The 1260 Year Interpretation of Protestantism

[teresaq]

When I put fccool's statement back into its context I read his points quite differently than what you took from it. The points that stuck out for me from him I colored in red. I read that he sees a larger picture than just believing the right doctrines. He seems to be taking into account 1Cor 13, among others. In other words, the way I read what he said, the right doctrines without love is worthless in the end. I believe he bases that on what Paul said. That's how I read what he said anyway. Just goes to show how differently things can be read.

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

Let me ask you a few questions fccool. I want straight-forward, yes or no answers, if at all possible:

1. Do you believe that saved Christians are to keep the 4th commandment Sabbath holy?

2. Do you believe that the Papacy is the predicted Antichrist/Beast/Harlot/Little Horn/Man of Sin/Son of Perdition predicted in Daniel, Revelation and 2 Thessalonians?

3. Do you believe that Sunday sacredness is the Mark of the Beast?

4. Do you believe the Sunday vs. Sabbath controversy will be a central issue in the last days?

I just need to know where you stand.

If your answer is no to number 2, then what is the beast? and if it is no to 2, then obviously it must be no to 3 also. Then that leads to the next question: What is the mark of the beast?

I don't think you even realize this, but that's what you reduce Christianity to... a quiz . That's not what it's all about. If that's all it is to you, then you are missing the point big time.

Even if I answered yes to all of these, what good is it? Is that's what it is about? That's not the essence of Christian belief! In essence, you sort of assume that because people would agree with you on those points, then it would make them "Adventists" and thus they are somehow "better fit" to spread the message. Someone posted a while ago that God can speak through an Ass and a rock, or a bush. He does not need your superior intellect, education and understanding. That's not how He calls us to reach people.

In Paul's words, If I have a faith that can move mountains, if I have all of the understanding in the world... that's not what defines a Christian.

Quote:

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another

That's how you know. By me answering yes to these is meaningless. And I can't simply say "I love people, therefore I'm Christian". Love is an expression of both understanding, care, forgiveness, and support. The other people know when you love them. And that's how they get to know God... through you. It's as simple as that.

[skyblue888]

The king of the north in 1798 was the papal power which received a deadly wound but the wound is to be healed.

sky

[Aliensanctuary]

Dan 9

Quote:

(24) “Seventy weeks [490 years, from 457 B.C. to 34 A.D.]

are determined upon thy people [the Jews]

and upon thy holy city [Jerusalem],

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

[When the Messiah would come to the Jewish nation, born as a babe, and be anointed by the Holy Ghost at His baptism in 27 A.D.].

(25)“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [nagiyd]

shall be seven weeks [7 weeks/49 years],

and threescore and two weeks [62 weeks/434 years]:

the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

(26) "And after threescore and two weeks [after 62 weeks, which is “after the 69th week” or 483 years]

shall Messiah be cut off [“killed”],

but not for himself: and the people [Jewish people, not “army”]

of the prince [nagiyd = Messiah the Prince]

that shall come [Messiah is the one that “comes”, not the people]

shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

[Hosea 13:9 “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself”];

and the end thereof shall be with a flood [Roman Armies],

and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

[said Jesus: Matthew 23:38 – “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate”]

Are you saying, Lys, that before AD34 the people of the Messiah destroyed the city and the sanctuary?

Both were destroyed in AD70 by the Romans, so I've heard, the seventy-fifth week (approx. 526 years) after the command to restore and build Jerusalem.

Dan 9:26 (New King James)

Quote:

"And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. the end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Daniel 9:27 (New Revised Standard)

Quote:

He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place {Cn: Meaning of Heb uncertain} shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator."

Sounds like the desolator of the city and the sanctuary faces an ending of some sort. That wouldn't be the Messiah and/or his people, according to your interpretation, would it?

[John317]

When I put fccool's statement back into its context I read his points quite differently than what you took from it. The points that stuck out for me from him I colored in red. I read that he sees a larger picture than just believing the right doctrines. He seems to be taking into account 1Cor 13, among others. In other words, the way I read what he said, the right doctrines without love is worthless in the end. I believe he bases that on what Paul said. That's how I read what he said anyway. Just goes to show how differently things can be read.

I read fccool's statement in context.

I answered that in the following:

Originally Posted By: John3:17

It seems to me that you are thinking that in order to love people, we must jettison Bible doctrines. That's a mistake. I hope I'm wrong about what you're saying, but that is the impression I got from your post.

Love doesn't cancel out the truth. Love and truth always go together. Without truth, love is mere sentimentality. It is a counterfeit love that ignores or lays aside the truth. The Holy Spirit will never lead people to do that.

[John317]

Quote:

(26) "And after threescore and two weeks [after 62 weeks, which is after the 69th week, or 483 years]

shall Messiah be cut off [killed],

but not for himself: and the people [Jewish people, not army]

of the prince [nagiyd = Messiah the Prince]

that shall come [Messiah is the one that comes, not the people]

shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

[Hosea 13:9 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself];

and the end thereof shall be with a flood [Roman Armies],

and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

[said Jesus: Matthew 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate]

Are you saying, Lys, that before AD34 the people of the Messiah destroyed the city and the sanctuary?

Both were destroyed in AD70 by the Romans, so I've heard, the seventy-fifth week (approx. 526 years) after the command to restore and build Jerusalem.

No, he's not saying that. The Jewish people-- the people of the Messiah the Prince-- were the ones responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. They destroyed it by their rebellion against the Romans. Read Josephus' account. The Romans were going to leave the Temple alone and not destroy it, but they ended up destroying both the city and the Temple because of the actions of the Jews.

If the Jews had accepted the Messiah and had followed God's plan for them, both the city and the Temple would not have been destroyed.

[Lysimachus]

Are you saying, Lys, that before AD34 the people of the Messiah destroyed the city and the sanctuary?

Both were destroyed in AD70 by the Romans, so I've heard, the seventy-fifth week (approx. 526 years) after the command to restore and build Jerusalem.

If you study Daniel 9:24-27 extremely carefully, you will notice that nowhere does it say that the city and the sanctuary are destroyed before the end of the 70 weeks.

9:26 - "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but 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 the end of the war desolations are determined."

Daniel is simply adding here what the consequences of rejecting the Messiah will be during those 70 weeks.

Notice:

• "Some also argue that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (mentioned in the prohpecy) requires a termination in A.D. 70 rather than A.D. 34. However, that may be countered with the fact that it is the death of the Messiah (predicted within the prophecy) that sealed the fate of the ceremonial system as well as of the national state. The events of A.D. 70 are simply the subsequent external consequences of the advent and death of the Messiah, the chief foci of the prophecy.

  While objects can be made to all four of the major interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27, the historical-messianic interpretation does not appear to be subject to the chronological, exegetical, and historical difficulties encountered by other systems. It thus recommends itself as the most adequate of the major interpretations."

  (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, p. 28, 29)

Verse 26 says that after the 69 weeks the Messiah will be cut off. Verse 27 goes on to explain "when" after the 69th week he was "cut off"--that being the "midst" of the 70th week. The decision to not make "prince" (nagiyd) not have a capital P was done by the English translators, who assumed that it must not be talking about the same Messiah the Prince. However, in the original Hebrew, there are no "capital Ps", and frankly no difference whatsoever between the "nagiyd" (prince) of verse 25a and verse 26b. It is an assumption by many that the desolation of Jerusalem must occur only after the first 69 weeks and not after the 70th week. Verse 26a says that "after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself"--in other words, after these 69 weeks are over, the Messiah will be killed. Then verse 26b goes on to explain the subsequent external consequences of killing the Messiah--that being--"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." (Daniel 9:26b)

The pronouncement went into effect before the 70 weeks were finished. The consequences, or results of rejecting and killing the Messiah went into effect in 70 A.D., approximately 40 years after the pronouncement.

Dispensationalists wish to read these sections in chronological order rather than reading the events in terms of the spiritual message of judgment and consequences being portrayed. They fail to recognize the chiastic structure found in Daniel 9:24-27.

Verse 27 simply BACKS UP to fill in more details pertaining to the 70th week between 27 A.D. and 34 A.D.:

"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. "

In essence, the Messiah Prince, in the midst of the week, causes the sacrifices to cease (although they still continued them against the divine decree). Their spiritual value ceased. It is for the overspreading of abominations (rejecting the Messiah) that Christ declared the Temple "desolate" (Matthew 23:38). This spiritual desolation of the Jewish temple would be carried out even up to the consummation, the Second Coming. When Christ declared the temple "desolate", he pronounced its judgment. He pronounced what the people caused. Why? "for the overspreading of abominations".

[teresaq]

Yes. It is clear we each read it quite differently than the other.

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

When I put fccool's statement back into its context I read his points quite differently than what you took from it. The points that stuck out for me from him I colored in red. I read that he sees a larger picture than just believing the right doctrines. He seems to be taking into account 1Cor 13, among others. In other words, the way I read what he said, the right doctrines without love is worthless in the end. I believe he bases that on what Paul said. That's how I read what he said anyway. Just goes to show how differently things can be read.

I read fccool's statement in context.

I answered that in the following:

Originally Posted By: John3:17

It seems to me that you are thinking that in order to love people, we must jettison Bible doctrines. That's a mistake. I hope I'm wrong about what you're saying, but that is the impression I got from your post.

Love doesn't cancel out the truth. Love and truth always go together. Without truth, love is mere sentimentality. It is a counterfeit love that ignores or lays aside the truth. The Holy Spirit will never lead people to do that.

[Lysimachus]

Quote:

Daniel 9:27 (New Revised Standard)

Sounds like the desolator of the city and the sanctuary faces an ending of some sort. That wouldn't be the Messiah and/or his people, according to your interpretation, would it?

Yeah, I disagree with the original Hebrew. The NRS translates it "desolator", but there is big debate about this in theological circles. It is also translated "desolate". In other words, what was declared desolate? The Temple. Jesus declared the House of Israel as "desolate". In other words, God's protection left Israel.

So that which was decreed was "poured out" (the Romans) upon the desolate (National Israel). As you know, the Temple was completely destroyed in A.D. 70.

[John317]

He seems to be taking into account 1Cor 13, among others. In other words, the way I read what he said, the right doctrines without love is worthless in the end. I believe he bases that on what Paul said.

Yes, I agree that the right doctrines without love is worthless in the end.

By the same token, love without the truth--the right doctrines-- is also worthless.

That's why I said earlier that love and truth always go hand in hand.

Ellen White warns us about the desire to have unity and love without the truth. The Bible does this, too, but Ellen White is direct and clear as a bell about it.

Is there perhaps a desire on some people's part to get rid of the truth-- to stop talking & agitating about it-- in order to have "love" and to replace truth with good feelings?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

He seems to be taking into account 1Cor 13, among others. In other words, the way I read what he said, the right doctrines without love is worthless in the end. I believe he bases that on what Paul said.

Yes, I agree that the right doctrines without love is worthless in the end.

By the same token, love without the truth--the right doctrines-- is also worthless.

That's why I said earlier that love and truth always go hand in hand.

Ellen White warns us about the desire to have unity and love without the truth.

Is there perhaps a desire on some people's part to get rid of the truth-- to stop talking & agitating about it-- in order to have "love" and to replace truth with good feelings?

Seems that way a lot of the times.

I agree with your last posts John.

Well said.

sky

[skyblue888]

Quote:

[John317]

Yeah, I disagree with the original Hebrew. The NRS translates it "desolator", but there is big debate about this in theological circles. It is also translated "desolate". In other words, what was declared desolate? The Temple. Jesus declared the House of Israel as "desolate". In other words, God's protection left Israel.

The Hebrew word in Daniel 9: 27 is Strong's #8076 and also occurs in Daniel 9: 17 where it is translated "desolate."

The difference between those words is simply that the word is used as an adjective in Daniel 9: 17, but it is a Qal Participle Active in Daniel 9: 27, which means it should be translated as "desolator." The SDA Bible Commentary agrees with this. The destroyer will come to an end.

Notice that in Daniel 8: 13, a similar word is translated as "desolation." Here Strongs#8074 is Qal participle passive.

As you said, God's protection left Israel.

The Messiah, of course, is not the destroyer, or desolator.

In Matt. 23: 38, Jesus is recorded as having said to the Jews of that time, "See! Your house is left to you desolate."

[John317]

:-)

[teresaq]

We do seem to be on the same railroad track now.

The only problem I see is with the last paragraph, posed as a question, is that too often we decide when and to whom that applies as certain posts have done which is clearly judging another's heart and motives.

Since fccool's post precipitated this series of posts, which is quite easily traced, then it would be judging his heart and motives. Unless it was just a question in general which had nothing to do with the sequence of posts, or the line of thought you presented.

I personally would still see the question as prejudicial, either way, meant only to encourage judging and condemning of one's fellowman who sees or believes differently than s/he should.

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

He seems to be taking into account 1Cor 13, among others. In other words, the way I read what he said, the right doctrines without love is worthless in the end. I believe he bases that on what Paul said.

Yes, I agree that the right doctrines without love is worthless in the end.

By the same token, love without the truth--the right doctrines-- is also worthless.

That's why I said earlier that love and truth always go hand in hand.

Ellen White warns us about the desire to have unity and love without the truth. The Bible does this, too, but Ellen White is direct and clear as a bell about it.

Is there perhaps a desire on some people's part to get rid of the truth-- to stop talking & agitating about it-- in order to have "love" and to replace truth with good feelings?

[12tribes]

The king of the north in 1798 was the papal power which received a deadly wound but the wound is to be healed.

sky

Daniel 11:40

(40) And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

Papacy cannot be the king of the north in this verse

[Lysimachus]

The Hebrew word in Daniel 9: 27 is Strong's #8076 and also occurs in Daniel 9: 17 where it is translated "desolate."

The difference between those words is simply that the word is used as an adjective in Daniel 9: 17, but it is a Qal Participle Active in Daniel 9: 27, which means it should be translated as "desolator." The SDA Bible Commentary agrees with this. The destroyer will come to an end.

Notice that in Daniel 8: 13, a similar word is translated as "desolation." Here Strongs#8074 is Qal participle passive.

As you said, God's protection left Israel.

The Messiah, of course, is not the destroyer, or desolator.

In Matt. 23: 38, Jesus is recorded as having said to the Jews of that time, "See! Your house is left to you desolate."

Very interesting. I can see how that can jibe with Pastor Bohr's interpretation. He seems to compare these phrases a lot with the writings of Sister White, which is good:

http://secretsunsealed.org/downloads/notesondanielnine.pdf

But now the question is: who is the desolater? The Jews or the Romans? It's like it can be interpreted either way.

What do you make of the expression "he shall make it desolate"?

The subject "he" would seem to be the same "he" as the preceding 2 "he's"--the Messiah.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

The king of the north in 1798 was the papal power which received a deadly wound but the wound is to be healed.

sky

Daniel 11:40

(40) And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

Papacy cannot be the king of the north in this verse

Tim Roosenberg places this yet future. That will still be during "the time of the end". Where Islam will push hard against Christianity. Through the direction of the Papacy, the Papacy will use western military to overrun Islam. I find this a very interesting interpretation of these passages, and the Review and Herald has just published Tim Roosenberg's book on Daniel 11. It's gaining wide acceptance.

After seeing the presentation, it is beginning to make a lot of sense how the King of the North is the Papacy and the King of the South is Islam. These are the two world-contending religions. God's people (Jerusalem) get bullied and beat up in the middle.

[teresaq]

The king of the north in 1798 was the papal power which received a deadly wound but the wound is to be healed.

sky

[miz3]

There are many kinds of Antichrists. We know what John meant. But when we say "Antichrist", we're just using a metaphor for the Little Horn, or Man of Sin. In other words, we're referring to the "man of sin". He's no doubt the "head Antichrist". Pretty simple.

More rabbit trails that you're trying to get me on. You need to focus on what you should know what I mean.

Yes, and such "antichrists" exist in the heart of humans. Thus, the "antichrist" is far more dangerous than some stupid Papal power.

It is a Spiritual entity and not a physical entity.

[John317]

Yes, and such "antichrists" exist in the heart of humans. Thus, the "antichrist" is far more dangerous than some stupid Papal power.

It is a Spiritual entity and not a physical entity.

Antichrist is an attitude and a "spirit," as well as the Devil himself and all those through the Devil works. Satan is the primary antichrist, but the Bible also speaks of "the Man of Sin," "the little-horn power," and those two powers are identical to the sea-beast of Rev. 13.

The "stupid Papal power" you speak of has been continuously in existence for almost 2000 years and is a religio-politico power today, having successfully worked with the USA in 1990 for the overthrow of one of the greatest powers of the world, the USSR. This papal power is in the news every single day and over a billion people acknowledge him as head of the Church. He stands in the church claiming to be the Vicar of the Son of God. He claims that the Church had authority to change the law of God, transferring the sanctity of the Sabbath day to the Sunday, which Constantine called "the venerable day of the Sun." History recognizes this power as the legitimate successor of the Roman Empire. He ruled the Holy Roman Empire and during those years, he crowned many of the kings of Europe. He fits all of the specifications of prophecy regarding the little-horn power of Daniel 7 and 8 and of Rev. 13.

[miz3]

You're not the only one who gets that impression, Club. It's like a double personality, and I have seen it in many of her posts. I think it's important for teresaq(sda) to understand what some people are picking up from her posts.

It "appears" that some people are allowed to use "vinegar" in all their communications, while others seem to be chastised often for using the very same "vinegar". This road seems to parallel between those who espouse a certain "orthodoxy" and those who don't.

It just appears to be that way.

[miz3]

You're not the only one who gets that impression, Club. It's like a double personality, and I have seen it in many of her posts. I think it's important for teresaq(sda) to understand what some people are picking up from her posts.

Being among the "guilty" you make very cogent observations.

[teresaq]

Very nice wording!! I'm not sure how to take it, yet very nice wording anyway. Good job, if I may say so. Keep it up, if I may say that also. Even as uncomfortable as it may be to read.

Originally Posted By: John317

You're not the only one who gets that impression, Club. It's like a double personality, and I have seen it in many of her posts. I think it's important for teresaq(sda) to understand what some people are picking up from her posts.

It "appears" that some people are allowed to use "vinegar" in all their communications, while others seem to be chastised often for using the very same "vinegar". This road seems to parallel between those who espouse a certain "orthodoxy" and those who don't.

It just appears to be that way.

[John317]

Daniel 11:40

(40) And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

Papacy cannot be the king of the north in this verse

Why not? Who do you believe it to be?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: fccool

He's not interested in your theology and complete understanding of eschatology. He is interested in you loving people.

Actually, the Bible makes it plain that God is interested in both. He doesn't tell the prophets that all He's concerned with is loving people and accepting them no matter what. God is interested in both love and the truth.

Love must be based on truth. If it isn't, it isn't genuine love.

Without truth, love is mere sentimentality.

Christ is the Truth, and His word is the truth. Genuine love must be based on them both.

Does that mean you "love" me John317?

If you do, I have yet to feel it.

I have gotten the opposite impression from you about me. I get that same impression of dislike from ClubV12 as well.