ECT The sixty nine weeks of Daniel 9:25

[john w]

Futurism and dispensationalist theology is a return to Judaism in the belief that there is a lot of unfinished business to complete, or that 'God is a liar' if a Davidic theocracy does not happen.

False dichotomy. Wrong...

The first coming:To resolve the sin/sins issue


The second coming, "the second time"(Acts 7:13 KJV, Hebrews 9:28 KJV): To resolve the evil issue, as He sends the "man of war"(Exodus 15:3 KJV), to fulfill "the promises made unto the fathers"(Romans 15:8 KJV), by force, as God the Father sees to it that His only begotten Son, who came in humiliation at the first coming, is glorified, for what He did at Calvary, as He is installed as King, on earth, as a dictator, with no dissent, with His nation of Israel, elect for service ,serving as His kingdom of priests, witnesses, ministers,.....in an environment where the curse of Genesis will be lifted, and we will experience "…the days of heaven upon the earth…"(Deut. 11:21 KJV), "…the times of refreshing…"(Acts 3:19 KJV), including "...the times of restitution of all things…"(Acts 3:21 KJV), and this "all things" includes the restoration of both the earth and the heavenlies under the LORD God's control.


BPOTY=Brilliant Post Of The Year.

 

[Interplanner]

Rationalization

Shame on you for tearing the believers away from the book of Hebrews. And, you might be interested to know, (prob not), you are the only people in the world who do so. Right here on this internet ghetto.

 

[Interplanner]

Yep.

Heb 8:8 means what it says.

That's the problem. You anchor everything on your one verse. 9:11 does NOT mean what it says.

You are a folly and an amateur at thinking.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That's the problem. You anchor everything on your one verse. 9:11 does NOT mean what it says.

You are a folly and an amateur at thinking.

You've yet to prove how Heb 8:8 does not mean exactly what it says.

 

[serpentdove]

[Weeks Dan] If it stretches to our day...

Yep.

See:

Dan 9:25 McGee

 

[Interplanner]

You've yet to prove how Heb 8:8 does not mean exactly what it says.

I didn't know we were supposed to ignore or write off the other few references to the new covenant in the NT. But that's your rule, not mine.

There is nothing future about this passage, btw. It is now happening. If you don't understand that (and you don't) see the other passages.

btw, RD has managed to disregard them for 3 months now. Is that your plan? Save us both time by being honest.

There is nothing in hebrews that is not universal either, apart from a few details about the destruction of the country that was pending. That's why Paul's yearning for the city above in Gal 4 is echoed here.

You don't understand Hebrews at all.

It is about the priesthood of Christ as the Gospel superceding the Aaronic. That is here, now, and for all who believe.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You don't understand Hebrews at all.

Heb 8:8

Show me how Israel and Judan doesn't mean Israel and Judah.

 

[Interplanner]

Heb 8:8

Show me how Israel and Judan doesn't mean Israel and Judah.

KNow the rest of the book (context) and the overall context of that book in the stream of NT writings. You have a myopic understanding, one line. Oh, there's a few others that are favs but they are the only ones you really know: Mt 23's 'blessed is he...' Rom 11's 'all Israel...' 1 Tim 2's 'rightly divide...' but everything is is trash to you. You have no idea that the NT IS SELF-EXPLANATORY. You are its explanation. See rom 15:5-13, Acts 13's sermon, Acts 26's hearing, 2 Cor 3-5, Heb 8-10 (remembering that 10's first half is the concluding declaration of the document WITHOUT ONCE RIPPING TRIBES OR RACES IN HALVES), Gal 3-4.

The meaning of the Bible does not stop on one verse about one thing, any more than you can 'get' Handel's MESSIAH by just listening to the last 'Hallelujah' of the Hallelujah Chorus 1000x. BUT THAT IS WHAT YOU SOUND LIKE YOU ARE DOING!!!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

KNow the rest of the book (context) and the overall context of that book in the stream of NT writings. You have a myopic understanding, one line. Oh, there's a few others that are favs but they are the only ones you really know: Mt 23's 'blessed is he...' Rom 11's 'all Israel...' 1 Tim 2's 'rightly divide...' but everything is is trash to you. You have no idea that the NT IS SELF-EXPLANATORY. You are its explanation. See rom 15:5-13, Acts 13's sermon, Acts 26's hearing, 2 Cor 3-5, Heb 8-10 (remembering that 10's first half is the concluding declaration of the document WITHOUT ONCE RIPPING TRIBES OR RACES IN HALVES), Gal 3-4.

The meaning of the Bible does not stop on one verse about one thing, any more than you can 'get' Handel's MESSIAH by just listening to the last 'Hallelujah' of the Hallelujah Chorus 1000x. BUT THAT IS WHAT YOU SOUND LIKE YOU ARE DOING!!!

Heb 8:8

Show me how Israel and Judah doesn't mean Israel and Judah.

I will wait. Forever.

 

[Interplanner]

Heb 8:8

Show me how Israel and Judah doesn't mean Israel and Judah.

I will wait. Forever.

That's not what you're asking. What you are asking is: I want to read this one line without reference to ANYTHING else the NT has said about the New covenant. The reunification of Israel and Judah is great, but that's not all there is to the new covenant, and according to the same NT letter quoting it, it is not even about the land or anything about the old covenant. You have so much to learn.

You know that feasts are 'fulfilled' in Christ. But you don't know what 'Israel and Judah' fulfilled in Christ means. It means a fractured people have a way to be unified again, not as a theocracy (there is no hint of a theocracy), but IN CHRIST. But you refuse to see IN CHRIST.

I'm waiting forever for you to saying anything intelligent about 'all that God promised to the fathers is fulfilled in the resurrection'!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That's not what you're asking. What you are asking is: I want to read this one line without reference to ANYTHING else the NT has said about the New covenant. The reunification of Israel and Judah is great, but that's not all there is to the new covenant, and according to the same NT letter quoting it, it is not even about the land or anything about the old covenant. You have so much to learn.

You know that feasts are 'fulfilled' in Christ. But you don't know what 'Israel and Judah' fulfilled in Christ means. It means a fractured people have a way to be unified again, not as a theocracy (there is no hint of a theocracy), but IN CHRIST. But you refuse to see IN CHRIST.

I'm waiting forever for you to saying anything intelligent about 'all that God promised to the fathers is fulfilled in the resurrection'!

Heb 8:8

Show me how Israel and Judah doesn't mean Israel and Judah.

I will wait. Forever.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I'm waiting forever for you to saying anything intelligent about 'all that God promised to the fathers is fulfilled in the resurrection'!

You made this up, as I have shown before, from your MISREADING AND TWISTING of Acts 13.

 

[john w]

KNow the rest of the book (context) and the overall context of that book in the stream of NT writings. You have a myopic understanding, one line.

Translation: Filler....Fluff....This stumper can be employed to counter any argument.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Translation: Filler....Fluff....This stumper can be employed to counter any argument.

Yes sir, in my experience the unveiling of moulages has always been the result of myopicness.

 

[john w]

Yes sir, in my experience the unveiling of moulages has always been the result of myopicness.

I've finally figured this TOL bowling game out, Mayor. You take this theological moulage of a ball, put it in this here gully. It rolls down yonder, then you hurl yourself down this slippery gully, and see how many of them there snake bashing theological myopic clubs you can knock down before the ball gets there.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Acts 13
23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.

26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.

29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

30 But God raised him from the dead:

31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.

32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.



We see a singular promise which was fulfilled by the resurrection of the LORD Jesus Christ.

How IP the Genius can think this means that ALL PROMISES to Israel were fulfilled by the resurrection is beyond me. This is what happens when you believe the dusty books of men in your library over simple English words in Acts 13.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I've finally figured this TOL bowling game out, Mayor. You take this theological moulage of a ball, put it in this here gully. It rolls down yonder, then you hurl yourself down this slippery gully, and see how many of them there snake bashing theological myopic clubs you can knock down before the ball gets there.

Well, saint john, like Lydia Crosswaithe, I don't bowl.

 

[john w]

Well, saint john, like Lydia Crosswaithe, I don't bowl.

You would bowl, squirt, if it gave you an opportunity to practice your "smooth move."

 

[Interplanner]

Acts 13
23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.

26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.

29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

30 But God raised him from the dead:

31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.

32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.



We see a singular promise which was fulfilled by the resurrection of the LORD Jesus Christ.

How IP the Genius can think this means that ALL PROMISES to Israel were fulfilled by the resurrection is beyond me. This is what happens when you believe the dusty books of men in your library over simple English words in Acts 13.

As you can see from nearly any translation it is the pronoun construction: 'what was promised' 'what God promised' 'whatever God promised'. It's 'hameis humas euangelizometha'

While we are at it, you might be interested to note the organic connection to the Gospel 'euangelia'. The Gospel has everything to do with answering the expectation started by the Promise. This is why the Promise may be capitalized in some trans of Gal 3 because 3:17 etc pits it against the Law, in a formal sense. The Promise was about Christ and justification. Nothing to do with the land. Yet it can be used as one word to refer to the whole business.

But there is quite a bit more than this. There is a thing called CONTEXT. This whole business started back in 2:30 where the promise to David is fulfilled in the resurrection. That one about reigning, enthronement.

But there is even more, in the sermon itself. The promises to David, v34, are transfered to Christ, which why the question, 'how then is (Messiah) David's son?' Because what it meant all along is that the Gospel of Messiah was the promises to David, and they are now Christ's and they are about the mission to the nations as well.

Once again, there is nothing in the NT when it interprets the promises to Israel, or David, that is about a theocracy a la Judaism back in the land. That is why Heb 10:1-18, the official conclusion of that letter and of why it quoted the new covenant material has nothing about the land, not the least interest, in a letter that says to let it go, if the zealots and rebels want your property in Judea.

A theocracy served its purpose in David's time and was/is no longer the purpose of God. Now the purpose of God is the mission to the nations, and whenever the NT says this, there is no secret door returning back to Judaism.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

As you can see from nearly any translation it is the pronoun construction: 'what was promised' 'what God promised' 'whatever God promised'. It's 'hameis humas euangelizometha'

While we are at it, you might be interested to note the organic connection to the Gospel 'euangelia'. The Gospel has everything to do with answering the expectation started by the Promise. This is why the Promise may be capitalized in some trans of Gal 3 because 3:17 etc pits it against the Law, in a formal sense. The Promise was about Christ and justification. Nothing to do with the land. Yet it can be used as one word to refer to the whole business.

But there is quite a bit more than this. There is a thing called CONTEXT. This whole business started back in 2:30 where the promise to David is fulfilled in the resurrection. That one about reigning, enthronement.

But there is even more, in the sermon itself. The promises to David, v34, are transfered to Christ, which why the question, 'how then is (Messiah) David's son?' Because what it meant all along is that the Gospel of Messiah was the promises to David, and they are now Christ's and they are about the mission to the nations as well.

Once again, there is nothing in the NT when it interprets the promises to Israel, or David, that is about a theocracy a la Judaism back in the land. That is why Heb 10:1-18, the official conclusion of that letter and of why it quoted the new covenant material has nothing about the land, not the least interest, in a letter that says to let it go, if the zealots and rebels want your property in Judea.

A theocracy served its purpose in David's time and was/is no longer the purpose of God. Now the purpose of God is the mission to the nations, and whenever the NT says this, there is no secret door returning back to Judaism.

:chuckle:

A lot of words to say that you don't believe simple 6th Grade English words.
You don't like what it says.