Posted on 06/05/2002 11:51:09 AM PDT by sheltonmac
I'm going to be rather tied up with school work etc. the next few days. Perhaps some more worthy than I will respond.
Blessings,
The World population did not reach 1 billion people until the 19th century. A 100,000,000 man army (before the 19th century) would have represented more than one-TENTH of the entire population of Earth!!
The point I'm making is, the 100,000,000 man army spoken of in Revelation could not have even been realisticly POSSIBLE until today.
As you point out, the "entire world watching" aspect of the Revelation prophesies would have been physically impossible before the advent of satellite TV.
We are living in the End Times now. The preterist "theology" cannot hold up under even the most casual reading of Scripture.
The bigger question is, who started this bogus "all prophesies are past" viewpoint, and what was their MOTIVE for doing so? Was it to discourage people from studying the Book of Revelation? For what purpose? Who directly benefits from people NOT studying or taking seriously the Book of Revelation?
None, he never changed his mind, all went according to God's plan.
The prophets foretold a suffering savior.
Yes, I agree, but nothing in Premillenial theology is violated with this. So what's your point?
The people tried to make Jesus King and He wouldn't have it.
No, "He came to his own and his own did not receive him". They did not truly want Jesus as their king, but they did want freedom from Roman oppression, but only on their terms. They did want the Roman empire to be violently overthrown.
Somewhere in there He must have decided to have an earthly kingdom because according to your reading He changes His mind when He was about to be crucified.
The plan of God was always for there to be a "church age" before the millenial kindom of the Messiah. Why were the disciples (in Acts) still asking Jesus when the kingdom would begin, even after the crucifixion, if there would not be a physical earthly kingdom in the future? Jesus did not tell them it was not coming, but he did say it's timing was none of their business.
Besides the fact that He explicitly said His kingdom was not in a place that could be pointed to, but within us.
Yes, because for those he was talking to and us, that is how we become part of the kingdom, since it a future event.
How many scriptures have to mean something other than what they say for you to keep your view?
None. Now why did Jesus put the now in his statement (from my previous post) if there would not be a later physical millenial kingdom. And why did you leave that part of the verse out when you quoted it? You are avoiding my point. You don't want to talk about the Scriptures that show Preterism to be a sham.
100,000,000 horses and soldiers in an age of jets and nuclear weapons?
The correct number is 200,000,000 and the only reference is in Rev 9:16. The next three verses in Rev 9:17-19 actually state
The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulfur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur. A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths. The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury.
John does not say they were in fact horses. He says what he saw in the revelation looked to him like horses. Not quite the same degree of specific certainty as has been discussed here.
Further, at present there are only about 67 million horses on the planet, of which about 11 million are presently in China and Mongolia. While God could start up a human managed breeding program (presumably in China), making some assumptions about the foal rate for horses starting at 11 million to reach 200 million, and about mare to stallion ratios, breeding age of mare and average lifespan, and feed stocks, puts a population of 200 million in China to be decades away.
I believe (given that scripture is silent on essential details) that this is to be interpreted literally, not symbolically, but that it is not actual "horses" as we presume them, but something else. What that something else is, literally, is open to much discussion, and I don't have any further insight to offer.
Sheltonmac states:
The Hebrews of the time would have never assumed that the fulfillment of those 70 weeks would be thousands of years in the future. Looking at the timeline of events that occured after Daniel's prophecy, we can see the 70 weeks culminating with the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. But in order for the still-future fulfillment interpretation to hold up, a gap had to be inserted into the text.
This is misstated. Yes, there is a 'gap' between Daniel's 69 weeks and the 70th week. However, Daniel's prophecy of 69 weeks beginning with the decree of Artaxerxes I given to Ezra was fulfilled with the baptism (anointing) of Jesus Christ (Dan 9:25). Dan 9:26 refers to the cutting off of the anointed one (Christ's crucifixion) which is after the 69 weeks, and not included in the 69 weeks. This has already been explained here, and elsewhere. Specifically then, the incorrect phrase above is 70 weeks culminating with the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. It was 69 weeks and did not include Christ's ministry, death and resurrection. Yes, those happened, but not as part of Daniel's 69 week prophecy, and not as part of the 70th week either, as the math obviously doesn't work.
