[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:04:19 -0500
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.
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.
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:
