Originally posted by 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,
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;
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;
As to my statement that the Tribulation will still happen, as is shown in the book of Revelation, you said;
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.
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,
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;
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,
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;
"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;
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.
I feel bad for you guys already LOLOLOL