The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism

[jasd]

>>Seems like you just go for the fish and the bread.<<

Yeah, most sermons are too same-o’, same-o’.

But per “fish and bread” – I wish – as one of my favorite meals is grilled salmon – with this or that wasabi sauce; but I’ve never seen fish at an SDA potluck - though I have found myself enjoying real (not machine-made) homemade bread that was very, very good.

>>But there's delicious vegetarian meatloaf or fri-chick.<<

Indeed. I’ve had some veggie-gluten meatloaf that I’d even consider in favor over prime rib. “fri-chick” – don’t know ‘bout that; however, ...did see once – real fried chicken that I almost cut in line for... don’t you know, it was gone before I got there – so I ended up with more chips instead. Must have been a newbie who brought it, yes?

I oughta host a blog for my area – which potlucks are good, better, Best

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

There will always be those that condemn others for anything. The Adventist Church doesn't have an anopoly(sp) on condemning.

Think you meant "a monopoly"

And you are right. Those who think Adventists are all about condemning others, have they been watching YouTube videos between Calvinists and Armenians? To the point of sending each other to hell? Have they been watching the lethal mayhem being exhibited between Preterists and Futurists? The fights I see going on among the Baptists, and other evangelicals makes us pale in comparison. I've spent enough time in a number of their gathers and participated enough in their forums to know.

Like the "kind" and "loving" way you treat me.

You are the "model" of Love Lysimachus.

[Lysimachus]

So jasd, you are SDA? I thought you were a dispensationalist. Or are you a dispensationalist that goes to SDA church? Were you raised SDA and now adopted dispensationalist belief? Or were you raised dispensationalist and likes to hang out with the SDA crowd? And if you like to hang around them, why do you if you disagree with them?

[jasd]

>>fri-chick has eggs in it!<<

Well, there you go!--it was neither the chick nor the egg which came first – they come together.

[Lysimachus]

Like the "kind" and "loving" way you treat me.

You are the "model" of Love Lysimachus.

I don't know what you're talking about miz3. I was just describing some facts about what really happens between other evangelical Churches. The debates and rage between them is far greater than what I see going on among Adventists or with Adventists against non-Adventist.

I'm not claiming to be the perfect "example" of love. My desire, though, is to grow in love. Yet at the same time, I will not allow the love to eclipse sharp rebuke when it becomes necessary, that they may be sound in the faith (Titus 1:13).

The sad thing is miz3, I can clearly see that you use my imperfections as an excuse to not have to take the things I say very seriously. Unfortunately, darting out at me and accusing me of lacking "love" seems to be your pacifier to make you feel better, and sooth your conscience.

[jasd]

>>So jasd, you are SDA?<<

No, Lysimachus – am nonXtian and nonSDA.

>>I thought you were a dispensationalist.<<

Indeed!—I am. I just cannot ignore Holy Writ as it reads re dispensationalism – and have found that too many dogmas contrary to that, are just so much – dogmatology.

I’m also a “futurist”. Didn’t need Ribera to come to that position – just followed Holy Writ as it reads.

>>Or are you a dispensationalist that goes to SDA church?<<

I have many family members who are SDA. My mother was SDA – and I do attend SDA services occasionally.

>>Were you raised SDA<<

My mother tried to raise me SDA – it just didn’t take.

>>...and now adopted dispensationalist belief?<<

I do have a tendency to truthfulness – and am appalled that anyone could embrace any form of ‘replacement theology’, as it is so unBiblical.

>>Or were you raised dispensationalist and likes to hang out with the SDA crowd?<<

I am anathema to SDAs. Almost the entirety of my belief system contradicts theirs.

>>And if you like to hang around them, why do you if you disagree with them?<<

I don’t generally “hang around them” – except for my relatives. I hang around women – although they are from Venus and I am definitely from Mars.

The above said, I suppose I do “hang around them” in that I am a member of this forum; however, I do so that I might contribute to those who are mind-packed – a larger of understanding of Writ. I seek, on my part...

Absolution

[Lysimachus]

>>So jasd, you are SDA?<<

No, Lysimachus – am nonXtian and nonSDA.

>>I thought you were a dispensationalist.<<

Indeed!—I am. I just cannot ignore Holy Writ as it reads re dispensationalism – and have found that too many dogmas contrary to that, are just so much – dogmatology.

