Results 221 - 240 of 1251
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: mark d seyler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | The GAP theory could be true. | Genesis | mark d seyler | 177544 | ||
Hi Tim! That is the thing about creation, is it not? People like to think they have it all figured out - but they weren't there! Best to not try to make the Bible conform to man's theories! :-) Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
222 | The GAP theory could be true. | Genesis | mark d seyler | 177540 | ||
Hi John, Please allow me to welcome you as well! Did you know that the current thinking on the origin of oil deposits is increasingly that oil is formed by natural processes within the earth having actually nothing to do with biological origins? This will give your a brief background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil This theory is gaining ground following the finding of oil in "deep earth" reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as other locations. There is also an alternate theory for the origin of shallow petroleum deposits popularized (if you can say that!) by Emmanuel Velikosvky. In a nutshell, he espoused a cataclysmic theory of history which, while he was not Christian, demonstrates the accuracy of Scriptures, and argues for a young earth. But perhaps most relevant to this discussion is what Peter wrote: 2 Pet 3:4-6 ". . . For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. People make the argument that the earth has to be billions of years old, because what we think we are seeing seems to take billions of years to accomplish, and there is so much of it, so there must have been billions of years for it to have been accomplished. The underlying assumption is that what we see happening now, and the speed it happens at, is the same as it has always been. But what they forget is that this isn't all just a matter of natural processes as we observe today (and think we are correctly interpreting them!). God created everything, and He could have made it any way He wished to. And then, on top of that, there was a tremendous upheaval in the recent past. Who can say what things were like before? Who can say what changes took place at that time? And even so, there is no certainty that the scientific theories that favor an old earth are the correct ones. In the case of geological oil deposits, no one has "seen" oil being made, so how do they know??? On the other hand, as the years go by, we see increasing evidence that what scientists thought took millions or billions of years can happen virtually overnight. Take for example the oil deposits that had been seemingly depleted, then "filled up", suddenly supplying large amounts of oil. Or take for example the Grand Canyon, formed "over millions of years by slow erosion"? What about the "Little Grand Canyon", a hard rock canyon of the same nature as the Grand Canyon, formed in two weeks following the eruption of St. Helens? Personally, I find the white space between the scientific theories wide enough to drive the planet Venus through! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
223 | tongues? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 177502 | ||
Hi Kalos, I contracted the phrase "some form of the gift of tongues" from: ‘Aside from Christians, certain religious groups also have been observed to practice some form of theopneustic glossolalia. ‘Glossolalia (“speaking in tongues”) is evident. . . I hope that I stayed true to the intent of the quoted article, my apologies if I did not. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
224 | Homosexual are picked on in the church? | Lev 20:13 | mark d seyler | 177386 | ||
Hi Journey me, The truth is that one person can't really know why another person does what they do. We can only speculate. Unless someone who takes a stricter stance on homosexuality than they do on other sins writes in to tell us why they do, we can only guess. But it occurs to me that some of this may be coming from the same sort of thing the Pharisees were guilty of in Jesus' day: Matthew 23:24-26 (Jesus said) Blind guides, straining out the gnat, but swallowing the camel! (25) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within they are full of robbery and excess. (26) Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside of them may become clean also. The measure themselves by themselves, and so distinguish between their sins and another's sin, and declare the other's to be worse, so they can feel good about themselves. So outwordly, they are clean, because, after all, THEY aren't doing THAT sin! But if we correctly measure ourselves according to God, we realize the truth, that there is none righteous, and all are equally guilty before the righteous decree of God. So for some, it may be smokescreen. Another possibility occurs to me as well. There are, in my opinion, a great many pastors and teachers that neither know the Word, nor believe it, nor truly teach it, and as such, they pretty much jump on the band wagon a lot of the time. And so I think that there are many who single out homosexuality because they think it is "fashionable" to do so. I will offer one more thought as well. I still think that some of this may be reflexive self-defense. The homosexual community has been parading and rioting, defiling churches and synogogues, determinedly pressing their agenda to teach their lifestyle in the schools, to re-write some the the basic moral foundation of our society, and to overturn hundreds of years community consensus repudiating their sinful, self-destructive lifestyle. They (not all, but as a community) are actively trying to subvert our children to join their ranks. And I am not surprised when there is an outcry against this. I mean, this is life and death. There are few more effective ways of reducing your life expectancy by half then to enter that lifestyle. Perhaps this is also a part of what Paul spoke: Acts 20:26-31 Because of this I testify to you on this day that I am pure from the blood of all. (27) For I did not keep back from declaring to you all the counsel of God. (28) Then take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit placed you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God which He purchased through His own blood. (29) For I know this, that after my departure grievous wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; (30) and out of you yourselves will rise up men speaking perverted things, in order to draw away the disciples after themselves. (31) Because of this watch, remembering that I did not cease admonishing each one with tears night and day for three years. Those who teach an unbalanced gospel, or who have not declared the whole truth, will be guilty of those whom they have deceived. Let us not be in that number, but let us declare all of God's truth, in an even manner, and let us pray for those to do not do this. I hope this has helped you! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
225 | Homosexual are picked on in the church? | James 2:1 | mark d seyler | 177347 | ||
Hi Journey me, I'd like to differentiate between the "apparent church" and the "true church". The "apparent church" is composed of those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to identify with Christianity, but who have not actually come into a relationship with God by being born again. The "true church" is composed of those who have been reborn, who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and who are in the process of being conformed to the image of Jesus. Of the "true church", there are those who are more and those who are less conformed to the image of Christ. Within the "apparent church", there is little if any difference between them and the unchurched, because they are all unsaved, without the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. They will be completely susceptible to any and all sins including sexual immorality of all descriptions, thefts, drug use, lies, judging, hypocrisy, and so on. (I would like to add that according to many sources (university, government) the actual rate of homosexuality is more like 2 percent.) Within the "true church", all of these things will exist as well, but only against the constant struggle of the Spirit working in our lives. I have never been witness to a pastor disfellowshipping a homosexual, but I have seen those who were sexually immoral in other ways disfellowshipped. So I suppose it depends on where you are at the time. :-) No sin is easy to stop, and again, I want to agree with you, that we should not fixate on one sin to the exclusion of others. But we are not commanded any less to repent of sexual sins then of lying or stealing. And the unrepentant thief will not be treated any different by God than the unrepentant sexually immoral - of any brand - and should not be treated any differently by us. I don't know where you live, but you would be welcome to visit the congregation I fellowship in, and I assure you, we do not treat one person different from another. I do not condone those who do. Nor would you, should you come to my congregation, see "a sea of immorality". That is the "apparent church". Not the "true church" I am in a fairly small congregation, which is on fire for the Lord, and those who are not that way tend not to stick around. They find that they just don't fit in. We must do everything in our power to share Christ with all people, and I pray that we both are mightily effective in the power of God to accomplish that. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
226 | Homosexual are picked on in the church? | James 2:1 | mark d seyler | 177336 | ||
Hi Journey me, You have claimed Brad holds the opinion that homosexuality is worse than some sins because he associated it with violent crimes. Brad's actual statement was "It is a sin just as is murder, rape or robbery." You have left out that he also associated it with robbery, which is not necessarily a violent crime. But mostly I want to address another matter that you have brought up, your claim that "you can be a 'gay Christian'". 2 Corinthians 5:17-18 So that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new! (18) And all things are from God, the One having reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and having given to us the ministry of reconciliation, When you are born again, you are a new being that didn't exist before. You have no connection to what you were before. Ephesians tells us that we have been created in righteousness and true holiness. That means total separation from anything sinful in thought, word, and deed. But I find this following passage especially meaningful to this sort of discussion: Ephesians 4:17-24 Therefore, I say this, and testify in the Lord, that you no longer walk even as also the rest of the nations walk, in the vanity of their mind, (18) having been darkened in the intellect, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance which is in them because of the hardness of their heart, (19) who, having cast off all feeling, gave themselves up to lust, to the working of all uncleanness with greediness. (20) But you have not so learned Christ, (21) if indeed you heard Him and were taught in Him, as the truth is in Jesus. (22) For you have put off the old man, as regards the former behavior, having been corrupted according to the deceitful lusts, (23) and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, (24) and to put on the new man, which according to God was created in righteousness and true holiness. No one is "born homosexual". All who are practicing such have been deceived by their lust, and have actually put off true feelings. This is not my opinion, this is what the Bible says. All such deeds belong to the "old man", which has been crucified with Christ, which is to be reckoned as already dead, and is to be put to death: Col 3:5 Then put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil lust, and covetousness, which is idolatry; Even the "strong desire for sin" is sinful in and of itself, and is to be conquered within us, and CAN BE! :-) And again, I will say that I agree with you, all sin is sin, and any sin will separate a person from God forever. No sin is to be allowed a foothold. But also realize, while theft remains a problem in America, and lies are told every day, homosexuals have put THEMSELVES into the spotlight, in an effort to force a national acceptance and approval of their sinful lifestyle, and they should not be surprised to find that of the vast vast majority who reject and disapprove of their lifestyle there are many who say so. Its not the drunkards that are in our faces, its the SSAD's. And so if the Church, and others understand the self-destruction of homosexuality talk more about this sin then other sins, the homosexual community has brought that upon themselves. Jesus said "I came that they may have life and may have it abundantly." Not that we can be partly changed, but partly broken. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
227 | Emergent Church question | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 177254 | ||
Oh, how I wish I could edit my posts - alas, you all shall see my flaws! I had written that the emergent church may be the "lastest, and maybe the last", while I meant to say "latest, and maybe the last" - so there you go! Mark |
||||||
228 | Emergent Church question | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 177249 | ||
Hi Hank, Thank you for the time you spent researching this. I think the article you selected to pass along to us was well-chosen indeed! I know that at various times in the past the Bible has been "re-interpreted", Christianity "re-invented", and the "mainstream church" takes yet another turn for the worse. And it would not surprise me if this were to be the lastest, and perhaps last such turn. Post-modern thinking is the subjective justification for ecumenicalism. I recently heard an interview with Bob Edgar, the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. He was asked if he believed that salvation was in Jesus alone. He answered no, that if someone, by "accident of birth," was born into a "different tradition", God would not condemn them for it. I found it very interesting in this article that the same kind of wording was used, in stating the claims of the "emergent church" that people formulate truth as a result of their "tradition". Well, we know what Jesus said about placing man's traditions above the Word of God! I know that the true church is hidden within the "apparent church", and so it has been, and so it will be, until that day comes. I know that one day the "apparent church" will join with the harlot, and this may well be the openning of the door for them to do so. But I find comfort in knowing God's word is true: Isaiah 55:10-11 For as the rain comes down, and the snow from the heavens, and does not return there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring out and bud, and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My Word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
229 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | mark d seyler | 177229 | ||
Hi Parable, Thank you for your clarifications. I agree completely with Harris's conclusions regarding Islam. I would contend that it is not the "faith" that is the problem, as Harris rightly concludes that faith connects us to it's object, but having faith in the wrong object - that's the problem! I think I understand what you are saying about "surrendering your right to be right", and "making that the issue". If it makes me arrogant, or I cease to act in love, I can be right, but how I then act because I know I am right can be wrong. About the power of God in weakness, I love the example of Moses. After his crushing failure in Egypt, he took up the shepherd's staff, but it was that staff that God used to perform mighty miracles. Hebrews directly contradicts Harris, in saying "without faith it is impossible to please God, because you must first believe that He exists, and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Harris would say "I don't have a problem with God, just with anyone believing in God." Regarding his neuralogical studies, we know that we who are born again are spiritual beings which cannot be seen contained in physical bodies which can be seen. But no matter how long you study how the electrical charges move through the circuits of a radio receiver, you will not hear the music through you schematics, and graphs. He wants to watch the oscilliscope, but he won't plug in a speaker, and knows nothing of the difference between Wagner and Bach! We know that cocaine mimics the physiology of accomplishment, and other drugs also mimic natural physiology, but as the scientists study those, they recognize that there is a "true", or "natural" physiology, and a conterfeit, which takes advantage of the true. There are many who believe in a false god, and they are liable to do anything. There are many who hold false beliefs about the true God, and they also are liable to do anything. But those that hold true beliefs about the true God, oh, but that the world were full of those! That would be heavenly! But I am afraid that Mr. Harris would no sooner differentiate between those, then he could tell whether a lightbulb is shining through a blue lens or a green lens by examining the electricity that flows through the filament. Love in Christ Mark |
||||||
230 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | mark d seyler | 177225 | ||
Hi Parable, This last post helps me tremendously to understand what is being said. This first paragraph contains a presupposition which I do not agree with. This presupposes that the objects of all faiths are harmful. While that is true in many cases, it is not true in all cases. I would also take exception with your pastor's message. Hating to be wrong, and certainty of being right, do not automatically lead to hating those we disagree with. The problem with this is that, while it may be true in many instances, the Bible tells us to love others. This love, "agape", is "love which causes us to devote ourselves to the wellbeing of the object of that love." So tell me, how does that love lead us to kill the unsaved simply for being unsaved? (I am excluding the topic of capital punishment.) The terrorist "suicide/murderer" is not showing agape love towards others. And this proves that they are not living according to the Christian faith. Those who live according to the Christian faith are spending their lives helping others. The one who is growing in hatred is not growing in Christ. The one who is completely correct in Biblical doctrine knows that condemnation and vengeance are not for them to exact. The primary benefit of Christian Faith is only available through that faith - the salvation of our souls. We can only be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus - a mystical, supernatural faith that will not stand still for scrutiny in the lab. As far as "surrendering our right to be right" - I hardly know what to say to this! The Bible is true, and I will live and die on that belief. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by Him. And if someone feels they must kill me because I believe that, and they have the power to do so, I will likely die, because I will not step down from that truth. We are not here to be at peace at the expense of truth. The truth MUST be proclaimed. And make no mistake, darkness will try to destroy the truth, although, ultimately, it can't. Christ didn't kill His enemies, but rather He died that they could have life. We are to do the same. So if Harris must disagree, let him disagree with a true Christian, who would not kill him for his disbelief, and let him not disagree with those who would. Because we are different. We serve a true and living God. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
231 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 177222 | ||
Hi Kalos, Is this not perhaps a bit harsh? As MJH has already plainly stated that God intended us to have the Greek Gospel of Matthew, and to understand Scripture from that particular writing, how does it "trash the reliability of the Bible" if one might think that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek? This idea has no bearing on one's thinking that the Greek Gospel of Matthew is the inspired Word of God. God could have brought it about however He wished to, and no matter what our different ideas are on how that occured, we all agree on the finished product. Now, I couldn't agree with you more that if someone uses that idea to claim knowledge superceding the Greek gospel that they are flat out wrong. But I fail to see how holding that opinion is equal to denigrating Scripture itself. Myself, I don't know one way or the other whether Matthew wrote in Hebrew first, or Aramaic, for that matter. Comparing the Peshitta to the Greek text lends some interesting support to the notion, especially in the "camel through the eye of the needle" verse, since in Aramaic "camel" and "rope" are homonyms. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
232 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | mark d seyler | 177221 | ||
Hi Parable, The Scripture that comes first to my mind in context to this discussion is: John 5:39-40 (39) You search the Scriptures, for you think in them you have everlasting life. And they are the ones witnessing concerning Me. (40) And you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. These people were trying to separate the Book from the Author. They wanted to set the terms, while even using the very Word of God itself! Jesus is saying, basically, "you can search this Book all you want, but if you don't come to Me you will not have life." And if that is true of the actual Word of God, how much more true is it of any writings, philosophies, or any practice of religion that is not from God? So I would agree that the "practice of religion", or "works to gain acceptance", leads mankind to think that they are OK with God, and is detrimental to them, because it disguises the fact that they are still dead in their sins. While I haven't read Mr. Harris's book, if seems from what you have said that he includes faith as a part of religion, as he attacks faith itself. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
233 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | mark d seyler | 177217 | ||
Hi Parable, I'm a bit confused. Could you explain how you, or Mr. Harris, are using the word "religion", in that it is considered a burden to the world? Do you mean the practice of works to become acceptable to God? Is this the same way Mr. Harris is using the word? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
234 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 177211 | ||
Hi MJH, This is a very interesting discussion to me, and I'd like to add a few thoughts. I, for one, believe that Hebrew was the common language of the Jews at the time of Jesus, for all the reasons you have said, plus many more. The most compelling reason to think this is the Bible itself: Luk 23:38 And also an inscription was written over Him, in Greek and Latin and Hebrew letters: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Joh 5:2 And at Jerusalem is a pool at the Sheep Gate which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. Joh 19:13 Then hearing this word, Pilate led Jesus out. And he sat down on the judgment seat, at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Joh 19:17 And He went out bearing His cross, to the place called Of a Skull (which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha), Act 21:40 And he allowing him, standing on the stairs, Paul signaled with his hand to the people. And much silence taking place, he spoke in the Hebrew dialect, saying, And there are more like this. Several times we are told that someone spoke in the Hebrew language, and many times the Bible writers added notes for the reader translating the Greek words used into the Hebrew. Why bother if none spoke Hebrew? And as always with Biblical reality, there is a wealth of historical and archeological evidence to back this up. I know there are those that say, "well, it says "Hebrew", but it actually means "Aramaic". But this is true of many doctrines, where people will say the same thing to defend any number of non-Biblical view. "It doesn't really mean that." I just can't agree. There is a small book called "The Language Jesus Spoke", by Doug Hamp, which gives very concise documentation that Jesus, and the Jews of His time, spoke Hebrew. He gives those evidences that you have presented, plus many more like them, of which I would not be surprised to find you were already aware. Regarding the so-called "Q" manuscript, or of a Hebrew predecessor to the Gospel of Matthew, I, for one, have no opinion if such documents existed or not, but neither do I care, and I will tell you why. It is the Greek Gospel of Matthew that was accepted into the Canon of Scripture. We need to remember what that actually means. As the Bible was written, and shared, the Holy Spirit affirmed within the readers that this was indeed the written Word of God, inspired by Him. There were certain other criteria as well. They were apostolic, although not all apostolic writings were considered canonnical. They were in full agreement with the rest of Scripture, although not all writings that agreed with Scripture were considered to BE Scripture. It was the moving of the Holy Spirit within the Church that set apart (sanctified) certain writings. As that experience was shared within the Church, it became commonly accepted to be true, and such books as were attested by all to be divinely inspired were gathered together into the Canon. But the point is, it was the Greek gospel of Matthew that was included, not a supposed "Hebrew original". Let's say that Matthew original composed in Hebrew. He could have done a rough draft, why not? The Holy Spirit could have preserved that document as the Inspire Holy Scripture, but He didn't. Let's say Jerome had access to that "rough draft", and used it instead of the Greek writing. Well, if that is true, Jerome went outside of the canon for his translation. Not everything Matthew might have written was divinely inspired. If we were to read his notes, we might be able to gain insights, as if we were reading a commentary, but this would not be equal to reading Scripture. We know that Luke gathered from other sources, yet that does not take away from the fact of divine inspiration of what he used and didn't use, and what parts of Jesus' life and ministry the Holy Spirit chose to present to us in Luke's gospel. So I will join you, at least partially, in your minority. I find that this is not an uncommon place to be! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
235 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | mark d seyler | 177130 | ||
Hi Parable, I regret that I lack the time to give a more detailed answer to you, but I can offer you this. If you word-search "faith" in the Bible, you will find, among other things, that: Without faith, you cannot please God. You must believe that He exists, and is a rewarder of those who seek Him. God has given to each of us a measure of faith. By grace we are saved through faith. We are kept by the power of God through faith. Faith is mandatory - without faith, you cannot be saved. BUT - only faith in God. You can believe all you want in a false god, and that faith won't save you. James also speaks of a faith that won't save you, which is a faith that doesn't prove itself in your life. Murderers may claim faith, but theirs isn't the faith the Bible teaches. Just because someone says that they have faith, so what? And just because someone else has a false faith, or faith in a false god, that doesn't mean that faith itself is bad, or that faith in the true and living God isn't required. So my response would be, in a nutshell, that Mr Harris is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, a poor practice indeed. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
236 | Amplified Bible; Rev. 4:5 | Rev 4:5 | mark d seyler | 176901 | ||
Hi Brother Paul, You sure seem to have a rather "untethered" manner of Biblical interpretation! You wouldn't happen to have Scriptural basis for some of these many assertions you've made, would you? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
237 | Why the confusion over the 70th week? | Dan 9:26 | mark d seyler | 176885 | ||
Hi Lemont, "Wided-eyed children"? 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (16) All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. Let us rather be well-studied men of God, knowing the truth of God's Word, faithful to teach His Word, with nothing added, and nothing taken away. Concerning the antecedent of "he" in Daniel 9:27, the closest occuring singular masculine noun preceding this "he" is "ruler" in verse 26. You claim that to relate a pronoun to its nearest preceding noun of the same gender and number is contrived, well, I hardly know what to say to that! But I would ask you, the one who claims that this seven year covenant has been fulfilled, where do we find this recorded, in either the Bible or in secular history? Simply characterizing my arguments as "contrived" does not serve any useful purpose. Let us stick with verifiable facts. Where do we find recorded the exact duration of Jesus' public ministry? And regarding the animal sacrifices, Daniel's prophecy does not say "cease having value", it says "cease". The animal sacrifices did not cease until the temple was destroyed. Every prophecy fulfillment that has happened has been exact, literal, and complete. This prophecy has not been fulfilled. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
238 | Why do we ignore parts of Moses' laws? | Mark 7:14 | mark d seyler | 176852 | ||
Hi Roger, Thank you for a good, Scriptural answer! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
239 | Why the confusion over the 70th week? | Dan 9:26 | mark d seyler | 176843 | ||
Hi Lemont, I realize that you are comfortable with your conclusions, so I primarily post this for the benefit of others who might read this. I wish to be more clear on the nature of the passage in Daniel 9. Daniel 9:24-27 (24) Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people, and as to your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. (25) Know, then, and understand that from the going out of a word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem, to Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty two weeks. The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in times of affliction. (26) And after sixty two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of a coming ruler shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, and war shall be until the end. (27) And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week. And in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. And on a corner of the altar will be abominations that desolate, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall pour out on the desolator. 70 "Weeks" are decreed as to Daniel's people, Israel, and his holy city, Jerusalem. From the word to rebuild Jerusalem to Messiah the Prince will be 7 week, then 62 weeks, for a total of 69 weeks. AFTER the 62 weeks Messiah will be cut off (killed). Also after these 62 weeks, the sanctuary will be destroyed by the people of a ruler who is to come, one who will have not yet come at that time. This ruler, when he does come, will confirm a covenant for 1 week, the 70th week. Now, the point here is that it is after the 69 weeks that Jesus is killed, and the sanctuary destroyed. Those two events happened approx. 40 years apart from each other. The coming ruler who will confirm a 7 year covenant, the 70th Week, was still future from the time of the destruction of the sanctuary, which was 40 years after the death of Messiah. Therefore, there MUST be a minimum of about 40 years between the 69th week and the 70th week. Both Jesus' death and the destruction of the temple happened after the 69th week and before the 70th week, therefore, the 70th week could not have immediately followed the 69th week. The Preterist view which you espouse has a serious flaw to it. This prophecy declares that the prince who will come, and who will confirm the 7 year covenant, is descended from those people that destroyed the santuary. The antecedant to "he" in verse 27 is "a coming ruler" in verse 26. Hebrew grammer, just the same as English grammer, demands this. The one who confirms the covenant is Not God, or the Messiah, but it is the "coming prince", who is of the people who destroyed the sanctuary - the Romans. This is the beast, of whom John also prophesied. Now, regarding when Jesus "became" the Annointed One, hear what the angels declared to certain shepherds: Luke 2:10-11 (10) And the angel said to them, Do not fear. For, behold, I proclaim good news to you, a great joy, which will be to all people, (11) because today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, was born to you in the city of David. "who is Christ the Lord" - "the Annointed, the Lord" Jesus was born "the Annointed". I hope this helps to clarify the matter. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
240 | Ruth - Born of Moab or Living in Moab? | Ruth 3:11 | mark d seyler | 176030 | ||
Hi Searcher, Thank you for the thought you have put into my question. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [63] >> |