Results 21 - 40 of 49
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stokeyhk Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | What's Jesus' position? | 1 Cor 15:27 | stokeyhk | 55695 | ||
What are you talking about, Steve? John 10:29: "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all." You forgot to mention verses 34-36: "I am the Son of God"! What about John 17:20-22? "They may be one just as We are one." Stokey. |
||||||
22 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | stokeyhk | 55635 | ||
Running out of space. "Only-begotten." John 1:18: "No one has seen God at any time." God "gave his only-begotten Son." (John 3:16) 'God sent his Son into the world.' (John 3:17) Not Mary's "only-begotten Son" but God's. He was such before he was sent into the world, yes all the time he was "in the bosom position with the Father." Jesus "has always been." Shouldn't it be: Jesus has "before Abraham" been? (John 8:57) A question for you: If Jesus is "God the Son," why did he call his Father "the only true God"? (John 17:1-3) Stokey. |
||||||
23 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | stokeyhk | 55632 | ||
1) Colossians 1:15. The NKJV reads in part: "The firstborn over all creation." The KJV reads: "The firstborn of every creature." Notice the expression "the firstborn of." Here we're not concerned with "firstborn" by itself. (Hebrews 12:16) Rather its "the firstborn of." Each time this expression appears in the Bible before here, it refers to part of the group when speaking of living creatures. E.g. "the firstborn of Pharaoh," is one of Pharaoh's family, and "the firstborn of beasts," are themselves animals. (Exodus 11:5) So, everywhere else, "the firstborn of" is part of the group! To translate the Greek as "the firstborn over" changes it to a place of preeminence or authority. So, the question is: Does the Greek say "the firstborn over" or "the firstborn of"? Well, "the firstborn over" contradicts Revelation 3:14, NKJV, where Jesus himself says that he is "the Beginning of the creation of God." Whereas "the firstborn of" agrees with it and the Greek! 2) Notice the context: Verse 3: "We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." No equality there! Verse 16: "In him" (Int.) not "by him." Have you compared the translation of the Greek "panta" in Luke 13:2, NKJV? It translates it as "all [other]." Colossians 2:3 says: "In whom [Jesus] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." What's the point of saying this? Verses 4 and 8 answer: "Lest anyone should deceive you." "Lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deception . . . not according to Christ." So Jesus possesses superior "wisdom and knowledge" as verse 9 shows: "For in him dwells all the fullness [put there by the Father, Colossians 1:19]." "All the fullness" of what? Verse 3 mentions "wisdom and knowledge." Verse 9, NKJV its "the Godhead." "The divinity." (Int.) "The Deity." (NIV) "The fulness of God's nature." (Weymouth) "The perfection of God."(LB) This word "Godhead" is mentioned three times in the KJV: (a) Acts 17:29; (b) Romans 1:20; (c) Colossians 2:9. Strong's says (a) means: "godlike (neut. as noun, divinity)." This indicates a quality in the neuter tense; (b) means: "divinity (abstract)"; (c) means: "divinity (abstract)." We can see it doesn't mean "God." Rather its abstract; a divine quality; spiritual qualities. This agrees with "all the treasures of [godly] wisdom and knowledge" and is in contrast with 'human philosophy and tradition.' 3) Colossians 3:1 says: "If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God." The "things above" are spiritual. Christ is not God himself, but "sitting at the right hand of God." 4) Philippians 2:6. The NKJV rendering does not harmonize with humility and unselfishness, rather the opposite. (Genesis 3:5) The New Jerusalem Bible says: Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped." What does the Greek word rendered "robbery" mean? Strong's says: "to seize." Lit. "snatching." It would be totally inappropriate for a sinful human to have the "selfish ambition" of being equal to God. Even Jesus, in the position of God's firstborn Son and in God's form, not a slave's form, still didn't have the "selfish ambition" of being equal with God. This would be a greater display of humility because a son is greater than "a slave"! 5) Romans 9:5. The question is, Why do some translations contain a period after "according to the flesh, Christ came" or "from Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race." Is it primarily to show whether Jesus is God or not? Well, consider the context and the Greek? Romans 15:6 records Paul as saying we should "glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." So that would mean Paul was contradicting himself, wouldn't it, if he meant to teach Jesus was God? The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays says "[the (thing) according to flesh] in reading must be followed by a pause,-a pause which is lengthened by the special emphasis given to the [according to flesh] by the [the (thing)]." He says the preceding sentence is complete. Further he says the recounting of all the blessings given to the Israelites-"the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the service [of God], and the promises . . . the fathers and . . . the Christ"-"naturally suggests an ascription of praise and thanksgiving to God as the Being who rules over all; while a doxology is also suggested by the [Amen]." He says all the oldest manuscripts of this verse contain a period after "flesh." Then verses 6-24 point to God's authority, his being "over all." Stokey. |
||||||
24 | Why do you wait? | Phil 3:20 | stokeyhk | 55621 | ||
I didn't say the Watchtower has taught this since 1876. The first Watchtower was issued July, 1879. I said: "Jehovah's Witnesses have recognized 1914 as the end of 'the times of the Gentiles' since 1876." This was in an article printed in the October 1876 issue of the Bible Examiner. Maybe I should have said the Bible Students, who adopted the name Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931, have taught this. Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses were mistaken in their expectations about 1914, 1925 and 1975. The Bible says: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32) What's worse is when a person realizes his mistakes, but refuses to correct them! I don't think the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses has ever claimed to be "infallible." (Acts 1:6, 7; Luke 19:11; Daniel 12:8; 1 Corinthians 13:12) Stokey. |
||||||
25 | Why do you wait? | Phil 3:20 | stokeyhk | 55617 | ||
Its interesting that the Amplified Bible inserts "tasting" into the verse. TEV inserts "eat." Jehovah's Witnesses "take it literally," too. You're right, "abstain from blood means abstain from blood." So, do you admire this aspect of our doctrine? Naturally to believe it intellectually is one thing, but to do it is quite another! Acts 5:29, 32 says: "'We must obey God as ruler rather than men." 'God gives his holy spirit to those obeying him as ruler.' James 1:22 says: "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says." Stokey. |
||||||
26 | Why do you wait? | Phil 3:20 | stokeyhk | 55531 | ||
Like you said, only Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus' return was in 1914. There are some religious groups who have an afinity for 1914, but have different understandings. Not only Jehovah's Witnesses recognized 1914 as the end of "the times of the Gentiles" as mentioned in Luke 21:24, KJV. There were a number of clergymen in the 19th century who did so, and others. As you may know, we have taught this since 1876. Many people believe we're living in the "last days." (2 Timothy 3:1-5) World events clearly show this. It all depends on whether we're willing to consider a different viewpoint. So, I believe Jesus' invisible return was in 1914 because it has "Scriptural support." I agree with their explanation, too. Further, Jehovah's Witnesses didn't have the New World Translation before 1950. You have to admire their worldwide peace and unity, though, don't you? Will you answer my question regarding Acts 15:28, 29? Stokey. |
||||||
27 | Why do you wait? | Phil 3:20 | stokeyhk | 55514 | ||
Do you believe that Jesus' invisible return was about 1914? Or, Do you disbelieve it because Jehovah's Witnesses say this? As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I would like you to tell me how you understand Acts 15:28, 29 which says: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from . . . blood . . . and from sexual immorality." (NIV) Stokey. |
||||||
28 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | stokeyhk | 55513 | ||
Dear all: 1) Philippians 2:6, KJV, taken by itself, and according to this translation of the Greek, it would appear that Jesus considered it appropriate to be equal to God. However, consider the context first. (Philippians 2:3-11) a) Philippians 2:3-5 says: "In humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." (NIV) So, we should be humble and unselfish. Then Paul says: "Let this mind be in you." What mind or attitude? One of humility and unselfishness! Then he says: "Which was also in Christ Jesus." So what was Jesus' mind or attitude? One of humility and unselfishness. So in verse 6, would you say Jesus not 'thinking it robbery to be equal to the Most High God' is an example of humility and unselfishness? Of course not! It would completely undermine Paul's persuasive argument and convince no one. Then verse 7 says: "[Jesus] made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." This is genuine humility and unselfishness! Then verse 8 says: "He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death." Even a humiliating death. Then verse 9 says: "God also hath highly exalted him." So rather than proudly and selfishly exalting himself, Jesus was exalted by God. Finally, verse 11 shows how it was all for "the glory of God the Father." Not Jesus' own glory. b) Notice the NIV translation of verse 6: "[Christ Jesus] did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." 2) Romans 9:5 says: "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (KJV) Notice these translations: a) "Theirs too (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)" (Moffat) b) "And of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God is over all be blessed for ever. Amen." (RSV) c) "From them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme over all, be blessed for ever! Amen." (NEB) d) "Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised for ever! Amen." (TEV) e) "From them came the Messiah (I speak of his human origins). Blessed forever be God who is over all! Amen." (NAB) Seems like Paul is saying God is over Jesus, too! That he is blessing God for having made all these provisions, including the Messiah. 3) "First born points to eternal preexistence." Why? He says: "We must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things." Bias or sincerity? Strong's says firstborn is derived from: protos; foremost (in time, place, order or importance); and tikto; "to produce." Colossians 1:15: "The firstborn of every creature." A word is known by the company it keeps. Notice that this is in the passive tense. E.g.: i) He created all things. (Active) ii) In him all things were created. (Passive) iii) He lifted his leg. (Active) iv) In a sling his leg was lifted. (Passive) Jesus here is the instrumentality that God used to create all things. Ephesians 3:9 clearly says: "God, who created all things." (Active) Revelation 4:11 says: "[God] created all things." (Active) Colossians 1:18 says: "[Jesus is] the firstborn from the dead." The first resurrected from the dead? No. (1 Kings 17:22) The first to be resurrected to eternal, heavenly life? Yes. (John 3:13; Acts 2:34) So, yes, Jesus does have "the preeminence" in all things. 4) Romans 1:4. Strong's says "horizo" means "to mark out or bound ("horizon"), i.e. (fig.) to appoint, decree, specify:-declare, determine, limit, ordain." The question is, How many translators use "appoint" in Romans 1:4? 5) As far as the long list of scriptures you cited, Makarios, I'll quote McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia which advocates the Trinity doctrine but acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20, and the same reasoning could be used for the others, that this text: "Taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." What do you think about 1 Timothy 5:21, which says: "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels"? Would this indicate a Trinity? Or, Do we have four now? 6) "Only-begotten" means "single of its kind." Jesus is "the single of its kind" as regards being a son of God: God "gave his only-begotten Son." This word comes from Greek words that mean "sole" "single" and "cause to be." So, again Jesus was "born" or "begotten." Colossians 1:16 shows how Jesus can be "firstborn" and "only-begotten." "All other things were created" using Jesus as an agency or instrumentality. Jesus was created by God alone as "the first of his works." (Proverbs 8:22) Hence Jesus was created by God alone, using no instrumentality, being of a "single" kind among God's sons. (Job 1:6; 38:7) Stokey. |
||||||
29 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | stokeyhk | 55255 | ||
Doesn't the term "firstborn" refer to both position and chronology? Colossians 1:15, 16 says Christ is "the Firstborn and Lord of all creation. For in Him was created the universe of things in heaven and on earth . . . all were created, and exist, through and for him." (Weymouth, capitalizations are his.) This agrees with 1 Corinthians 8:6 which says: "For us there is but one God, the Father, FROM whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH [again an intermediary] whom all things came and through whom we live." (Capitalizations are for emphasis only.) Further, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 27 say: "The head of the Christ is God" and "for he 'has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything' has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ." Is this clear to us? Interestingly, Colossians 1:18 says he is "the Firstborn from among the dead." Again position and chronology! This agrees with John 1:1-3. Verse 3 says: "Through him all things were made." "Through" indicates intermediacy. Revelation 19:13 calls Jesus "The Word of God." (KJV, capitalization KJV.) John 1:18 says: "No man hath seen God at any time." John 1:1 in the Greek clearly distinguishes between the two Gods mentioned by saying Jesus was "with the God." You say "APPOINTED" is "a more precise translation of Romans 1:4." Note the following translations: 1) NIV says: "Declared." 2) Weymouth says: "Decisively proved." 3) KJV says: "Declared," or "determined." 4) TCNT says: "Miraculously proved." 5) The Century Bible says: "Declared: Gr. 'determined.'" Is "to claim otherwise" outside the bounds of the Bible, though? Hebrews 1:8-12 does not prove that Jesus "is, has been, and always will be the one true God." Hebrews 1:9 says: "Thy God." That is Jesus' God! Further, John 17:1-3 shows that Jesus said his Father is "the only true God." How many persons did Isaiah see? Isaiah 6:8 records God as saying: "Who will go for us?" So, he saw God's glory and Jesus' glory. Yes, most of 'the sons' are in italics. So, Does this mean that Seth was not the son of Adam? Does this mean that Adam was not the son of God? Is this what Luke was saying? In Matthew 28:18, if "authority has been given," then Jesus didn't have it before. Hence, he could not be the equal of God, could he? Yes, as Hebrews 5:8 shows, Jesus served God. However, God Almighty doesn't serve anyone! Capitals are added by the translator's feelings and views. Jesus was transferred to Mary's womb. He did not inherit sin from Adam, so doesn't come within the scope of Hebrews 9:27, which, incidently, is primarily referring to Jewish high priests under the Law. The Bible (KJV) uses the terms: 1) "Firstborn" in Colossians 1:15. 2) "Born" in Luke 1:35. 3) "Firstborn" in Colossians 1:18. All are "born," so why not "births"? Acts 24:5 calls Jesus' followers: "The Nazarene heretics." (TCNT) I suppose it was a heresy from apostate Jewish worship. But remember what Jesus said: "You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." (Matthew 15:6) Clearly, the Trinity is not a BIBLE teaching! (Capitalizations are for emphasis!) Stokey. |
||||||
30 | Why do you wait? | Phil 3:20 | stokeyhk | 55251 | ||
That's what the Bible indicates. Matthew 24:14, 36-44 shows why we wait. Stokey. |
||||||
31 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | stokeyhk | 55088 | ||
The Bible clearly shows "Jesus is a created spirit-being." He didn't 'take on the appearance of man' but was actually a human son of God the same as Adam. (1 Corinthians 15:45) Jesus then received "all authority in heaven and on earth" as given to him by God. (Matthew 28:18) Hebrews 5:8 shows he was obedient to God, for example. Stokey. |
||||||
32 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | stokeyhk | 55074 | ||
I believe Jesus was born three times: 1) Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14: "The firstborn of every creature." "The beginning of the creation of God." (KJV) 2) Luke 1:35: "That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (KJV) 3) Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead." (Romans 1:4, KJV) In the first stage of Jesus' life he was a spirit son of God. In the second stage he was a human son of God. Now, in the final and eternal stage, he is again a "life-giving spirit." However, he now has greater authority. (See Matthew 28:18; Philippians 2:9-11; 1 Peter 3:22) 1 Corinthians 11:3 says: "The head of Christ is God." So as Ephesians 1:2, 3, 17 show "God our Father" is the "God of our Lord Jesus Christ." So, I believe God is the Almighty Father, "the most high," Jesus is God's firstborn Son, a "mighty God" but subject to God, yet at God's right hand, hence having the second highest position. (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 9:6, 7; Philippians 2:11, KJV) Stokeyhk. |
||||||
33 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | stokeyhk | 55062 | ||
Hi, Ray: The capitalization of "man" was merely for emphasis, nothing more! Of course, Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived because he was perfect, tried and tested. However, he was totally human, since he was 'conceived' not like the angels who materialized. (Luke 1:31) Stokeyhk. |
||||||
34 | Two witnesses Jehovah's Witnesses? | Rev 11:3 | stokeyhk | 55035 | ||
I don't believe in the Trinity. So that would make me a non-Christian. Please explain from the Bible where it teaches a Trinity. "It is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8, 9) This is salvation by grace through faith. But notice verse 10: "We are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to DO GOOD WORKS, which God prepared in advance for us to DO." So this faith is shown by 'doing good works.' What are these "works"? |
||||||
35 | "Two witnesses." When? Who? | Rev 11:3 | stokeyhk | 55024 | ||
"Strange" and "conflicting" with the scriptures and with others who've replied. Sorry, didn't mean to criticze you personally, rather some Bible dictionaries. | ||||||
36 | "Two witnesses." When? Who? | Rev 11:3 | stokeyhk | 55018 | ||
Hi, Tim 1) Any breaks in the 70-week period would mean that its no longer a 70-week period. Its true the "Anointed One" is cut off SOMETIME "after the sixty-two 'sevens.'" As I mentioned before, this was 3.5 years after. This corresponds with "the middle of the week." (Daniel 9:27) 2) The purpose of the 70 weeks is mentioned in verse 24. There seems to be confusion about the identity of certain individuals in verses 26 and 27. I think I said that the "he" of verse 27 was God. But actually its the "Anointed One." Sorry for the confusion. Why can we say the "he" is Jesus? Well notice verse 26. "The PEOPLE of a ruler [General Titus] who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary." Why? Because their house was abandoned for rejecting and 'cutting off' the Messiah as mentioned. Who is "he" in verse 27? Is it "the ruler who will come," General Titus? Or, is it "the Anointed One, the ruler," Jesus? Let's reason on the matter. a) A 70-week period having no breaks would point to Jesus. (See Luke 1:67-75; Acts 3:25, 26; Galatians 3:8, 9, 14, 16, 26-29) The Messiah's coming would in fact confirm the Abrahamic covenant with "the many," the Jews. b) Remember the purpose of the 70 weeks as mentioned in verse 24: "To finish transgression." "To put an end to sin." "To atone for wickedness." "To bring in everlasting righteousness." "To seal up vision and prophecy." "To anoint the most holy." How were these things accomplished? By the destruction of the temple, the city, the interrupting of the offering of literal sacrifices by unbelieving Jews, by a covenant made with unbelieving Israel for 7 years by a pagan Roman General? Impossible! These things could only be accomplished by Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus is the one who confirmed God's covenant with Abraham with the Jews for 7 years, 29-36 AD. He is the "seed" of Abraham, and it wasn't until Acts 10:37-48 that Gentiles began to benefit from Abraham's seed! (Galatians 3:16, 26-29) c) Its true General Titus' army destroyed the temple thereby preventing the unbelieving Jews from offering sacrifices there. Jesus said the "abomination [the Roman armies, Luke 21:20] that causes desolation" would come before the destruction of the temple. (Matthew 24:15-21) This "standing in the holy place" was in 66 AD, so was not "set up" in the "middle" of anything. The 'desolations that have been decreed' and "the end that is decreed" rule out any rebuilding of a physical temple on earth and such has been the case. Do the events of Daniel 9:26, 27 HAVE TO BE in sequence? 4) Daniel doesn't say the Abrahamic covenant is "fulfilled." Rather it is "confirmed." It isn't fulfilled until the end of the 1,000 years. (Revelation 20-22) 5) To philosophical arguments in some Bible dictionaries. The Bible doesn't follow calendars invented by men, such as the Gregorian or Julian calendars which didn't exist until after the Bible was completed. Obviously, then, the Bible wouldn't give BC or AD dates for anything. It states clearly the times: "the twentieth year" of Artaxerxes twice; "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar"; the "seventy years" of desolation three times, etc. Astronomical dates are very accurate. Many of these historians are very quick to dismiss the Bible when it doesn't agree with their interpretation of matters. Which is better? To put our faith in human guesses and speculations or in the infallible word of God? Stokeyhk. |
||||||
37 | "Two witnesses." When? Who? | Rev 11:3 | stokeyhk | 54950 | ||
First, Daniel says its Jersualem the city not the temple that would be restored. This was in the "twentieth year" of Artaxerxes. Nehemiah's concerned with the rebuilding of the city. (Nehemiah 2:5) The ruler in Daniel 9:26, 27 is Cestius Gallus whose army desolates the temple. He was permitted to do this by God as mentioned in Matthew 23:38 and Daniel 9:26, 27. (Luke 21:20) 1) Its true Christ didn't minister for 7 years. Daniel doesn't require him to. It mentions a 3.5 year ministry. 2) Its true sacrifices didn't cease to be offered by unbelieving Jews until 70 AD. However, this doesn't mean they had God's approval and further no faithful follower of Jesus did so. (Hebrews 10:12-14; 13:10-14) Just as the Law covenant was terminated at Jesus' death, so were the sacrifices. But this didn't mean the unbelieving Jews ceased to follow these arrangements, even as they continue to follow them partially today! But, clearly, it has no acceptance or validity before God. 3) Daniel doesn't mention the desolating of the temple as part of the events taking place during the 70th week, but rather as a consequence of them. Your commentary states: "The Gospels give no indication that He did that in his First Advent." Do you agree with that? Luke 1:54, 55, 67-75 seems to contradict that! (Galatians 3:16-18, 26-29) If we don't resort to philosophical arguments to evade the clear statements of truth in the Bible, we won't have difficulty pinning down ancient dates, but will be guided by Bible truth and put our trust in it first and foremost. (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1) Stokeyhk. |
||||||
