Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Correct. Jesus fulfilled Daniel's 70th week. He made an end to the sacrifices.

That is why God destroyed the temple in 70 AD.

Not all of Daniel 9 is fulfilled. There certainly isn't an end to sin yet.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


So what did Jesus mean when he said nothing would pass from the law until heaven and Earth disappeared?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Correct. Jesus fulfilled Daniel's 70th week. He made an end to the sacrifices.

That is why God destroyed the temple in 70 AD.

Not all of Daniel 9 is fulfilled. There certainly isn't an end to sin yet.

There is for those who repent, get baptized, receive the Holy Spirit, and continue to walk in the Spirit. Your teaching makes Daniel to be a false prophet, which isn't true.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

So what did Jesus mean when he said nothing would pass from the law until heaven and Earth disappeared?

Those would be the elements embedded in the Mosaic law that are eternal in nature,
Not murdering your fellow man is eternal, sacrificing sheep is not. Neither is the literal eye for an eye.

How many Christian married couples that believe in the old law strictly adhere to it's command for abstinence during periods of uncleanliness as dictated by the law ?
Yes that law is outdated by the upgrades Jesus gave us; in the way worship was now acceptable to his Father.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Correct. Jesus fulfilled Daniel's 70th week. He made an end to the sacrifices.

That is why God destroyed the temple in 70 AD.

Not all of Daniel 9 is fulfilled. There certainly isn't an end to sin yet.

There is for those who repent, get baptized, receive the Holy Spirit, and continue to walk in the Spirit. Your teaching makes Daniel to be a false prophet, which isn't true.

I never said Daniel is a false prophet, I'm saying there is obviously a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel's prophecy. That gap has been the age of the church, which Paul reminds his readers , was "hidden" from the OT prophets. (Daniel would be an OT prophet BTW) The events Gabriel told Daniel about the 70th week certainly haven't come about. And the prophecy was not an end to sin on a personal level, but a permanent end to sin in the universe.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Correct. Jesus fulfilled Daniel's 70th week. He made an end to the sacrifices.

That is why God destroyed the temple in 70 AD.

Not all of Daniel 9 is fulfilled. There certainly isn't an end to sin yet.

There is for those who repent, get baptized, receive the Holy Spirit, and continue to walk in the Spirit. Your teaching makes Daniel to be a false prophet, which isn't true.

I never said Daniel is a false prophet, I'm saying there is obviously a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel's prophecy. That gap has been the age of the church, which Paul reminds his readers , was "hidden" from the OT prophets. (Daniel would be an OT prophet BTW) The events Gabriel told Daniel about the 70th week certainly haven't come about. And the prophecy was not an end to sin on a personal level, but a permanent end to sin in the universe.

edit on 4-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

A gap would mean that the 70th week wasn't fulfilled in the 70th week as Daniel prophesied. Therefore Daniel would be a false prophet. It would also mean that Jesus failed and we should look for another messieh. That is the whole purpose of your gap theory, to deceive people to follow another messieh.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


You mean the same Mosaic Law that Jesus said nothing would pass from? Come on, you're running in circles here.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

You mean the same Mosaic Law that Jesus said nothing would pass from? Come on, you're running in circles here.

The law is still there for us as a school teacher, however it has been nailed to the cross. We are not under the law.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . there is obviously a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel's prophecy.

It was not "obvious" to anyone until it was 'discovered' by John Nelson Darby in the early 1800's.
The traditional interpretation was that the 70th week was fulfilled by Jesus.
Your cult theory denies the Messiahship for Jesus.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

. . . nothing would pass from the law until heaven and Earth disappeared . . .

I used what I am quoting here as a search term on Google and found something interesting.
A book called, Mystery Accomplished, where the author describes Isaiah 51 as the god character recounting how He established the people of Zion as Him establishing the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth.
If "Zion" was to 'pass away', that heaven and earth that the god character made, at least metaphorically, for Israel would also pass away.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . there is obviously a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel's prophecy.

It was not "obvious" to anyone until it was 'discovered' by John Nelson Darby in the early 1800's.
The traditional interpretation was that the 70th week was fulfilled by Jesus.
Your cult theory denies the Messiahship for Jesus.

edit on 4-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

No it does not. Jesus is still the Messiah even with a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9. The church was hidden from the OT prophets, Daniel would be an OT prophet. Therefore, the church was hidden from Daniel when Gabriel gave him that 70 weeks prophecy. Besides all that, the 70 weeks had to do with the Jews and Jerusalem. Gabriel specifies that.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . the 70 weeks had to do with the Jews and Jerusalem.

Hmm.
Jesus, a Jew, crucified at Jerusalem.
Your version is not what Christians believed but rather is a recent innovation pushed as a cult belief.
I see your answer as nothing but partisanship for your cult.
This "gap" is just a total fabrication and the goal it seems is to belittle Jesus and his church to a level of irrelevancy.
Your saying OT prophets did not refer to Jesus is peculiar to the level of completely disregarding the Christian reason for the OT being at all relevant.

reply to post by jmdewey60


No, what I said was the church, the body of Christians was hidden from the OT prophets.

Why is it so hard for you to address what people actually post and instead invent your own version of what you think people mean to say? When you argue against something you invent you don't address what the other person actually says.

You might as well argue with a mirror.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Why is it so hard for you to address what people actually post and instead invent your own version of what you think people mean to say? When you argue against something you invent you don't address what the other person actually says.

Your friend, Adjensen, does that and you back him up when he does.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Why is it so hard for you to address what people actually post and instead invent your own version of what you think people mean to say? When you argue against something you invent you don't address what the other person actually says.

Your friend, Adjensen, does that and you back him up when he does.

No, what I do is hold people to what they say, then drill down to determine the implications of what they say, then call them on that. You might think saying something like "you have to be close enough (to his name) so that he knows that you're calling on him" doesn't mean anything, but when scrutinized, it destroys your theology.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

When you argue against something you invent you don't address what the other person actually says.

Of course you don't ever get around to saying what these enigmatic statements that you make really mean, if there is any meaning than what I get out of them .
Instead you always come up with something that sounds like a personal attack to me.
You like to say how I am not getting it right but don't really say what is "right" or exactly how I am wrong.
You have a cult that is basically anti-Christian and you don't have a way to explain that away, but you cling to the cult regardless I guess because it gives you the feeling of belonging that you think that you need.
That is the way all the cults are and why the cults have memberships, so I am not picking on you more than anyone else, but you present yourself to examination by promoting cult ideology as much as you do.

reply to post by adjensen


Only according to your incorrect opinion of what I said.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Instead you always come up with something that sounds like a personal attack to me.

REALLY??

How about you quote one?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Why is it so hard for you to address what people actually post and instead invent your own version of what you think people mean to say? When you argue against something you invent you don't address what the other person actually says.

Your friend, Adjensen, does that and you back him up when he does.

Show where Adj straw maned your posts and I cheered him on.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Only according to your incorrect opinion of what I said.

You said this:

Jesus is His correct name, you have not provided evidence otherwise. It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him.

Here.

We've been round and round about it, and you've never been able to justify that statement of God's lack of omniscience. Instead of rational thought, you always react with emotionalism, as you did above. That alone should serve as a warning to anyone who hears you that yours is an indefensible theology.