70th Week of Daniel

[Bambi]

Both Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 were fulfilled at the Mount of Transfiguration. Unfortunately Matt 16:28 is placed at the end of the chapter, which was not the best choice, but Mark 9:1 associates it with the transfiguration. Mark 9:1 sets the context of the paragraph which is the transfiguration. This is confirmed by 2 Peter 1:16, which says they saw Christ coming in His power. "Coming in His kingdom", means coming with the power and glory of His kingdom. It does not say, Christ is coming into His kingdom. Please consult some good bible commentaries on the verse, it may aid your understanding.

On the kingdom: The kingdom is here now, and growing and it is also yet to come. The kingdom of God is the church, which is here now, it started as a small seed, (starting with the 12 apostles), and is continuing to grow, so many millions of Christians on the earth today. And the kingdom coming, is the Lord returning with all His saints.

I don't know why you seem to indicate that I said, "Christ is coming into His kingdom". I didn't say anything of the sort nor do I mean that.

If you think those passages in Matt and Mark are referring to the Transfiguration then what did Jesus mean in Luke 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.? Do you think there are two kingdoms?

Commentaries??? How do you know I'm not, and that the ones I use, don't agree with yours?

 

[james1523]

Don't quiet understand what you are saying here, except I still don't agree with you concerning the transfiguration.

Mark 9 places the verse about seeing Christ in the kingdom and power as the first verse. Then the following verses refer to the fulfilment of verse 1. Therefore this whole passage, including verse 1 is about the transfiguration.

Mark 9

New International Version (NIV)

9 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white,whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.


In Matthew however, the verse referring to the kingdom coming is at the end of the chapter. But these are referring to the same event, which is the transfiguration. This is easily explained: The bishop that put the chapter numbers in Matthew around 1200 AD didn't know what he was doing.

 

[james1523]

I don't know why you seem to indicate that I said, "Christ is coming into His kingdom". I didn't say anything of the sort nor do I mean that.

If you think those passages in Matt and Mark are referring to the Transfiguration then what did Jesus mean in Luke 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.? Do you think there are two kingdoms?

The context of Luke 22:18 is Luke 22:30, which is about the future time of eating and drinking at His table in His kingdom, and also judging.
There is only one kingdom of God, but it comes in different times and in different ways.
The kingdom of God is the rule and reign of God. Wherever God is ruling, there is the kingdom. The kingdom is wherever the king is.
The kingdom of God coming, is God coming to rule and reign. You said that the kingdom grows every time there is a new believer added, and this is true. But a new believer is made when the kingdom of God comes to them.
The kingdom is a matter of righteousness, peace and joy in the Spirit (Rom 14:17).
So at salvation when a person gains the Spirit, and they are declared righteous, and they can experience peace and joy, then the kingdom of God has come to them.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,

And this gives you a clue, that in Luke 22:30 there is not literally eating and drinking, because this contradicts Romans 14:17. "Eating and drinking" is a symbolic phrase that means happiness and enjoyment.

The kingdom of God is wherever there is a believer. So wherever the church goes on the Earth, or even an individual believer, there is the kingdom of God also. If you are an unbeliever, and a group of Christians comes to your door, the kingdom of God has come near to you, and if you choose to enter the kingdom by repenting and believing the good news, the kingdom of God has come to you.

In Mark 1:15 , Christ said the kingdom of God came near the unbelievers, and Christ invited them to enter the kingdom by repenting and believing in Christ.
Mark 1:15
15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

 

[Bambi]

Mark 9 places the verse about seeing Christ in the kingdom and power as the first verse. Then the following verses refer to the fulfilment of verse 1. Therefore this whole passage, including verse 1 is about the transfiguration.

Mark 9

New International Version (NIV)

9 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white,whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.


In Matthew however, the verse referring to the kingdom coming is at the end of the chapter. But these are referring to the same event, which is the transfiguration. This is easily explained: The bishop that put the chapter numbers in Matthew around 1200 AD didn't know what he was doing.

I still don't agree with your interpretation. Are you a Amil? From what you've said it sounds like it.

 

[james1523]

I still don't agree with your interpretation. Are you a Amil? From what you've said it sounds like it.

I'm not Amil

 

[james1523]

Literally millions upon millions of believers are now similarly deceived in that the person explicitly described in the scriptures as the MESSIAH is actually seen as the Antichrist. Our Saviour told the Pharisees that attributing the works of God to the Devil was the unpardonable sin (Matthew 12:31). The blind religious leaders of yesteryear claimed the person doing the miracles in their presence was actually a vessel of the Devil. The truth was, that person was Jesus Christ and the Jewish leaders committed blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in their refusal to recognize Jesus was the individual prophesied of in Daniel 9:27.

I still don't agree with your interpretation. Are you a Amil? From what you've said it sounds like it.

The question to ask yourself is, how can millions of believers be deceived when the bible in 1 John says that believers have received an anointing from God that teaches us all things?

Actually, the person who is explicitly described in the scriptures as the AntiChrist, whom you say is the Messiah. Not only is this also blasphemy, but there is danger you will fall for the deception of the false-Messiah, the anti-Christ pretending to be Christ.

The problem with this view, and Preterism in general, is that it was motivated by the counter-reformation - they are of Catholic origin and contain Catholic bias.

To believe in these things aligns us with the Catholic church and her counter-reformation teachings.

We cannot be reformed and still hold onto these false teachings, which were designed to cover up the fact that the papal authority is the beast of Revelation, and the anti-Christ. Preterism was first advanced in 1604 by a Jesuit priest, to counter the reformed protestant teaching that the papacy was mystery babylon and the antichrist. Please read:


Henry Alford (an Anglican Greek scholar)
<dir style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica; font-size: small;">˜The praeterist view found no favour and was hardly so much as thought of in the time of primitive Christianity. Those who lived near the date of the book of Revelation itself had no idea that its groups of imagery were intended merely to describe things then passing, and to be in a few years completed. This view is said to have been first promulgated in anything like completeness by the Jesuit Alcasar, in his "Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi" (1604). Very nearly, the same plan was adopted by Grotius. The next great name among this school of interpreters is that of Bossuet the great antagonist of Protestantism.
</dir>Charles Hodge
Also dismissing the Jesuit-Romanist Preterist approach, Charles Hodge noted that the preterists of his time for the most part were German Rationalists.
<dir>"[they] were German interpreters who, denying any real prediction of the future, confine the views of Daniel and John to their contemporary history"

</dir><dir>Malachi Martin (Catholic scholar) writes of the Jesuits: </dir><dir>The Jesuits carried the battle right into the territories of the papal enemies. They waged public controversies with kings, they debated in protestant universities. They infiltrated hostile territories in disguise and moved underground. They were everywhere. Their constant theme: the Bishop of Rome is the successor to Peter, the apostle upon, whom Christ founded His Church. That church is a hierarchy of bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome, any other churchly institution is rank heresy, the child of Satan.
</dir><dir>There are a few facts about Preterism:
1) The early church did not believe in it, they were premill or amill
2) It was propagated by the Catholic church in the 1600's, to counter the reformation. If we believe in Preterism, we must also believe that the Pope is the successor to the apostle Peter, and the Roman Catholic church is the true church. This is the other side of the Preterist doctrine. Because to deny that the Catholic church is mystery Babylon, is to accept that she is the true successor to the apostles.
3) It lacks prophetic prediction and spiritual insight, and is only a rational human interpretation of Scripture, and Preterists cannot explain what God is doing today, because as far as they believe, human history as recorded in the bible finished in 70 AD.

</dir><dir></dir><dir></dir>

 

[Bambi]

The context of Luke 22:18 is Luke 22:30, which is about the future time of eating and drinking at His table in His kingdom, and also judging.
There is only one kingdom of God, but it comes in different times and in different ways.
The kingdom of God is the rule and reign of God. Wherever God is ruling, there is the kingdom. The kingdom is wherever the king is.
The kingdom of God coming, is God coming to rule and reign. You said that the kingdom grows every time there is a new believer added, and this is true. But a new believer is made when the kingdom of God comes to them.
The kingdom is a matter of righteousness, peace and joy in the Spirit (Rom 14:17).
So at salvation when a person gains the Spirit, and they are declared righteous, and they can experience peace and joy, then the kingdom of God has come to them.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,

And this gives you a clue, that in Luke 22:30 there is not literally eating and drinking, because this contradicts Romans 14:17. "Eating and drinking" is a symbolic phrase that means happiness and enjoyment.

The kingdom of God is wherever there is a believer. So wherever the church goes on the Earth, or even an individual believer, there is the kingdom of God also. If you are an unbeliever, and a group of Christians comes to your door, the kingdom of God has come near to you, and if you choose to enter the kingdom by repenting and believing the good news, the kingdom of God has come to you.

In Mark 1:15 , Christ said the kingdom of God came near the unbelievers, and Christ invited them to enter the kingdom by repenting and believing in Christ.
Mark 1:15
15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

I would agree with everything you say here except for your interpretation of Luke 22:18. I believe what happens in John 19 is the fulfillment of that.

Joh 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Joh 19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

If your not A-mil then what? You can't possible be Pre-Mil. Maybe Post-Mil?

 

[Bambi]

The question to ask yourself is, how can millions of believers be deceived when the bible in 1 John says that believers have received an anointing from God that teaches us all things?

Consider the differences of opinions just mentioned in this post. The different denominations.

Actually, the person who is explicitly described in the scriptures as the AntiChrist, whom you say is the Messiah. Not only is this also blasphemy, but there is danger you will fall for the deception of the false-Messiah, the anti-Christ pretending to be Christ.

The wrong interpretation of Daniel 9:27 is AntiChrist. There are only three verses in the bible that uses the word anti-christ and they are found in 1 John.

The problem with this view, and Preterism in general, is that it was motivated by the counter-reformation - they are of Catholic origin and contain Catholic bias.

To believe in these things aligns us with the Catholic church and her counter-reformation teachings.

We cannot be reformed and still hold onto these false teachings, which were designed to cover up the fact that the papal authority is the beast of Revelation, and the anti-Christ. Preterism was first advanced in 1604 by a Jesuit priest, to counter the reformed protestant teaching that the papacy was mystery babylon and the antichrist. Please read:


Henry Alford (an Anglican Greek scholar)
<dir style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, Helvetica; font-size: small;">˜The praeterist view found no favour and was hardly so much as thought of in the time of primitive Christianity. Those who lived near the date of the book of Revelation itself had no idea that its groups of imagery were intended merely to describe things then passing, and to be in a few years completed. This view is said to have been first promulgated in anything like completeness by the Jesuit Alcasar, in his "Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi" (1604). Very nearly, the same plan was adopted by Grotius. The next great name among this school of interpreters is that of Bossuet the great antagonist of Protestantism.
</dir>Charles Hodge
Also dismissing the Jesuit-Romanist Preterist approach, Charles Hodge noted that the preterists of his time for the most part were German Rationalists.
<dir>"[they] were German interpreters who, denying any real prediction of the future, confine the views of Daniel and John to their contemporary history"




</dir>

Bad logic.

 

[Bambi]

Consider the differences of opinions just mentioned in this post. The different denominations.



The wrong interpretation of Daniel 9:27 is AntiChrist. There are only three verses in the bible that uses the word anti-christ and they are found in 1 John.



Bad logic. Again a different way of interpreting scripture. Preterist vs Futurist. Post-Mil vs Pre-Mil. Pre-Trib vs Post-Trib. Infant baptism vs Believers(this one I believe). Both can't be right. Both can be wrong. Which one will you believe?

 

[james1523]

I would agree with everything you say here except for your interpretation of Luke 22:18. I believe what happens in John 19 is the fulfillment of that.

Joh 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Joh 19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

If your not A-mil then what? You can't possible be Pre-Mil. Maybe Post-Mil?

" that the scripture might be fulfilled" in John 19:28, is not referring to Luke 22:18, but Psalm 69:21.
John 19 isn't even the same book and chapter as Luke 22:18. In what sense did the kingdom of God come when Jesus drank vinegar (not wine)? And in what sense did Jesus eat in John 19?

I believe in pre-mil, with some improvements . Most Pre-mil's don't understand what the kingdom of God is, so they don't accept it is on the Earth today. But I still believe in 1000 year rule of Christ and the church on the Earth.

 

[james1523]

The wrong interpretation of Daniel 9:27 is AntiChrist. There are only three verses in the bible that uses the word anti-christ and they are found in 1 John.



Bad logic. Again a different way of interpreting scripture. Preterist vs Futurist. Post-Mil vs Pre-Mil. Pre-Trib vs Post-Trib. Infant baptism vs Believers(this one I believe). Both can't be right. Both can be wrong. Which one will you believe?

I believe in any that were not propagated by the Jesuit priests to counter the reformation, and preferably those believed by the early church (which Preterism was not) , then I figure I'm pretty safe

Early church authors believed in 1000 year reign of Christ on the Earth:

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) in his Dialogue With Trypho c. AD 140, : "But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then he built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare." (5)

"And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgement of all men would likewise take place."

Tertullian (c. 155-230) BUT WE DO CONFESS THAT A KINGDOM IS PROMISED TO US ON EARTH, ALTHOUGH BEFORE HEAVEN, ONLY IN ANOTHER STATE OF EXISTENCE..."

The early church up until about 300 AD almost exclusively believed in historical premillenialism. This is what the disciples of the disciples of the apostles believed and the apostles themselves.
The Antichrist appears on the earth and the 7 year tribulation starts.
Then the rapture occurs at the same time as Jesus and His Church come to the Earth to rule for 1000 years.

But the early church did not have the benefit of history and further revelation that we have now, particularly through men such as Darby.
So the correct and true doctrine of end times events is the dispensational premillenialism. That is, historical premillenialism with greater revelation about the secret rapture and timing of the events. And now with world events we will see the prophecy being fulfilled before our eyes. Preterism has no such history in the early church or bible age, because it was a tool to counter the reformer's claims that the anti-Christ is the Papacy.

 

[Strypes]

As for Daniel's timeline,...

I am of the opinion/belief that Jesus pressed the "pause" button on that timeline at Calvary when the age of grace began. It is also my opinion/belief that He intends to press "play" real soon and the 70th week will begin.

Luke 21:36

Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man."

 

[DHC]

As for Daniel's timeline,...

I am of the opinion/belief that Jesus pressed the "pause" button on that timeline at Calvary when the age of grace began. It is also my opinion/belief that He intends to press "play" real soon and the 70th week will begin.

Hello Strypes.

I also have the same opinion as you.

Luke 21
20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies (AD 70), then recognize that her desolation is near.
21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave,
and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.
23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress
upon the land and wrath to this people (the Jews)
24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled
under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

This is the important point, "and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

When will the 'times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"???

 

[Bambi]

I believe in any that were not propagated by the Jesuit priests to counter the reformation, and preferably those believed by the early church (which Preterism was not) , then I figure I'm pretty safe

Early church authors believed in 1000 year reign of Christ on the Earth:

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) in his Dialogue With Trypho c. AD 140, : "But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then he built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare." (5)

"And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgement of all men would likewise take place."

Tertullian (c. 155-230) BUT WE DO CONFESS THAT A KINGDOM IS PROMISED TO US ON EARTH, ALTHOUGH BEFORE HEAVEN, ONLY IN ANOTHER STATE OF EXISTENCE..."

The early church up until about 300 AD almost exclusively believed in historical premillenialism. This is what the disciples of the disciples of the apostles believed and the apostles themselves.
The Antichrist appears on the earth and the 7 year tribulation starts.
Then the rapture occurs at the same time as Jesus and His Church come to the Earth to rule for 1000 years.

But the early church did not have the benefit of history and further revelation that we have now, particularly through men such as Darby.
So the correct and true doctrine of end times events is the dispensational premillenialism. That is, historical premillenialism with greater revelation about the secret rapture and timing of the events. And now with world events we will see the prophecy being fulfilled before our eyes. Preterism has no such history in the early church or bible age, because it was a tool to counter the reformer's claims that the anti-Christ is the Papacy.

Dispensational premillennialist Tommy Ice: "I would never say that there is no one in the early church who taught preterism....Don't be foolish enough to say that nothing is out there in church history, because you never know. ...There is early preterism in people like Eusebius. In fact, his work "The Proof of the Gospel" is full of preterism in relationship to the Olivet Discours." (Update on Pre-Darby Rapture Statements and Other Issues": audio tape Dec 1995).

 

[Bambi]

As for Daniel's timeline,...

I am of the opinion/belief that Jesus pressed the "pause" button on that timeline at Calvary when the age of grace began. It is also my opinion/belief that He intends to press "play" real soon and the 70th week will begin.

Do you have scripture to back this up?

 

[Bambi]

" that the scripture might be fulfilled" in John 19:28, is not referring to Luke 22:18, but Psalm 69:21.
John 19 isn't even the same book and chapter as Luke 22:18. In what sense did the kingdom of God come when Jesus drank vinegar (not wine)? And in what sense did Jesus eat in John 19?

I believe in pre-mil, with some improvements . Most Pre-mil's don't understand what the kingdom of God is, so they don't accept it is on the Earth today. But I still believe in 1000 year rule of Christ and the church on the Earth.

True the passage in Psalm was fulfilled there too, but when Jesus prophesied in John it was also fulfilled then. You are definitely a different sort of Pre-Mil.

 

[Strypes]

When will the 'times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"???

Next Thursday? It could happen...

Bambi, The passage of scripture in Luke 21 that DHC quoted in blue would be one scripture to "back up" my personal opinion/belief.

Jesus used common everyday things as examples to explain stuff ... sower with seeds etc... In my post I used a thing that we are familiar with today (pause/resume) to express my opinion/belief.

 

[Bambi]

Next Thursday? It could happen...

Bambi, The passage of scripture in Luke 21 that DHC quoted in blue would be one scripture to "back up" my personal opinion/belief.

Jesus used common everyday things as examples to explain stuff ... sower with seeds etc... In my post I used a thing that we are familiar with today (pause/resume) to express my opinion/belief.

What was paused? DHC isn't quoting anything concerning the 70 weeks of Daniel. He is referring to the added prophecy in Daniel 9:26b and 27b. These sections of verses are not within the timeline of the 70 weeks.

 

[Strypes]

What was paused?

Daniel's timeline... which will "resume" when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

 

[Bambi]

Daniel's timeline... which will "resume" when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Where in the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks do you see a pause? In all of scripture where there is a timed prophecy, no where will you see a gap in that prophecy. Neither is there one in Daniel's. It started when the decree went out to build the city(vs25) and ended 490 years later. The 70th week came right after the 69th week. There is no gap. This prophecy is about the coming Messiah not an anti-christ. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The phrase, "Times of the Gentiles" isn't even in that prophecy. You are putting two different prophecies together to make one fulfillment.