38 | Two witnesses Jehovah's Witnesses? | Rev 11:3 | stokeyhk | 54941 | ||
Well it says they are God's witnesses. God is Jehovah. So, logically, Jehovah's Witnesses! Why do you say they are not "the modern cult" Jehovah's Witnesses? Do you have a grudge against them? Stokeyhk. |
||||||
39 | "Two witnesses." When? Who? | Rev 11:3 | stokeyhk | 54936 | ||
Its true, Tim, that there are three distinct periods in Daniel 9:24-27. They equal 70 weeks. When did the prophetic "seventy 'sevens'" begin? The prophecy says: "From the issuing of the decree [word, NIV, footnote] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem." (Daniel 9:25) By comparing Nehemiah 1:1-3 with Nehemiah 2:1-8 we can see that this happened in the "twentieth year of King Artaxerxes." When is the "twentieth year of King Artaxerxes"? You say: "445 B.C." However there is strong evidence that Xerxes died in 475 BC, Artaxerxes' first year began in 474 BC, and his "twentieth year" began in 455 BC. 1) Greek historian Thucydides, respected for his accuracy, says when disgraced Themistocles came to Persia, Xerxes was dead and Artaxerxes "had lately come to the throne." Historian Diodorus Siculus says Themistocles died when "Praxiergus was archon in Athens." He ruled in Athens in 470/471 BC. The reigns of Darius and Xerxes were dual or a coregency for a time. Herodotus suggests such. 2) Several Persian bas-reliefs show a coregency around the the time of the 490's. 3) Babylonian excavations reveal a palace for Xerxes completed in 496 BC. Historians are unanimous that the first year of Darius II ended in 423 BC. Several Babylonian business documents reveal Artaxerxes reign going beyond 41 years to a 51st year! So counting 483 (49 plus 434) years from 455 BC brings us to 29 AD, "until the Anointed One." Jesus was anointed by holy spirit at his baptism just after "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar." (Isaiah 61:1, 2; Luke 3:1, 2, 21-23; 4:16-21) "After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing." (Daniel 9:26) So sometime after the 69 weeks Jesus would die. It turns out that it was 3.5 years later. "He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering." (Daniel 9:27) What "covenant" was 'confirmed'? Not the Law covenant which was terminated at Jesus' death. (Colossians 2:14; Galatians 3:13, 14) Galatians shows it was the Abrahamic covenant becoming a blessing for the "Gentiles." The conversion of Cornelius was quite some time after Pentecost 33 AD in Acts chapter 10, apparently about the year 36 AD at the end of the 70th week! 'Putting an end to sacrifice and offering' takes place "in the middle of the final 'seven'" or week. That would coincide with Hebrews 10:1-10 which says: "He sets aside the first [sacrifices and offerings according to the law] to establish the second [the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ]." "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city." (Daniel 9:24) Matthew 23:37-24:2 shows that the "house is left to you desolate." There's no need to include a break in this 70-week time period. There's no break between the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks! If there was a break it wouldn't be a 70 week period. (Daniel 9:24) Notice, too, in verse 27, that the "he" is God who 'confirms the covenant' and 'puts an end to sacrifice' and fortells and allows "the PEOPLE of a ruler" to desolate the temple since the temple was abandoned in Jesus' day! (Daniel 9:26; Matthew 23:38) Stokeyhk. |
||||||
40 | "Two witnesses." When? Who? | Rev 11:3 | stokeyhk | 54785 | ||
FUTURE "7-year period we call The 70th Week of Daniel"? Daniel 9:27 says: "In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering." Compare this with Hebrews 10:5-10. By this reasoning the "middle of the 'seven'" would be the year Jesus died-33 AD. Zechariah 13:7-9 says: "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered." Matthew 26:31 shows this is fulfilled in 33 AD. Further John the Baptist was 'God's messenger' of Malachi 3:1-5, harmonizing with Zechariah 13:9. Hence all being fulfilled before "the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." (Malachi 4:5; Matthew 11:14) Notice the Bible links Jesus' coming with "the day of the Lord" and Philippians 2:12 shows this word "coming" is also translated "presence." So, again, the second fulfillment would be before the "day of the Lord." Its true that "the beast" is part of the Antichrist. However, doesn't the context show it to be Satan's global political system set up to "make war" with "those who obey God's commamdments"? (Revelation 12:17-13:2; 17:9-14; Daniel 7:2-8, 17, 23) Think of this: How could only TWO individuals 'torment all people who dwell on the earth'? (Revelation 11:10; 10:11) But certainly a class of people could do this. (John 8:17) Would a global political system be needed to stop 2 individuals? (Compare Revelation chapter 9.) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |