[geocentrism] Re: 666


"Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:     Allen,

Okay, back into areas of disagreement. Without trying to be 
disagreeable, of course!

The fact that Jesus was holy doesn't prove your point, it proves 
mine. It means that He was qualified to be anointed as the Holy One. 
It means that there was a time during which He was holy, but as-yet 
unanointed. That's my point. An anointed one isn't an anointed one 
until he is anointed. A president-elect in the United States isn't 
president until he's sworn it -- it's irrelevant that he won the 
election, because his administration begins on inauguration day. To 
call a president-elect the US President prior to inauguration day is 
a non sequitur. To call the Holy One the Messiah (a title meaning 
one who has already been anointed) prior to His anointing is a non 
sequitur from the vantage point of Daniel 9 (which is our immediate 
point of interest; though you could find heuristic statements going 
the other direction in, say, Luke 2, they don't bear on the exact 
wording Daniel puts forward). Your assertions to the contrary take 
little account of the linguistic reality: you're somewhat dancing 
around it and appealing -- not to Scripture! -- but to common sense, 
as if that determined Biblical truth. Daniel refers to anointing more 
than once in the 70 weeks prophecy: once in regard to the actual 
anointing of the Anointed One, and to His Coming as the Anointed One. 
He's talking about the same Person in each instance, and the same 
ceremony that qualifies one as Anointed. You don't have a Messiah 
before His anointing -- by DEFINITION -- anymore than you have a US 
President before the swearing-in ceremony on inauguration day. It's 
that simple, insofar as Daniel 9 is concerned, which is our focus in 
this dialogue.
   
   
   
  I have already demonstrated that it refers o him as king before some later 
anointing so your objection with the president example is somewhat moot. You 
are arguing that messiah the price does not refer to his birth by virtue that 
he had not been anointed but i have already shown you that "until Messiah the 
prince" would and must include his birth, 
   
  3. Daniel refers to him as prince which is not a king but someone who is to 
be anointed as king therefore the price would have to come before you anoint 
him which he would be at birth.  The text does not say till the anointing it 
says ?70 week are given?..to anoint the most holy? v 24 and again latter it 
mentions from the ?going fourth of the command till messiah the prince? v25 
when it is outlining the sets of weeks.  He was holy from birth but You are 
making those statements as one in the same but they are not. One is the general 
reference to all the things that are going to take place during the 70 weeks 
vision the other is a specific benchmark to one of those stets of weeks?messiah 
the prince & king had arrived for scripture calls him king even though he had 
not yet been anointed as such even if you argue for a latter anointing.. 
   
   
  2.The whole anointing term was/ is used in reference to kings that were 
anointed by God that is where the word was first used anyway........... David 
was anointed and if Christ was not then how could it refer to him as him king 
or holy one  at his birth? It calls him the king even though he had not been 
anointed but that term is and was used in reference to kings??.You miss his 
remarks "i have seen you salivation" how could he have been salvation, Holy and 
king even though he had not been anointed?. The fact is the term is used in all 
those circumstances.
   
  3.The same metric for the use of the term "anointed" as in king is applicable 
here since that is where and how the word anointed is used first anyway, an 
thus his first appearance is at his birth. So no matter how you argue it the 
first mention of the king Matthew 2:2 or prince because he had not yet been 
anointed king is at his birth... ?but here is the king/ God?s salvation yall?. 
You are letting the concept of being  ?anointed? to blind you to the actual and 
practical demonstrated usage of the term anointed as in king at birth  although 
realy just a prince or after he is anointed king.. and again besides if you 
anoint the prince you make him king but what is anointed in dan ch9 is the 
prince which Christ would be at birth not the king or was he..ummm
   
  Further, "time, times, and half a time" is a Hebrew idiom that means 
"one, two, and one-half" -- in other words, three-and-a-half years. 
It refers to a time period that is 42 months or 1260 months in 
duration. You invent a brand new meaning for the term, as if you 
have the freedom to turn your back on the meaning established for 
millennia. I regard that strategy as hazardous to the interpretation 
of the text.

   
  1.The time times and half a time is not just a idiom.. Who told anyone that? 
The only place you can possibly ascertain its meaning or whether or not it is 
just a idiom is scripture, since that ?idiom? is only found in scripture. And 
you can?t find its just ?a idiom? in scripture. Simply not understudying 
scripture is no bases for asserting it as ?Just an idiom?. I am showing you 
exactly what is means and how you can know for sure what it is talking about. 
There is no good argument for that assertion.
   
  2.Even if it were ?a idiom? it is directly tied to events all common to 
Danile ch  8,11 & 12 see parallel of those already sent as well as ch9 (70 
weeks)  and Revelation 11,12  the 42 months with is half of 7 years or one week 
of the destruction of Jerusalem which is the last thing in the 70 weeks  
because Jesus died before Jerusalem fell which is mentioned in the 70 weeks as 
well so any count or method must include all those and it tells you which ones 
are benchmarked to which set of weeks....... Time times and half a time is also 
directly tied to Daniels remarks which are about those same times and setting 
up the kingdom...... The fact is the 70 weeks vision is given in that same 
format which is about all those same events that take place in the days of 
these kings" Setting up the kingdom is described as taking place over the time 
frame of those ten kings not a single event that time frame has a end hence 
"till the end".  Now, of all the various ways to count the 70
 weeks and 62 and 7 and one there is only one demonstratably valid method. 
Since the one week is obviously not associate with the 62 & 7 there is no 
logical justification for suggesting that the 62 & 7 are together especially 
when the text treat them just like the one week separate. It is not the 
argument that they are separate (62 & 7) that needs justifying but any argument 
that makes them  to be counted as one for to do so is not consistent with the 
way the one week is treated either in terms of  sentence structure or the way 
the paragraph as a whole is structured .
  A.  after 62 weeks messiah cut off
  B.  seven weeks The street and the wall must include nehimish ch5 but even in 
troublesome times must include the only "troublesome times" mentioned in 
scripture and associated with herrod or a king in the later time of the third 
empire which fell by the way in 30 BC ( 160 BC is not the latter time)Herod and 
Augustus are the only ones who meet all the criteria for that king "him" and 
"they" that "placed the abomination of desolation" which is related as standing 
in the holy place and surrounding Jerusalem with armies ( ROME) 
   
  The 62 weeks is benchmarked specifically with the messiah being cut off not 
the destruction of Jerusalem. 
   
  The one week is associated with destruction of Jerusalem simply there is no 
logical reason that 62 & 7 are to be counted together anymore then the one is 
also. Particularly since 62 is associate with messiah being cut off and 7 the 
street and wall. There is  490 years from the "street and wall" mentioned in 
Nemimiah ch 5 to Jesus by any count or chronology those cant be reconciled in 
any other way and Neimiah is wiring after Daniel and it is important to note 
that you cant have any shorter period of time between the two events see the 
chart proof on Persian kings. In short, "many" of the priest who saw the first 
temple saw the latter and that was after Nemimiah  going by the text there is 
at least a full 101 years if you take the text at face value between the two 
and that?s assuming that they saw the temple before it was destroyed just weeks 
old but the text suggest that they remembered the former temple now you have 
another at least 6-14  years on top of that .  if you
 assert 483 years between those two events that puts the ones who saw the first 
temple at a whopping many of them at 108 at birth! ?..The lives span by this 
time had leveled out by all reckoning 108 is not common for many of any people 
and certainly not 121 years old .  Moses died at 120 but that was some 900 
years earlier.. there simply is no justification for any other chronological 
outline.  For one the text outlines 70-36-490 to Jesus any other outline wont 
make any sense in terms of the ages required to reconcile the text to the 
Persian kings because  any tampering with the date will either make the Priest 
who saw the first temple really old not consistent with the ages of men as well 
as put the 1st year of Neb at about 582-590 not that I put my faith in the 
601-610 BC figure given by Modern archeology but that is clearly hard for 
anyone to swallow. You cant mess with the outlines in the text without 
compromising the text or creating other really hard problems. The
 simple safe consistence method is to use the text and yield 70 years for 
Jeremiah + 36 for the Persian kings chronology as outlined in scripture and you 
get 490 exactly without creating a whole mess of textual and chronological 
problems as well as the fact that it makes perfect sense from a prophecy stand 
point. Given that the whole man/ beast thing that both would are referring too. 
As so far as you can demonstrate anything to prove it there is not much more 
you can demonatrate. 
     
  

You complain that I can't fit the destruction of Jerusalem into the 
70 weeks of Daniel given where I start and end those 490 years. 
Correct. I don't have to. The text doesn't require me to squeeze 
its destruction into that period, but only the DECREE of desolation 
needs to fall within that period. I already -- at great length -- 
expounded on the decree as laid out by Jesus in Matthew 21, and 
amplified in the seven woes of Matt. 23, and the Olivet discourse of 
Matt. 24. This is why one must know what the actual verbs are in 
Daniel 9:27 -- the destruction isn't part of the prophecy, only the 
decree of destruction must occur within the 70th week. Therefore, 
Jesus insists that the then-living generation will not pass away 
until the decreed destructions have been fully poured out onto the 
temple and city. Flavius Josephus documents that this indeed 
happened, all within forty years of Christ's decree of destruction. 
We distinguish between the decree, and the destruction that was 
decreed, because Dan. 9:27 does so.

Martin






Other related posts: