[geocentrism] Re: 666
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 19:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
"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:
