and destruction there are simultaneous - as it will be at the end. He comes as a thief for those who don’t believe, those who are His are ready.

Rev 3 - This was written to an actual church extant at the time of writing. It is not a promise to all who believe. In fact John tells us in his Gospel that in this world we will have trials. The general idea conveyed throught the Bible is that God preserves His people THROUGH tribulation, not FROM it.


53 posted on 06/18/2010 11:01:17 PM PDT by Diapason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216; Ken4TA

“Well, start with And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: Daniel 9:26a. As you said, this is Jesus crucified that comes at the end of sixty-nine weeks. Up to this point, only sixty-nine weeks are accounted for and the commensurate 493 years is historically accurate. (Again, this is how we know Daniel’s prophetic time: one week prophetic time equals seven actual years.)”

No, it doesn’t say that Jesus is crucified at the end of 69 weeks, it says AFTER 69 weeks, ie during the 70th week - specifically half-way during that week.


54 posted on 06/18/2010 11:09:07 PM PDT by Diapason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dartuser; Ken4TA

“Replacement theologians call it the “secret rapture” (none of us pre-trib rapturists call it that) and then use scripture to show there is nothing secret about it ... “

Maybe you don’t call it a “secret rapture” but many Pre-trib rapturists DO call it that. I was brought up with the Plymouth Brethren so it’s something I am all too familiar with. I had major difficulty trying to convince my late Dad that the Bible never mentions a SECRET rapture - the Brethren had never even considered the possibilty. And the use of the word ‘replacement” is dishonest. The church is made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. No-one is being replaced. We are dealing with completion, not replacement.


55 posted on 06/18/2010 11:16:43 PM PDT by Diapason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Diapason
No, it doesn’t say that Jesus is crucified at the end of 69 weeks, it says AFTER 69 weeks,

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mark 8:31 Looks like Jesus rose "after" three days ON the third day.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: Daniel 9:26a. "After" 69 weeks ON the 69th week.

Jesus is crucified ie during the 70th week - specifically half-way during that week.

Another assertion with no backup or evidence.

56 posted on 06/19/2010 5:37:10 AM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA
Sorry, but right off that start you are mimicking the dispensational teachings of the Scofield Study Bible and the writings of all the "saints" of the dispensational viewpoint.

I wouldn't know, I've never studied any of that stuff and frankly couldn't care less what any of them say or don't say.

Jesus is crucified in the midst of the week: that week is the 70th week of the prophecy.

Come on Ken - an assertion without scriptural evidence and consistency is not really a valid argument.

57 posted on 06/19/2010 5:45:33 AM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Diapason

If you understand the tribulation to come, pretty much everyone in the world will be killed and except for a remnant of Israel, no one is going to make it through alive.


58 posted on 06/19/2010 6:00:57 AM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Diapason
“LIKE A THIEF. Several passages of Scripture mention Christ coming “as a thief in the night”

Right! As Jesus said, He would come as a thief comes to break into a house; one wouldn't know at what time that thief would come, so the owner of the house should be ready at all times. The return of Christ will be like a thief in the sense that we don't know when he will strike. We must watch at all times. But there is nothing in any of the thief passages to indicate that the event will be secret. See Mt. 24:43, 44; Luke 12:39, 40).
Instead of teching that Christ would return in a secret coming in the dead of the night, Jesus actually warned against this concept: See Mt. 24:23, 26, 27). In Mt. 24 Jesus stressed that men will not know the day or hour of his coming (v. 36). It will be like the days of Noah when people were eating, drinking and getting married, not expecting destruction to fall. They "knew not UNTIL the flood came and took tham all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (v. 36). The wicked didn't know util the flood came - but, it is very obvious that when it came they knew it! It was no secret event; it was observed by believeres and unbelievers (although it was only Noah's family that were the believers!).

There is no 2-stage coming, merely 2 types of people. Those who are ready.......and those who are not.

Exactly!

59 posted on 06/19/2010 8:51:51 AM PDT by Ken4TA (Truth hurts, especially when it goes against what one believes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
I wouldn't know, I've never studied any of that stuff and frankly couldn't care less what any of them say or don't say.

Amazing! You never studied the dispensationalist theory, yet mimick what they teach? Get real, what you said goes right along with what they say.

I said: "Jesus is crucified in the midst of the week: that week is the 70th week of the prophecy."

Come on Ken - an assertion without scriptural evidence and consistency is not really a valid argument.

"And AFTER threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be CUT OFF, but not for himself (FOR US!);" Dan. 9:26a

While Christians generally agree in the belief that the "seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks", that is, 69 weeks (483 years) MEASURED to the time of Christ, they don't all agree concerning the final week of the prophecy - the 70th week!

Dispensationalist insert a huge GAP of time (2000+ years) between the 69th and 70th week. We who believe that the whole 70 weeks are fulfilled also believe that 70 follows 69 in logical sequence.

Dispensationalists, and other futurist groups for the most part, say that the 70th week refers to the ANTICHRIST who will MAKE a covenant with the Jews, and after 3 1/2 years will BREAK that covenant. The fulfilled 70th week is just the opposite: the Messiah CONFIRMS the covenant that the Jews were under for the full 70th week. In the "midst of the (70th) week Messaih will be "cut off" - a word that means to be murdered or killed. Jeus confirmed the covenant during his ministry of 3 1/2 years, and the apostles continued to confirm it for another 3 1/2 years - only to the Jews, for Christ came to save the lost sheep of Israel. Then Cornelius was converted and the Gospel was extended to ALL men.

Enough! I'm going to write a real clear exegesis on Daniel's 70 week later today. I'll ping you to it when I post it. Look for it.

60 posted on 06/19/2010 9:21:08 AM PDT by Ken4TA (Truth hurts, especially when it goes against what one believes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA
You said: "Jesus is crucified in the midst of the week: that week is the 70th week of the prophecy." I said: Come on Ken - an assertion without scriptural evidence and consistency is not really a valid argument.

You're response: "And AFTER threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be CUT OFF, but not for himself (FOR US!);" Dan. 9:26a

Nothing here about Jesus being crucified in the midst of the week.

So far, I've given you copious scripture to back up what I'm saying, and basically you've given me nothing except irrelevant accusations about being in league with "dispensationalists" which is no argument at all whether true or not (not true by the way but doesn't matter).

I’ve certainly provided a preponderance of evidence, if not proof beyond a show of a doubt, of concurring scripture throughout the Bible whereas you have provided basically no scriptural evidence for your assertions. At least in civil court, I win.

What does it matter who “won”? That I’ve held on to my little doctrine better than you’ve held on to yours? I lose if I’m not an influence to seek God himself and not a pet doctrine. This I think is the issue: do we want our little doctrine to prevail or do we want to know God’s truth regardless of who espouses it?

61 posted on 06/19/2010 10:01:33 AM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA
Sorry, I'll not be able to do what you ask, for it is impossible to do.

I asked you to read and see if you can’t map:

1st 3 ½ years: Matt 24:4-14 with Rev 6:1-14:16.
Both begin with man’s deception (Jesus’ warning in Matt. and the false Messiah on the white horse in Rev. (interestingly many think this is Jesus but Jesus carries a sword not a bow)) and
both end with the gospel preached to all nations (Rev 14:6).

2nd 3 ½ years: Matt 24:15-31 with Rev 11:14-19:21.
Both begin with the world ruler tearing off his mask revealing himself to be the abomination of desolation in Matt. and Satan’s “beast” in Revelation (third woe and seventh trump) and
both end with the Son of Man coming in the clouds with power and great glory in Matt. and the heavens opening and the appearing of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:11-21).

Why is this impossible? I've already done a lot of it. I've got it laid out for you and much of the work already done.

62 posted on 06/19/2010 10:25:53 AM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA
Sorry my friend. I've asked you to look at scripture that I've painstakingly put together for you (but I've saved it for others later), and you reject it out of hand but you want me to pour over what you're going to put out later? Doesn't seem fair.

