The Easter Debate ~ Lion and DDW on Eschatology (HOF thread)

[Lion]

Dee Dee, excellent points made so far, and thanks for the definition of your views.

It’s funny how close our theologies are. The Acts 9 dispensational, open view theology agrees with your first and third points completely. I do have a problem with point number three however. The problem comes with the idea that the destruction of the Temple limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame. If the tribulation period was stopped prior to the destruction of the temple, then the later destruction of the temple has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the timeline. However the destruction of the temple does prove problematic for your side, as I will show in a moment.

We Acts 9, dispe, OVer’s believe that the tribulation period began immediately following the crucifixion, but was discontinued due to Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah.

Here’s the problem with the destruction of the temple that I referred to earlier. I assume you believe in the 70 week prophesy stated by Daniel? If so, how do reconcile that the 69th week was to be immediately followed by the 70th week. In other words, Why didn’t the 7 year tribulation begin immediately after the death of Messiah as prophesized?

Moderator Note: Gavin is back and as this discussion has progressed quite some length I have given it the honor of it's own thread continuing from here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4676&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)

[smilax]

Interrupting again...Originally posted by Lion
We Acts 9, dispe, OVer’s believe that the tribulation period began immediately following the crucifixion, but was discontinued due to Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah.Sounds like an argument from silence.In other words, Why didn’t the 7 year tribulation begin immediately after the death of Messiah as prophesized?I can't speak for her, but I personally do not think what Daniel calls "one week" (the seven-year Jewish War) is the seventieth week, but rather a period of time detached from the seventy. And Jesus progressively revealed this to be within a generation (forty years) of the fulfillment of the seventy weeks.

[Dee Dee Warren]

For the record while I am working on a response to Lion.. I oppose any detachment of the weeks. My answer will not include such a manuever. I hope that Smilax reads what I write and reconsider his position.

[Lion]

Smilax-You said; Sounds like an argument from silence. In response to my statement about the tribulation period (the time of Jacob’s trouble) starting and then ending. I wasn’t giving proof of that statement at that time, just stating what we believe for the record, (after all we are not futurists).

As to your second point, about the 70th week not following the 69th week, I think I will let your colleague work on that since she seems already to have a more believable answer in waiting.

[Lion]

DD-(You know your moniker is the same as one of my boyhood super heroes-Dare Devil).

I know you are busy (lots of moderating, posting, and probably trying to deal with Christmas shopping and every day living as well), so no hurry. I like that you didn’t try the interruption theory, of the 70 week prophesy, at the get go.

Talk soon.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

I had one other project which I just finished up so I can begin to concentrate on answering your post. I don’t usually have a lot of time during the week to write substantive responses, so I expect that I will not be able to post anything until this weekend, I just wanted to let you know. Also, your response is different from what I usually tackle, so it does take some reflection as I do not care to give “shoot from the hip” responses. I am looking forward to dialoging with you.

[Lion]

DD-Great. I had some surgery recently and have some time on my hands, but usually am swamped, so I know how it goes. In fact I am amazed at how you can find the time to post and research as much as you do. You must be a speed-reader, and much faster at typing than I am.

So whenever you get the time, we’ll talk.

[novice]

Originally posted by Lion
DD-Great. I had some surgery recently and have some time on my hands, but usually am swamped, so I know how it goes. In fact I am amazed at how you can find the time to post and research as much as you do. You must be a speed-reader, and much faster at typing than I am.

So whenever you get the time, we’ll talk. Ahhh... how cordial for a big scary Lion. :)

Come on......... duke it out already!!!! ;)

[Lion]

Did somebody step on my tail…..who was it? Tell me….I’ll beat em up, I’ll beat em up, wuf wuf!

[Knight]

Originally posted by Lion
Did somebody step on my tail…..who was it? Tell me….I’ll beat em up, I’ll beat em up, wuf wuf! Uhhh.... I think Jaltus stepped on your tail.

Yea....

I am sure of it. Jaltus stepped on your tail.

[Lion]

I’m sorta hungry, perhaps a late-Knight snack?

[drbrumley]

Lion,

Long time , no see. Glad to see you back!

[Lion]

Hey Doc, good to be back.

[Jaltus]

Hey, is Knight talking about me behind my back?

Or should that be in front of my back?

Hmmm, either way doesn't really work.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Hey, is Knight talking about me behind my back?Of course I am!

What are good antagonists for?

[Knight]

Dee Dee.. excellent strategy... lull your opponent to sleep. :D

[Jaltus]

What are good antagonists for?


Family reunions?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

Phew! I have finally found the time to dedicate to answering your post.

Dee Dee, excellent points made so far, and thanks for the definition of your views.

Thank you very much :)

It’s funny how close our theologies are. The Acts 9 dispensational, open view theology agrees with your first and third points completely.

To recap that would be:

PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.

PROOF NUMBER THREE:The other “near” temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for “this generation,” specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23.

I do have a problem with point number three however.

I believe you mean point number two as follows:

PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.

and as an aside.. you did not comment on point number four which was:

PROOF NUMBER FOUR: The context of the Olivet Discourse is a clear first century Judean context, NOT the “end of the world” it is made out to in modern prophecy thought.

And might I add that point number two is the kicker, so I think that any disagreement on that point really renders any agreement that you and I have on points one and two merely academic.

The problem comes with the idea that the destruction of the Temple limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame. If the tribulation period was stopped prior to the destruction of the temple, then the later destruction of the temple has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the timeline. However the destruction of the temple does prove problematic for your side, as I will show in a moment.

I will reserve comment so that the flow of your point is not missed.

We Acts 9, dispe, OVer’s believe that the tribulation period began immediately following the crucifixion, but was discontinued due to Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah.

Again, comment is reserved.

Here’s the problem with the destruction of the temple that I referred to earlier. I assume you believe in the 70 week prophesy stated by Daniel? If so, how do reconcile that the 69th week was to be immediately followed by the 70th week. In other words, Why didn’t the 7 year tribulation begin immediately after the death of Messiah as prophesized?

Okay there are several issues packed in here that I will need to tackle. The big one is the idea that the destruction of the Temple falls within the 70th week of Daniel which should follow immediately after the 69th week. However, since the destruction of the Temple did not happen until about 40 years or so after the 69th week, how do I extricate myself out of this pickle without inserting an arbitrary gap in the weeks?? The other issue would be the assumption contained within your response that the 70th week of Daniel is synonymous with the period of the Great Tribulation… an idea which I reject.

First a caveat… I readily confess that while I am familiar with dispensationalism in general, having once been a dispensationalist myself, I am honestly not that familiar with the particular “flavor” of dispensationalism that you hold to, so I may make some improper assumptions, and I beg your forgiveness in advance if I do. I understand that a copy of the seminal book expounding upon this view is on its way to me, and I am grateful for that.

Judging by your comments, you appear to not be so enamored with the insertion of a gap into the weeks as well. That though, seems to be in conflict with the implied assertion in your post to me that the destruction of the Temple must fall within the 70th week, and that the 70th week represents the period of the Great Tribulation, for then even in your view.. it appears that you must posit some sort of gap, though you may entitle it an “interruption”… a rose by any other name… ;)

So briefly… here is my chronology of the 70 weeks… I will provide further defense and detail as needed (I am not going to deal with the dating of the beginning of the countdown, unless you find that necessary.. we are probably pretty close in agreement on that). To start… here are the “goals” of the 70 weeks, i.e. the objectives to be accomplished within that time frame:

Daniel 9:24 – “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.”

The first thing we notice here is that nowhere is the destruction of the Temple mentioned as one of the goals of the 70 weeks, it simply isn’t there However, the things that are mentioned as the goals were accomplished within the specified time frame all in the first century, in and surrounding Christ’s ministry. I was going to post specific proofs of those, but decided against it unless those are at issue.

Thus in my view, the 69th week ends with Christ’s baptism (the anointing of the Most Holy). The 70th week immediately followed without delay. Christ’s ministry lasted three and one-half years, and then He was cut off in the midst of the 70th week. The completion of the remaining three and one-half years of the 70th week after the Cross marked the end of the specific focus of the Gospel preaching to ethnic Israel (“You shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samarian and to the end of the earth.” Acts 1:8). The focus from that point on became the Gentiles and the opening of the Kingdom to them en masse. Acts records this progression. The opening chapters focus on Jerusalem, rippling out into Judea, and then Samaria, and then out into Gentiles with the conversion and ministry of Paul.

Thus in short, I see the destruction of the city and the Temple of the first century as a consequence of the 70 weeks, but not falling within the 70th week at all. I abbreviated this response, opting instead to see what areas you specifically question.

Now on to the other issue of your post which was your objection to my point that the destruction of the Temple then standing limits the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse to the first century. I frankly don’t see any way you can’t meaningfully get around this issue. Here is specifically what you said:

The problem comes with the idea that the destruction of the Temple limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame. If the tribulation period was stopped prior to the destruction of the temple, then the later destruction of the temple has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the timeline.

We Acts 9, dispe, OVer’s believe that the tribulation period began immediately following the crucifixion, but was discontinued due to Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah.

With all due respect, both of these statements are impossible. I have to tighten up some terms here so that both of us are clear on what is being said. When I use the phrase “tribulation,” I am not going to be referring to general tribulation (which is with us always) or the various tribulative (is that a word?) precursors to the Great Tribulation, but rather I will use the word specifically to refer to the three and one-half year period of time which I hold occurred from 66AD-70AD. It appears that you may be using a looser definition of the word in your comments, but at this point, it is difficult for me to discern.

The Great Tribulation was the judgment response of God to the Jewish rejection of, and murder of, their Messiah. That being said, there would be no reason to discontinue this punishment because they continued along the same path of rejection that was brining the punishment in the first place! That would be akin to a parent suspending the grounding of their children because they continued to be bad while confined to their room.

I do not deny that there is implied conditionality to all prophecies of judgment (and of blessing); however, this conditionality is logical, just, and clearly defined in Scripture.

Let’s take a look at the passage from this is derived.

Jeremiah 18:7-11 – The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”

There are a lot of interesting things here.

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.

This portion teaches that the threats to destroy and pull down and pluck up are God’s response to the evil that a nation has done. If that nation then turns from its evil, God will not bring the disaster upon it.

And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

God here speaks conversely to the truth already taught. Just as he will prosper an “evil” nation that turns from its evil, he will destroy a “good” nation” that turn from its good. In other words in this passage God is not talking about blessing an evil nation… it is presumed that when the blessing is pronounced, the nation is good, but if it turns evil, then the blessing is withdrawn.

The relevance to this discussion is apparent. At the time that Jesus spoke the Olivet Discourse, He was not speaking of a “good” nation upon whom He was now going to pronounce some blessing, He was speaking of an evil nation that would soon demand that He be crucified rather than a murderer (Mark 15:11 Matthew 27:21), cried out for His blood to be upon them and upon their children (Matthew 27:25), and pledged allegiance to no king but Caesar (John 19:15). They did not repent from those ways but continued in them, thus, even under the rubric of conditionalism there is no way out. The Great Tribulation was a first century event.

And continuing on the “escape” clause in prophecy, it is also apparent that this is only valid when the reaction of the people prophesied about is not also the subject of the prophecy. For example, when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, not only did He tell Moses what to say, and what the consequences of Pharaoh’s refusal would be, He also told Moses that Pharaoh would in fact refuse. That closes any escape hatch. God has spoken the whole thing. Likewise, the rejection of Christ by the Jews (except for a Remnant, which is all that ever really existed as the people of God to begin with) was also foretold. Their rejection was certain and prophesied. I can see no way out of this fact.

This then brings us back full circle to my contention that that the destruction of Temple then standing completely and irretrievably limits the fulfillment of the Discourse (at least up to Matthew 24:34), and if my points above are correct, this point still stands. Of course, there are other ways I can argue that point as well (i.e. the fact that Jesus made it undeniably clear what Temple was in view in His prophecy making any future “fulfillment” impossible) but at the admonition of Knight that I was not asked to write dissertation (smile), I shall stop here, and so look forward to your comments and interaction.

[Lion]

DD- I will try and take your points in order.

First; you are correct, I did mean point number two, thanks for the correction.

Second; The reason I didn’t mention point number four is because it wasn’t up before I started responding to your other points, however while I agree that it is clearly a first century prophesy, I might have an issue with it not being the end of the world (age), (won’t go into that now though).

Third; You make the statement that the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem are nowhere mentioned in the 490 year prophesy. It is not stated in verse 24 but it is clearly stated in verse 26;Dan 9:26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Fourth; You believe the 69th week ends with the baptism of Christ;
Thus in my view, the 69th week ends with Christ’s baptism (the anointing of the Most Holy). The 70th week immediately followed without delay.
You stated earlier that we probably are pretty close on the time line of Daniel’s 70 week prophesy, and perhaps we are, but apparently not close enough.
I believe the verses clearly show that the 69th week ends with the death of Christ and that the Great Tribulation started immediately after that.
Let’s look at the prophesy;Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.
(Notice that they are not necessarily in order and that the anointing of the Holy One is only stated to be within the 70 week timeframe.)

Daniel’s prophesy in this verse, sets a time of 490 years to accomplish all the events mentioned above for Israel, her people and Jerusalem. The next verse tells when the 490 year period begins;
Dan 9:25 “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks (49 years) and sixty-two weeks (434 years) (49 + 434 = 483 years); The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
This portion of the prophecy states that the command to rebuild Jerusalem will be given and that the 490 year period will begin with that command. The next verse is where the Preterist’s theology breaks down, stating that the Messiah will appear after 483 years and be killed (not baptized).
Dan 9:26 “And after the sixty-two weeks (483 years) Messiah shall be cut off (killed), but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
The 62 weeks mentioned above, plus the 7 weeks from the previous verse, show that the Messiah would be killed 483 years after the order to rebuild Jerusalem, at the end of the 69th week.
That leaves only the last (the 70th) week, so let’s look at the next verse;
Dan 9: 27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”
This seven year (1 week) period, is Daniel’s 70th week. The Great Tribulation. The Time of Jacob’s Sorrow.

So these two points are where I see the flaw in the Preterist’s theology. (1) The death of Christ (not the baptism) ended the 69th week, and the 70th week started immediately after, but was stopped, due to Israel’s rejection of her Messiah.

(2) The destruction of the sanctuary, (the temple), and the city, (Jerusalem), which is clearly seen to happen during the 70 weeks, and not as some type of result of the Tribulation period, forty years later. The Biblical timeframe does not fit the Preterist’s scenereo, but works perfectly with the Acts 9 Dispensational scenereo.

One last point. You said; Judging by your comments, you appear to not be so enamored with the insertion of a gap into the weeks as well. That though, seems to be in conflict with the implied assertion in your post to me that the destruction of the Temple must fall within the 70th week, and that the 70th week represents the period of the Great Tribulation, for then even in your view.. it appears that you must posit some sort of gap, though you may entitle it an “interruption”… a rose by any other name…
Hmmmm…. You may be right, in a way. However I don’t see it as a “gap” or an “interruption”, but rather that it was stopped. Cold. The events outlined in the 70th week will still happen. But not when prophesied.
The Great Tribulation started after the Crucifixion of Christ (numerous signs of the Great Tribulation are present in the Book of Acts) and then was stopped about one year later. Daniel’s prophesy was aborted (and the completion of his prophesy will never be completed the way he stated it would, in other words, it can never be fulfilled in the timeline it was prophesied) at that time due to Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. God was not held to his word to complete the 70th week, as you so aptly pointed out in the Jeremiah 18 passage, because of Israel’s rejection. The Great Tribulation will happen, as is clearly shown in the Book Of Revelation, but not until the fullness of the gentiles has come in. So you may deem it a gap or an interruption, but I would say it was stopped, the 490 year prophesy ended. Even though the events themselves will still happen sometime in the future.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

Thank you for your response... I will surely respond in more detail now that I see better where you are coming from and can tailor my points accordingly. I hope you do not mind that first I am going to answer Gavin's question so that it will be waiting for him when he returns from his vacation. However, I should have that done by tomorrow and will then immediately begin working on my response to you. I am sorry that I am not lickety-split in responding, but I hope that you appreciate that I put a great deal of time and thought into my replies.

[Lion]

DD-Once again, no hurry. I kind of butted in on your conversation with Gavin anyway, so please let that take top priority. We’ll go at it as we can.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

Well as you can see, I busted out a response to Gavin pretty quickly because it is the weekend, so I will be working on a response to you soon. :)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

I SO appreciate your response and time, and am enjoying this discussion. I am going to now get pretty darn specific and chase down certain issues which I do not believe you have fully dealt with in your response. I know you do not consider yourself a futurist (I would assert for all practical purposes though you may be), but as an example, I have found with the many futurists I have debated, that they have varying levels of success in explaining away isolated passages, but it is the “big picture” (as Knight likes to assert that I need to see) that is fatal to any eschatological system other than preterism. I know I sound irritatingly confident (I wouldn’t be Dee Dee if I didn’t), but I have dedicated years to this issue, and am pretty darned sure I have got the contours correct. Now on to your comments….

The reason I didn’t mention point number four is because it wasn’t up before I started responding to your other points, however while I agree that it is clearly a first century prophesy, I might have an issue with it not being the end of the world (age), (won’t go into that now though).

Okay, but I think you may have misunderstood me or are being imprecise in your terminology. Precision is very important in this discussion. I firmly believe the Discourse is about the end of the “age,” (which came in the first century) but not the end of the “world.” However, your comment made the two terms equal. They are not. Certainly we can go into that later, and I am eager to do so because I have an unassailable argument using that idea to prove that premillennialism utterly fails.

You make the statement that the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem are nowhere mentioned in the 490 year prophesy. It is not stated in verse 24 but it is clearly stated in verse 26;

Ah Lion my fine feline friend (smile), imprecision rears its ugly head (double-smile). That is not exactly what I said… but rather I said this:

To start… here are the “goals” of the 70 weeks, i.e. the objectives to be accomplished within that time frame:
Daniel 9:24 – “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.”

The first thing we notice here is that nowhere is the destruction of the Temple mentioned as one of the goals of the 70 weeks, it simply isn’t there

Thus, my point is that Daniel is given very specific goals that must be accomplished within the 70 weeks, and the destruction of the Temple is not one of them, and each of the goals for the 70 weeks were in fact accomplished during Christ’s earthly ministry; thus there is no reason, either textually or practically, to push any portion of this prophecy into the future. Your answer assumed what is yet to be proven and cannot be proven, and that is that every single detail of the remainder of Daniel 9 falls within the 70 week time frame. So while of course the destruction of the Temple is mentioned in 9:26, I have maintained this event does not fall within the 490 years but rather is a consequence of the 490 years.

This is born out by the New Testament record which teaches that the soon coming (to them) desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple were a result of their rejection and murder of Christ:

Matthew 23: 31-36: Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate.

The desolation of their house (i.e. Temple) was a consequence of their crimes.

Matthew 22:2-7 - The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

in, the destruction of their city was a consequence of their earlier crimes.

You believe the 69th week ends with the baptism of Christ;

Absolutely…. And I will demonstrate why….

You stated earlier that we probably are pretty close on the time line of Daniel’s 70 week prophesy, and perhaps we are, but apparently not close enough.

I meant that we are probably pretty close on the dating of the decree that started the countdown… I still believe that. There is only a three and one-half year difference in our placement of the end of the 69th week.

I believe the verses clearly show that the 69th week ends with the death of Christ and that the Great Tribulation started immediately after that. Let’s look at the prophesy;

Yes, let’s look at the text for it will show that your interpretation is anti-contextual and (grimace) forced.

Daniel 9:24 – Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.

(Notice that they are not necessarily in order and that the anointing of the Holy One is only stated to be within the 70 week timeframe.)

No problem here. I agree that they are not necessarily in order (but would argue that they are deliberately set up in a specific Hebraic phrasing consisting of three couplets), and that ALL of these items are the GOALS to be accomplished within the 70 week time frame. The destruction of the city and the Temple are thus only noticeable by their absence from this list.

Daniel’s prophesy in this verse, sets a time of 490 years to accomplish all the events mentioned above for Israel, her people and Jerusalem.

Exactly, and you are proving my point. The events mentioned to be accomplished for Israel and Jerusalem do not mention its destruction whatsoever…. And every single one of these events was accomplished in the first century during the earthly ministry of Christ, so thus in addition to the fact that there is not textual reason to thrust them into our future, there is also no pragmatic reason to do so either.

The next verse tells when the 490 year period begins;

No objection here.

Daniel 9:25 – Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks (49 years) and sixty-two weeks (434 years) (49 + 434 = 483 years); The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.

This portion of the prophecy states that the command to rebuild Jerusalem will be given and that the 490 year period will begin with that command.

No problem here.

The next verse is where the Preterist’s theology breaks down, stating that the Messiah will appear after 483 years and be killed (not baptized).

Daniel 9:26 – And after the sixty-two weeks (483 years) Messiah shall be cut off (killed), but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

The 62 weeks mentioned above, plus the 7 weeks from the previous verse, show that the Messiah would be killed 483 years after the order to rebuild Jerusalem, at the end of the 69th week.


No, I am afraid you are mistaken… and again, precision is very important. First you object that verse 26 does not say that the Messiah will be baptized only murdered…. but you are neglecting that the anointing of the Most Holy (Christ’s baptism) was already mentioned in verse 24 as one of the explicit goals of the 70 weeks. It has to happen at some point, despite no explicit reference following verse 24 in anyone’s scheme. But it is pretty easy to prove my case in any event. Let’s get precise here and back up once again to verse 25.

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.

Look very, very carefully at that verse. It says that there will be 483 years UNTIL Messiah the Prince. Until Messiah the Prince what? Is born? No, that is much too late for that. Crucified? Possible in isolation though the next verse, as I will demonstrate, rules that out and would be even more unlikely in your particular dispensational view. What then this verse is referring to is the public presentation of the Messiah to Israel, and that happened at His baptism when John the Baptist, the harbinger, publicly announced Him, and God publicly anointed Him.

John 1:29-34 – The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.” And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”

Matthew 3:16 - When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”[/I]

After His baptism, Christ preached that the time was fulfilled (what time? – an obvious reference to Daniel 9 and Daniel 2 – the only places in the OT where the timing of Messiah and His kingdom are laid out) Mark 1:15.

Now we can go back to verse 26 for I want to point out something interesting with this background in mind….

And [b]after the sixty-two weeks (483 years) Messiah shall be cut off (killed), but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

That little word “after” renders your view impossible. The Messiah’s being cut off does not END the 69th week, it happens AFTER the 69th week is already ended. And what is the only week left? The 70th week, thus, the Messiah is cut off AFTER the 69th week, i.e. in the 70th week. Well when in the 70th week? That is what the rest of the passage tells us.

You continue….

That leaves only the last (the 70th) week, so let’s look at the next verse;

Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.

Well here is something else that is very embarrassing to a view in opposition to mine. (smile – yes I can be irritating can’t I?). There is the pronoun “he.” Well who is the “he”? – simple rules of grammar inform us. A pronoun will refer back to the last dominant character. Well who was that? Simple, there has only been one dominant character introduced in this whole prophecy… the Messiah! It cannot be “the people,” that is not a “he,” that is a “they.” It cannot be the “prince who is to come” for the noun “prince” is NOT the last dominant figure, it is not a dominant figure at all, but rather is the subject of a prepositional phrase! On a side note, even if the last dominant figure were the “prince who is to come,” it would not matter since that is ALSO the Messiah, the ONLY Prince that has been mentioned. The insertion of an anti-christ in this passage is an anti-contextual forced intrusion indeed. So as to further prove Christ’s confirming of the covenant for many (an idiomatic expression in Daniel for Isael)–

Romans 15:8 – Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers.

Christ sealed the confirming, and using the same language as the LXX of Daniel 9 said in Matthew 26:28, “This is My blood of the new covenant, shed for MANY for the remission of sins.” Isaiah also places this at the atonement, “My Servant shall justify many for He shall bear their iniquities.”

So, then the Messiah shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week but in the midst of the week will bring an end to sacrifice and offering….. that is exactly what was accomplished by His being cut off. The two phrases are synomous and set in Hebrew parallelism within the passage. The timing of the crucifixtion is in the middle of the 70th week. It is ironic how your dispensational view converges much more tightly under my interpretation of this passage. Christ came, first, for ethnic Israel….the Gospel (and I maintain there is only one Gospel – but we can do that dance later) was first for the Jews, with a special focus upon them during Christ’s earthly ministry and in His words before His ascension (Acts 1:8)….. With the conversion of Paul, three and one-half years later, the focus changed, the 490 years had run their course.

This seven year (1 week) period, is Daniel’s 70th week. The Great Tribulation. The Time of Jacob’s Sorrow.

This is a mere assertion which I do believe I defeated with the points already made. Anywhere else a time period is explicitly mentioned with regards to the Great Tribulation it is three and one-half years… not seven years.

So these two points are where I see the flaw in the Preterist’s theology. (1) The death of Christ (not the baptism) ended the 69th week, and the 70th week started immediately after, but was stopped, due to Israel’s rejection of her Messiah.

I believe I have disproven the first part with the points already made… and as to the second part, see comments I will make below.

(2) The destruction of the sanctuary, (the temple), and the city, (Jerusalem), which is clearly seen to happen during the 70 weeks, and not as some type of result of the Tribulation period, forty years later. The Biblical timeframe does not fit the Preterist’s scenereo, but works perfectly with the Acts 9 Dispensational scenereo.

Actually not, as I have shown.

One last point. You said; “Judging by your comments, you appear to not be so enamored with the insertion of a gap into the weeks as well. That though, seems to be in conflict with the implied assertion in your post to me that the destruction of the Temple must fall within the 70th week, and that the 70th week represents the period of the Great Tribulation, for then even in your view.. it appears that you must posit some sort of gap, though you may entitle it an “interruption”… a rose by any other name…”

Hmmmm…. You may be right, in a way. However I don’t see it as a “gap” or an “interruption”, but rather that it was stopped. Cold. The events outlined in the 70th week will still happen. But not when prophesied.

Well that is a tremendous problem. First, of all, if things can possibly not happen as prophesied as to timing, there is absolutely no justification for believing that they will ever happen at all. For example, using an favorite OV passage, Jonah’s prophecy to Ninevah was not postponed due to their repentance, it was completely annulled. You have not provided one piece of New Testament evidence that the Tribulation started and was stopped and will start up again. In fact the whole New Testament testifies as to it’s rapidly approaching status in passages written after the period of time where you hold that the Great Tribulation was allegedly stopped.

The Great Tribulation started after the Crucifixion of Christ (numerous signs of the Great Tribulation are present in the Book of Acts) and then was stopped about one year later.

Big problems. First, I agree that there are numerous signs, not of the Great Tribulation, but of the approaching Great Tribulation in the Book of Acts… Remember Jesus said:

Matthew 24:6 – For all these things must come to pass but the end is not yet.

The Discourse makes it clear that the Tribulation was not something to happen immediately but to be preceded by a lengthy interval of “signs.”


Daniel’s prophesy was aborted (and the completion of his prophesy will never be completed the way he stated it would, in other words, it can never be fulfilled in the timeline it was prophesied) at that time due to Israel’s rejection of their Messiah.

I am sorry but that is nonsensical and no evidence to support the stoppage was proffered.


God was not held to his word to complete the 70th week, as you so aptly pointed out in the Jeremiah 18 passage, because of Israel’s rejection.

Here is the major point I alluded to where I felt you did not deal with my point. I did aptly point out something in the Jeremiah 18 passage and that is that judgment is ONLY averted or conditional when the nation which is subjected to the threatened judgment repents (and their reaction is not also the subject of said propohecy)! You have turned this concept on its head without any substantive defense or interaction with my response on this point.

The Great Tribulation will happen, as is clearly shown in the Book Of Revelation…

…..which book also declares it is near and soon with such time indicators which you have conceded in the Gospels places such prophetic fulfillment squarely within the first century. You cannot have it both ways. As of the time of the writing of Revelation (which of course I place prior to 70AD) the Great Tribulation was near, and soon, and at hand for them, not us or anyone else. You cannot concede in the Discourse that those timing statement do place the events within the first century, but after the prophesy was given, the prophesy was aborted, and then deny the implication of the near timing phrases uttered after said near time fulfillment was already allegedly aborted.

but not until the fullness of the gentiles has come in.

Again this is an assertion without any proof thus far.

So you may deem it a gap or an interruption, but I would say it was stopped, the 490 year prophesy ended. Even though the events themselves will still happen sometime in the future.


With all due respect, this is also an assertion without any proof and tremendous hurdles to traverse as already said above.

As an interesting supplement to this whole issue, I find that a lot of interpretations of the Daniel 9 passage go awry because the Jubilee pattern and imagery is neglected.

Daniel’s prayer that prompted the giving of the revelation is a covenant prayer to his covenant God. In fact, in this chapter (9) is the only place where the covenant name of God (YHWH) is used in the Book of Daniel. Gabriel’s answer is given in highly covenantal form expressing the highest vision of Messianic hope. The time frame is 70 groups of sevens. That is very, very important because it is an allusion back to the Jubilee cycle. After every seven groups of seven sabbatical years (49 years), there was the fiftieth year, the Jubilee. During the Jubilee, slaves were freed, debts were forgiven, etc., it is a rich portrait of redemption. In Jewish thought, numbers were very, very important. The number 10 signified a multiplier of “quantitative completeness.” The number 3 indicated perfect amplification. That is why we have God saying that He owns the cattle on a thousand hills (10 x 10 x 10) and why God is praised as holy, holy, holy. It is an idiomatic way of expressing a very large and complete number. So in Daniel’s vision, we have not seven sevens, a normal Jubilee, but seventy (7 x 10) sevens, the Ideal Jubilee, the Perfect Jubilee (49 x 10).

That is Christ. The Jubilee was but a shadow of the reality in Christ (Col. 2:17). Christ claimed this for Himself when He read from Isaiah 61:

“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound.”

And interestingly for our discussion, He omits the ending phrase “and the day of vengeance of our God” because that is NOT part of the Jubilee or Messianic redemption, but is a consequence of the rejection of same.

The allusion to the Jubilee here is undeniable. This ideal Jubilee is God’s ultimate ministry to ALL people, not just the Jews. The problem is that we so often treat the Scriptures as if they are man-centered, specifically Jew-centered, but they are not, they are Christ-Centered. The perfect Jubilee, redemption, of God came in the first century. It is not postponed waiting for the ethnic Jews to repent. God can raise up children of Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9).

This is available to the remnant, the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), made up a believing Jews and Gentiles on equal footing in the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12). That was the mystery, that Jews and Gentiles would be equal, all in the Israel of God (Ephesians 3:3-7). You see, if someone claims that they are not part of Israel, denying such a thing as “replacement theology” (when in fact it is not replacement, but rather expansion), then they have removed any Scriptural claim to have a part in the New Covenant, which was prophesied only specifically to be given to Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Okay, okay…. No dissertation…..

[Knight]

Whoa... come on Dee Dee does the term "bite size" mean anything to you?

Sorry, but simply way too long for good point vs. counter point debate.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sorry Knight.... some points take longer than others...:o

[Lion]

Woah! DD, I’m a little confused here. I am anxious to answer your last post, but first I need to know something.

Please tell me, (in as few words as possible) when you believe the 70th week ended?

You seem to be saying that the 69th week ended at the Baptism of Christ, and that there was no gap between the 69th week and the 70th week, so please tell me when it ended, (no explanation necessary at this time so we don’t get off track).

Thanks.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

Please tell me, (in as few words as possible) when you believe the 70th week ended? emphasis mine

LOLOLOLOLOL..... ack, ack, ack!!! That was good!!! Okay, okay I get the hint....

The 69th week ended at the baptism of Christ. The crucifixition took place at 69 and 1/2 weeks (i.e. midway through the 70th week). The 70th week ended with the conversion of Paul or thereabouts (ie Acts 8/9).

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Sorry Knight.... some points take longer than others...:o Ahhh young grasshopper, someday I will teach you the fine art "point vs. counter point" debate.

It is a rare talent.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I have mastered the art of bulldozing debate though :)

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
I have mastered the art of bulldozing debate though :) And thats something to brag about??? ;)

[Dee Dee Warren]

It works for me :p

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
It works for me :p I will take quality of quantity any day.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And then you are doubly blessed with me... man are you lucky!! You get both in one package.....

[Lion]

First things first. I believe, as do you, that Christ was speaking about the end of the age, not the world, in the Matthew passage cited, (although there will eventually be an end to our world, Rev. 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.and new heavens and a new earth made. And that his predictions were for the first century, or even better, for that generation, (meaning the generation present with Him at that time, exactly as the wording implies.).

Next, you go on to argue that the prophesy in Daniel 9:24; shows all the goals for the 70 week prophesy. And that the destruction of the temple is not one of them, and is instead, a by-product of Israel’s crimes. You try and use Matthew 23 as well as Matthew 22 to bolster your argument that the destruction of the temple falls outside of the prophetic timeline, stating that it is a result of their crimes. To which I say; So what? Of course it is a result of their crimes, or rather their rejection of Messiah, but so what? The entire prophecy is because of their rejection. That in no way sticks the destruction of the temple outside of the prophecy.

The verses read exactly as they would to a common reader, taking verses 24-27 as literal and all within the 70-week time frame. Showing an overall view of the entire 70 weeks in verse 24 and then going on and detailing the events within those 70 weeks in the next three verses. Just as God did in Genesis when He explained the six-day creation in chapter one and then goes into greater detail about just what He did in chapter two.

And just as it is correct to take biblical verses in the literal and chronological manner in which they read, unless instructed to do otherwise, the reading of Dan 9:26 follows suit stating that after the 483 years (that would read immediately after, or at the direct end of the 483 years) Messiah shall be cut off. The verbiage in no way infers a three and one half year interjection but instead flows smoothly to the 70th week where it continues to state what will happen during the last 7 years.

Therefore your entire argument of the destruction of the city and temple being outside the prophecy are void. So why didn’t it happen during the 70th week as prophesied but several decades later?

In reference to my bringing up the Jeremiah 18 passage, you said; Here is the major point I alluded to where I felt you did not deal with my point. I did aptly point out something in the Jeremiah 18 passage and that is that judgment is ONLY averted or conditional when the nation which is subjected to the threatened judgment repents (and their reaction is not also the subject of said prophecy)! You have turned this concept on its head without any substantive defense or interaction with my response on this point. You are completely missing the point here. God did not repent of the harm He planned to do to Israel because of their rejection, but rather He repented of the good He said He would do. Remember that the time of tribulation is a good (although painful) thing for Israel, because it purges her and brings her back to God, so that He can bring the times of refreshing, Acts 3:19-20“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, “and that He may send Jesus Christ… and establish and give to them the Kingdom.

So I ask you… why would God continue with the tribulation and be forced to give unbelieving Israel her kingdom, (as you believe), while she was still (and is still to this day) in utter rejection of her Messiah?
That goes completely against Jeremiah 18.

You state that the anointing of the Most Holy, refers to the time of the baptism of Christ? I see no place in scripture that places anointing and baptism as one and the same. They are sometimes performed at the same time, but clearly are not the same thing. Or perhaps you are stating that Christ was anointed not when He was baptized but rather when God said in Matthew 3:17 after His baptism; “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” If that is the case, was He anointed for the second time when God said in Matthew 17:5, after the transfiguration; “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” ?

There are many theories as to what the anointing of the Most Holy means, and you have in no way proven, or even given an argument that it happened at Christ’s baptism.

I like this one myself; Mark 14:3-9 And being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard. Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head. But there were some who were indignant among themselves, and said, “Why was this fragrant oil wasted? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor." And they criticized her sharply. But Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for Me. For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always. She has done what she could. She has come beforehand to anoint My body for burial. Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”
"Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.” Except maybe in the Preterist’s camp?

As to my statement that the Tribulation will still happen, as is shown in the book of Revelation, you said; which book also declares it is near and soon with such time indicators which you have conceded in the Gospels places such prophetic fulfillment squarely within the first century. You cannot have it both ways. As of the time of the writing of Revelation (which of course I place prior to 70AD) the Great Tribulation was near, and soon, and at hand for them, not us or anyone else. You cannot concede in the Discourse that those timing statement do place the events within the first century, but after the prophesy was given, the prophesy was aborted, and then deny the implication of the near timing phrases uttered after said near time fulfillment was already allegedly aborted. Not true at all. Since the plan has been put on hold. And since there are no prophesies to indicate when God will resume working with Israel, (except for the passage concerning the fullness of the gentiles), no one knows when it will happen. None of the apostles knew, including Paul or John, and neither do we. So they adopted the attitude that it would be soon, just as we should adopt the same attitude, acting as if it will come tomorrow so that we will be ever watchful.

But this does bring up another sticking point for you. I realize that you believe that the book of Revelation was completed prior to 90 AD, even prior to 70AD. I think I read something you wrote that stated it might have been written as early as 40 AD, but I could be wrong about that. In any case, how could the Book of Revelation be written for future events when according to your belief, these events had already occurred, or at best were occurring at the same time?

After all, if the 70th week, (the week of tribulation), ended at the conversion of Paul, as you state, then when did John have the time to pen his last book? And wouldn’t it be out of date as soon as it hit the shelves, since everything had already happened?

One last point-I know that I haven’t given proof that the tribulation was stopped, nor have I even shown that the tribulation began after the death of Christ (although I would think you would already agree that some of the tribulation signs were at work after the crucifixion, from your view). However we are not arguing my Acts 9 Dispensational, open view. We are arguing the Preterist, Calvinistic view and I do not want to slow the discussion unnecessarily at this time. I will go into our theology as needed, otherwise I will try to stay on track.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

Thank you for your response, and I am glad that you have gotten almost as wordy as I (though not as wordy for that might be almost impossible – I wrote a fifty-something page response in ten point font to a few email inquiries I had by someone). I wanted to comment for clarification though on one thing before we move on:

However we are not arguing my Acts 9 Dispensational, open view. We are arguing the Preterist, Calvinistic view and I do not want to slow the discussion unnecessarily at this time. I will go into our theology as needed, otherwise I will try to stay on track.

Of course, but since that is the counter-view you are proposing, there are times when it will necessarily veer there, but I appreciate your focus. But just so that you are clear, and there is no misunderstanding here, I am not Calvinist. I am adamantly nonCalvinist in a lot of things (though I am an individual predestinatarian).

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Lion:

Thank you for your response, and I am glad that you have gotten almost as wordy as IHuh? come on Dee Dee Lion's post was short, sweet and to the point. All content and ZERO obfuscation.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight... sigh. It is obvious what horse your money is on. And that is cool. But I will point out in my next post some major problems with Lion's answer. I know you are waiting with baited breath.... LOLOLOL...... admit it, you love me like an annoying little sister. I know it must be so hard to watch me defeat all these points. I feel bad, really I do. :) But not bad enough not to do it ; :kiss:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight... sigh. It is obvious what horse your money is on.Of course! Only an idiot would intentionally bet on the losing horse! :D

You continue...And that is cool. But I will point out in my next post some major problems with Lion's answer. I know you are waiting with baited breath.... LOLOLOL...... admit it, you love me like an annoying little sister. Dee Dee all I am saying is your last response (regarding the topic at hand) was 25,963 characters long, which is certainly pushing the envelope as to what we even allow here at TOL let alone a reasonable length for effective and entertaining debate.

Then you have the audacity to make the claim that Lion is being "as verbose" as you are.... yet his response was an extremely reasonable 8,885 characters long.

I am merely trying to do what I have done for 6 years at TOL... and that is attempting to keep the debates in a "point vs. counter point" style. Its more fun and profitable that way.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

I was joking in that claim that Lion was being as verbose as I was. Sheesh. No one is as verbose as I.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

No one is as verbose as I. Ah ha! I have effectively moved you into the realm of those who make sense! :D ;)

[Lion]

Hey DD, no need to get nasty and call me a horse! (I guess I should be thankful that you left it there and didn’t get down to specifics, such as just what part of a horse I am).

And as for pointing out the major mistakes in my last post, just remember that anything I said that was wrong, isn’t my fault, since I was predestined to do it before I was even born.

Gee… you wouldn’t blame a baby, would you?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

LOLOLOLOL.... but notice I called myself a horse as well, and I know exactly what part of the beast that I can be at times!!!

Well my view of predestination would still make your major mistakes entirely your fault.. you can't pawn that off on God, though He certainly knew you were going to do it :D

[Lion]

Oh, I know that brand of Calvinism….It’s called Arminianism. I would go for that view myself, except it’s too Calvinistic for me

You said “... but notice I called myself a horse as well, and I know exactly what part of the beast that I can be at times!!!”
Now that’s a horse of a different color. And at the mere thought of someone calling you that, I say Neigh!

Still, our debate goes on and it’s your turn to pony up. So hoof it on over and see if you are up to corralling me.

I will stay glued to the screen until your next post, so quit grazing and trot on out the starting gate. Because I’m through horsing around, and I’m chomping at the bit. Not that I’m trying to nag you, or anything.

[Poly]

Originally posted by Lion
Oh, I know that brand of Calvinism….It’s called Arminianism. I would go for that view myself, except it’s too Calvinistic for me

Funny how when I was a Calvinist I looked down terribly upon Free Will Baptists because well, for one that's just what we were supposed to do. I thought of them as totally opposite as far as our doctrines were concerned. But now I find them too Calvinistic as well.

[1Way]

Polycarpadvo – Wow, bravo! May the crux of the matter become ever more clear, “immutability” is not just some abstract theological term, it is at the heart of the issue of closed theism, the point I believe, as does John Sanders and many of my friends here at TOL, that once that issue is dismissed for the false teaching that it is, then TULIP and all it’s associated and “uniquely” Calvinistic teachings become unsupported and contrary to scripture. Foundational issues matter. :)

Knight – Thanks sir knight. Sometimes a closed mind understands truth and knows what to reject, yet it still carefully opens when necessary. Your forum has greatly helped me to appreciate the “opportunity” of learning that I may be wrong. Still learning that lesson from time to time, but the lesson has paid wonderful dividends already. Thanks exceedingly for giving others a place to be wrong! (Pro 12.1)

1Way

[Prisca]

A couple of posts ago, you said:
God did not repent of the harm He planned to do to Israel because of their rejection, but rather He repented of the good He said He would do.
How sad and how true! It seems that this was the pattern with Israel. God would promise them great things if they obeyed Him, but time after time they disobeyed and missed out on the blessings He hoped to shower on them. I was specifically thinking of passages in Exodus and Joshua where God tells Israel that He will drive the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites out of the land. He promises to bless their bread and water, take away sickness, and give them the land. Later, we read in Judges:
Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.” Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out immediately; nor did He deliver them into the hand of Joshua.
Israel, in her rejection of God and her disobedience to the law, suffered curses rather than blessings. But God seems always hopeful that they will return to Him. The same is as true today. As Paul explains in Romans 11:
“I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

[Lion]

DD-You said; I am almost done with him, and then you once again have my undivided attention my fine feline friend. Don’t you threaten me like that! You said that you could beat me with half your brain behind your back and I’m holding you to it!

[Lion]

Becky, great post!

It’s like a parent promising a child that he will take him to (yuck!) Disney Land (not on red-shirt-day of course). But before the day of the trip the child completely disobeys his father. The wise father realizes that it would be harmful to neglect the wrongdoing and still let the child go as planned. Instead, the wise father would not allow the child to go (besides he couldn’t sit on the rides with his red bottom anyway), until his behavior warranted it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

Don’t you threaten me like that! You said that you could beat me with half your brain behind your back and I’m holding you to it!

I could and I will... don't worry. I am planning a very special one just for you. :) But see, the distraction move on that other thread over to soteriology is working, and now I am only operating on 1/4 of brain, but that may be enough. But maybe if you tell Boom to stop stalking in me in chat I would have more time ;)

Poor Gavin.. when he gets back he will see his thread took on a whole new life of its own.

[Yxboom]

I must say this is the most participation I have ever seen in the Eschatology section and beyond that, a preterist discussion. :shocked:

[Poly]

Originally posted by Yxboom
I must say this is the most participation I have ever seen in the Eschatology section and beyond that, a preterist discussion. :shocked:

I'm finding this thread one of the most interesting on TOL.

[Poly]

Originally posted by Lion
Becky, great post!

It’s like a parent promising a child that he will take him to (yuck!) Disney Land (not on red-shirt-day of course). But before the day of the trip the child completely disobeys his father. The wise father realizes that it would be harmful to neglect the wrongdoing and still let the child go as planned. Instead, the wise father would not allow the child to go (besides he couldn’t sit on the rides with his red bottom anyway), until his behavior warranted it.

I remember a similar situation on a personal level. When my oldest son was 3 (He's now 15) I told him I would get him a treat when we went to the store. He acted up terribly therefore receiving no treat. My mother-in-law was with me at the time and thought I had done the ultimate sin in not buying him something. She insisted on buying him something since I wouldn't. I told her if she did I wouldn't allow him to have it. She was seeing red all the way home. Sad that she didn't realize that it would have been wrong to go ahead and buy it for him. It's neat how we can relate to our LIVING God by some of the things that are every day occurances for us.

[Dee Dee Warren]

These illustrations are interesting in that they prove my point when applied to the facts of the discussion at hand. I look forward to proving that.

[Lion]

HA! You only think that because you are diminished to a quarter of your brain power. The rest of us are able to think clearly and see that it really proves our point!

[Yxboom]

Originally posted by Lion
HA! You only think that because you are diminished to a quarter of your brain power. The rest of us are able to think clearly and see that it really proves our point! :noid: Didn't Becky post that??? :noid:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Actually, my fine furry feline friend, I am think that because I am Bea Arthur. Bow to the power of Bea!!! I feel my preterist power returning....

[Lion]

Polycarpadvo-Great post and awesome point. Too bad your mother in law couldn’t see the writing on the wall. But God’s attributes are clearly seen through out creation, just as you have shown.Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

[Lion]

Yxboom-You have some of the best posts and the best avatars on TOL!

[Lion]

Actually, my fine furry feline friend, I am think that because I am Bea Arthur. Bow to the power of Bea!!! I feel my preterist power returning....
I am think that you are still using not enough brain power.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Blame it all on Boom. He is in on your dastardly plans.

[Yxboom]

Originally posted by Lion
Yxboom-You have some of the best posts and the best avatars on TOL! And you are the representative of our view and my champion in this debate.....hmmm the compliment with interest and intensified in return :D

[Knight]

Originally posted by Lion
Yxboom-You have some of the best posts and the best avatars on TOL! Oh great..... just what need.... YxBoom with even a larger head. :(

[Yxboom]

Originally posted by Knight
Oh great..... just what need.... YxBoom with even a larger head. :( Knight are you needing affirmation. In front of the mirror say this 5 times..."I am a good admin....I am good enough....and gosh darn people like me!"

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Knight
Oh great..... just what need.... YxBoom with even a larger head. :(

Then, Dee Dee and I could invite all of TOL to move in with us! :crackup:

[Knight]

I think I will rename this debate between Lion and Dee Dee to:

The Easter Debate. Lion makes a post, three days later Dee Dee responds, Lion makes his response..... three days later Dee Dee makes a post, and so on and so on....... :D ;)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Knight LOLOLOLOL... tell Boom to stop distracting me!! (excuses, excuses, excuses). And actually you are being generous.. my responses have taken more than three days. I have been extraordinarily busy.. I did have to take some time out to assist a good friend, but now I am back on track (hopefully).

