"Until the TIMES of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.&qu

[_Sean]

Sorry Sean....I just don't buy your arguement.

That's ok, you don't have to.

By the way, which arguement? 2 Thes 2?

[_Sean]

[Jill]

Sean I think you make the mistake most people make regarding your position...you confuse the Church and Israel. Daniel 9:24 clearly says "

 24"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. "

Yet Daniel 9:27 says the temple scene happens in the middle of the seven years. Plus it sounds like a real treaty and a real breaking of that treaty and a real entrance.." He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' 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"

Its in the middle of the 70th week that the son of perdition enters the temple and since its rightly declares those 70 weeks are for your people and your holy city...its clearly Jewish and clearly a temple.. for you to somehow bring in what God describes the Church as, isnt relevent or accurate. If it was accurate it would be worse, to somehow think that the son of perdition could somehow enter the Church the temple of God in a spiritual way and effect Christians....is frankly unscriptural. Its clear that the 70th week hasnt happened yet because as Paul said in Romans 11:25..we are still in the times of the gentiles...

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in." Sean what is the times of the gentiles to you??? Has it been fulfilled in your understanding???? And what does the" until the end that is decreed is poured out on him" mean? If its not a personality why is the term" him" used?

In His Service

Crusader

Sean I edited the word plan...actually its the dealings with the two...even as Pual was discussing in Romans 11...we are in the times of the gentiles.

[_Sean]

Sean I think you make the mistake most people make regarding your position...you confuse Gods plan for the Church somehow with Gods plan for Israel.

OK, Please show me where in the Bible it says God has a plan for the Church and a different plan for the Jews.

I'm currently writing a comment on Daniel 9 for you.

[_Sean]

Sean I think you make the mistake most people make regarding your position...you confuse Gods plan for the Church somehow with Gods plan for Israel. Daniel 9:24 clearly says "

24"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. "

Yet Daniel 9:27 says the temple scene happens in the middle of the seven years. Plus it sounds like a real treaty and a real breaking of that treaty and a real entrance.." He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' 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"

Its in the middle of the 70th week that the son of perdition enters the temple and since its rightly declares those 70 weeks are for your people and your holy city...its clearly Jewish and clearly a temple.. for you to somehow bring in what God describes the Church as, isnt relevent or accurate. If it was accurate it would be worse, to somehow think that the son of perdition could somehow enter the Church the temple of God in a spiritual way and effect Christians....is frankly unscriptural. Its clear that the 70th week hasnt happened yet because as Paul said in Romans 11:25..we are still in the times of the gentiles...

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."


In His Service

Crusader

First, since when did I say what is in Daniel 9 applies to the church?
Second, Why on earth do you import 2 Thes 2 into Daniel 9? It parallels Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.

Please show me in context, in Daniel 9 were the antichrist/man of sin is?

You quoted from the NIV which is the only translation I know of that says:

" In the middle of the 'seven' 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"

Notice in your bible the "of the temple" has brackets under/around it because it's not in the hebrew text at all. It's interesting you use this as a proof text, since it isn't even in the text. Look at your side margin of your NIV bible and read the slightly more correct, alternate translation.

This is how the KJV reads:

Dan 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.
Dan 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.
Dan 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.

Actually, have you ever noticed that whenever Jesus, Paul, James or Peter quote the OT they quote the septuagint? Here's Daniel 9 from the septuagint:

24 Seventy weeks have been determined upon your people, and upon the holy city, for sin to be ended, to seal up transgressions, to blot out iniquities, to make atonement for iniquities, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.

25 And you shall know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem, until Christ the Prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.

26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the Anointed One shall be killed, and there is no judgment in Him. And He shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is to come: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed He shall appoint the city to desolations.

27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many. And in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.

Anyway, your right that this has to do with Daniel's people, the Jews, aka Israel. Your incorrect however to place a man of sin in here. Can you show me how it fits? Jesus is the Messiah, He is to be killed after the 62 weeks. 7+62=69 weeks, after 69 would be in the midst of the 70th week.

So in verse 26 we see Jesus being killed, Jesus destroying the city and sanctuary (predicted in Matt 24) through the Roman armies (also predicted in the Gospels, Matt 21:41, etc). Also, this is clearly the city that was just referenced to being rebuilt in Daniel 9:25, not a future one.

Then in verse 27 we get more detail about this time frame:
during the final 7 years (one week) the Messiah (can't be anyone else because the entire passage is about what the Messiah coming and what He is going to do; read verse 24, Jesus accomplished these 6 things when He came) .

Did the Messiah esablish a covenant? Yes He did. Why do you remove Christ and insert an anti-christ here?
After Jesus 3.5 year ministry He was killed, putting an end to the sacrificial system (see my previous Hebrews quotes about this). The sacrificial system was replaced and no longer valid once Jesus became high priest.

Now, the temple will be an abomination of desolation, the same greek (remember this is the septuagint) here is found in Matthew 24's Abomination of Desolation. Luke's parallel says:
Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

The Abomination that causes Desolation is Jerusalem being attacked and the temple being destroyed. Just as Luke says, and Jesus warns: Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains

It's Judea that's under seige, just as Daniel predicts.

So tell me, how are you squeezing and anti-christ in here? and placing gaps in to make the final 7 years still future?

regarding your position...you confuse Gods plan for the Church somehow with Gods plan for Israel. Daniel 9:24 clearly says "

24"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. "

Yet Daniel 9:27 says the temple scene happens in the middle of the seven years. Plus it sounds like a real treaty and a real breaking of that treaty and a real entrance.." He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' 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"

Its in the middle of the 70th week that the son of perdition enters the temple and since its rightly declares those 70 weeks are for your people and your holy city.

Where does it say that? I don't see that in Daniel 9. No mention of a son of perdition making a peace treaty and then breaking it. I do agree this is speaking about Jerusalem being destroyed, Just as Jesus says in Matt, Mark and Luke.

[_Sean]

Steve Gregg sums a lot of this up well in his "when shall these things be" series. Have you ever downloaded it and listened to it?

It does no good for me to answer your points only for you to post more points without answering my points.

If you listen to Steve's series it refutes all your points. Does that make him right? No. But to have a good debate on this it helps to understand what the other person thinks and why.

So, the reason it would help is that you would already know how every point you would make can be refuted. You then can post here saying something like "You are confusing the church with Israel, here are scriptures to prove the point"

In my opinion, after spending years studying this subject, (with a long way to go) Dispensationalism fails at it's foundation. That is, it sees two plans and two peoples. There is only one Biblical plan and one people. Christ and the Church. Ephesians 2-3 and Galatians 3 make this point. The "mystery" isn't the "church age" it's what Paul says it is:

Eph 3:6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Christ came for the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles, to bring them into Israel. This means that the Gentile Christians are the Israel of God, just as Jewish Christians were and still are.

Jesus, speaking to Jews said:
Mat 28:20 "I am with you always, to the end of the age."

He does not say "I'm leaving you Jews now, until the times of the Gentiles, and then you can get saved"

Jesus has never left the Jews, they don't have to wait to come to Christ. (Rom 11:14)

[Guest]

Hi,

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I was enjoying several hours of non-sanctioned fellowship. (See the thread on church membership).

The interesting thing is that there a few different Greek words translated into our English word “temple”. In 2 Thess 2:4, the word Paul uses is naos, which he uses elsewhere to describe the people of God . see 1 Cor. 3;16-17; Eph. 2:21

Though it is also used to describe a building, the gospel writers tend to use other Greek words to speak of the physical temple. There is even a particular word Paul uses for pagan temples, which is different from the Jews’ physical temple, and different from “naos” (the temple of God), which he defines as the church.


On the last point, since Paul is using “naos”, where he uses it elsewhere to speak of people, I have nearly arrived at the conclusion that Paul is talking about a man who sets himself in the church as being above God.

In this view, the one who restrains in the context is the Roman Empire. When the Roman Empire was taken out of the way, the papacy bloomed, with various men setting themselves in the temple of God (the church) as exalted above God Himself. Anyone with the power to get people out of purgatory has a lot of power indeed.

So too, we can glean why it is that Paul was so cryptic in this passage. Maybe he was protecting the people against the persecution sure to arise if his letter got into the wrong hands, and if he was boldly stating that the Empire was to be overthrown. Admittedly, I speculate here.

Concerning historical evidence of any man setting himself in the Jewish temple, Josephus recorded this in his Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Chapter 6, Verse 1: “And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy.”

Some believe this is the fulfillment 2 Thess. 2:4. I haven’t been sold yet, but it took me awhile to be sold on other things.

[_Sean]

Hi,

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I was enjoying several hours of non-sanctioned fellowship. (See the thread on church membership).

The interesting thing is that there a few different Greek words translated into our English word “temple”. In 2 Thess 2:4, the word Paul uses is naos, which he uses elsewhere to describe the people of God . see 1 Cor. 3;16-17; Eph. 2:21

Though it is also used to describe a building, the gospel writers tend to use other Greek words to speak of the physical temple. There is even a particular word Paul uses for pagan temples, which is different from the Jews’ physical temple, and different from “naos” (the temple of God), which he defines as the church.


On the last point, since Paul is using “naos”, where he uses it elsewhere to speak of people, I have nearly arrived at the conclusion that Paul is talking about a man who sets himself in the church as being above God.

In this view, the one who restrains in the context is the Roman Empire. When the Roman Empire was taken out of the way, the papacy bloomed, with various men setting themselves in the temple of God (the church) as exalted above God Himself. Anyone with the power to get people out of purgatory has a lot of power indeed.

So too, we can glean why it is that Paul was so cryptic in this passage. Maybe he was protecting the people against the persecution sure to arise if his letter got into the wrong hands, and if he was boldly stating that the Empire was to be overthrown. Admittedly, I speculate here.

Concerning historical evidence of any man setting himself in the Jewish temple, Josephus recorded this in his Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Chapter 6, Verse 1: “And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy.”

Some believe this is the fulfillment 2 Thess. 2:4. I haven’t been sold yet, but it took me awhile to be sold on other things.

Edit:
Nicely stated, Although naos is also used of the Jewish temple several times.
I agree that the one who restrains is the Roman Empire.

[Guest]

Thanks Crusader, I'm glad I didn't offend you.

You said, "Its clear that the 70th week hasnt happened yet because as Paul said in Romans 11:25..we are still in the times of the gentiles..."

This is what is known as begging the question, or circular reasoning. It's akin to saying, "Jesus said the sky would turn polka-dotted, and then the end would come. Therefore, if the sky isn't polka-dotted Jesus hasn't come."

In this instance, one is setting out to prove what he already believes to be true, i.e., that Jesus must've meant literal polk-dots that we are to expect. But the issue rests on what Jesus meant by the terms "polk-dotted" and "come".

In your posts, I don't see definitions or exegesis of the passages, but a thread of verses strung together to mask a non-argument.

This is common among dispensationalist teachers who seem to think that quoting or writing several verses proves a point. It doesn't. For example, some say that because the 1,000 years is mentioned six times in Revelation 20, God must mean it literally, because He said it so many times. This isn't an argument, because it tells us nothing of the nature of the 1000 years.

"God is mentioned thousands of times in the Bible."

That is not an argument. What is His character like? The logic of some dispensationalists would lead me to conclude that Jesus is a lamb, because He is called such, on many occasions, and I need to apply the literal hermeneutic.

As for the two people of God theory, I strained to hold onto this, but under the weight of Jesus saying he was bringing other sheep into the fold to have one flock (Jn. 10:16), Paul saying there is one tree of salvation (Rom. 11), one body (Eph. 2:16), and one temple (Eph. 2:21), I buckled.

Do you believe Jesus and the apostles taught that there are two folds, two trees, two bodies, and two temples?

[Guest]

Hi Sean, thanks. That is what I meant when I said it also speaks of a building. Apologies for not being clear.

JD