I'm disappointed because, as I've said, you've not addressed the copious scriptures I've given you, provided essentially none of your own, and used essentially doctrinal titles and people's names for your arguments.

The specific chapter and verse studies I've offered to you in Daniel, Matthew and Revelation are not five-minute or overnight efforts. It took me years. Check back in with me in a few months and let me know how its going.

63 posted on 06/19/2010 10:36:31 AM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
This is long - hope you read it all the way through.

Daniel 9:24-27

"And AFTER threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be CUT OFF, but not for himself (FOR US!);" Dan. 9:26a

While Christians generally agree in the belief that the "seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks", that is, 69 weeks (483 years) MEASURED to the time of Christ, they don't all agree concerning the final week of the prophecy - the 70th week!

Dispensationalist insert a huge GAP of time (2000+ years) between the 69th and 70th week. We who believe that the whole 70 weeks are fulfilled also believe that 70 follows 69 in logical sequence.

Dispensationalists, and other futurist groups for the most part, say that the 70th week refers to the ANTICHRIST who will MAKE a covenant with the Jews, and after 3 1/2 years will BREAK that covenant. The fulfilled 70th week is just the opposite: the Messiah CONFIRMS the covenant that the Jews were under for the full 70th week. In the "midst of the (70th) week Messaih will be "cut off" - a word that means to be murdered or killed. Jeus confirmed the covenant during his ministry of 3 1/2 years, and the apostles continued to confirm it for another 3 1/2 years - only to the Jews, for Christ came to save the lost sheep of Israel. Then Cornelius was converted and the Gospel was extended to ALL men.

What a difference we see here! One says it is future, the other fulfilled. We believe the fulfilled understanding is the correct view; that the 69th week led “unto Messiah”. In the “midst of the 70th week (3 ½ years) Jesus was “cut off” in death. His death on the cross was the perfect sacrifice and caused all other sacrifices to be of no value in God’s plan of salvation. Let’s look at what transpired.

1. Jerusalem was to be rebuilt, and the streets, walls and temple also. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah record what took place in that building process.

2. The Holy One, the Messiah, was to be anointed. This was Jesus! At John’s baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River God anointed Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (Luke 3:21-22). From the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah was to be 483 years (69 weeks). When this time was fulfilled, those who knew the prophecy were expecting the appearance of the Messiah, Jesus. Many thought John was the Christ, but he denied it (see Luke 3:15). When Jesus was baptized John cried out, “Behold the Lamb of God!” The time came for the 70th week to come into play at Jesus’ anointing.
He had appeared right on time with the prophecy of Daniel. Jesus, in evident reference to the TIME prophecy of Daniel, said: “The TIME is fulfilled” (Mark 1:15) and as the Anointed One He preached the gospel of the Kingdom. At the synagogue of Nazareth he said, “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has ANOINTED me” (Luke 4:18-22). In Acts 4:17 it mentions Jesus as the “holy one” that the Lord “anointed”. Then we recall that Peter mentioned that “God ANOINTED Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit…who went about doing good, healing all who were oppressed of the devil” (Acts 10:28).

Daniel’s prophecy revealed that the time unto the Messiah would be 69 weeks (483 years). This measured right up to the time Jesus was baptized and anointed to begin His ministry as the Messiah, the Christ, the “Anointed One.”

3. The Messiah was to be CUT OFF. That came AFTER the 69th week, which DOES NOT and CANNOT mean “in” or “during” the 69 weeks! If Christ was to be cut off AFTER the 69 weeks, there is only one week left in which that could happen – the 70th week; and that after 3 ½ years of it.
The term translated as “cut off” implies that Christ would not die a natural death; he would be murdered. Isaiah prophesied using these words: “He was cut off out of the land of the living” (Isa. 53:8). The details of how Christ was “cut off” can be found in the Gospels.

4. TO FINISH TRANSGRESSION came at Christ’s death. As Jesus was dying, he cried out, “It is finished.” No future sacrifice can finish transgression; it was completely FINISHED on the Cross (Heb. 9:15). “He was wounded for our transgression” (Isa. 53:5).

5. TO MAKE AN END OF SINS. This is tied together with finishing transgression by Christ’s sacrifice. This didn’t mean that man ceases to sin; rather, it means that forgiveness of sins no longer needs a sacrifice to be offered in ones name. It also doesn’t mean that one should still sin – heaven forbid! Jesus came to “save his people from their sins” and accomplished that feat when he “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Mt. 1:21; Heb. 9:26 – read Heb. 10:4-17).

6. TO MAKE RECONSILIATION FOR INIQUITY. Reconciliation is from the same term translated “atonement”. This also was accomplished at the Cross. (See Heb. 2:17; Col. 1:20-22; Eph. 2:16; II Cor. 5:19; Titus 2:14 and Isa. 53:6).

7. TO BRING IN EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS. Another accomplishment of Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross! Isaiah 53 needs to be read as it is a prophecy of this. The Apostle Paul puts it this way: “By the righteousness of one…shall many be made RIGHTEOUS…unto eternal life by Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17-21). See also Mt. 3:15; Heb.1:9; I Cor. 1:30; I Pet. 2:24; Rom. 3:21-26; II Cor. 5:21 and I John 2:29).

Just in view of these things, we absolutely do not see any basis for the futuristic teaching that none of these things have been fulfilled, but are to be linked with the supposed 70th week at the end of the age. To teach such borders on denial of Christ and what He accomplished at the cross!

8. HE SHALL CONFIRM THE COVENANT. This Christ did! Read Mt. 26:28 – the word “testament” and “covenant” are translated from exactly the same Greek word! Read also Hebrew 9:14-15, 8:6, 12:24 and Malachi 3:1. Jesus confirmed the covenant during his 3 ½ year ministry and was continued for the next 3 ½ years by the Apostles to only the Jews. Thus finished the 70th week. It then, with the conversion of Cornelius, went universal to all mankind on this world; and it continues today.
Daniel’s prophecy stated that Messiah would CONFIRM a covenant, not MAKE a covenant, for the 70th week. We then ask, during Christ’s ministry of 3 ½ years and the Apostles work for the next 3 ½ years, was this directed only to the LOST SHEEP of the house of Israel? We answer it in the AFFIRMATIVE – YES! Read Acts 3:25-26 and 13:46; then Paul’s remarks in Rom. 1:16.

9. HE SHALL CAUSE THE SACRIFICE AND THE OBLATION TO CEASE. This also was fulfilled in the death of Jesus on the Cross in the midst of the 70th week. Proof of this is seen in the time prophecy of Daniel that said the sacrifice would cease in the midst of the week – the 70th week, which followed the 69th week in succession. This was when Jesus died, for the 69 weeks measured UNTO MESSIAH and his death came after a ministry of three and one half years! This 3 ½ years are proven by the Gospel of John, wherein he makes mention of 4 Passover feasts – see John 2:13, 5:1, 6:4 and 13:1. John 5:1 does not mention Passover by name, but by taking John 4:35 about the “four months” into consideration, it is possible to determine that this was the feast of the Passover (see Charles Boutflower, In And Around the Book of Daniel, page 208).

10. The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. This part of the prophecy was not dated within it for this happened in 70 AD, 40 years after the 70th week.
Dan. 9:26 – “Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”
Dan. 9:27 – And HE shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week shall he cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”

Notice that verse 27 begins with these words: “And he…”. Just whom does the pronoun “he” refer to? This is important, really! There is not basis that this “he” refers to an Antichrist, for the Antichrist is nowhere mentioned in the context – even the term was not known at that time, for it seems that John in his letters had originated it when he wrote. The context DOES MENTION a “prince” whose PEOPLE would destroy the city and the temple. Since that did happen in 70 AD, we don’t see any reason to assume that the “prince” is someone who will live 2,000 years later.
Anyhow, we know that the pronoun “he” does not connect with the word “prince”, for the word “prince” is the object of the modifying clause “of the prince.” It’s well known that a pronoun CANNOT have as it antecedent the object of a modifying clause.
There is only one person that the “he” can refer to – the MESSIAH! It is the Messiah who is the subject of the passage and to whom the “he” refers.