[GraceInMe]

Dee Dee convert me to a super model.:thumb: Oh and you can wait three days if you need too.

[Dee Dee Warren]

LOLOLOL.... give us one of those fantastic poses like the one in the gallery!!! (and congrats Grace - you are the hostess with the mostess - YOU GO GIRL!!!)

[GraceInMe]

:o
Oh that was nothing. (Thank you Knight)!

[Knight]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz :sleep:

[Knight]

Are we at the point where I should be giving Dee Dee the standing 8 count?? ;)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Who let the heckler in the house??

[Lion]

Hmmmm… DD- I see one of your friends is perusing our conversation. Say hello to Mr. Holding for me.

I havent seen JP in a while.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sure thing Lion!! But then again, if he is reading this... you have just told him yourself :D

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

First, let’s feed the strays - we must soon get to the idea of the “end of the age” and the end of the world, the bite you will get from that snake may surprise you :) as I can utterly disprove the premillennial timeline. Confident little bugger aren’t I??

Also, there is a lot of material to cover, so I have decided to concentrate primarily on the Daniel issues, putting aside a few of the other issues temporarily until this is exhausted so that I do not draw yet another rebuke from Knight (the heckling is bad enough) :noid:

So now onto the main enchilada:

Is the destruction of the Temple an event to fall within the seventy weeks?

Of course I said no and proved that point by demonstrating that Daniel 9:24, which is Gabriel’s declaration of the goals for the seventy weeks, does not mention the destruction of the Temple even once. That is significant and was pretty much hand-waved away. You have agreed that the destruction of the Temple was a result of their rejection of the Messiah (that will be a costly admission later) but deny that this can even place the destruction of the Temple outside of the 70 weeks, by stating:

The entire prophecy is because of their rejection.

Really?? Is that your final answer?? If so, then your insistence that the last week was stopped because they rejected their Messiah makes even less sense than before. :D I have provided evidence that the entire prophecy of the 70 weeks is redemptive in context based upon the obvious Jubilee pattern. The judgment falls as a result of rejecting the completed redemption, it is not part of the completed redemption. Jesus gives us a major clue to this when He cited Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18, claiming to be the fulfillment of the Jubilee, and omitted the last sentence speaking of the “day of vengeance of our God.”

Now onto to the cutting off of the Messiah … the only thing that we agree upon thus far is that the text says that this cutting off will occur after the 69th week, which only leaves during the 70th week. So far so good… you are moving rapidly in the right direction. However, we quibble on what part of the 70th week. You seem to be claiming it would be the very first moments of the 70th week (thus conceding I am right that the crucifixion is in the 70th week) and state that there is no implication of a three and one half year interjection. Well as a matter of fact, if we are considering only verse 26 there is no implication of “immediately after” either as a matter of plain fact.

Nonetheless there are numerous problems with your assertion.

One: You have not dealt with the issue in 9:25, in which I asked the question, until Messiah the Prince what?? In your view verses 25-27 deal only with the events of the 70th week beginning with the crucifixion. But do you realize that you have just made Christ’s earthly ministry textually invisible here for you must allege that nothing is mentioned of the Prince until He is crucified?? What about His “Kingdom proclamation” for three and one half years prior?? The text makes much more sense (especially within your own view ironically enough) for placing the “until” Messiah the Prince to the time of the beginning of His public ministry where He was presented to Israel as their Messiah (see John 1:31).

Two – Despite your claim that there is no reason to interject three and one-half years in between the presenting of Messiah to Israel and His being cut off, I did in fact demonstrate that the text is explicit by referring you to verse 27 which spoke of a “he” who confirms a covenant for one week (which you believe is the 70th week – as do I), and in the midst of the week “he” brings an end to sacrifice and offering. I demonstrated that the “he” can only refer back to Messiah the Prince, and speaks of His bringing a judicial end to the sacrificial
system.

In then examining your contention, I notice something very interesting here. The “he” who confirms the covenant for one week does so at the beginning of the 70th week, which in your view is the crucifixion (yet in my view is Christ’s baptism). Who is this “he”? It cannot be some future figure (in your view) for “he” existed at the time of the crucifixion and began the “confirming” of the covenant at that time. I can anticipate your answer, but since I do not want to falsely assume, I will cease, but unless you have moves worthy of Astaire, this is a tremendous problem for you.

Three – The Hebraic parallelism of the verses completely supports my contention. Observe:

Verse 9:26 –And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Verse 9:27 – Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.

The red colored text is parallel as is the blue. This places the timing of the cutting off in the midst of the 70th week. Also notice in the concluding words of verse 26 and 27 in parallel, that it is only the determination of the desolations that is said to be determined in the 70th week itself. The effecting of those desolations could take place any time thereafter.

Four – The text tells us exactly what was to take place during the 70th week, and once again, the destruction of the Temple is noticeable only by its absence. During the 70th “he” (who can only be Christ) makes firm the covenant with the Jews during the entire seven years. In the midst of these seven years the sacrifices and oblations cease. Where again is that destruction?? What do I hear?? Crickets?? LOL. This is where I found a remarkable juxtaposition of our two views, but again, in sheer irony, only my position on this passage exploits this idea to the fullest. You see, I also affirm that there was a special and specific focus on the Jews during Christ’s earthly ministry and for the period of time thereafter leading up the conversion of Paul, which was three and one-half years later. Christ made firm the covenant with them first before opening the floodgates to the Gentiles. He then gave them a probationary generation to repent, after which the judgment came.

This fits in so perfectly with the Exodus imagery of the NT with Christ as the eschatological Passover lamb and the first Christians being the wilderness wanderers waiting until the wicked generation was killed off before entering the “promised land” of the New Covenant. I will have much more to say on this as we progress.

Next, you object to my equation of the anointing of the Most Holy to Christ’s baptism by stating, “I see no place in scripture that places anointing and baptism as one and the same.” I must apologize for being unclear. My bad. The anointing that I was referring to was the anointing of Christ by the Spirit at His baptism.., I conflated the two events causing the confusion. Christ explicitly claimed to have already been anointed by the Spirit by the time He read from Isaiah 61:1-2 as previously mentioned is a direct allusion to the Jubilee (which is the pattern in Daniel 9) thus making my position a compelling referent. Peter also speaks of this anointing of Christ (Acts 10:38) and looks back to the baptism by John as the significant founding of the salvation/redemptive message (Acts 1:21-22). John also declared that his ministry was to reveal the Christ (John 1:31). Throughout His ministry, Christ was referred to as the Anointed One (i.e. Christ) meaning that this very significant anointing had already taken place. Additionally, Scripture gives us explicit precedent for referring to the gift of the Spirit as an anointing (1 Corinthians 1:21-22; I John 1:20,27).All of this dovetails perfectly.

You bring forth Mark 14:3-9 as a possible candidate for the anointing, and I will concede it is possible. However, considering the significance of the descent of the Spirit upon Christ concurrently with the beginning of ministry, His claim to be the ultimate Jubilee in Luke 4:18 (with the Jubilee pattern in Daniel 9), I find my interpretation much truer to the typological and redemptive context.

However, your own interpretation causes you some timeline problems (and tsk, tsk, tsk, here is where those pesky details come buzzing around again) because you do not even have Messiah the Prince being a significant figure in the Daniel 9 passage until His crucifixion! This anointing took place before that event… Not good. :nono:

I have one other issue to bring in, that I brought in my prior post which has remained unacknowledged thus far. Specifically, you agree with the preterist contention that there are unambiguous time references in the Gospels teaching that the Great Tribulation and a “coming” of Christ was expected in the first century. You differ with the preterists in that you believe that although this was expected and actually begun, it was interrupted about one year after the resurrection. This puts you in a tremendous bind for you have sold the farm with the concessions to the preterist position made thus far. Why? Because the “near” time references do not end in the Gospels, they continue throughout the entire New Testament even in NT books written after this plan was allegedly interrupted. Did God not tell anyone about this?? :doh: This is a major problem for you.

I acknowledge that I did not go over the Jeremiah 18 issues for which I have MUCH to say.

Statistics (to save Knight the trouble)

Characters (including formatting codes) - 10,320

Words - 1723

[efta777]

Dee Dee,
Great post, but I think you forgot one VERY important verse that really helped tie some things together for me:

Daniel 9:26 "He will confirm a covenant with many for one week. But in the middle of that week he will bring an end to sacrifice and offering to a halt..."

Compared to the very words of Jesus:

Matt. 26:28 "For this is my blood, the blood of the covenant that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Am I wrong in seeing a fairly obvious connection here?

[Lion]

DD
First point; You said: Is the destruction of the Temple an event to fall within the seventy weeks?
Of course I said no and proved that point by demonstrating that Daniel 9:24, which is Gabriel’s declaration of the goals for the seventy weeks, does not mention the destruction of the Temple even once.Really? In the first place, as I have so painstakingly demonstrated in earlier posts, the entire segment of Dan 9:24-27, is exclusively about the 70 week timeframe. I also showed you how verse 24 is like Gen 1 where God gives an overview of the creation, and in chapter two goes into detail about the creation, which is exactly what God does with the Daniel passage in question. In verse 24, the overview of the entire 490 year prophesy is given and in verses 25-27 God goes into detail about those same events, (IE-destruction of the city and temple, crucifixion, Israel’s rejection ended, atonement made, etc.) God even alludes to the destruction of the temple and city in verse 24 when he says;Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy cityWhat city? Jerusalem. And what happens to Jerusalem in this prophesy? It is destroyed. And when is the temple destroyed? Oh yeah, when the city is destroyed.

And I have to remark on another little inconsistency that I see with the Preterists theology, it’s this; One of the main tenants of the Preterists theology is that the destruction of the Temple could only have happened at a certain time in history, in order to be in line with the Daniel prophesy, proving that the end times had already taken place. But you go out of your way to show that the destruction of the temple is not even part of the 70 week prophesy. Thereby destroying your main tenant! The only argument left then, rests entirely on the idea that in Matthew, Christ was stating prophesy that would take place in the first century, which the Acts-9 view also adheres to and with much better supporting arguments.

Okay onto your next point. You said; I have provided evidence that the entire prophecy of the 70 weeks is redemptive in context based upon the obvious Jubilee pattern. The judgment falls as a result of rejecting the completed redemption, it is not part of the completed redemption. Jesus gives us a major clue to this when He cited Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18, claiming to be the fulfillment of the Jubilee, and omitted the last sentence speaking of the “day of vengeance of our God.”I want to thank you so much for pointing this out to me. It is AWESOME! You are exactly right about this!
Jesus is totally acknowledging the Isaiah 61 passage and He does completely leave out the last line; the ”day of vengeance of our God.” But you miss the whole point as to why He does this. It is because He, (Jesus) is still in the 69th week of the prophesy, and the day of the vengeance of God (the beginning of the 70th week) is not yet at hand. Which completely destroys your argument of the 70th week starting at the baptism of Christ. If it was the 70th week, Jesus would have finished the last line. But He did not because that day was still in the future, awaiting His crucifixion.

Next, you said;Now onto to the cutting off of the Messiah … the only thing that we agree upon thus far is that the text says that this cutting off will occur after the 69th week, which only leaves during the 70th week. So far so good… However, we quibble on what part of the 70th week. You seem to be claiming it would be the very first moments of the 70th week (thus conceding I am right that the crucifixion is in the 70th week…No, that wasn’t what I said. I said that it implies that it was either at the end of the 69th week , or immediately following the end of the 69th week. And here are a few examples to prove my point;Ezek. 46:12 “Now when the prince makes a voluntary burnt offering… Then he shall go out, and after he goes out the gate shall be shut. (Now let’s see…would that be 3 1/2 years after he leaves, that the gate should be shut? or just as he is leaving?)
Mark 8:31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. (Oh look, when God wants to let us know there is going to be some type of time interval, He tells us just what it is. He sure is a good communicator.)
Jer. 31:19 Surely, after my turning, I repented; And after I was instructed, I struck myself on the thigh; (Of course he means after three and a half years after he was instructed, he struck himself on the thigh) I was ashamed, yes, even humiliated, Because I bore the reproach of my youth.’
John 20:26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” (here again God lets us know just how long an interval there was, in this case 8 days)And as I stated before the normal flow of speech, (as well as the above verses I have cited), places the cutting off of Christ at the end of the 69th week, or possiblyat the very beginning of the 70th week. But in no way allows for a three and a half year interruption, (perhaps a little gap theory of your own?).

And if I have to get really nasty I’m going to bring up the fact that we know for certain that the 70th week started at Christ’s crucifixion because we know when the commandment went out for the rebuilding of the city and it is not only exactly 483 years to the crucifixion of Christ, but His crucifixion was even in the same month as foretold, (more on that later, if need be).

Next: You said;You have not dealt with the issue in 9:25, in which I asked the question, until Messiah the Prince what?? In your view verses 25-27 deal only with the events of the 70th week beginning with the crucifixion. But do you realize that you have just made Christ’s earthly ministry textually invisible here…No, although His main purpose is to die. Notice that in verse 25, where you allege I claim it is only about the 70th week, (which I don’t), it clearly states that within the 490 years the city and the wall will be restored--- OH MY GOODNESS! STOP THE PRESSES! THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE TEMPLE BEING REBUILT IN THIS VERSE! IT MUST NOT HAVE EVER HAPPENED!!! THEREFORE THE PRESTERISTS THEORY IS COMPLETELY VANQUISHED! (sorry, couldn’t resist) and that the Messiah will come on the scene during the 69th week. And why does He come on the scene? So that He can be cut off.

Next, you asked me who the “he” is in the 26 and 27th verses. And I will have to say that I don’t know. I will study it this week and see what I can find out. (Just a side note though; If it is Jesus, it works better for my argument, in that after the crucifixion He made a covenant with “The Little Flock”, His disciples, for one week, and in the middle of the week, three and one half years into the tribulation, things get really bad, the temple is destroyed and the believers have to flee to the mountains. With no temple there can be no sacrifices, thus He puts an end to the sacrifices.)

Next, I have disproved both points 3 & 4 above, so no need to commit on them.

Next, your point on the baptism of Christ in relationship to the anointing of the Most Holy: I agree that neither point seems clearly provable at this time, but does not seem crucial in either case.

Next, and this is a big one against you. You said;I have one other issue to bring in, that I brought in my prior post which has remained unacknowledged thus far. Specifically, you agree that there are unambiguous time references in the Gospels teaching that the Great Tribulation and a “coming” of Christ was expected in the first century. You differ with the preterists in that you believe that although this was expected and actually begun, it was interrupted about one year after the resurrection. This puts you in a tremendous bind for you have sold the farm with the concessions to the preterist position made thus far. Why? Because the “near” time references do not end in the Gospels, they continue throughout the entire New Testament even in NT books written after this plan was allegedly interrupted.
You need to go back and read my last post again. I not only completely answered this question, but also showed how it fits perfectly with an Acts-9 theology but flies in the face of your theology. I’m going to paste my previous answer for you here, but it will make my post longer, so don’t blame me for being wordy. In the last post I said; Not true at all. Since the plan has been put on hold. And since there are no prophesies to indicate when God will resume working with Israel, (except for the passage concerning the fullness of the gentiles), no one knows when it will happen. None of the apostles knew, including Paul or John, and neither do we. So they adopted the attitude that it would be soon, just as we should adopt the same attitude, acting as if it will come tomorrow so that we will be ever watchful.

But this does bring up another sticking point for you. I realize that you believe that the book of Revelation was completed prior to 90 AD, even prior to 70AD. I think I read something you wrote that stated it might have been written as early as 40 AD, but I could be wrong about that. In any case, how could the Book of Revelation be written for future events when according to your belief, these events had already occurred, or at best were occurring at the same time?

After all, if the 70th week, (the week of tribulation), ended at the conversion of Paul, as you state, then when did John have the time to pen his last book? And wouldn’t it be out of date as soon as it hit the shelves, since everything had already happened?If you need further clarification on this please ask.

And you are right, you did not even get to the Jeremiah 18 passage where I showed you clear proof that the stopping of the tribulation, hence taking away the promised Kingdom to that generation, was in no way violating the Jeremiah 18 tenant, but instead fits it perfectly. This does not hold true for the preterist position where God goes ahead and awards bad behavior with a blessing.

Summation: I have shown that the end of the 69th week of Daniel’s 70 week prophesy happened at the crucifixion of Christ, not at His baptism.

I have shown that the destruction of the temple was supposed to have happened within one year of the crucifixion of Christ but did not.

Questions for DD in order of importance: When was the book of Revelation written?

If the destruction of the temple is vital in proving the Preterists theology in connection to Daniel’s 70 week prophesy, how is it that it happened decades after said prophesy?

(Wow! Still under 10,000 characters.)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Efta:

You are correct in that point... that is a verse that I usually do bring into the argument. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

I am going to take one of your questions out of turn since it is short and I do not want it to get lost in the larger answer...

Revelation written sometime during the reign of Nero, probably in 65 or 66 AD. You had commented that I had said at one point that it could have been written as early as 40AD. I don't recall ever saying that but it is possible that I had quoted a scholar who said that. I personally don't believe that, but am firm that it was written during the reing of Nero.

[Lion]

DD-Hmmmmm… very interesting. So then the Book of Revelation has absolutely nothing to do with the Tribulation?

[Carl Smuda]

thlipsis occurs five times in the book of Revelation. All five times it is translated 'tribulation' in the King James.

thlipsis is almost as interesting as orge. That greek word is translated 'wrath' many times in Revelation.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

This is where we keep talking past each other, and I don't think it is intentional on either of our parts. You need to understand (even if you disagree - which of course you do) that I do not believe that the 70th week of Daniel has anything to do with the Great Trib. Thus, I certainly believe Revelation is about the Great Trib, and do believe it parallels parts of the Olivet Discourse. I hope that clears something up so that you can correctly represent my position, even though you disagree. This will become more clear as we progress, but I keep seeing you unintentionally misstate my position.

[drdeutsch]

I don't want to interrupt - I just want to throw this out there for anybody who wishes to read it, but some on Greg Boyd's forum, including Dr. Boyd himself, seem to believe that preterism is the eschatological position that fits best with OV theism. Check it out here (http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1690).

That being said, I'll get out of this thread and allow you all to continue your debate.
Dr. Deutsch

[Yxboom]

Originally posted by drdeutsch
I don't want to interrupt - I just want to throw this out there for anybody who wishes to read it, but some on Greg Boyd's forum, including Dr. Boyd himself, seem to believe that preterism is the eschatological position that fits best with OV theism. Check it out here (http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1690).

That being said, I'll get out of this thread and allow you all to continue your debate.
Dr. Deutsch Thanks, I have adamently said earlier that I disagree with Greg Boyd's model of OV you have only given more fuel to the fire against Greg Boyd's compatibilitistic Open Theism :down:

[Lion]

DD-I apologize, you are correct that I wasn’t understanding your position correctly, and the fault is completely mine. I went back and re-read your earlier posts, where you clearly stated this was indeed your position. Thank you for clearing that up, it will certainly help in the future.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

Thank you!!

[Knight]

Originally posted by drdeutsch
I don't want to interrupt - I just want to throw this out there for anybody who wishes to read it, but some on Greg Boyd's forum, including Dr. Boyd himself, seem to believe that preterism is the eschatological position that fits best with OV theism. Check it out here (http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1690).

That being said, I'll get out of this thread and allow you all to continue your debate.
Dr. Deutsch Thats really strange Dr.

But I am glad you posted it because I have been wondering something regarding a similar topic.....

Why do preterists hold the closed view almost exclusively? (the view that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future)

Is there any connection with their theology regarding preterism? Or do they simply hold the closed view by chance? Are there any OV preterists? I have never met one, have you?

I see no logical reason why a preterist couldn't be an OV'er, can you?

[Carl Smuda]

Howdy Knight,
maybe the preterists hold to the closed view almost exclusively because that is the position held for many hundreds of years in Christiandom? OV isn't exactly reformed protestant orthodox you know...
respectfully,

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Knight:

Why do preterists hold the closed view almost exclusively? (the view that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future) Is there any connection with their theology regarding preterism? Or do they simply hold the closed view by chance? Are there any OV preterists? I have never met one, have you?

I do not know of any OV preterists.. but that is said with a caveat. All of the other preterists (save a very few) that I know personally are on this Board, so that is not a wide sampling. But there is another reason why I do think that you will not find many, and that is because preterism leads IMHO naturally and inevitably to postmillennialism, which IMHO again is difficult to reconcile with OV, but then again, to be absolutely honest, I find the predictive prophecy of the type held to by preterists to be difficult (understatement) to reconcile with OV...... I am not trying to veer off into an OV discussion or pick an OV fight, I am just trying to give you an educated preterists perspective. I buck the system myself in that I am not a Calvinist (we can argue that on the other thread) and I know of no other postmillennialists who are not. So in a nutshell, preterism tends to lead to postmillennialism which tends to lead to Calvinism.... and thus, not an enviroment conducive to OV views, but certainly not impossible either, I think as demonstrated by the comments on that Boyd board.

But... as an interesting aside... if tomorrow I were to decide OV were correct (I am speaking strictly hypotheticially), it would not require one whit of change in my eschatology. This is entirely different from the subject in which Lion and I are debating though which adds in the monkeywrench of Acts 9/12 out dispensationalism which cannot co-exist with true preterism, though it has some preteristic tendencies. The two systems are mutually exclusive. OV can theoretically exist within either.

[Carl Smuda]

Dee Dee, are you a theonomist?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Carl, yes.

[Carl Smuda]

Thank you. Will you and Dr.B be debating Amill vs. Postmill?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Carl, I think you have DrB confused with Calvinist who is the one I was going to be debating on that subject, and no, we will not be. He has had other committments come up which caused him to have to decline. And of course the thought of debating me scared the pants off of him :D :p

DrB and I are currently debating preterism though, somewhat similarly to the debate that Lion and I are having though DrB makes my responses look absolutely rapid in comparison. He drops out of sight for weeks at a time.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Carl Smuda
Howdy Knight,
maybe the preterists hold to the closed view almost exclusively because that is the position held for many hundreds of years in Christiandom? OV isn't exactly reformed protestant orthodox you know...
respectfully, Are you saying that because OV is a minority position it is less likely a solid biblical position?

[Carl Smuda]

No! not at all good sir Knight! In fact, I've been going over your paper again. Work is not the best place to do that. I have to keep stopping to actually do work, or post answers. :o Are you saying that because OV is a minority position it is less likely a solid biblical position? If OV gains momentum and speed, or roots grow (whatever) in 2 or 3 centuries it could very well become just as established as the trinity doctrine. (hey, if trinity can evolve over 300 years why not Open-View?). I was thinking about that it IS new. That's probably why main stream probably hasn't heard of OV. I respect the idea but I'm not close to comfortable with it. What time I have is spent mostly thinking or reading stuff on postmill or theonomy or even Calvin's Institutes or, well, "In defense of Miracles" and the like.

That is why I appreciate people like you who have made some of it easier to digest for my own rumination. Have you compared OV to Providence? There is many scriptures about God's divine providence. How old would you say Open View Theism is?

respectfully,

[Lion]

I think it’s just a little older than this;Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.And most certainly before this exchange;Ex. 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! “Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.”
Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God… So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

[Carl Smuda]

Lion,
greetings Lion heart. God Bless you! Interesting, thank you. It took me a minute to see what you meant. But I believe I follow. What I meant when with that question was when (in our time) did the theology of OV start to develope? When did people start publishing works on open view? If it is the true description of the nature of the One God then, of course, it's been with us as long as time has been with us. Do you know when this theology really started?
respectfully,

[Yxboom]

The Martin Luther's thesis on Guttenberg for OVT would be the book The Openness of God by Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker and David Basinger.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Lion:

We are still quite obviously on the Daniel 9 issues and at the point on some of them where we may just need to move on…. Our main sticking point has been whether or not the destruction of the city and Temple fall within the 70 weeks (your position) or as a result of the 70 weeks (my position). My starting point for my position has always been that Gabriel very clearly laid out the goals for what was to be accomplished within the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24, and no matter how you slice it, the destruction of the city and the Temple ain’t one of them. :nono: As we get into the Olivet Discourse I have further proof which is premature to bring in now. In order to overcome this incredible large piece of evidence in my favor, you point out that Gabriel states:

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city

….for which I say you missed the next little word “to” which is repeated six times stating the goals. This is crystal clear…. seventy weeks are determined to… to…. to…. to…. to…. to…. and again, the destruction ain’t one of them. We apparently are not going to agree on this whatsoever. Your citation of Genesis 1 and 2 is weak as you attempt a comparison between a narrative and prophetic text, and as you assume the very point you want to prove, i.e. that everything that follows in verses 25-27 are simply an expansion of verse 24 which is not a simple overview, but rather a mission statement… thus, apples (pun intended) and oranges.

A great deal of your point hinges upon your assumption that the 70th week of Daniel 9 is the Great Tribulation; however, without first begging the question on this passage, nowhere else in Scripture is the Great Tribulation said to be seven years. The other places where a period of time is mentioned it is explicitly said to be time, times, and half a time (Daniel 12:7), one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days (Daniel 12:11), and forty-two months (Revelation 13:5). This is the main reason why typical futurists will place the Great Trib in the last half of the 70th week, which makes more sense if one is going to futurize said week at all.

But…. I demonstrated, and the text is painfully obvious, that Christ is crucified after the 69th week, which only leaves the 70th week. You can say (and you try to) that He was crucified in the very first moments of the 70th week, but it is the 70th week nonetheless. You absolutely cannot place this event at all within the 69th week though you even try to do that. It is textually impossible. I then demonstrated through the Hebraic parallelism present in the text (which you did not touch), that the text then goes on to explicitly state that the Messiah was cut off in the midst of the 70th week, and that the phrases “cut off” and “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” are equivalent. This interpretation of course is supported by the NT in Hebrews 10:9 – He takes away the first that He may establish the second,” which in context is speaking of the end of the sacrificial system in light of Christ’s work.

In an attempt to deflect the force of my point, you attempt to jokingly mock (and remember no offense, I like that style) the idea that there can be any period of time following the “after” and before the event that is said to follow the “after.” This is nonsense. However you do try and point out other verses where “after” is used to try and demonstrate that “after” cannot allow for any period of intervening time “after” but must imply immediacy... However, let’s go to other texts shall we?

Matthew 1:12 – And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. (oh my goodness! Jeconiah’s first order of business after he arrived was to have intimate relations…. He did nothing else before right?)

Matthew 22:25 – Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. (Egad!, this poor sap died immediately after he said “I do” right?)

Lev 25:48 – After[b] that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him. (a slave can only be redeemed immediately after he is sold?? Come on now….)

Jeremiah 12:15 – And it shall come to pass, after that I have plucked them out I will return, and have compassion on them, and will bring them again, every man to his heritage, and every man to his land. (Really now?? God immediately restores a nation after plucking them out ?)

I could multiply passages, but I think I have embarrassed you enough ;) The “normal flow of speech” as you say also allows for intervening time as well. If I say that I will return to work after I have my baby, I do not mean that I will get up off the delivery table and punch in. Your allusion that you can prove your case by calculating the crucifixion down to the exact month is also grossly misplaced and anti-contextual to the culture. The Hebraic mind only calculated down to the smallest unit of time mentioned, and in this case, that would be a week of years. We see the same thing with the resurrection which technically happened about 32 hours after Christ’s death, not three full days and nights.

You still also have not adequately answered my charge that you have made Christ’s earthly ministry and His public presentation to Israel as their Messiah textually invisible (which ignores John’s role as His harbinger (John 1:31). Verse 26 gives a period of time until Messiah the Prince.. your view has His ministry prior to His death completely irrelevant to the passage. However, I did mistakenly say that you believe that the events of verse 25 related to the 70th week only.. neither of us hold that, I meant to say that you hold that the events of verse 26-27 belong to the 70th week exclusively (or the last seconds of the 69th week which is textually impossible), so your attempted dramatics :D at claiming that the city must not have been rebuilt since it is textually invisible as well is just plain wrong. Verse 25 states that the first seven weeks were allotted for that task, so it is anything but invisible, quite unlike the yawning and wide stretch of 62 weeks that follow in which you would dump Christ’s earthly ministry.