(Sheesh Starwind! Get it together!)
Just real pushed for time the next few days.
ALL THOSE RISING TO THE TASK WILL BE MUCH APPRECIATED, ARE MUCH APRECIATED.
Would appreciate prayers, too, as I work to get housemate baptized. . . and my closing comments to classes the next 3 days of this last week of classes. . . and so much more but I'd best rush along.
BLESSINGS TO ONE AND ALL WHO LOVE THE LORD.
And now that the evil empire is history, rather than rejoicing in the mighty victories of our Warrior King, the doom mongers assiduously seek other villains to cringe before! Does not compute!
Yes. True. God will not be mocked. Nations are, and will be, judged on the basis of how they receive/treat the messengers of the gospel, the "brethren" of the Lord, those who hear and obey God's Word. (Matt. 25)
So, in your theological construct, the New Covenant is inferior to the Old Covenant. Abraham was able to embrace God's covenant for himself, and for his household, and for his descendents. Peter's pentecost proclamation preached that the blessings of the New Covenant were "unto you, and your children, and as many as the Lord shall call." However, in your theological construct, there is no room for entities such as families, churches, or civil governments. All that exists is the solitary soul, enrapt in exclusive communion with God. In your theological construct, there can be no such thing as a Christian nation, or church, or family. Just individual Christians.
Do I understand your position accurately?
I would be very surprised, especially since God is supernaturally bringing the Chinese people to Himself, at the rate of about 50,000 new converts a day.
But of course, you're not talking about Real Human Beings with eternal destinies and great value in God's eyes; just no-account spear carriers in some end-time action flick.
I challenge you to find a single passage of Scripture that refers to a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks. The fact is that there are none. What I find strange is that no premillennialist I have met has ever tried to argue in favor of a gap between the 7th and 8th weeks.
Let's take a look at a couple key portions of Daniel 9:
"There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" (v. 25).Again, nowhere in Scripture will you find a reference to a gap after week 69. Messiah is cut off after week 69, which is another way of saying he is cut off during week 70.
This gives breaks up the first 69 weeks into two sections, yet no one is arguing for a gap after week 7. Why? If there were no gap between weeks 7 and 8, why not say "69 weeks" instead of "7 weeks and 62 weeks"? But to the premillennialist there is an obvious gap after week 69."And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off" (v. 26).
All rightly assume that this is talking about an event occuring after week 69. Now, I learned to count at a very early age and, unless things have changed since then, 70 comes after 69. So, if 69 weeks transpire with one week remaining, and something occurs after week 69, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the event described occurs during week 70, the week that comes immediatley after week 69?
For some interesting reading, check this out:
Daniel's 70 Weeks—Future or Fulfilled?
"Chosen generation," "royal priesthood," "holy nation," "His own special people," "the people of God"..... Sounds to me like Peter is describing the church with the same adjectives used to describe Israel. I find it puzzling why so many people insist on focusing on God's plan for national Israel when it is the spiritual Israel that is promised God's blessing. Christ tore the temple veil in two. All believers now have access to the Holy of Holies. Our bodies are temples for God's Holy Spirit. Why would He wish to once again return to a temple made of stone?
Ok, here's just part of what happens in the 70th week:
Dan 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.Since the 69th is already shown to end with Christ's baptism 'about the age of 30' in 26 AD, and if as you argue, the 70th week immediately follows the 69th, and then please show the fulfillment of Dan 9:27 between 26AD and 33AD, the 70th seven. Please do cite the historically recorded events that occurred upon which you base your arguement.
Check out the article I linked to in post #256. The author gives a step-by-step fulfillment of the 70 weeks.
I did. The author does not show the fulfillment of Dan 9:27, the 70th week between 26AD-33AD. He claims it, but does not show it; he does not cite the historical events the would fulfill it. So again, if you would please do so?
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.