Much more could be brought out to substantiate the fulfilled viewpoint as the true teaching of Daniel’s 70 week prophecy. However, this should suffice for the average student of the Bible. (Maybe you are not average, but then again, maybe the average ones really get the picture!)

64 posted on 06/19/2010 1:08:59 PM PDT by Ken4TA (Truth hurts, especially when it goes against what one believes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

65 posted on 06/19/2010 1:14:03 PM PDT by airborne (Why is it we won't allow the Bible in school, but we will in prison? Think about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
Why is this impossible? I've already done a lot of it. I've got it laid out for you and much of the work already done.

I've checked it out, and it's impossible to reconcile. Matthews "abomination of desolation" is not a person, but the army of Rome surrounding Jerusalem. What you said was interesting in that it gave me further insight into what you believe, that's all. A verse by verse exegesis would do you a lot of good; and would change your viewpoint - maybe.

66 posted on 06/19/2010 1:14:10 PM PDT by Ken4TA (Truth hurts, especially when it goes against what one believes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA
How have you checked it out? I gave you specific verse and chapter references paralleling at least four specific important points Jesus made in his sermon on the end of the world in Matt 24 with His Revelation to John of the end of the world. I basically gave you the outline to fill out for yourself. As usual I got nothing substantial back scripturally – just more assertions about how “impossible” it is and how you’ve “checked it out” and no scriptural proof of either.

I’ll leave it with you there. As I said at the beginning, I enjoy a benevolent and intelligent discussion of substance about this stuff and no agreement necessary. Unfortunately, you have failed to show anything of substance scripturally much less a preponderance of such to refute what I’ve provided here.

Ken, I wish you the best and pray His truth will always have the eminence in our hearts over man’s pet doctrinal stands.

67 posted on 06/19/2010 5:16:19 PM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA
Wow ... I don't quite know where to start.

What is the underlying content of the prophecy? Daniel 9:24 tells us ...

Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city ...

If you can't accept that "your people" is the nation of Israel and "your holy city" is Jerusalem then you are not able to grasp any of the content of this prophecy here. Though you made no mention of this in your post, I will assume you understand that much. Now ...

Let me repeat what you actually said ...

Jesus confirmed the covenant during his ministry of 3 1/2 years, and the apostles continued to confirm it for another 3 1/2 years - only to the Jews, for Christ came to save the lost sheep of Israel. Then Cornelius was converted and the Gospel was extended to ALL men.

So you have established that your position supports the notion that the 70th week concluded 3 1/2 years after the death of Christ and the prophecy was completely fulfilled.

This next part is critical, for here is where you MUST abandon literal interpretation. First, I'll give credit where credit is due. You did well interpreting the 69 weeks, you took them literally, as weeks of years in the context of the Babylonian captivity. You measured out the time, showed how it all adds up ... well done. But; theres a but. The text of Daniel 9:27 says ...

He will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering ...

Your problem is that the "He" cannot refer to Christ ... as the sacrifices did not literally stop in the middle of your 70th week with the death of Christ ... they literally stopped 40 something years later with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD! At this point you must abandon your literal interpretation of the 70 weeks of years and replace (theres that word again) a normal literal interpretation with something else. "He" in verse 27 cannot refer to Christ, despite your grammatical insistence.

And so now it's time for you to provide a quaint explanation of how this was really fulfilled in some spiritual sense, or perhaps you will just tell me I don't understand the NT. Feel free to indulge yourself.

I think we're done here ... but I really do wish you well in your quest for the truth, you will certainly not find it in the preterism of Curtis. Maranatha

68 posted on 06/19/2010 10:02:52 PM PDT by dartuser ("Palin 2012 ... nothing else will do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Your problem is that the "He" cannot refer to Christ ... as the sacrifices did not literally stop in the middle of your 70th week with the death of Christ ... they literally stopped 40 something years later with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD! At this point you must abandon your literal interpretation of the 70 weeks of years and replace (theres that word again) a normal literal interpretation with something else. "He" in verse 27 cannot refer to Christ, despite your grammatical insistence.

Actually, that grammatical explanation is not mine; it came from a college professor who teaches the Greek Koine language to students: he is not the only professor who does so, for I checked more than one before adding their explanations to the notes I keep on this issue.

What I responded to those who question Curtis' article is entirely to brief to do justice to the subject. I have omitted the weight of argument which could be presented from leading Bible scholars who reject dispensationalism concepts in favor of harmonious end-time teachings. If your really interested in what others have to say on this subject you may find some value by reading the various books written by those of all persuasions on this topic.

My desire is not to just answer or reply to critics but to edify the readers of these threads, to clarify the subject and to strengthen faith in the gospel of redemption and the blessed hope, to the glory of Jesus Christ our Lord who reigns in the hearts of those who believe in him in the present.

But; theres a but.

Definitely! There always is, regardless of a persons viewpoint; and that person who is really partisan will respond in the negative virtually all the time - these posts prove this comment.

I think we're done here ... but I really do wish you well in your quest for the truth, you will certainly not find it in the preterism of Curtis.

Okay, if you say so. However, others may not agree. As for Curtis' articles, I have communicated to him that I don't always agree on everything he writes. I doubt very much that I ever agree with everything anyone writes; I examine, figuratively with a microscope, everything anyone puts forth as the truth - as you have found out :-) God bless you for your interest in the topic.

69 posted on 06/20/2010 5:01:57 PM PDT by Ken4TA (Truth hurts, especially when it goes against what one believes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA
Actually, that grammatical explanation is not mine; it came from a college professor who teaches the Greek Koine language to students

Not sure why you would consult a Koine Greek expert when the original language of Daniel is Aramaic ... I suppose he would comment on the Septuigent ... but that is one language removed from the original. But that doesn;t matter, each of us can produce expert testimony to support our positions. I have read most dispensational authors ... like you, some I agree with ... and some I think are out to lunch. I have also read Ladd, Gentry, Sproul, and have even painstakingly made my way through some of DeMars material; which isn't easy to do without stirring up righteous anger.

My desire is not to just answer or reply to critics but to edify the readers of these threads, to clarify the subject and to strengthen faith in the gospel of redemption and the blessed hope, to the glory of Jesus Christ our Lord who reigns in the hearts of those who believe in him in the present.

Well said ... our purpose in continuing the dialog is that same. At each point, as you have, my intent is to compare and contrast not only the doctrinal differences, but how those particular theological positions are arrived at ... when I see something I disagree with, and I feel passionately about it ... I will cry foul and explain why.

I see you have posted another article ...

70 posted on 06/20/2010 5:32:52 PM PDT by dartuser ("Palin 2012 ... nothing else will do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
I suppose he would comment on the Septuigent ... but that is one language removed from the original.

I have no doubt that he would examine the Septuagent as it is a translation of the books used by the Israelits of the first century.

At each point, as you have, my intent is to compare and contrast not only the doctrinal differences, but how those particular theological positions are arrived at ... when I see something I disagree with, and I feel passionately about it ... I will cry foul and explain why.

That is sufficient reason to respond - for both of us. Thanks for agreement on this part. Check out that new thread I just posted...you may find it interesting in more ways than one..:-)

71 posted on 06/20/2010 5:43:20 PM PDT by Ken4TA (Truth hurts, especially when it goes against what one believes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA
Yes, I have made a short reply ... but I really went back to the previous article.

Can't wait until we get to Matt 24 ... THAT will stimulate some interesting discussion points.

72 posted on 06/20/2010 6:37:49 PM PDT by dartuser ("Palin 2012 ... nothing else will do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-72 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson