GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Colon or not?  (Read 964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LaSpino3

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
  • Manna: 83
    • View Profile
Colon or not?
« on: Wed Oct 18, 2017 - 14:26:55 »
This is a head-scratcher: Stay with me on this: What is a colon? A colon is to inform the reader that what follows that colon proves, explains, defines, describes, or lists elements of what had preceded it. In modern American English usage, a complete sentence precedes a colon, and what follows is a list, description, explanation, or definition of that sentence. The elements which follow the colon may or may not be a complete sentence: since the colon is preceded by a sentence, it is a complete sentence whether what follows the colon is another sentence or not.

A period is a punctuation mark indicating a full stop, placed at the end of declarative sentences, as well as other statements thought to be complete, also called full stop. Every sentence that’s not an exclamation or a question must end with a period. The vast majority of sentences are called declarative statements --- statements that just say something and therefore end in a period. Full stop explains itself: a full stop, as a full or perfect point is obviously not an imperfect point or stop. It is hard to believe there is any other case in life in which a thing so small as the period carries so much force.

Here’s the verse in question:
Dan.9:26, “After (word of time future) threescore and two weeks (62 weeks) shall Messiah be cut off (divorced from the Jews) but (flipside) not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto (until) the end of the war desolations are determined.”

In the King James Bible, a colon comes after the pronoun, “himself:” But in many other Bibles, the colon has been changed to a period, some of them being, the Douay Version of the Catholic Bible: The New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses: The Amplified Bible: New International Bible (N.I.V.) Thompson Chain Reference Bible, The Reformation Study Bible and others. 

The K.J.B. uses a colon, as did the Geneva Bible. Also, I have at home an 1806 Bible written by Matthew Henry that has a semi-colon, a couple of 1830 Bibles and a 1905 Self-Interpreting Bible that uses a semi-colon.

Let me quote from R.C. Sproul’s introduction in The Reformation Study Bible that closes Daniel 9:26 with a period.

Dr. Sproul wrote concerning  “The Geneva Bible published in 1560, (before the K.J.B.) carefully designed to be accurate and understandable. It being the 1st English Bible to use verse divisions, as “most profitable for memory” ---- It “Dominated the English-speaking world for a hundred years. It was used by Shakespeare. The King James Bible was published in 1611 but did not supplant the Geneva Bible until fifty years later. The Pilgrims and Puritans carried the Geneva Bible to the shores of the New World. American colonists were reared on the Geneva Bible. They read it, studied it, and sought to live by its light.”

The Geneva Bible uses a colon. Yet the Reformation Study Bible uses a period. Now don’t get me wrong, I believe Dr. Sproul is one of the great modern day Biblical teachers of this century, the man is brilliant, but, he let this one slide by him.

Now, here’s the dilemma: Is the Messiah the subject being spoken of by Daniel after the word “himself:” or is it Titus? One problem with it being Titus is, Titus never became Caesar of Rome until 79 A.D., nine (9) years after the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
 
So, the question arises, can he be called, prince? We know the Messiah is the subject before the pronoun “himself:” and because of the rules applied to a colon and period, Jesus has to be the “prince” of the people (the Roman army, including Titus) who were sent by. Can this be qualified? “Good question, thought you’d never ask.”

Dan.5:17, “This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest ((lowest) of men.”

Rev.1:5, Jesus is called the “prince (note lower case “p”) of the kings of the earth.”  Compare with

Rev.17:14, “For he (Jesus) is Lord of lords, and King of kings.”

Who sent Nebuchadnezzar; Cyrus; Alexander; and the Roman’s? It has to be the same prince, the LORD Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:15, Jesus is called, “Prince of life” note upper case. Yet in Dan.8:11, He is called “the prince of the host,” (lower case).”

Joshua 5:13-14-15, When Joshua was by Jericho he saw a man with his sword drawn. Joshua goes to him and asks, “Are you for us (the Jews), or for our adversaries?” 
“The man said, Nay; but as captain (meaning prince; also note captain is in lower case) of the host (meaning armies or company) of the LORD (Father) am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship--(Joshua’s worship of this “captain” tells us he was speaking to the LORD himself).”

1 Sam.17:45, David said to the Philistine (Goliath), you come to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel."

Acts 5:31, Jesus is called “A Prince and Savior.”

God’s had to punish the Jews for what they had done to the prophets and to the Son of God.

Ezek.29:19, “Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will GIVE the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezar king of Babylon.”

Of course, Nebuchadnezzar led his armies, but it was God who sent him.

One more example;

Dan.5. We all know the story of King Belshazzar and the writing on the wall.

Dan.5:27, “Thou (Belshazzar) are weighed in the balances, and are found wanting your kingdom is divided and GIVEN to the Medes and Persians.” It was the Lord who sent Cyrus and his army to destroy Babylon.

So, let me paraphrase Dan.9:26,

Dan.9:26, “After 434 years shall Jesus the Jewish Messiah divorce himself from the Jews and the land (this in 26 A.D.), but not for himself: (note the colon, not period) it would be to atone for the sins of ALL people, Jews and Gentiles. Now, the people (Romans or Gentiles) who are ruled by the prince (meaning Jesus) that shall come shall (without doubt) destroy the city (Jerusalem,) and the sanctuary (Temple,) and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto (until) the end of the war (still with the devil, the Jews, and Gentile nations) desolations (plural) are determined (by God.)”

Your thoughts:

Phil LaSpino

Christian Forums and Message Board

Colon or not?
« on: Wed Oct 18, 2017 - 14:26:55 »

Online 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6741
  • Manna: 203
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #1 on: Wed Oct 18, 2017 - 19:30:12 »
Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek comes with colons, semi-colons, commas, periods, or question marks.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #1 on: Wed Oct 18, 2017 - 19:30:12 »

Offline LaSpino3

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
  • Manna: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #2 on: Thu Oct 19, 2017 - 08:58:04 »
4WD, I know that, but my English Bible does. Now I know you're not going to tell me there's no difference between a period and colon or semi-colon, at least I hope your not.

Phil

bond

  • Guest
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #3 on: Thu Oct 19, 2017 - 09:05:38 »
I think the point is that we should not put too much theological thought into the placement or use of punctuation in our English translations of the Bible.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #3 on: Thu Oct 19, 2017 - 09:05:38 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Online 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6741
  • Manna: 203
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #4 on: Thu Oct 19, 2017 - 09:18:13 »
I think the point is that we should not put too much theological thought into the placement or use of punctuation in our English translations of the Bible.

The placement of punctuation comes from the context and from the grammatical construction of the original language.  And while there may be an occasional ambiguity involved in some punctuation, it is foolish and unjustified to assume that it is wrong.  Punctuation is critical to understanding the written English.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #4 on: Thu Oct 19, 2017 - 09:18:13 »



Offline LaSpino3

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
  • Manna: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #5 on: Thu Oct 19, 2017 - 10:04:41 »
Bond, thanks for your reply. I'm glad you said English translations (plural). This is one of the major problems that has caused so much division in the Christian community.

Here's my thinking, the Bishop Bible and the K.J.B. use the received text, thus a colon: while the Bible's that use a period use the A. or Codex Alexandrinus and the B. Vatican manuscripts.

Personally, as far as the A. and B. manuscripts go, I have always felt they were corrupted manuscripts. Old? yes, 4th century, Yes!, but, corrupted. Why? because after I had studied their history, and the K.J.B. history, this is the conclusion I drew. I believe the A. and B. were written in the 4th century Arian period, when the Eastern Catholic churches religious leaders for some 50 years taught down at Constantinople  that Jesus was not God, but only a god, the doctrine of today's Jehovah Witnesses, Mormon's and every other cult. You know, Council of Nice. But that's another subject for another day. 

Phil

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #6 on: Thu Oct 19, 2017 - 10:20:32 »
LaSpino3  -  I am with you on the "prince" of Daniel 9:26 being the Messiah - not Titus - even though I don't think we actually need the punctuation to prove that Jesus really is "the prince that shall come" (at His second coming, that is).

The context of Daniel 9 gives us the identification of who this "prince" is: it is "MESSIAH the prince", from a single verse earlier - Daniel 9:25.  This is the interpretive "rule of first mention" at play in this text.  "Messiah the Prince", first mentioned in Daniel 9 :25, continues to be spoken of as "the prince that shall come" in Daniel 9:26.

But if Jesus is the "prince", then just who are "the PEOPLE of the prince" (Messiah the prince) in this Daniel 9:26 text?  Well, we are told elsewhere about who the group is that comes with the prince to destroy the city of Jerusalem and its sanctuary: it's in the Matthew 22:1-14 parable.  This story was about the king who sent out His servants with His Son's marriage supper invitations.   These "servants" (the prophets and the apostles) were ignored by some they invited, and scorned and even killed by the rest (as Stephen the martyr accused his fellow Jews in Acts 7:52 of doing this very thing).  In wrathful response, the king sent out "HIS ARMIES" to destroy those murderers and to "BURN UP THEIR CITY".  A returning Christ the Messiah - the "prince" - came with "HIS ARMIES", which were the Roman forces, and "burned up the city" of Jerusalem and the sanctuary by the close of the Roman siege.  God used these Roman troops as His tool to accomplish His purposes of judgment in AD 70, just as He had once used the Babylonians in the same way back in 586 BC.

As for how we are to interpret the Messiah being "cut off", in the middle of that last, 70th week, scripture defines for us what that "cut off" term means.  The great Messianic chapter of Isaiah's prophecy - Isaiah 53:8 - says that Christ was "taken from prison and from judgment" (at His trial before His crucifixion), "and who shall declare His generation?"  (Christ would have no children conceived by Him as an ordinary man would.)  "FOR HE WAS CUT OFF OUT OF THE LAND OF THE LIVING..."  In other words, the Messiah in Daniel 9:26 was "CUT OFF" by His CRUCIFIXION DEATH.

Just my 2 cents...


Offline LaSpino3

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
  • Manna: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #7 on: Thu Oct 19, 2017 - 11:42:33 »
3Resurrection: Hmmmm, No!

I believe you are have taken two very separate events, put them in a blender and concluded your thinking with what your blender has produced. Now don't miss-interpret my meaning, I am not criticizing your thinking, just your conclusions.

First you asked, who are the people of the prince? (Jesus is the prince, we agree). Jesus is the prince of (all) not some of the people. These people, at that time were Romans. The Roman army ruled by a Gentile king (Caesar), as we have leaders of nations today, good and bad such as President Trump, Dictator Putin, etc.

And taking that into account, the one who rules over them all, is Jesus, who is "the prince over (all) the kings (and their people) of the whole earth." As I had previously stated, it was the LORD that sent Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Jerusalem; the LORD sent Cyrus to free the people, he sent the Roman armies to destroy for the 2ed time to Jerusalem, and in due course, he will give Satan a limited free hand to send his final and last anti-Christ. And  in these last days. He, like all those before him, will for the last time attempt to totally and completely exterminate every living Jew on earth, and bury forever the name of Israel; but, to his dismay, this time the LORD himself will end Satan dream to,

Isa.14:13, "ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the most High (God)."

Phil   

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #8 on: Fri Oct 20, 2017 - 02:00:45 »
LaSpino3  -  Okay, let's see if I understand you correctly or not.  You say that the Messiah is the "prince that shall come" in Daniel 9:26 (and I agree), but you deny that it is referring to His second coming there, correct?  If it is not speaking of the Messiah's second coming, then what exactly do you understand that "coming" to be?  A metaphoric "coming", as most partial and full Preterists claim?  A symbolic "coming in judgment", but not a physical appearance?  It is not enough just to say that the way I interpret this verse is wrong: you must supply what you believe the correct interpretation of this "coming" actually is, and prove it by supporting scriptures.

Perhaps you are reading this as the PEOPLE that would come - not the PRINCE that would come?  That would change things if you applied the action of "coming" to the PEOPLE as the referent instead of the PRINCE, I suppose.  But the way it is phrased in the KJV, it leaves either interpretation open as a possibility, without confirming either one as correct, unless this verse in the original languages or another translation indicates which one the "coming" refers to.

Offline LaSpino3

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
  • Manna: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #9 on: Fri Oct 20, 2017 - 08:31:13 »
3Resurrection

Let's examine the verse as written:

K.J.B.  Dan.9:26, "After threescore and two weeks (62 weeks, or 434 years --- the 1st week or 49 years already completed) Messiah (Jesus) be cut off (Jesus writes his unfaithful wife, the Jews, a bill of divorce in 26 A.D.) but not for himself: and the people (Roman's led by Titus in 70 A.D. who was a general not a Caesar) of the Prince (Jesus in 70 A.D. sent the Roman's) that shall come (came) shall (did) destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (Herod's Temple) and the end thereof shall be (was) with a flood, ---- (now 2000 years will pass) and unto (until) the end of the war desolations (plural) are determined (by God upon the Jews and the land.)"

I hope this answer's your question. Also, Jesus will return to the Mt. of Olives just as his disciples seen him leave, but this will be at the end of the tribulation.

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #10 on: Sat Oct 21, 2017 - 14:02:36 »
Phil, I'm not quite sure how you arrive at calling a written bill of divorce given TO ISRAEL as the equivalent of Jesus being cut off Himself.  Seems to me that, in a case of Jesus divorcing Israel, that it would be ISRAEL who would be cut off - NOT Christ - if this "cut off" term actually was referring to a national divorce.  I still think it applies in a better sense to the Messiah being "cut off out of the land of the living" at His crucifixion death (Isaiah 53:8).

There is another issue with the 2,000-year jump forward in time that you are proposing for this Daniel 9:26 verse.  If there are 2,000 + years that will pass until "the end of the WAR" comes, what "WAR" is this referring to, if not the WAR JUST MENTIONED in the same sentence?  It's referring back to the war where the Romans "destroy the city and the sanctuary" in Jerusalem.  To insert a 2,000 + year interval in the middle of Daniel describing wartime conditions under the Romans for Jerusalem and the temple seems altogether out of place for the flow of the text, and does violence to the sentence structure.  Otherwise, you have a war that has been enduring continually for the last 2,000 + years and counting.

Contrary to the usual position for Preterists, I do see Christ physically returning to the Mount of Olives location in the same manner as His disciples saw Him leave, and it WAS at the end of the Great Tribulation - the "great tribulation" that John said was coming (according to Revelation 2:22): a tribulation in which the disobedient among the Thyatira church in John's days would share personally.

As I mentioned in a previous comment concerning Zechariah 14:5, Christ's physical return was accompanied by a physical earthquake that produced the slumping rubble field that is currently lying on the slopes of the Mount of Olives and in the Kidron Valley below.  Whether a natural phenomenon or a supernatural one caused by Christ's return, the resulting rock slides produced have not disappeared, and give a mute testimony that Zechariah's prophecy of the mountain being moved at Christ's return has already happened.  The author of the article at www.zechariahfourteenfive.wordpress.com probably did not intend to prove that the second coming of Christ has already occurred, but his research about this archaeological evidence of the earthquake unmistakably points in that very direction.

Offline LaSpino3

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
  • Manna: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #11 on: Sat Oct 21, 2017 - 17:42:19 »
3 resurrections: The following came from and 1837 Hebrew to English dictionary that I own. And I also use Gesenius Hebrew, Chaldee Lexicon, but the Gesenius does not pin point the verse in Dan.9:26.

The phrase “cut off has several meanings in the Hebrew and the Chaldean language. I’ll let you pick the one you believe fits the passage in,

Dan.9.26, “and after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself---.”

1.   To amputate, as a rotten limb, or branch.
2.   To hew down as a tree.
3.   3. Cut in two, as in a sacrifice.
4.   Excommunicated, expelled, as from the congregation.
5.   Minced, cut small, as meat.
6.   Destroyed, as an enemy.
7.   To free as by divorce.
8.   Covenanted as with God.
9.   Ratified, or confirmed as a contract, or an agreement.

Your second concern. "And unto (until: a word meaning time will pass from what was said before) until the end of the war desolations (plural) are determined." It isn't just the war with the Roman's, it's been all the wars, Catholic church, Ottoman's, Muslims, Germany etc. Well, if you believe the war between the Gentile's and the Jews ended in 70, what can I say? My Bible tells me that Jesus will sit at the right hand of the Father in heaven until (all) his enemies have been made his footstool.

Desolations in the Chaldean is used in this verse and a few others as a Participle meaning the word partakes the properties of the noun. And as far as I can see, the Gentiles war with the Jews has been going on for almost 2000 years now. The war has not been against the land, but against the Jewish people as a whole. Well, if what you say about Jesus that he has returned, then we should be living in the Kingdom, the 3d Temple should be set up, the tribulation should be over, the church raptured, and all the enemies of the Jews should have been destroyed. Be not deceived, Jesus has not returned, no way, false teaching.
Phil

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #12 on: Sun Oct 22, 2017 - 23:34:25 »
Phil, the war in question in Daniel 9:26 - "THE war" - is not talking about any and all wars since the Roman / Jewish war.  It is specific to THE war in Daniel 9:25 that would destroy the city and THE SANCTUARY (the temple).  Since there has been no physical temple rebuilt since AD 70 (which is undeniable), then THE war in Daniel 9:26 had to be discussing only the Roman / Jewish war in AD 70 when that temple sanctuary was still standing. 

At present, God does not look at humanity in terms of Jew or Gentile classes anymore, and hasn't since the "middle wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile was broken down (Ephesians 2:14).  God does not categorize us into racial or tribal groups in Christ, and because the Jews became over-enamored with what they considered their superior status by genealogy, God made sure those genealogical records were burned up in the AD 70 temple conflagration.  Even before then, Paul had cautioned Timothy and Titus against endless genealogies that profited no one (I Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9).  "But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain."  Once Christ had arrived on earth, the purpose for those genealogies and any tribal divisions was fulfilled, and they were not needed anymore.

Mankind may continue to manufacture and maintain these categories of separation, and wage war between them (as in the examples you brought up, Phil), but IN CHRIST, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,  there is neither male nor female: but ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). 

Phil, do you not believe that Christ's former enemies have become His footstool?  I do.  For an enemy to become a footstool does NOT mean that a physically-present Christ has crushed them under His feet until all their rebellion against Him has ceased.  That isn't the image of a footstool at all.  In the Old Testament, the "footstool" of God was in the tabernacle and the temple of God.  I believe that in the temple furnishings, the mercy seat represented God's throne, and the altar of incense represented God's footstool, where the incense rose into the air, symbolizing man's prayers rising before God's throne.  Psalms 132:7 says "We will go INTO HIS TABERNACLES: we will worship at HIS FOOTSTOOL."  The footstool represented a place where God's presence touched the earth, and man could commune directly with His creator as a suppliant at God's feet.  The blessing of direct communication between God and man was the intended picture.   

Having God's footstool among them was a cherished condition for a Jew, and when God cast aside this footstool by "violently taking away his tabernacle" and "casting off His altar"  in the Babylonian invasion of their country, it was cause for great mourning (Lamentations 2:1, 6, 7).  "How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not HIS FOOTSTOOL in the day of his anger!" 

For God to make His former enemies His footstool means that He has no longer limited His location for communion with Himself only to Jerusalem's physical locality.  With His saints becoming "living stones" of a MOBILE temple, God's presence could then go with His children everywhere they went, into every corner of the world, into territories that were formerly considered unclean Gentile countries and nations.  All the world now, regardless of ethnicity, has access to direct communication with God in prayer at His feet.  Individually, an enemy also becomes a footstool every time an unbeliever becomes a child of God, and the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within, giving them the means for direct communication with the Father in prayer at His feet.   

I'm not sure in what sense you are understanding a promise from God that all the enemies of the Jews (national?) would have been destroyed after Christ's return.  Could you submit some verses that indicate this as a result of Christ's return?  I would know then where you are coming from on that point, although we both might apply them to different time settings and fulfillments. 

As for us living in the kingdom now, in a very real sense, Hebrews 12:28 said the saints had received this kingdom already at that time: "We receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear."  This kingdom was also promised to come in visible power, before some of the people and the disciples standing in front of Christ had died, as we see in Mark 9:1.  "Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

And the "3rd temple" has already been set up - it's the temple in Ephesians 2:21 composed of former "strangers and foreigners" and the saints, with Jesus as the "chief corner stone" that "groweth unto an HOLY TEMPLE in the Lord."  We don't have to wait for a 3rd temple to show up - it's here already, and WE ARE that growing temple.  Why would God replace this living, growing, mobile temple with a physical structure built of stationary stones once more?  That would be going back to the "weak and beggarly elements" again.

Yes, I do believe the "GREAT tribulation" is past and done with, and is not hanging over our heads any more like the sword of Damocles.  As I have commented before, John said "GREAT tribulation" was coming in his days, and the disobedient ones in the Thyatira church would experience it themselves (Revelation 2:22).  This "GREAT" tribulation was an unparalleled, unsurpassed period of tribulation, (unlike the persecution common to all of those who live godly in Christ Jesus - II Tim. 3:12), because it involved the loosing of the entire demonic world's influence in John's days to torment those without God's seal in their foreheads (Rev. 9:1-11).  Since the prophecy of Isaiah 24:21-23 and 27:1 (and a group of other scripture testimony) predicted the destruction of those demonic forces along with Satan their leader in Jerusalem before the end of AD 70, the world can never be subject to that kind or level of torment again.  I thank God for that.

And the rapture of the church?  This took place on the day of Pentecost in AD 70, according to the 1,335th day in which God promised a resurrection for Daniel to share with the saints.  Only resurrected saints participated in that rapture.  It didn't include any translation of living saints of the church.  If you, Phil, like me, were always told that I Thessalonians 4:15 , 17 and I Corinthians 15:51-55 described such a translation process for the church, I have written a post refuting that common mistaken belief called "We shall not all sleep" means "None of us shall sleep" here on the End Times forum.

Sorry for the longer comment, Phil, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring any of your objections.

Offline LaSpino3

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
  • Manna: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #13 on: Mon Oct 23, 2017 - 12:12:25 »
3 Resurrection, the following statement of yours puts us far apart;

You wrote, "At present, God does not look at humanity in terms of Jew or Gentile classes anymore." 

MY reply, It's the only way God looks at the Jewish people and the Gentiles. There are millions and millions of Gentiles that never had the opportunity to hear God's word, many of these will be led to the Lord in the 1000 year reign. If anyone chooses to remain under law because they reject Jesus, that's one thing, if a person receives Jesus, Jew or Gentile by faith, that's another thing. But if you have never heard of Jewish law, you can't be judged by that law. And if you never heard of Jesus or His gospel, God will not judge them.  But the Jews, they have no excuse, none whatsoever! They knew, and still know today about Jesus Christ, yet, to this day, except for a small remnant, they reject him completely.

As far as the church goes, we have one head, Jesus, and one body consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles. Also, as long as Jerusalem is being trampled underfoot by the Gentile's (Palestinians), the Father has not made the earth His Son's footstool.

As far as Hebrew 12:28, yes, a small  number of believing  Jews have received the Kingdom, a kingdom that  lies in the bosom of the Lord who yet sits at his Father's right hand in heaven. Surely, Jesus has not returned to take the kingdom. He is not in Jerusalem where he promised to set up the kingdom. This world, belongs to Satan, who is "the Prince of the power of the air." Yet the great % of Jews do not believe in Jesus finished word. These unbelievers, if alive when the Lord returns,  will suffer the wrath and the vengeance of God in the final 7 years of tribulation. The end of the tribulation will end the prophesy of the 70 weeks, or 490 years by Daniel. Sadly, many will die.

Phil

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #14 on: Sat Oct 28, 2017 - 17:32:22 »
Phil,  there are a number of points in your last comment that I could pursue a discussion on, but I would like to address just one of them in particular. 

Your quote:  "As long as Jerusalem is being trampled underfoot by the Gentiles (Palestinians), the Father has not made the earth His Son's footstool."

First of all, you do realize that there are some Christians among the Palestinians today, don't you?  This indicates that the "footstool" of Christ which provides communication with the Father is also present in modern-day Israel, as well as in every other inhabited location of the globe.  Christ has indeed set up His kingdom in this world already, with Himself as king (meaning the high priest mediator) upon the throne in the New Jerusalem, which is "the mother of us all" as believers (Gal. 4:26). 

Aside from this New Jerusalem / New Covenant reality, the period of time in Luke 21:25 when "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" is a period of time that is very specific.  This period lasts for 42 MONTHS - literally - not a couple thousand years and beyond that into the present day, as you are proposing. 

Revelation 11:2 is the verse that limits this timespan, when John is told to measure the temple in Jerusalem that was then in existence.  "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for IT IS GIVEN TO THE GENTILES (ethnesin); and the holy city" (the entire city, in addition to this temple court) "shall they TREAD UNDER FOOT FORTY AND TWO MONTHS."  Phil, you are proposing that the modern-day Palestinians are the "Gentiles" that are presently doing this "treading underfoot" of Jerusalem, but scripture tells us otherwise. 

The Hebrew term for "GENTILES" (goy and its plural goyyim) has been used to apply in scripture to BOTH non-Israelite AND Israelite people groups.  The word just means "NATION" or "NATIONS".  Context dictates which of these is being considered.   Just a couple examples of this are #1), Exodus 19:6, "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy NATION" (goy kadosh), and #2), Jeremiah 7:28, "But thou shalt say unto them, This is a NATION that obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished and is cut off from their mouth." 

In the New Testament, we also have the term "GENTILES" (ethnos or ethnesin) used to apply to lands where Israelites were dwelling.  Matthew 4:15-16 tells us about "The land of Zebulon and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, GALILEE OF THE GENTILES; the people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, light is sprung up."  This land in the "region and shadow of death" we know to be where the demoniac of the country of the Gadarenes had his devils cast out.  This particular region seemed to be especially prone to demonic activity, which is why Jesus soon after this empowered His disciples in Luke 9:1 with the ability to also cast out devils, once He had cast out the legion of devils from the Gadarene demoniac in Luke 8:26-39.

This area near Galilee is also where Judas the Galilean Zealot came from (Acts 5:37).  Galilee was known to be a hotbed of Zealotry, and the Pharisees had nothing good to say about this area either (John 7:52 - "...Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.").  Toward the end of the first century, many men arose from that region of "Galilee of the GENTILES" to rebel against the Roman yoke, which led to the Roman / Jewish wars.  Not only were these "Gentiles" of the Galilean region the ones mainly responsible for jump-starting the rebellion against Rome, but they also were the ones trampling on the holy city and the court of the temple from October AD 66 through April AD 70 - exactly 42 months. 

The civil warfare conditions in Jerusalem simmered and then boiled over many times during this rebellion.  The Roman armies were not even present in Jerusalem from autumn of AD 66 until spring of AD 70, so they could not have been the "Gentiles" doing the "treading down" of the city and the outer court for 42 months.  This civil war was instigated by the Zealots, who were responsible for ravaging THEIR OWN CITY and tormenting their fellow citizens, as Jesus predicted would happen in Luke 12:52-53.  "For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.  The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

We find this element of civil warfare being rebuked in AD 68 by the former high priest, Jesus ben Gamaliel, in Josephus' Wars 4.4.3-262,263: "And this place, (Jerusalem) which is adored by the habitable world, and honored by such as only know it by report, as far as the ends of the earth, IS TRAMPLED UPON BY THESE WILD BEASTS BORN AMONG OURSELVES.  They now triumph in the desperate condition they are already in, when they hear that one people, is going to fight against another people, and one city against another city, and that your nation hath gotten an army together against its own bowels."

Many of the main leaders of the Zealots that arose in those days of the rebellion against Rome originated from cities and towns in Galilee (Eleazar ben Simon from Galilee, the nephew of Simon bar Giora, who was from Gerasa in the Decapolis on the east side of Galilee, and John from Gischala in Galilee.  Likewise, Menahem, who fulfilled the description of the "Man of Lawlessness" in II Thessalonians 2, was also a Zealot from "Galilee of the Gentiles").  Since Galilee had such a reputation for insurrection, Vespasian targeted this area first for Roman attack in AD 67, instead of Jerusalem, which simply drove the Galilean Zealot refugees toward Jerusalem for protection. 

These  "TIMES of the Gentiles" in Luke 21:24, (which spanned an exact period of 42 months according to Revelation 11:2), is the very same period in Daniel 12:7 called the "TIME, TIMES, AND AN HALF' until "the power of the holy people" (national Jews) was shattered.  When these "TIMES" composed of 42 months were "fulfilled", the Luke 21:24 treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles from "Galilee of the Gentiles" was over. 

So, it would appear that the current Palestinian presence in Jerusalem has nothing to do with the "Gentiles" under discussion in Luke 21:24.




Offline RB

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4885
  • Manna: 288
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #15 on: Sun Oct 29, 2017 - 04:41:35 »
Phil,  there are a number of points in your last comment that I could pursue a discussion on, but I would like to address just one of them in particular. 
3 Resurrection, likewise here I could and would comment on your post but I think I should forbear since you refuse to tell me whom I'm talking to which I think is very unchristian and strange especially so knowing that you have been in my home most likely more than once, and maybe I been in yours as well. So, have fun Mr. Mystery Man playing silly games with me.
Quote from: 3 Resurrections
This indicates that the "footstool" of Christ which provides communication with the Father is also present in modern-day Israel, as well as in every other inhabited location of the globe.  Christ has indeed set up His kingdom in this world already, with Himself as king (meaning the high priest mediator) upon the throne in the New Jerusalem, which is "the mother of us all" as believers (Gal. 4:26). 
Agreed
Quote from: 3 Resurrections
Revelation 11:2 is the verse that limits this timespan, when John is told to measure the temple in Jerusalem that was then in existence.  "But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for IT IS GIVEN TO THE GENTILES (ethnesin); and the holy city" (the entire city, in addition to this temple court) "shall they TREAD UNDER FOOT FORTY AND TWO MONTHS."  Phil, you are proposing that the modern-day Palestinians are the "Gentiles" that are presently doing this "treading underfoot" of Jerusalem, but scripture tells us otherwise. 
You BOTH are confused, even though you both may mean well, God knows the hearts of all men, we do not~we can only judge their understanding of the scriptures and speak out against what we see to be in error.

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
    • View Profile
Re: Colon or not?
« Reply #16 on: Sun Oct 29, 2017 - 08:40:37 »
RB  -  That's okay, I understand why you might be reluctant to add counter-points to a discussion with someone you think is playing "silly games" with you.  I assure you, that is not my intention.  I prefer to remain anonymous on this site for reasons which have to do with more than just you and me.  I was brought up to respect those who are older than I am - not to toy with them.

If you actually did find my last comment to be "confused", it would be helpful to other readers if you could offer reasons from scripture as to just WHY my points are off track.   *You* may be incorrect, and *I* may also be incorrect, but at least other readers are able to look at both sides and weigh the differences.  Otherwise, it just appears to be a sort of "drive-by shooting".

But if time allowances for keeping up with more important posts here and your schedule of family affairs at the moment are too heavy for you to say more, that would  also be entirely understandable.  Continued prayers for your sister's case...

 

     
anything