Question on books of the bible dating

[Red Baker]

This is why you don't spiritualize.

Some scriptures can only be understood in a spiritual sense. Israel does not mean natural Israel all the time; neither does bread mean, the substance we eat, sometime in the scriptures it mean the word of God Judah and Israel, does not always mean the two sections of tribes tribes in Israel, but at times means Jews and Gentiles in the writings of the Prophets. Jacob, does not alwasy refer to the man Jacob, but to the elect family of Jesus Christ, etc. etc.

Matthew 16:11~How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that He bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the Doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

The bread Jesus was talking about was not literal bread, but doctrine. But why didn't they understand this? It was because as finite human beings, we have our hearts and minds set on the things of this world, and Christ came preaching the things from above. God had something far more important than the literal sustenance of the bread of men in view. He was talking about the bread of doctrine, which can be a far more dangerous intake for men to be wary of. We are finite beings and it is our human nature to think in the manner that the world does. But as children, reborn in Christ, we are regenerated of that Spirit, and He reveals these spiritual truths to us. His Spirit "in us" is what leads us to the truth of all this through the diligent study of the word. That is the difference between the people of the world and people of God.

That being said, we come to the knowledge of the truth, by comparing scriptures with scriptures ~ here a little, there a little, line upon line, percepts upon percepts, as saith Isaiah the prophet. In this sense only do we spiritualize them, by giving them their true intended sense. As I said above~we must read all scriptures at face value, while seeking their true sense, by comparing scriptures with scriptures., trusting God to open them to us.

I guess that means the 333 means nothing? 2/3rds die. That is what it says. 2/3rds of the Jews alive at that time will die. The last 1/3rd will be the elect, the remnant.

The one third represents the small elect remnant that has always been in the earth, in comparison to the majority of the non-elect~the two thirds.

The two third have the mark of the beast and that mark of the beast which is human depravity! Which even God's children by nature are partakers of, yet are saved and regenerated after the image of Jesus Christ.

The children of this world, in their minds are in agreement with this world and its prince, and are in fellowship with them (right hand) opposing God and his children by being in constant war against them.

Galatians 2:9​

“And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”

.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is a prophecy. They will come to accept Christ as Messiah. "blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" is for the Messiah. It is the words of the people recognizing their king. They said this at the triumphal entry, but then rejected Him as their king. He thus condemns them and says that they will not see Him again until they truly say "blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." That is, they will finally, verbally, and from their heart, souls, and mind, recognize Him and announce Him as king.

You know, I have come up with some ideas that line up with the prophecies found in the New Testament. As of last night, they are coming to fruition. I didn't think I had a chance of possibly being right, but it is so far turning out as my pet predictions say. The next few years will bear out whether I am on the right track. Is that the right track for predicting a time and date for the end of the world? Absolutely not. However, it does put it to within a generation. Kind of like Jesus was talking about at the Olivet Discourse. If you want to watch as the Bible commands (not because I am right or wrong, but simply because we are called to watch and wait, as we occupy ourselves until He comes, consider Trump. His foreign policy during his first term was one of peace. He fought using peace. He used lethal force when necessary to achieve peace. He almost ended the Korean War, which continues on until the North signs the armistice. He almost brought peace to Israel and the Middle East. He made an accord, which is just another form of covenant, with many, but not all the countries involved. He was going to build on those accords if he won the 2020 election. With the way that he makes deals, I could see him ending the war with Israel and getting Israel a temple at the same time. Now if that happened, I would give up and walk away. That would be too on the nose.

Consider he survived what would have been a fatal attempt on his life. He says the only reason he didn't die in the assassination attempt is because at that moment he moved and turned his head towards a chart he had on stage to point out some things. If he had not done that, he would have been assassinated. He is crediting God, as well as that chart. Yes, it is grandstanding, but for some people, a powerful motivator. You should pay attention, in case you see things happening which just happen to line up with a literal rendering of prophecy. As I have said before, technology is reaching the point that Revelation is moving from fantasy/Sci Fi, to reality. Some things to consider:

Elon Musk is supposed to join the administration and is basically considered Trump's best friend and right hand man. He is out preaching Donald Trump. He is also very big in the AI business, right down to his company that makes neural chips that have been successfully implanted in the brains of some people to the point that they can control a computer solely using their thoughts. One of the patients likes to play Counter Strike using the neural chips. (He is kind of paralyzed, so he can't actually play Counter Strike normally. Only through the implants.) Musk is also very big in AI, which could very well be something that makes the "image of the beast" a reality. He has already been accused of stealing designs for his robots from the movie "I, Robot".

Do I believe this is what will happen. Not really, but I am a cautious observer. I haven't given up on the plain reading of scripture and prophecy.

re saying 'blessed is he...'
Nothing mandates this. You don't appear to be familiar with usage, but it can just as easily mean 'those of you who declare the Psalm about me are believers...'

I am perfectly aware that this is a 'proof text' of two programs/two peoples which is a fraud. That is the important point. The 2P2P thing simply does not exist in the Bible--unless you want to bust it.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is a prophecy. They will come to accept Christ as Messiah. "blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" is for the Messiah. It is the words of the people recognizing their king. They said this at the triumphal entry, but then rejected Him as their king. He thus condemns them and says that they will not see Him again until they truly say "blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." That is, they will finally, verbally, and from their heart, souls, and mind, recognize Him and announce Him as king.

You know, I have come up with some ideas that line up with the prophecies found in the New Testament. As of last night, they are coming to fruition. I didn't think I had a chance of possibly being right, but it is so far turning out as my pet predictions say. The next few years will bear out whether I am on the right track. Is that the right track for predicting a time and date for the end of the world? Absolutely not. However, it does put it to within a generation. Kind of like Jesus was talking about at the Olivet Discourse. If you want to watch as the Bible commands (not because I am right or wrong, but simply because we are called to watch and wait, as we occupy ourselves until He comes, consider Trump. His foreign policy during his first term was one of peace. He fought using peace. He used lethal force when necessary to achieve peace. He almost ended the Korean War, which continues on until the North signs the armistice. He almost brought peace to Israel and the Middle East. He made an accord, which is just another form of covenant, with many, but not all the countries involved. He was going to build on those accords if he won the 2020 election. With the way that he makes deals, I could see him ending the war with Israel and getting Israel a temple at the same time. Now if that happened, I would give up and walk away. That would be too on the nose.

Consider he survived what would have been a fatal attempt on his life. He says the only reason he didn't die in the assassination attempt is because at that moment he moved and turned his head towards a chart he had on stage to point out some things. If he had not done that, he would have been assassinated. He is crediting God, as well as that chart. Yes, it is grandstanding, but for some people, a powerful motivator. You should pay attention, in case you see things happening which just happen to line up with a literal rendering of prophecy. As I have said before, technology is reaching the point that Revelation is moving from fantasy/Sci Fi, to reality. Some things to consider:

Elon Musk is supposed to join the administration and is basically considered Trump's best friend and right hand man. He is out preaching Donald Trump. He is also very big in the AI business, right down to his company that makes neural chips that have been successfully implanted in the brains of some people to the point that they can control a computer solely using their thoughts. One of the patients likes to play Counter Strike using the neural chips. (He is kind of paralyzed, so he can't actually play Counter Strike normally. Only through the implants.) Musk is also very big in AI, which could very well be something that makes the "image of the beast" a reality. He has already been accused of stealing designs for his robots from the movie "I, Robot".

Do I believe this is what will happen. Not really, but I am a cautious observer. I haven't given up on the plain reading of scripture and prophecy.

re saying 'blessed is he...'
It seems you are not versed in usage, but nothing demands this to be a prophecy. The passage is the voice of the moral prophetic with a dramatic point to make: that they don't declare him Christ and Lord as they should.

Have you ever stopped to think: what moral value is it to those hearing him then to hear that descendants X000 years in the future will believe? What a crock! What nonsense when handling the Word! It is ridiculous even to think about.

I am perfectly aware that this is a "proof text" of 'two peoples/two programs.' But that is the point: 2P2P is a fraud. It does not exist, not if we really are attentive to the NT. It is a low information myth.

You seriously need to start over with Eliot and see what happened. Try the book by Himmelfarb THE JEWISH ODYSSEY OF GEORGE ELIOT. You have a renegade, immoral daughter of an evangelical pastor. She is brilliant, working in some 5 languages. But she would love to detonate the NT. She translates Strauss's LIFE OF JESUS, which destroys any confidence left in the NT. Then she writes a novel that catapults the Jews interest in going back to their country specifically because it goes against the NT message, which is what she was all about. Got it?

So now she's the media buddy of all these unbelieving Jews, whom Rom 11 says should be ministers of the Gospel, and they are all getting on wagons and ships to go live in Israel.

You couldn't break Acts 2-4 better if you dreamed.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is a prophecy. They will come to accept Christ as Messiah. "blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" is for the Messiah. It is the words of the people recognizing their king. They said this at the triumphal entry, but then rejected Him as their king. He thus condemns them and says that they will not see Him again until they truly say "blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." That is, they will finally, verbally, and from their heart, souls, and mind, recognize Him and announce Him as king.

You know, I have come up with some ideas that line up with the prophecies found in the New Testament. As of last night, they are coming to fruition. I didn't think I had a chance of possibly being right, but it is so far turning out as my pet predictions say. The next few years will bear out whether I am on the right track. Is that the right track for predicting a time and date for the end of the world? Absolutely not. However, it does put it to within a generation. Kind of like Jesus was talking about at the Olivet Discourse. If you want to watch as the Bible commands (not because I am right or wrong, but simply because we are called to watch and wait, as we occupy ourselves until He comes, consider Trump. His foreign policy during his first term was one of peace. He fought using peace. He used lethal force when necessary to achieve peace. He almost ended the Korean War, which continues on until the North signs the armistice. He almost brought peace to Israel and the Middle East. He made an accord, which is just another form of covenant, with many, but not all the countries involved. He was going to build on those accords if he won the 2020 election. With the way that he makes deals, I could see him ending the war with Israel and getting Israel a temple at the same time. Now if that happened, I would give up and walk away. That would be too on the nose.

Consider he survived what would have been a fatal attempt on his life. He says the only reason he didn't die in the assassination attempt is because at that moment he moved and turned his head towards a chart he had on stage to point out some things. If he had not done that, he would have been assassinated. He is crediting God, as well as that chart. Yes, it is grandstanding, but for some people, a powerful motivator. You should pay attention, in case you see things happening which just happen to line up with a literal rendering of prophecy. As I have said before, technology is reaching the point that Revelation is moving from fantasy/Sci Fi, to reality. Some things to consider:

Elon Musk is supposed to join the administration and is basically considered Trump's best friend and right hand man. He is out preaching Donald Trump. He is also very big in the AI business, right down to his company that makes neural chips that have been successfully implanted in the brains of some people to the point that they can control a computer solely using their thoughts. One of the patients likes to play Counter Strike using the neural chips. (He is kind of paralyzed, so he can't actually play Counter Strike normally. Only through the implants.) Musk is also very big in AI, which could very well be something that makes the "image of the beast" a reality. He has already been accused of stealing designs for his robots from the movie "I, Robot".

Do I believe this is what will happen. Not really, but I am a cautious observer. I haven't given up on the plain reading of scripture and prophecy.

re Trump, news, Musk myths
Are we going to talk about actual NT issues or not?

 

[TMSO]

re Trump, news, Musk myths
Are we going to talk about actual NT issues or not?

I know. Eschatology has nothing to do with the New Testament. I get ya.

 

[EarlyActs]

Galatians 3 "16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ."

To be honest, I can't see any reason to ask 'who was voiding and setting aside the Promise'. In fact, I see nothing here that would even put such a question at the bottom of the list of things to think about in regards to this verse. It isn't even on the list. Even reading it in context does not bring up such questions. This whole section speaks to the intent of the law, which has nothing to do with voiding and setting aside the promise.

Well yeah. I mean, even when Jesus left in Acts 1, He did not say that the kingdom was not being restored to Israel. He said that it was none of their business as to when God would do that [restore the kingdom to Israel]. He could have said, have you not been listening? There is no kingdom to be restored to Israel. He didn't say that because the kingdom will be restored to Israel, but that wasn't for the disciples to deal with. It is solely the business of the Father. Jesus seems to have answered in the way we would if we were irritated by hearing the same question over and over. The disciples asked Him when He would present Himself as King and come into His kingdom at the Olivet Discourse. The disciples knew nothing of Jesus second coming. They didn't know He was going to leave. Yet they asked "what will be the sign of Your coming..."? That word for coming has a complex translation. It speaks of a king visiting their domain, that is their kingdom. "3952 (parousía) is a "technical term with reference to the visit of a king or some other official, 'a royal visit' "" So they were asking when Jesus would be unveiled and shown as king. Basically, when would the kingdom be established and when Jesus would come into this kingdom. They spoke using the eschatology of the Old Testament. Again, Jesus did not say it wouldn't happen, He just basically said, again, it isn't now, it is future. Other events happen first.

I posted Galatians 3:16 above, and no... it doesn't. Not even in its full context. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Paul speaks of the law not invalidating the promise. He then says that the law is a tutor that points to Christ.

"23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [ai]tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [aj]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you [ak]belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s [al]descendants, heirs according to promise."

He also said:

"19 Why the Law then? It was added [ac]because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the [ad]agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not [ae]for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness [af]would indeed have been [ag]based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up [ah]everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."

Again, I don't see anything you are saying here.

re Gal 3
I don't usually refer to individual verses. Sorry it was v17. If you'd pay attention above, you would have seen it, or carefully read the context. But it is the point of the paragraph, already identified above:

Paul's enemies, the Judaizers, were trying to gain back Christians. They would do it by subjecting them to the Law, which neglected the fact that the classic promise of the Gospel through Abraham to the Gentiles was 430 years prior. The Judaizers thus 'nullified and voided the promise by the Law.' The Greek line goes gegonow nomos ouk akuroi, eis to katrgesai ten epangelian.

That is:
The law that came 430 years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God,[ak] so as to invalidate the promise.

The Judaizer counter-evangelists would ignore this about the earlier promise and tell Christians they weren't really up to date. They replaced the promise to the nations with the Law! That is the real replacement theology that the NT is concerned about. It is also expressed in Rom 9-10. The 'as if' righteousness from the Law. And in Eph 3:5 when it stresses that through the Gospel, the promises to Israel are enjoyed by the nations now.

I can't spend time on this if you don't know such basics. Please DM so you can get caught up. I'm still 10 messages behind because you keep writing new ones. I'm still at about 10 am yesterday, and have other things to do.

2P2P is an utterly foreign idea that came from an immoral renegade 'liberated' woman, who likely heard Marx in person in London in the mid 1800s and spelled out her 'return to Israel miracle' doctrine.

 

[EarlyActs]

Galatians 3 "16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ."

To be honest, I can't see any reason to ask 'who was voiding and setting aside the Promise'. In fact, I see nothing here that would even put such a question at the bottom of the list of things to think about in regards to this verse. It isn't even on the list. Even reading it in context does not bring up such questions. This whole section speaks to the intent of the law, which has nothing to do with voiding and setting aside the promise.

Well yeah. I mean, even when Jesus left in Acts 1, He did not say that the kingdom was not being restored to Israel. He said that it was none of their business as to when God would do that [restore the kingdom to Israel]. He could have said, have you not been listening? There is no kingdom to be restored to Israel. He didn't say that because the kingdom will be restored to Israel, but that wasn't for the disciples to deal with. It is solely the business of the Father. Jesus seems to have answered in the way we would if we were irritated by hearing the same question over and over. The disciples asked Him when He would present Himself as King and come into His kingdom at the Olivet Discourse. The disciples knew nothing of Jesus second coming. They didn't know He was going to leave. Yet they asked "what will be the sign of Your coming..."? That word for coming has a complex translation. It speaks of a king visiting their domain, that is their kingdom. "3952 (parousía) is a "technical term with reference to the visit of a king or some other official, 'a royal visit' "" So they were asking when Jesus would be unveiled and shown as king. Basically, when would the kingdom be established and when Jesus would come into this kingdom. They spoke using the eschatology of the Old Testament. Again, Jesus did not say it wouldn't happen, He just basically said, again, it isn't now, it is future. Other events happen first.

I posted Galatians 3:16 above, and no... it doesn't. Not even in its full context. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Paul speaks of the law not invalidating the promise. He then says that the law is a tutor that points to Christ.

"23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [ai]tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is [aj]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you [ak]belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s [al]descendants, heirs according to promise."

He also said:

"19 Why the Law then? It was added [ac]because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the [ad]agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not [ae]for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness [af]would indeed have been [ag]based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up [ah]everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."

Again, I don't see anything you are saying here.

re Acts 1
You apparently don't know the next line.

The next line is that they would be king--priests themselves. The terms are lempsesthe dunamin epelthontos. The first two are the endowment of a kingdom authority (by preaching) and the second is the term for commissioning a priest (by that same preaching ministering to their people).

This had a more direct source, of course, which Peter used in I Pet 2: you are
a chosen generation/race (genos eklecton) Is 43, Dt 7, 10
a kingdom of priests, (Ex 19, Is 61) the basileion herateuma and
a holy nation, an ethnos hagion. (Ex 19).
a people as his possession, laos eis preipoiesin, Is 43, Ex 19, Dt 4, 7, 14.

So I hope you can see from this that the NT interp of the OT is official and final. When you are enjoying Isaiah, remember, the NT quoted it a certain way. It is not about a kingdom for Israel, it is about the believers. Exodus and Deut are similar; the whole community is there of course, but the believing remnant are the ones Hebrews 11 is about.

Back to Acts 1: if I had been told to stop asking about a kingdom for Israel, and then told I was to be a priest king by my preaching to Israel, I think I would just shut my face about the kingdom thing. In fact, this is what Acts does. Trace Israel in the rest of the book, and it was supposed to acknowledge its King instead of fantasize about a kingdom. Acts 13: "David served the purpose (of being a king in a land) in his generation." But it is was not the ultimate goal of Israel. Even ch 26 does not allow it. The worship system keeps going night and day, not realizing that the hope of Israel had been fulfilled in Christ and in the people working for Him like Paul.

If you want to talk further, DM me and I'll get you a couple basic tools to start using. I can't spend time duplicating.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is no special meaning here. Daniel gives the interpretation, which is going to be literal, and says

"44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be [av]left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place [aw]in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”"

Why don't you trust the interpretation give to Daniel by God? The interpretation is in response to:

" 34 You [ap]continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed [aq]all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth."

This is pretty clear, and the interpretation given by God to Daniel goes to show it is true. God's interpretation of His own prophecy given to nebuchadnezzar says "it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms". That is the interpretation. And what does God have to say to that? "The great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future." Why? To show the dream is true, and the interpretation God gave to Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel is trustworthy. Why can't you find it trustworthy?

What you said would be like saying that we have to interpret the parable of the soils because Jesus didn't tell us everything. Except... He did. Everything you need to understand the prophecy of the statue, God gave to Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel. Just as God told gave the baker and the taste tester the direct interpretation of their prophecies/dreams through Joseph. The interpretation given by God was simplistic, literal, and came to pass exactly as stated. Why would God change His nature before Daniel came on the scene? I thought God never changes?

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the vision in Daniel 2. If God did not say it in the interpretation He gave, it isn't there. You are adding to what God has said. God defined it for you, but you come out and say that He is wrong. Why? Because I am saying what God said, and you are saying I am wrong. I won't add to what was said, and I won't change it. The interpretation shows that the stone not cut by hands is the kingdom set up by the God of heaven which will never be destroyed. It will not have anything to do with anyone other then Christ. [will not be left for another people.] God is telling Nebuchadnezzar that this kingdom would destroy and supplant his statue of Empires.

Please, for the sake of all that is good and holy, stop adding to what God has said. Notice how I stopped where Daniel stopped. Why? That is all that is stated in the prophecy and interpretation. I am not going to add anything to it and court God's anger. You have actually changed it. If you are being expository and using exogesis, your view should strengthen what is said, not change it.

Again, it isn't a delay. A delay would mean the Father planned everything to occur on a certain day, but now He has to change it... a delay. A solely human concept that undermines God's nature. Peter took the time to explain this.

It may be best if you stop before you add more things for God to take issue with. I have problems, but it isn't with adding to what is present. Even you have stated this by saying I am being literal.

Again, I looked and I have no idea what you are talking about. "28 But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children." So, is the biological timestamp the fact that daughters can apparently cry? And the timestamp is that they need to stop crying for Jesus in the present, and instead change to weeping for themselves and their children? I can only work with what you gave me. I can even look at the context, and still not have a single clue what you are talking about.

re the statue being demolished
You do realize it was not a literal statue some place in the Middle East? Sharpen your mind brother. Of course, Neb did build one of himself right after hearing about that, in an act of defiance.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is no special meaning here. Daniel gives the interpretation, which is going to be literal, and says

"44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be [av]left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place [aw]in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”"

Why don't you trust the interpretation give to Daniel by God? The interpretation is in response to:

" 34 You [ap]continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed [aq]all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth."

This is pretty clear, and the interpretation given by God to Daniel goes to show it is true. God's interpretation of His own prophecy given to nebuchadnezzar says "it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms". That is the interpretation. And what does God have to say to that? "The great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future." Why? To show the dream is true, and the interpretation God gave to Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel is trustworthy. Why can't you find it trustworthy?

What you said would be like saying that we have to interpret the parable of the soils because Jesus didn't tell us everything. Except... He did. Everything you need to understand the prophecy of the statue, God gave to Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel. Just as God told gave the baker and the taste tester the direct interpretation of their prophecies/dreams through Joseph. The interpretation given by God was simplistic, literal, and came to pass exactly as stated. Why would God change His nature before Daniel came on the scene? I thought God never changes?

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the vision in Daniel 2. If God did not say it in the interpretation He gave, it isn't there. You are adding to what God has said. God defined it for you, but you come out and say that He is wrong. Why? Because I am saying what God said, and you are saying I am wrong. I won't add to what was said, and I won't change it. The interpretation shows that the stone not cut by hands is the kingdom set up by the God of heaven which will never be destroyed. It will not have anything to do with anyone other then Christ. [will not be left for another people.] God is telling Nebuchadnezzar that this kingdom would destroy and supplant his statue of Empires.

Please, for the sake of all that is good and holy, stop adding to what God has said. Notice how I stopped where Daniel stopped. Why? That is all that is stated in the prophecy and interpretation. I am not going to add anything to it and court God's anger. You have actually changed it. If you are being expository and using exogesis, your view should strengthen what is said, not change it.

Again, it isn't a delay. A delay would mean the Father planned everything to occur on a certain day, but now He has to change it... a delay. A solely human concept that undermines God's nature. Peter took the time to explain this.

It may be best if you stop before you add more things for God to take issue with. I have problems, but it isn't with adding to what is present. Even you have stated this by saying I am being literal.

Again, I looked and I have no idea what you are talking about. "28 But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children." So, is the biological timestamp the fact that daughters can apparently cry? And the timestamp is that they need to stop crying for Jesus in the present, and instead change to weeping for themselves and their children? I can only work with what you gave me. I can even look at the context, and still not have a single clue what you are talking about.

re simplistic literal
No it wasn't at all. It was a cartoon that efficient made one point: that a completely different kind of kingdom was coming, not made of metallurgy at all. In his defiance, Neb went out immediately and built a huge metal statue of himself to last forever. Clueless. But also literalist. Don't fall in!

 

[EarlyActs]

There is no special meaning here. Daniel gives the interpretation, which is going to be literal, and says

"44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be [av]left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place [aw]in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”"

Why don't you trust the interpretation give to Daniel by God? The interpretation is in response to:

" 34 You [ap]continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed [aq]all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth."

This is pretty clear, and the interpretation given by God to Daniel goes to show it is true. God's interpretation of His own prophecy given to nebuchadnezzar says "it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms". That is the interpretation. And what does God have to say to that? "The great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future." Why? To show the dream is true, and the interpretation God gave to Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel is trustworthy. Why can't you find it trustworthy?

What you said would be like saying that we have to interpret the parable of the soils because Jesus didn't tell us everything. Except... He did. Everything you need to understand the prophecy of the statue, God gave to Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel. Just as God told gave the baker and the taste tester the direct interpretation of their prophecies/dreams through Joseph. The interpretation given by God was simplistic, literal, and came to pass exactly as stated. Why would God change His nature before Daniel came on the scene? I thought God never changes?

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the vision in Daniel 2. If God did not say it in the interpretation He gave, it isn't there. You are adding to what God has said. God defined it for you, but you come out and say that He is wrong. Why? Because I am saying what God said, and you are saying I am wrong. I won't add to what was said, and I won't change it. The interpretation shows that the stone not cut by hands is the kingdom set up by the God of heaven which will never be destroyed. It will not have anything to do with anyone other then Christ. [will not be left for another people.] God is telling Nebuchadnezzar that this kingdom would destroy and supplant his statue of Empires.

Please, for the sake of all that is good and holy, stop adding to what God has said. Notice how I stopped where Daniel stopped. Why? That is all that is stated in the prophecy and interpretation. I am not going to add anything to it and court God's anger. You have actually changed it. If you are being expository and using exogesis, your view should strengthen what is said, not change it.

Again, it isn't a delay. A delay would mean the Father planned everything to occur on a certain day, but now He has to change it... a delay. A solely human concept that undermines God's nature. Peter took the time to explain this.

It may be best if you stop before you add more things for God to take issue with. I have problems, but it isn't with adding to what is present. Even you have stated this by saying I am being literal.

Again, I looked and I have no idea what you are talking about. "28 But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children." So, is the biological timestamp the fact that daughters can apparently cry? And the timestamp is that they need to stop crying for Jesus in the present, and instead change to weeping for themselves and their children? I can only work with what you gave me. I can even look at the context, and still not have a single clue what you are talking about.

re extension
It is an appropriate extension. You think like a skeptical pagan. They called it a delay like God was confused, but he was not. He was extending time because he loved mankind. I don't think you understand, or can express, the simplest concepts on these things.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is no special meaning here. Daniel gives the interpretation, which is going to be literal, and says

"44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be [av]left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place [aw]in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”"

Why don't you trust the interpretation give to Daniel by God? The interpretation is in response to:

" 34 You [ap]continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed [aq]all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth."

This is pretty clear, and the interpretation given by God to Daniel goes to show it is true. God's interpretation of His own prophecy given to nebuchadnezzar says "it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms". That is the interpretation. And what does God have to say to that? "The great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future." Why? To show the dream is true, and the interpretation God gave to Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel is trustworthy. Why can't you find it trustworthy?

What you said would be like saying that we have to interpret the parable of the soils because Jesus didn't tell us everything. Except... He did. Everything you need to understand the prophecy of the statue, God gave to Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel. Just as God told gave the baker and the taste tester the direct interpretation of their prophecies/dreams through Joseph. The interpretation given by God was simplistic, literal, and came to pass exactly as stated. Why would God change His nature before Daniel came on the scene? I thought God never changes?

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the vision in Daniel 2. If God did not say it in the interpretation He gave, it isn't there. You are adding to what God has said. God defined it for you, but you come out and say that He is wrong. Why? Because I am saying what God said, and you are saying I am wrong. I won't add to what was said, and I won't change it. The interpretation shows that the stone not cut by hands is the kingdom set up by the God of heaven which will never be destroyed. It will not have anything to do with anyone other then Christ. [will not be left for another people.] God is telling Nebuchadnezzar that this kingdom would destroy and supplant his statue of Empires.

Please, for the sake of all that is good and holy, stop adding to what God has said. Notice how I stopped where Daniel stopped. Why? That is all that is stated in the prophecy and interpretation. I am not going to add anything to it and court God's anger. You have actually changed it. If you are being expository and using exogesis, your view should strengthen what is said, not change it.

Again, it isn't a delay. A delay would mean the Father planned everything to occur on a certain day, but now He has to change it... a delay. A solely human concept that undermines God's nature. Peter took the time to explain this.

It may be best if you stop before you add more things for God to take issue with. I have problems, but it isn't with adding to what is present. Even you have stated this by saying I am being literal.

Again, I looked and I have no idea what you are talking about. "28 But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children." So, is the biological timestamp the fact that daughters can apparently cry? And the timestamp is that they need to stop crying for Jesus in the present, and instead change to weeping for themselves and their children? I can only work with what you gave me. I can even look at the context, and still not have a single clue what you are talking about.

re special meaning
I missed that line. What does that mean? Of course it was special, if you define special as introducing a kingdom totally unlike anything Greece or Rome tried.

 

[EarlyActs]

Don't add to it. STOP DOING THAT. Are the warnings given not enough. The point of the usage of Zechariah is to tell the Jewish reader, as John was writing to the Jews, that Jesus is the star of all the eschatology passages in the Old Testament. Zechariah is eschatology. The Jews had a belief of eschatology which had the Messiah as King of a kingdom that has Jerusalem as its capitol. When the disciples asked Jesus those questions for the Olivet Discourse, they were speaking from their knoweldge of eschatology. They didn't know Jesus was going to leave and return. They only knew that Jesus would be the head of a kingdom in Israel, as the Messiah. The religious leaders failed to explain that the Messiah was coming twice. They erased the first coming, because they did not believe the Messiah, their king, would come as a suffering servant.

Jesus did not say stop thinking about the kingdom of Israel restoration. He didn't say that. He said that this event that the Father has scheduled, the Kingdom being restored to Israel, is the Father's business, it is not their business. He said it is none of their business the times and epochs scheduled by the Father. And so you don't say no, here it is again "He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; " As the dispensationalists believe, the next "time/epoch" is the millennial kingdom, when the kingdom has been returned to Israel. If Jesus told them when, or even gave them an inkling, it would wreck the church. Why? There is another parable at the very end of the Olivet Discourse. Think on that.

It is talking about Israel RECOGNIZING WHO HE IS. It has nothing to do with His suffering. John points out how Jesus becomes that one Israel sees in the future, the One who was pierced. Isaiah speaks to it as a form of identification, as well as recognizing what He did. HE was wounded for our transgressions. When God finally rescues His elect in Israel, bringing an end to this temporal life and ushering in the eternal Kingdom that is not of this world (for it will be destroyed), the elect of Israel will recognize Christ not only as King, but for what He has done. This isn't salvation by some other atonement. This is God's regeneration on a national scale of elect proportion. (Like what I did there?) The only part of the nation of Israel that will remain when Jesus personally goes to them will be the elect. All the unbelievers will have perished in the battle that Christ shows up to win. Zechariah. The day God defends Judah first and Israel. He is fighting for His adopted children of the nation of Israel.

Take your time. At least it is about the same topic, and not multiple disparate topics. The topic is how the 70th week has a future fulfillment because, just like a football game, we are at half time. The game clock stopped running. The final fulfillment of the 70th week is to come. How can we be sure? Line it up to the Olivet discourse. The 70th week includes the time of Jacob's trouble, which is the Great Tribulation Jesus spoke of which ends upon His second coming. Immediately afterwards, Jesus bodily returns to Earth to gather the elect. What God has decreed for His people, will end with the ending of the world.

re: "John points out how Jesus becomes that one Israel sees in the future, the One who was pierced."

Can't you see your contradiction here? John is talking about what they saw right then. Not our future; Z's future. He said it had come to pass.

You do this over and over and over and it is wrong.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is no special meaning here. Daniel gives the interpretation, which is going to be literal, and says

"44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be [av]left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place [aw]in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”"

Why don't you trust the interpretation give to Daniel by God? The interpretation is in response to:

" 34 You [ap]continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed [aq]all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth."

This is pretty clear, and the interpretation given by God to Daniel goes to show it is true. God's interpretation of His own prophecy given to nebuchadnezzar says "it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms". That is the interpretation. And what does God have to say to that? "The great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future." Why? To show the dream is true, and the interpretation God gave to Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel is trustworthy. Why can't you find it trustworthy?

What you said would be like saying that we have to interpret the parable of the soils because Jesus didn't tell us everything. Except... He did. Everything you need to understand the prophecy of the statue, God gave to Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel. Just as God told gave the baker and the taste tester the direct interpretation of their prophecies/dreams through Joseph. The interpretation given by God was simplistic, literal, and came to pass exactly as stated. Why would God change His nature before Daniel came on the scene? I thought God never changes?

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the vision in Daniel 2. If God did not say it in the interpretation He gave, it isn't there. You are adding to what God has said. God defined it for you, but you come out and say that He is wrong. Why? Because I am saying what God said, and you are saying I am wrong. I won't add to what was said, and I won't change it. The interpretation shows that the stone not cut by hands is the kingdom set up by the God of heaven which will never be destroyed. It will not have anything to do with anyone other then Christ. [will not be left for another people.] God is telling Nebuchadnezzar that this kingdom would destroy and supplant his statue of Empires.

Please, for the sake of all that is good and holy, stop adding to what God has said. Notice how I stopped where Daniel stopped. Why? That is all that is stated in the prophecy and interpretation. I am not going to add anything to it and court God's anger. You have actually changed it. If you are being expository and using exogesis, your view should strengthen what is said, not change it.

Again, it isn't a delay. A delay would mean the Father planned everything to occur on a certain day, but now He has to change it... a delay. A solely human concept that undermines God's nature. Peter took the time to explain this.

It may be best if you stop before you add more things for God to take issue with. I have problems, but it isn't with adding to what is present. Even you have stated this by saying I am being literal.

Again, I looked and I have no idea what you are talking about. "28 But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children." So, is the biological timestamp the fact that daughters can apparently cry? And the timestamp is that they need to stop crying for Jesus in the present, and instead change to weeping for themselves and their children? I can only work with what you gave me. I can even look at the context, and still not have a single clue what you are talking about.

re Lk 23:28.
The babies nursing at that time would see the destruction of the city and plead for the mountains to fall, as adults some 30 years later.

There is nothing confusing about it. It is a biological timestamp that cannot be controverted.

But 2P2P Dispensational futurism makes up all rules as it goes along!

 

[EarlyActs]

Time is up TMSO. DM me. I won't pay any further attention. You lack way too much to deal with here.

 

[EarlyActs]

I know. Eschatology has nothing to do with the New Testament. I get ya.

The tools are an interlinear, Metzgers 2500 references of the NT to the OT, and a chart of Acts earliest use of the OT (self created)

Without these, we will not have what the apostles taught.

See the DM.

 

[TMSO]

The tools are an interlinear, Metzgers 2500 references of the NT to the OT, and a chart of Acts earliest use of the OT (self created)

Without these, we will not have what the apostles taught.

See the DM.

So how many centuries did the church not have what the apostles taught, and if they didn't, how can we now?

 

[TMSO]

re: "John points out how Jesus becomes that one Israel sees in the future, the One who was pierced."

Can't you see your contradiction here? John is talking about what they saw right then. Not our future; Z's future. He said it had come to pass.

He is identifying the man in the prophecy, the He that was pierced, as Jesus. Your contradiction is glaring. What had come to pass? Jesus being pierced. However, this is part of a three+ chapter prophecy in Zechariah. He was not saying that half the book of Zechariah came to pass in half a sentence. It is a glaring issue to dismiss most of a book of the Bible simply because of one snippet of one verse. But here you do it.

You do this over and over and over and it is wrong.

Apparently not.

 

[EarlyActs]

So how many centuries did the church not have what the apostles taught, and if they didn't, how can we now?

There was enough confusion by the time of Constantine (4th), that you could reasonably discount from the century before him. Hus broke through somewhat in the 14th. That started the Reformation and the reign of Christ shows for several until you get to the mid-1800s England, when, as explained above, G Eliot (the immoral, renegage evangelical novelist who was brilliant) both destroyed the NT and supported a non-apostolic eschatology that set up modern Israel.

 

[EarlyActs]

He is identifying the man in the prophecy, the He that was pierced, as Jesus. Your contradiction is glaring. What had come to pass? Jesus being pierced. However, this is part of a three+ chapter prophecy in Zechariah. He was not saying that half the book of Zechariah came to pass in half a sentence.

Apparently not.

So instead of a coherent prophecy about the suffering and victory of Christ, it is chopped up to include a modern Israel segment, 2000 years later, that has nearly zero spiritual richness to it, even according to the most effect mission to Israel in our time, One For Israel. Great thinking.

 

[TMSO]

So instead of a coherent prophecy about the suffering and victory of Christ, it is chopped up to include a modern Israel segment, 2000 years later, that has nearly zero spiritual richness to it, even according to the most effect mission to Israel in our time, One For Israel. Great thinking.

Why are you creating multiple programs. The suffering and victory of Christ results in the elect of Israel being saved. Israel is partially hardened until God has gathered in the elect of the Gentiles. What part of that is so difficult to understand from Paul? Either you are a believer, or what Paul said has already come to pass a couple thousand years ago, and everyone who thought they were a believer was deceived, since that would mean the fullness of the Gentiles, that is the elect, has already been fully gathered in. No elect left in the world. And we don't actually exist, because the world has already ended.

Matthew 24 "29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from [r]the sky, and the powers of [s]the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His [t]elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other."

So, do tell us when this occurred, and when all the tribes of the whole world saw Jesus return for His second coming. They aren't mourning because they are happy to see Him.