I’m also a “futurist”. Didn’t need Ribera to come to that position – just followed Holy Writ as it reads.

>>Or are you a dispensationalist that goes to SDA church?<<

I have many family members who are SDA. My mother was SDA – and I do attend SDA services occasionally.

>>Were you raised SDA<<

My mother tried to raise me SDA – it just didn’t take.

>>...and now adopted dispensationalist belief?<<

I do have a tendency to truthfulness – and am appalled that anyone could embrace any form of ‘replacement theology’, as it is so unBiblical.

>>Or were you raised dispensationalist and likes to hang out with the SDA crowd?<<

I am anathema to SDAs. Almost the entirety of my belief system contradicts theirs.

>>And if you like to hang around them, why do you if you disagree with them?<<

I don’t generally “hang around them” – except for my relatives. I hang around women – although they are from Venus and I am definitely from Mars.

The above said, I suppose I do “hang around them” in that I am a member of this forum; however, I do so that I might contribute to those who are mind-packed – a larger of understanding of Writ. I seek, on my part...

Absolution

Well, with that said, now that you have read (or should have ready anyway) my extensive material that I have written against Dispensationalism, I guess you could say that I am "appalled" that you still choose to hold to your Dispensational beliefs, as from what has been provided reveals that Dispensationalism is sooo contrary to Holy Writ. Also, I revealed what dispensationalists deem as "replacement theology" held by Adventists is actually not replacement theology at all.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: jasd

>>So jasd, you are SDA?<<

No, Lysimachus – am nonXtian and nonSDA.

>>I thought you were a dispensationalist.<<

Indeed!—I am. I just cannot ignore Holy Writ as it reads re dispensationalism – and have found that too many dogmas contrary to that, are just so much – dogmatology.

I’m also a “futurist”. Didn’t need Ribera to come to that position – just followed Holy Writ as it reads.

>>Or are you a dispensationalist that goes to SDA church?<<

I have many family members who are SDA. My mother was SDA – and I do attend SDA services occasionally.

>>Were you raised SDA<<

My mother tried to raise me SDA – it just didn’t take.

>>...and now adopted dispensationalist belief?<<

I do have a tendency to truthfulness – and am appalled that anyone could embrace any form of ‘replacement theology’, as it is so unBiblical.

>>Or were you raised dispensationalist and likes to hang out with the SDA crowd?<<

I am anathema to SDAs. Almost the entirety of my belief system contradicts theirs.

>>And if you like to hang around them, why do you if you disagree with them?<<

I don’t generally “hang around them” – except for my relatives. I hang around women – although they are from Venus and I am definitely from Mars.

The above said, I suppose I do “hang around them” in that I am a member of this forum; however, I do so that I might contribute to those who are mind-packed – a larger of understanding of Writ. I seek, on my part...

Absolution

Well, with that said, now that you have read (or should have ready anyway) my extensive material that I have written against Dispensationalism, I guess you could say that I am "appalled" that you still choose to hold to your Dispensational beliefs, as from what has been provided reveals that Dispensationalism is sooo contrary to Holy Writ. Also, I revealed what dispensationalists deem as "replacement theology" held by Adventists is actually not replacement theology at all.

Its just that SDA "prophecy" doctrines are wrong because they are not Biblical.

SDA "prophecy" doctrines are tied to SDA 19th Century study which is filled with holes just like "swiss chess".

[jasd]

>>Well, with that said, now that you have read (or should have ready anyway) my extensive material that I have written against Dispensationalism,<< [ed.jasd]

In verity.

I will get around to much of it eventually – providing you provide your links – continuingly – at the bottom of your posts – so that one does not have to search for them – when ready to read...

>>I guess you could say that I am "appalled" that you still choose to hold to your Dispensational beliefs, as from what has been provided reveals that Dispensationalism is sooo contrary to Holy Writ.<<

Holy Writ is Dispensational from Genesis to the final chapters of Revelation – its nexus being the COI with its centre core Jesus Christ. Replacement theology or Spiritual Israel, no matter how one defines it, is 180 degrees antithetical to Dispensationalism and has no place in a Xtian belief system. It is aberrant and is against Writ – as much as wresting the book of Daniel is against Gd – nullifying His word that it should return unto Him – void.

Putting it as gently as possible – it is catastrophic hermeneutics. One would do as well to follow Buddha – who told his disciples that he could not tell them ‘the way’ but that – they should find their own ‘way’.

>>Also, I revealed what dispensationalists deem as "replacement theology" held by Adventists is actually not replacement theology at all.<<

By any other name, whether ‘Spiritual Israel’ or Replacement Theology – it errs. That said, okay, so you are of the one or two who differ from the ‘Remnant’ in their beliefs...

I can accept that. However, I took the following from a SDA site:

“The Christian church now replaces literal Israel in God’s plan.”

Per Futurism:

Quote:

"Few passages of Scripture are more commonly misunderstood and variously interpreted than those containing the divine promises made to ancient Israel through the prophets. It is an undeniable historical fact that, to this day, the majority of these predictions have not been fulfilled." (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Vol. 4, p. 25) [ed.jasd]

[Lysimachus]

Holy Writ is Dispensational from Genesis to the final chapters of Revelation – its nexus being the COI with its centre core Jesus Christ. Replacement theology or Spiritual Israel, no matter how one defines it, is 180 degrees antithetical to Dispensationalism and has no place in a Xtian belief system. It is aberrant and is against Writ – as much as wresting the book of Daniel is against Gd – nullifying His word that it should return unto Him – void.

[miz3]

A Bible Study on Daniel chapter nine.

Quote:

“While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill— 21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23 As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the message and understand the vision:

24 “Seventy ‘sevens’[c] are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish[d] transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.[e]

25 “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree[f] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,[g] the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.[h] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’[j] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

Daniel 9:20-27.

What does Daniel chapter nine mean?

Daniel tells us the purpose of his prayer and the desire of heart.

1. To confess his, Daniel’s, sins.

2. To confess the sins of his people, the Jews, the Children of Israel.

3. Request of God for the “Restoration” of Judah (holy hill).

To understand Daniel chapter nine it is vital that we keep these three objectives in mind. Why? Because God gives Daniel an answer to all Daniel’s questions.

God sends Gabriel while Daniel was still praying to give Daniel an answer. In fact Gabriel in verse twenty-two tells Daniel the very purpose for Gabriel’s mission: To give Daniel insight and understanding.

About what?

About Daniel’s three objectives, that is what.

In verse twenty-three Gabriel states that God intends to give Daniel an answer the moment Daniel began to pray. God already knew what was on Daniel’s heart even before Daniel expressed it in prayer.

Verse twenty-three gives Daniel the answer to Daniels first objective which was to confess his, Daniel’s, own sins. To which Gabriel responds by telling Daniel that he, Daniel, is “highly esteemed”. In other words, Daniel your sins are forgiven and you pure in the sight of God.

Then Gabriel tells Daniel the answers to the other two questions.

First of these regarded the “sin of my people Israel”?

To which Gabriel tells Daniel that Israel will have “Seventy ‘sevens’” to clean up their act, so to speak.

Just what are the “seventy ‘sevens’”?

Reading the Bible just as it is written means that “seventy ‘sevens’” is seventy weeks (a seven is one week in the reality of our time as God made it at creation). How much is seventy weeks. Approx. one point four years.

This seventy weeks is all God is giving the Children of Israel to “clean up their act” and remain as God’s People.

Questions still remain:

1. When will Israel get this chance probation to “clean up its act”?

2. When is the restoration of Israel to begin?

3. What will happen? Will Israel succeed in restoring “Righteousness”

Gabriel answers all these questions.

The probationary period starts from the “issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”.

Notice also that an “anointed one” will also come after “seven ‘sevens’ or seven weeks have elapsed. In addition to this there will be sixty-two more weeks before the next event.

Jerusalem will indeed be rebuilt (a fact that was of great interest to Daniel because Daniel was asking this very thing) with streets and a trench. However the rebuilding will take place under great stress.

After the sixty-two week period has elapsed the “anointed one” who came after the first seven ‘sevens’ (seven weeks) will be “cut off and have nothing”. What does this mean?

It could mean a number of things.

1. The “anointed one” is killed.

2. The “anointed one” loses his power and is isolated.

3. Both two and three.

This ends any talk about the “anointed one”. Everything after this has nothing to do with the “anointed one”.

Next Gabriel tells Daniel that the “ruler” of the people will come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. Who is this “ruler”?

Is this ruler a pagan from outside of Judah? Is this ruler a Jew from inside Daniel’s people?

The Bible does not answer this question. Regardless, the Bible does say that during this time there will much war, desolation, and chaos. This is a true statement because as Gabriel in verse twenty-six these things “have been decreed” by God.

Who is the “he” that starts verse twenty-seven? It obviously is the “ruler of the people” who ends the “anointed one’s” power destroys the city and the sanctuary.

What does “destroy the city and the sanctuary” mean? It could mean many things.

1. Physical destruction. (this is the first human thing that comes to mind but it may not be the truth).

2. Spiritual and cessation destruction.

Given the context of Daniel nine it is a Spiritual and cessation type of destruction. This ruler will seem to “confirm the covenant” at first but in the middle of the “week” this evil ruler will put an end to “sacrifice and offering” in addition to polluting the sanctuary.

Gabriel further says that this “ruler” will continue to exist until the time God has decreed for his end.

Thus, Daniel nine is very clear and straight forward.

[Lysimachus]

Notice also that an “anointed one” will also come after “seven ‘sevens’ or seven weeks have elapsed. In addition to this there will be sixty-two more weeks before the next event.

[miz3]

Notice also that an “anointed one” will also come after “seven ‘sevens’ or seven weeks have elapsed. In addition to this there will be sixty-two more weeks before the next event.

[miz3]

After the sixty-two week period has elapsed the “anointed one” who came after the first seven ‘sevens’ (seven weeks) will be “cut off and have nothing”. What does this mean?

It could mean a number of things.

1. The “anointed one” is killed.

2. The “anointed one” loses his power and is isolated.

3. Both two and three.

This ends any talk about the “anointed one”. Everything after this has nothing to do with the “anointed one”.

[miz3]

Next Gabriel tells Daniel that the “ruler” of the people will come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. Who is this “ruler”?

[Lysimachus]

We don't see Daniel saying what you're saying miz3. Sorry to disappoint you.

[John317]

...

Second, I do not care what some "competent"????? theo would say. They don't know any more than anyone else. They read the words the same as you and I do. They are not better just because they and some intimate group of "self proclaimed scholars" say they are better. In fact many of them are dunces.

Shall we begin calling one another dunces now? You are the one who claims such language is wrong when used about you, yet you evidently think nothing of using it about "many" of those people.

It is strange to me how you expect us to listen to you, yet you claim that we should not pay attention to people, or "dunces," who have spent a lifetime studying the book of Daniel.

We should focus on the evidence and reasoning in the Scriptures and stay away from personalities and name calling.

Originally Posted By: miz3

Third it makes no sense to say the "anointed one" (your word messiah) comes after the 69weeks then to later in verse twenty-six to say after sixty-two weeks this "anointed one" will be cut. That's saying that the "anointed one" is cut off even before he comes. That is complete nonsense.

Fourth thus the "anointed one" shows up after seven weeks and endures until the end of another sixty-two weeks when he is cut off.

Here's the text:

Quote:

Daniel 9:24-- Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

It says the Messiah [or annointed one] the Prince was to come after 7 + 60 + 2 weeks. That means the Messiah will come after 69 weeks. This period ended in 27 AD. That is when Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit and commenced His public ministry.

Quote:

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 the end of the war desolations are determined.

9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Jesus confirmed the covenant with the Jewish people for one week, that is between 27 and 34 A.D.

But in the middle of the last week, or in 31 AD, Christ was killed and thus caused the sacrifices and offerings to cease. The last week, or the last 7 years, ended in 34 AD., at which time the gospel went to the Gentiles.

The New Century Version reads:

Quote:

Learn and understand these things. A command will come to rebuild Jerusalem. The time from this command until the appointed leader comes will be 49 years and 434 years. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and a trench around it. But it will be built in times of trouble. After the 434 years the appointed leader will be killed. He will have nothing. The people of the leader who is to come will destroy the city. They will also destroy the holy place. That end will come like a flood. War will continue until the end. God has ordered that place to be completely destroyed. That leader will make an agreement with many people for 7 years. He will put a stop to offerings and sacrifices after 3 1/2 years. And the horrible thing that destroys will be placed on the highest point of the Temple. But God has ordered him to be destroyed.

434 years after the command was given in 457 BC, the prophecy said that the Messiah would come. That brings us to 27 AD when Christ was anointed by the Holy Spirit.

Then the prophecy says that the Messiah would be killed 3 1/2 years later. Christ was killed in 31 AD. 3 1/2 years later Stephen was stoned to death and the gospel went to the Gentiles.

[miz3]

What does “destroy the city and the sanctuary” mean? It could mean many things.

1. Physical destruction. (this is the first human thing that comes to mind but it may not be the truth).

2. Spiritual and cessation destruction.

Given the context of Daniel nine it is a Spiritual and cessation type of destruction. This ruler will seem to “confirm the covenant” at first but in the middle of the “week” this evil ruler will put an end to “sacrifice and offering” in addition to polluting the sanctuary.

Gabriel further says that this “ruler” will continue to exist until the time God has decreed for his end.

Thus, Daniel nine is very clear and straight forward.

[miz3]

We don't see Daniel saying what you're saying miz3. Sorry to disappoint you.

You are free to believe what you want. However, what I wrote is the Truth.

[miz3]

...

Second, I do not care what some "competent"????? theo would say. They don't know any more than anyone else. They read the words the same as you and I do. They are not better just because they and some intimate group of "self proclaimed scholars" say they are better. In fact many of them are dunces.

[John317]

:-)

[miz3]

Third it makes no sense to say the "anointed one" (your word messiah) comes after the 69weeks then to later in verse twenty-six to say after sixty-two weeks this "anointed one" will be cut. That's saying that the "anointed one" is cut off even before he comes. That is complete nonsense.

Fourth thus the "anointed one" shows up after seven weeks and endures until the end of another sixty-two weeks when he is cut off.

[miz3]

The New Century Version reads:

Quote:

Learn and understand these things. A command will come to rebuild Jerusalem. The time from this command until the appointed leader comes will be 49 years and 434 years. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and a trench around it. But it will be built in times of trouble. After the 434 years the appointed leader will be killed. He will have nothing. The people of the leader who is to come will destroy the city. They will also destroy the holy place. That end will come like a flood. War will continue until the end. God has ordered that place to be completely destroyed. That leader will make an agreement with many people for 7 years. He will put a stop to offerings and sacrifices after 3 1/2 years. And the horrible thing that destroys will be placed on the highest point of the Temple. But God has ordered him to be destroyed.

434 years after the command was given in 457 BC, the prophecy said that the Messiah would come. That brings us to 27 AD when Christ was anointed by the Holy Spirit.

Then the prophecy says that the Messiah would be killed 3 1/2 years later. Christ was killed in 31 AD. 3 1/2 years later Stephen was stoned to death and the gospel went to the Gentiles.

The New Century Version of the Bible is clearly not a credible Version because it puts things into the Bible that are not written there.

It is clear that the writers of this version were deeply flawed in their work. They bring their slanted views to what they want the Bible to say.

I am shocked that you would find such a version of the bible to be a credible source.

I view the New Century Version as extremely not credible.

[John317]

The New Century Version of the Bible is clearly not a credible Version because it puts things into the Bible that are not written there.

It is clear that the writers of this version were deeply flawed in their work. They bring their slanted views to what they want the Bible to say.

I am shocked that you would find such a version of the bible to be a credible source.

I view the New Century Version as extremely not credible.

The New Century Version is not a literal version, of course. It attempts to simplify, which is OK. All the translations and paraphrases have good aspects. No translation is perfect. Even the Septuagint that the apostles used was a paraphrase in many parts, and not even an accurate paraphrase. It is still the word of God.

The point here is that the NCV got Daniel 9: 24-27 right.

[John317]

Third it makes no sense to say the "anointed one" (your word messiah) comes after the 69weeks then to later in verse twenty-six to say after sixty-two weeks this "anointed one" will be cut. That's saying that the "anointed one" is cut off even before he comes. That is complete nonsense.

Fourth thus the "anointed one" shows up after seven weeks and endures until the end of another sixty-two weeks when he is cut off.

Quote:

Here's the text:

Daniel 9:24-- Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

It says the Messiah [or annointed one] the Prince was to come after 7 + 60 + 2 weeks. That means the Messiah will come after 69 weeks. This period ended in 27 AD. That is when Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit and commenced His public ministry.

Originally Posted By: miz3

See the answers I gave Lysimachus on these verses.

I did. Your answers make no sense to me.