SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : End of 69th week

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

How do you justify making the Scripture say this:

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the Messiah that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

You say this if you make the "he" in Dan 9:27 as the Messiah as you, then, make the Jews that distroyed the Temple in A.D.70.

 2007/4/5 17:09Profile









 Re: Be free from the last days madness

Quote:
Certainly, Acts 2:16-18 & Joel 2:28-29 have come to pass, however Acts 2:19-20 & Joel 2:30-32have not come to pass.

We know that the first part of Joel's prophecy above began to be fulfilled at the day of Pentecost "in the last days." At Pentecost, God first poured out His Spirit, enabling believers to prophesy, dream prophetic dreams and to see visions.

But what about the other part of Joel's prophecy? When did the earthly and heavenly wonders take place? When were there blood, fire and pillars of smoke? And when did the sun turn into darkness and the moon into blood?

To solve this supposed difficulty, it is very important that we notice that there is no break in this passage that would indicate that there was to be a 2,000-year gap between the pouring out of the Spirit, and the earthly and heavenly wonders. Many say that there is an approximately 2,000-year "gap" in Joel's prophecy, because "those things simply didn't happen" on the day of Pentecost, nor even afterward. Is this argument biblical? Let's see:

The "last days" were the days in which the writers of the New Testament and the original readers were still alive. That the "last days" ended when the old-covenant age came to an end. Now Peter said that the earthly and heavenly wonders were to be shown "in the Last Days," so it must follow therefore that those wonders were to be shown in the 1st century.

The heavenly "wonders" involving the Sun and the Moon are not to be taken literally, as many understand them. They are to be understood metaphorically, for this reason: The Old Testament usage of such language demands that we understand them that way. We see from the old testament that God used such expressions referring to His judgments on peoples. For instance, after the Lord delivered David from the hand of his enemies and from the hand of Saul, David praised God, saying,

Quote:
...The earth shook and quaked; and the foundations of the mountains were trembling and were shaken. ...The channels of water appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid bare. (Ps. 18:7,15)



Those things did not literally happen when God delivered David. David was speaking metaphorically in the spirit, like all the prophets have done.(the scriptures are inspired) In Isa. 13:10,13, we read about God's judgment on ancient Babylon:

Quote:
For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the Sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the Moon shall not cause her light to shine. ...I shall make the heavens tremble, and the Earth will be shaken from its place.



That prophecy was non-literally fulfilled when Babylon fell to the Medes in 539 B.C. In Eze. 32:7,8, Ezekiel lamented over Pharaoh king of Egypt, saying:

Quote:
I will cover the heavens, and darken their stars; I will cover the Sun with a cloud, and the Moon shall not give its light. All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you and will set darkness on your land, declares the Lord God.



That prophecy was also non-literally fulfilled in 530 B.C., that is: the language used was figurative, "covering the heavens" and "darkening their stars", and was an indication of God's judgment upon Egypt.

Whenever God sent a foreign army to invade a people, it could be said that the "heavens" of those people was being darkened above them, and that their "earth" was being shaken. Essentially, God "rocked their world."

Now on the day of Pentecost, Peter said, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." The meaning of Peter's words here is that ALL of Joel 2:28-32 was taking place on that very day of Pentecost, that on that very day God was beginning to darken Israel's Sun and to turn her Moon to blood.

I am going to stop here and allow this to digest, that is if anyone wants to be enlightened.

Someone said once on this forum that why just use one book of the bible to explain a subject, the answer to that is that all the books can be used, however the next question would be, are you going to sit all day long on SermonIndex reading one post, page after page of reading? I think not, even I get bored with reading a long post.

Com

 2007/4/5 19:39









 Re:

Quote:
Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah 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.



Messiah shall be cut off, then the people of the prince will come to destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Why can't you see two purposes in this verse? One is that of Yeshua Messiah, and the other is the "people of the prince".

Is there anyway that you can elaborate your findings Logic??

I have the answer for you, but I need to know what your saying.

 2007/4/5 20:01
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:

Compliments wrote:
Messiah shall be cut off, then the people of the prince will come to destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Why can't you see two purposes in this verse? One is that of Yeshua Messiah, and the other is the "people of the prince".

Is there anyway that you can elaborate your findings Logic??

I have the answer for you, but I need to know what your saying.


JaySaved is saying that the people of the prince are the people of the Messiah because the prince is the Messiah.

That would mean the Jews destroy the city and the sanctuary v.26 when in fact the romans did.

JaySaved is saying that the "he" in V:27 is the Messiah, if so, then the people of the prince must be the people of the Messiah the Jews.

However, in context, the people of the prince are the people of the Roman because they are the ones who destroyed the city and the sanctuary.

That would make the Prince Titus and the "he" in V:27 would be the Prince of the Romans.

 2007/4/5 22:27Profile
lovegrace
Member



Joined: 2006/8/12
Posts: 313


 Re:

JaySaved, and to anyone else that was involved in this discussion before page four.

I've been trying to check my priorities and where they lie resently and I feel that God is telling me 'to stay in the books'. I have a chance to witness to a few people at my work about evolution and how science really looks at it. Well, I'm completely ignorant on this topic and that's where the 'books' come in.

I'm currently reading two and hopefully going to be listening to numerous hours of preaching/teaching to be well-rounded on this topic before I go stating anything.

In conclusion, I really enjoyed talking about these 70 weeks but God is leading me elsewhere to dedicate my time. I hopefully, in the future, will be coming back to this thread to see what the final conclusion was.

Thanks and God bless.

 2007/4/6 2:06Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
JaySaved on 2007/4/5 14:39:00
Also, maybe Ron Bailey can help us understand why the Prince in one verse is capitalized and it is not in the other, does Hebrew or Aramaic have capital letters?


There would be no such distinction in the original language. This is just the translators interpreting the word 'Messiah' to mean Christ and out of respect giving the word Prince in verse 25 a capital letter.

The next phrase is actually referring to 'the people of a coming prince'. It also specifies that the 'people of that coming prince' will destroy both the city and the sanctuary. This was accomplished in AD 70 and from that time there has been no 'sanctuary' in Jerusalem.

In English pronouns are usually identified by their proximity to the noun that they represent, so that 'he shall confirm the covenant' would seem, in English, to be referring to the 'prince' of verse 26.

If we slavishly follow the pattern of making the pronoun represent the closest noun we can find some curious statements...“And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.”(2Kings 19:35 KJVS) :-D :-D


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/4/6 8:14Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

To the best of my knowledge, I don't think I ever said that there were not two princes mentioned in the Daniel prophesy. I know that it was the Romans who destroyed the Temple not the Jews. What I am saying is that the HE that makes the covenant is the Messiah, not a future secular one world government ruler.

Thanks Ron for lending your expertise.

Thanks for the discussion lovegrace, always go where God is leading you!

 2007/4/6 10:51Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
JaySaved wrote:
What I am saying is that the HE that makes the covenant is the Messiah, not a future secular one world government ruler.


BUT, in context, the "He" that "shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" is the prince of the people that destroy the city and the sanctuary.

How are you getting that the "he" is the Messiah?

If the "he" is the Messiah, then that would make the "prince of the people" the Messiah, and therefore, the Jewes destroy the city and the sanctuary.

 2007/4/6 11:42Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
BUT, in context, the "He" that "shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" is the prince of the people that destroy the city and the sanctuary.



I disagree. See Ron's last response.

 2007/4/6 15:03Profile









 Re:

Quote:
If the "he" is the Messiah, then that would make the "prince of the people" the Messiah, and therefore, the Jewes destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Actually the wording is "the people of the prince" not the other way around.

Ok, lets say that the prince is the Messiah in an INDIRECT way. Lets say that the prince is working for the Messiah. Would that be absurd? Can God use Rome to accomplish His will?

Don't misconstrude my words, I didn't say that the Messiah was the prince, rather that this prince can be used by God to accomplish His will.

Since your not making sense in your reasonings, I thought I do the same thing with mine. I have an answer for you, but you need to be reasonable in your theories. Are you willing to be teachable?? If not, this thread is dead to me. :-?

 2007/4/6 15:09





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy