R
ryanoneil
Guest
The most obvious thing is that Daniel (who was very specific about time frames) does not mention a 2,000+ year “pause” in the timeline. It doesn’t exist.
- Status
J
JohnPaul0
Guest
Another good, straightforward point. It’s funny how I get so wrapped up in what Dispensationalists are saying that I didn’t even consider this.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Another good, straightforward point. It’s funny how I get so wrapped up in what Dispensationalists are saying that I didn’t even consider this.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I will warn you that a mid-acts dispensationalist believes that Jesus came to fulfill Scripture and offer salvation to the Jews. When they rejected and killed Him, God rejected the Jews and instead, offered the salvation to the Gentiles. Nothing before midActs is considered to be for us. It’s all for the disinherited Jews. So, be careful, he will be way ahead of you with his argument. He will also believe that all of the saved have been destined from before the world began to be saved and nothing can change that. He believes God knew beforehand that the Jews would reject the offer.
I suggest, listening, nodding and saying thanks for coming and then vowing to never discuss religion with coworkers again. If you wish to do battle, you must be able to show your argument from the NT, from Paul, principally. Learn the first two chapters of Romans by heart.
He will come prepared and I promise you are outgunned.
Remember, return with your shield or on it. (Personally, I’d hide under mine if I were you.)
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Of course, that there is the weak spot.
The mid-Acts dispensationalists (MADs) believe that Jesus offered to the Jews salvation through the re-established earthly Davidic kingdom and that the Jews rejected same. But that is not what the Bible actually says:
[BIBLEDRB]John 6:14-15[/BIBLEDRB]
As you can see, it was JESUS, not the Jews, who did the rejecting. He did not want to establish an earthly Davidic kingdom. That is why He ran away when they came to make Him king.
These same Jews didn’t give up. They followed Him and caught up with Him.
[BIBLEDRB]John 6:25-27[/BIBLEDRB]
The Jews wanted to see another sign like the feeding of the five thousand. So the Lord explained:
[BIBLEDRB]John 6:32-35[/BIBLEDRB]
As you can see, this is not what the Jews were asking for.
[BIBLEDRB]John 6:41-42[/BIBLEDRB]
Jesus told them again that they needed to work on their faith. And then He proceeded to clarify what, specifically they needed to believe in.
[BIBLEDRB]John 6:47-52[/BIBLEDRB]
Notice that the Jews are taking Christ’s words, “I am the bread of life… Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” quite literally. Jesus does not back up and say that He just wants them to believe that these words are just symbolic or a metaphor for faith. He clarifies that “the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh,” that is, the flesh that He will give on Calvary IS the Bread of Life, AND…
[BIBLEDRB]John 6:53[/BIBLEDRB]
Even the Disciples could not readily accept what Jesus had said.
[BIBLEDRB]John 6:60-63[/BIBLEDRB]
In this last verse, Jesus is talking about “the flesh,” that is, the worldly way of thinking that the Jews and His Disciples had fallen into. He is not talking about “My flesh,” the flesh that He was talking about in the preceding verses. If Jesus had said that His flesh was of no avail, then Calvary would have been a waste of time, because it was through the sacrifice of His flesh that He was offered up for our salvation.
But some would not abandon their human reasoning and accept Christ’s words.
[BIBLEDRB]John 6:66[/BIBLEDRB]
If you start looking at the next chapter, you’ll see that it was those people who judged by appearances and left Him over the Bread of Life Discourse who began to plot His betrayal and crucifixion.
[BIBLEDRB]John 7:11-13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 7:19-24[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 7:32[/BIBLEDRB]
In short… Jesus was rejected by the Jews and crucified not because He was offering them some kind of earthly kingdom, but because He said that He was the Bread of Life and that one would have to eat His flesh in order to have eternal life. He was killed because He established and proclaimed the Holy Eucharist.
L
Lev23
Guest
Why would Daniel mention a 2000+ year pause when the NT scriptures mention the exact time is known only to God?
**Acts 1:6-8
So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”**
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Jesus said it would happen within the lifetime of his contemporaries.
**Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Mt 16:28)
Amen, I say to you, this generation* will not pass away until all these things have taken place. (Mt 24:34)**
L
Lev23
Guest
Matthew 16:28 was referring to the transfiguration of our Lord in chapter 17 and not all things spoken of in Matthew 24(and other scriptures) happened yet.
J
JohnPaul0
Guest
Lev,
When I read Daniel 9:24-27, I don’t see it mention anything about “restor[ing] the kingdom to Israel,” so I don’t think that Acts 1:6-8 applies to this discussion. Am I missing something?
B
beehumble
Guest
Not all things spoken of in Matt 24 have happened yet.
From The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life by Father Charles Arminjon:
Code:
"It is important, though, to consider that Christ, in His prophecy, combines in a single scene the signs relating to the end of the world and those relating to the destruction of Jerusalem. He does so, first, because of the analogy between the two events...Secondly, because in God there is no distinction or succession in time. The impending events and those more remote are clearly present to His mind, and He sees them as if they had occurred at the same moment....Hence in His prophecy He shows [the Apostles], as it were, two perspectives and two horizons, having analogous features and alike in relief, pattern, and coloring. In St. Matthew and St. Mark, the two events - the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world - seem rather to be merged. In St. Luke, the two occurrences are very clearly distinguished: there are features that refer solely to the end of the world... " (page 13)
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Everything has initially happened. The entire conversation was about the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Old Covenant age. All of it came to pass within the generation. But Jesus’ words point to and prefigure his Second Coming.
Peace
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Surely, he was not only speaking about events that would happen six days later. And why would Jesus point out that some of them would not die in the next six days before that event? The transfiguration prefigured his resurrection and after rising he came in glory to the throne of God. The destruction of Jerusalem was the exact sign Jesus claimed would show the rejected Son of man was in Heaven, enthroned.
King Belshazzar witnessed God’s coming in the Persian army as it meted out His judgement on Babylon. In the same way, the advance of the Roman army and its victory over Jerusalem was what Jesus was talking about. Jesus promised He would come in judgement on His accusers within their lifetme.
For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will n ot taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Mt 16:27-28)
B
beehumble
Guest
Father Arminjon and many other notables within the Church believed or believe the **entire **conversation was certainly **not ** about the first century and the end of the Old Covenant age.
Preterism is one of several interpretations, but it is not accepted by most as the only interpretation.
The footnotes within the NAB explain that it is not all preterism, that Jesus referred to both times, the first century destruction of the Temple and the Second Coming:
Footnote for [Matthew 24:1–25:46]
The discourse of the fifth book, the last of the five around which the gospel is structured. It is called the “eschatological” discourse since** it deals with the coming of the new age (the eschaton) in its fullness, with events that will precede it, and with how the disciples are to conduct themselves while awaiting an event that is as certain as its exact time is unknown to all but the Father **(Mt 24:36). The discourse may be divided into two parts, Mt 24:1–44 and Mt 24:45–25:46. In the first, Matthew follows his Marcan source (Mk 13:1–37) closely. The second is drawn from Q and from the evangelist’s own traditional material. Both parts show Matthew’s editing of his sources by deletions, additions, and modifications. The vigilant waiting that is emphasized in the second part does not mean a cessation of ordinary activity and concentration only on what is to come, but a faithful accomplishment of duties at hand, with awareness that the end, for which the disciples must always be ready, will entail the great judgment by which the everlasting destiny of all will be determined.
Footnote - [Matthew 24:3]
The Mount of Olives: see note on Mt 21:1. The disciples: cf. Mk 13:3–4 where only Peter, James, John, and Andrew put the question that is answered by the discourse. In both gospels, however, the question is put privately: the ensuing discourse is only for those who are disciples of Jesus. When will this happen…end of the age?: Matthew distinguishes carefully between the destruction of the temple (this) and the coming of Jesus** that will bring the end of the age.** In Mark the two events are more closely connected, a fact that may be explained by Mark’s believing that the one would immediately succeed the other. Coming: this translates the Greek word parousia, which is used in the gospels only here and in Mt 24:27, 37, 39. It designated the official visit of a ruler to a city or the manifestation of a saving deity, and** it was used by Christians to refer to the final coming of Jesus in glory**, a term first found in the New Testament with that meaning in 1 Thes 2:19.
Footnote for [Matthew 24:8]
The labor pains: the tribulations leading up to the end of the age are compared to the pains of a woman about to give birth. There is much attestation for rabbinic use of the phrase “the woes (or birth pains) of the Messiah” after the New Testament period, but** in at least one instance it is attributed to a** rabbi who lived in the late first century A.D. In this Jewish usage it meant the distress of the time preceding the coming of the Messiah; here, the labor pains precede the coming of the Son of Man in glory.
Footnote for [Matthew 24:9–12]
Matthew has used Mk 13:9–12 in his missionary discourse (Mt 10:17–21) and omits it here. Besides the sufferings, including death, and the hatred of all nations that the disciples will have to endure, there will be worse affliction within the church itself. This is described in Mt 24:10–12, which are peculiar to Matthew. Will be led into sin: literally, “will be scandalized,”** probably meaning that they will become apostates;** see Mt 13:21 where “fall away” translates the same Greek word as here. Betray: in the Greek this is the same word as the hand over of Mt 24:9. The handing over to persecution and hatred from outside will have their counterpart within the church. False prophets: these are Christians; see note on Mt 7:15–20. Evildoing: see Mt 7:23. Because of the apocalyptic nature of much of this discourse, the literal meaning of this description of the church should not be pressed too hard. However, there is reason to think that Matthew’s addition of these verses reflects in some measure the condition of his community.
[Pope Benedict referred to Maciel as a false prophet - a sign of the times…]
There are more footnotes that explain it, too much info to post, so here is the link:
usccb.org/bible/mt/24:01#48024001-1
[And that whole Roman legion thing representing the coming of the Son of Man - I have always felt that it did not adequately fit the text in Matthew and is too long of a stretch made by someone trying way too hard to force the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 to apply to the first century only. I feel the person who came up with that could not conceive and did not realize Jesus was speaking of both the first century AD and the last century at the same time.]
God bless you.
P
patrick457
Guest
Did you read what Ryan wrote at the end? “But Jesus’ words point to and prefigure his Second Coming.” So no contest here.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Yes! Isaiah prophecied the the Lord would give the sign of a young woman conceiving and bearing a son, and it was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day. But that fulfillment itself prefigured and pointed to another more significant fulfillment in Jesus.
Likewise, in the case of the Temple’s destruction (the end of the Old Covenant age), that event prophecied and prefigured the still-future final fulfillment of Christ coming at the end of this age.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Hi beehumble, I had to delete some of the footnotes to make everything fit. I didn’t mean to give that impression. I meant to say everything in the Olivet discourse was fulfilled in the first century with the end of the Old Covenant age. But in his words Jesus is pointing to his coming at the end of this age.
I agree full preterism is short sighted if it doesn’t point to the final fulfillment at the end of our age.
I agree!
I don’t have a problem with the two parts, but Jesus is still talking about the Temples destruction near the end of chapter 24 and chapter 25 BUT also speaking of future eschatology.
If you read Luke you won’t see a careful distinction. His presentation shows no division of different subjects, but refers to a single time of fulfillment (Lk 17:22-37) I’m not saying that Jesus is only refering to one or the other, but what I’m saying for example is: when Jesus talks about lightning in Mt 24:27 he talking about his coming judgement on the city of Jerusalem which ends the Old Coven ant age (while pointing to his Second coming in glory).
While I don’t disagree, it applied just as much to the grief that overcame sinners when God came as judge in the first century.
I apologize for not reading the link at this time (I will), but these verses apply just as much to the first century as they would to the future.
Well I don’t really disagree that Jesus is talking about both. But it does accurately represent the Roman legion. Take (Isa 19:1) for example, **“The Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence.” **It was fulfilled in Isa 20:1-6, but God did not make Himself visible in any physical mainfestation. God’s coming on the cloud was actually fulfilled in the arrival of the Assyrian army! They were the tool of God’s judgment. God gloriously came on the clouds, but what was physically seen was the Assyrian army. Do you see what I mean?
And the other apocalyptic language that Jesus uses can be explained in a similar way (without taking anything away from his reference to the end of this age). God bless you also!
P
patrick457
Guest
That’s what I like about the interpretation of Biblical prophecies as having multiple layers of meaning: they are always ‘fresh’ for every generation that reads them, and you always discover something the deeper you dig in. We often imagine prophecies as having an one-on-one basis, pointing to only one thing (usually something in the future), but I don’t see why we should be so narrow: prophecies could be relevant for the past AND the future (and also the present) IMHO.
B
beehumble
Guest
I read the sentence “The entire conversation was about the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Old Covenant age.” and took that to mean what it said.
Don’t like contests
, and not having a contest, but it seems to be an error of omission to say the ]entire conversation was about those two things of the first century. It was purposefully, directly about the last century, too. Just wanted to get taht out there for any lurkers who might have misunderstood.God bless you.
B
beehumble
Guest
Back to Daniel’s 70 weeks.
I have a few things to post here that are a bit intriguing to me; not sure what to make of one of them in particular, but I am going to throw it out there (maybe!).
Blood moons are total lunar eclipses. The moon is appointed by God as the ‘marker’ of His appointed seasons, so says Scripture. The Jewish peoples use the moon to set the dates of the God-appointed festivals.
Two key dates marking the hundredth anniversary of Fatima are May 13, 2017 - the start of the apparition - and October 13, 2017 - the Miracle of the Sun during the last apparition.
.
Pope Benedict prayed on May 13, 2010 at Fatima for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to come by the time of the centenary of Fatima in 2017.
There were 70 days between October 13, 2010 and the blood moon of Dec 21, 2010 on the Winter Solstice. Did this mark some sort of symbolic start of week 70 of Daniel? A sign of week 70?
I ask this because there are seven years between October 13, 2010 and October 13, 2017 and at almost exactly 3 1/2 years (3 years, 6 months and 2 days - 1280 days) after October 13, 2010 - the midpoint of the “week” of seven years - there will be a blood moon on April 15, 2014.
There are two interesting things about this. First, it is the feast of Passover. The Messiah was cut off during Passover according to the Daniel 70th week understanding. Second, it is part of the tetrad of four blood moons in a row that fall on Passover, then Sukkot (Harvest), then Passover, then Sukkot in 2014 and 2015.
[Note: The first coming was at the spring rains/harvest of the time of Passover; many hold that the second coming will be at the time of the autumn rains/harvest of Sukkot.]
Two other tetrads (four blood moon eclipses in a row) happened in the past century and they also fell on the Jewish feast days of Passover and Sukkot two years in a row.
One time it came at the time of the creation of the nation of Israel, and the other time it came at the time of Jerusalem becoming ‘owned’ by the Jews for the first time in 2300 years. Both of these are key signs of the Messianic age - the time of the coming of the Messiah.
And note that we had a halo of the sun at Fatima on May 13 of this year, and Sukkot fell on October 13 this year.
Any thoughts?
God bless you.
I have a few things to post here that are a bit intriguing to me; not sure what to make of one of them in particular, but I am going to throw it out there (maybe!).
Blood moons are total lunar eclipses. The moon is appointed by God as the ‘marker’ of His appointed seasons, so says Scripture. The Jewish peoples use the moon to set the dates of the God-appointed festivals.
Two key dates marking the hundredth anniversary of Fatima are May 13, 2017 - the start of the apparition - and October 13, 2017 - the Miracle of the Sun during the last apparition.
.
Pope Benedict prayed on May 13, 2010 at Fatima for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to come by the time of the centenary of Fatima in 2017.
There were 70 days between October 13, 2010 and the blood moon of Dec 21, 2010 on the Winter Solstice. Did this mark some sort of symbolic start of week 70 of Daniel? A sign of week 70?
I ask this because there are seven years between October 13, 2010 and October 13, 2017 and at almost exactly 3 1/2 years (3 years, 6 months and 2 days - 1280 days) after October 13, 2010 - the midpoint of the “week” of seven years - there will be a blood moon on April 15, 2014.
There are two interesting things about this. First, it is the feast of Passover. The Messiah was cut off during Passover according to the Daniel 70th week understanding. Second, it is part of the tetrad of four blood moons in a row that fall on Passover, then Sukkot (Harvest), then Passover, then Sukkot in 2014 and 2015.
[Note: The first coming was at the spring rains/harvest of the time of Passover; many hold that the second coming will be at the time of the autumn rains/harvest of Sukkot.]
Two other tetrads (four blood moon eclipses in a row) happened in the past century and they also fell on the Jewish feast days of Passover and Sukkot two years in a row.
One time it came at the time of the creation of the nation of Israel, and the other time it came at the time of Jerusalem becoming ‘owned’ by the Jews for the first time in 2300 years. Both of these are key signs of the Messianic age - the time of the coming of the Messiah.
And note that we had a halo of the sun at Fatima on May 13 of this year, and Sukkot fell on October 13 this year.
Any thoughts?
God bless you.
J
JohnPaul0
Guest
Well, I finally had time to summarize some of the posts here, and I sent them off to the fellow.
I really like Ivebeenshown’s exegesis that the 70 weeks started from 457 BC.
Then, guess what? I was reading the proclamation of the birth of Christ on Christmas Eve, and it said that Christ was conceived “in the sixty-fith year of the prophet Daniel.” Very interesting because it places the beginning of the 70 weeks about at the beginning of Ataxerxes reign in 465 BC, which is what an early post claimed:
sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/daniel/dan-1/dan-2/dan-3/dan-4/dan-5/dan-6/dan-7/dan-8/dan-9
The problem with that date is that there is no Biblical record of a decree from Ataxerxes at that time. We’re only talking about 12 years difference from 465 to 457 BC, but the 70 weeks are supposed to be exact, so I’m officially stumped.
I really like Ivebeenshown’s exegesis that the 70 weeks started from 457 BC.
Then, guess what? I was reading the proclamation of the birth of Christ on Christmas Eve, and it said that Christ was conceived “in the sixty-fith year of the prophet Daniel.” Very interesting because it places the beginning of the 70 weeks about at the beginning of Ataxerxes reign in 465 BC, which is what an early post claimed:
sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/daniel/dan-1/dan-2/dan-3/dan-4/dan-5/dan-6/dan-7/dan-8/dan-9
The problem with that date is that there is no Biblical record of a decree from Ataxerxes at that time. We’re only talking about 12 years difference from 465 to 457 BC, but the 70 weeks are supposed to be exact, so I’m officially stumped.
- Status