On May 14, 10:36=A0am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:07:22 -0700 (PDT), goldbrick
> <john...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> spake thusly:
>
> >"Why would the Messiah (as you claim) make a covenant with the Jews
> >for
> >only =93one week=94 (seven years) and then in the =93middle of the week
p=
ut
> >a stop to sacrifice and grain offering=94? Doe this make any logical
> >sense? I don=92t think so. Can you show anywhere in scripture were it
> >says that Jesus made a covenant with anyone for =93seven years=94? "
>
> You were just shown. =A0You rejected it.
>
As always, your assertion with no evidence to sup****t it.
> The "week" is the 7 years involved in both
> Jesus' earthly ministry and the 3.5 years
> after He ascended. =A0It was His crucifixion
> that "stopped sacrifice". =A0It was no longer
> of any value.
>
Can you show any verse that makes this declaration?
> And btw, it says that it is the Person who
> would be cut off. =A0Jesus was on Earth for
> 3.5 years and was crucified ("cut off").
>
Where have I said otherwise?
> After that, the Gospel went out to Israel
> almost exclusively. =A0The 7 year week still
> had to be fulfilled.
>
> Now, after 7 years were up, enter Paul
> the Apostle to the Gentiles and the word
> begins to go out to all nations!
>
Do you have any verses sup****ting the above statements or is this
again just your word?
> Now is all of this coincidental timing? =A0No!
>
I don=92t know, you have not provided any verses to analyze, just your
word.
> You may want to believe it's about some
> "AntiChrist", but it doesn't say that in the
> text and you admit that the first use of
> the word "prince" is the Messiah and then
> for no good reason, claim that the second
> use of it about some AntiChrist.
>
The word "antichrist" occurs only in 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7,
but the idea which the word conveys appears frequently in Scripture.
As in the Old Testament the doctrine concerning Christ was only
suggested, not developed, so is it with the doctrine of the
Antichrist.
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database
Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft)
Early Christians looked for Antichrist as a person and not a polity or
system. The general opinion of those who closely followed the
Scriptures was that he would be a man in whom Satan would dwell
utterly and bodily, and who would be armed with satanic and demonic
powers.
In the OT he is prefigured under the "king of Babylon" (Isa 14:4); the
little "horn" (Dan 7:8; 8:9); the king "insolent and skilled in
intrigue" (8:23); "THE PRINCE WHO IS TO COME" (9:26); the
willful king (11:36). In the NT he is called "the man of lawlessness,"
"the son of destruction" (2 Thess 2:3-8); "antichrist" (1 John 2:18);
and "the beast" (Rev 13:1-10).
This sinister, demon-inspired leader will rise to dominate the world
in the end-time, persecute the saints, seek to destroy the Jew and
banish the name of God and His Christ from the earth, and thus take
over. This would mean the thwarting of God's plan for the messianic
millennial kingdom, which involves the restoration of Israel (Acts
1:6) and universal peace.
He is destroyed by the second advent of Christ (Rev 19:11-16), who
sets up the earthly kingdom (Rev 20:1-3). This is the premillennial
view. Amillennialism rejects an earthly kingdom in favor of Christ's
ushering in the eternal state, rather than His establi****ng another
era in time.
Views that identify the Antichrist with Muhammad (Innocent III in
1213) or with the papal church (Protestantism) can scarcely be called
scriptural.
(from The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody
Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (c) 1988.)
> Linguistically, the Hebrew disproves that,
> since "prince" has to fall back to the last
> dominant noun, which is "Messiah".
>
Good rule, when do you follow it? May I suggest you follow your own
advice and =93read for comprehension?
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but
not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with
a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
=93=85 and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city
and the sanctuary=85.=94
Who were the people of the prince (lower case p) to come?
To me, this is obviously speaking of the Romans. They were the ones
that destroyed the city and the sanctuary. Is there anyone who claims
that the Messiah was the prince of the Romans?
I believe the structure of the phrase (the prince that shall come) can
plausibly be argued that this =93prince=94 will come after, the
destruction of the city and sanctuary.
If one wishes to equate this =93prince=94 to the Messiah, then the
question: Were the Jews the people that caused the destruction?
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in
the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to
cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it
desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be
poured upon the desolate.
=93And he (lower case h) shall confirm the covenant with many for one
week:=94
Some translations, as well as the Interlinear mentioned above insert
the article =93the=94 before the word many, =93the many=94 euphuism for
the
Jewish people.
(he, personal pronoun) I believe the rule of grammar is, a personal
pronoun refers to the previous and closest proper noun, that being
=93prince=94 (small p in v26). Again, this is speaking of the =93prince
that=
shall come.=94
=93=85shall confirm the covenant=85=94 Notice the word is =93confirm=94
not =
make
or institute.
Shall confirm OT:1396 gabar (gaw-bar'); a primitive root; to be
strong; by implication, to prevail, act insolently:
KJV - exceed, confirm, be great, be mighty, prevail, put to more
[strength], strengthen, be stronger, be valiant.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with
Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright =A9 1994, 2003 Biblesoft,
Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
=93=85for one week=85=94 Denotative of the duration of the covenant, not
how=
long it would take the Messiah to institute the covenant as some
claim.
=93=85in the midst of the week=85=94 If v27 was speaking of the Messiah,
wh=
at
purpose would be served for Him to make a covenant in the first place
if it was going to last only seven years? Can you show any evidence
indicating the New Covenant was instituted prior to the crucifixion
and that it would only last seven years?
=93=85he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease=85=94 (he,
little h) If this was speaking of the Messiah, what purpose would
there be for Him to wait until the =93midst of the week=94 to put a stop
to =93the sacrifice and the oblation=94? Is it your contention that no
sacrifices were offered in the temple from the time of the crucifixion
until the temple was destroyed and if so what evidence do you have to
sup****t such a view?
=93=85he shall make it desolate=85=94 (he, little h) Do you have any
verse=
describing when and how the Messiah made the =93sanctuary desolate=94?
Now let=92s see which of the five points below will the =93pastor=94
exercise.
The points below seem to be quite typical of those in this group
advancing their unique interpretations of scripture. They are more
than willing to tell everyone what the Bible really says and how
everyone that does not agree with them are just not bright enough, or
do not have the =93Holy Spirit=94 like they possess in order to understand
what God personally told them.
They can expound in volumes their beliefs but when someone asks
specific questions and, has the audacity to ask for some evidence
beyond their word, the response is usually one of these:
1. Respond with an answer that has no relation****p to the question
asked.
2. Try to intimidate and change the subject with an exorbitant amount
of material that does not address the question, hoping to change the
focus with their response.
3. Ignore the question, or the point made, entirely as if it did not
exist.
4. Snip sections for the purpose of confusion, diversion, casting
doubt, misleading, changing context etc.
5. Or if all that fails, then the personal attacks begin. Usually in
the form of telling the person asking the question just how stupid,
ignorant, not very bright, they are an idiot or moron etc.
I challenge everyone to observe if at least one of these points is not
applicable to the =93pastor=94.
When plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense or else you
get nonsense.
Rev 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy
of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues
which are written in this book;
Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from
the holy city, which are written in this book.
> --
>
> "Fantasy abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters."
> - Francis Goya
|
