ECT A Preterist Time Chart

[Danoh]

Pardon me for saying so, but there is so much here that I disagree with and I just don't have the time to address it all.
Besides which, these were questions to StP specifically.

But I will just say one thing about your comment on this;



Your system which requires a gap, is creating, in your mind, artificial and unscriptural reasons why this gap must exist.
Jesus simply told his disciples that He would not drink wine until after His resurrection; that is, after He had conquered Satan and death itself. His death and resurrection inaugurated the Kingdom of God and it is here now.

He drank wine and ate with selected witnesses after His death fulfilling this promise.
Acts 10:40-41KJV

Fact of the matter?

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Fact of the matter?

Acts 3:17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Fact of the matter?

1 Peter 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

Yeah, sure said Kingdom is already here.

If you say so.

And no "my" system does not "require a gap." I don't want one if there isn't one; nor do I look for one going in.

Your assertion is nothing more than a proof of your own projection - of what is actually your books learned practice of reading into a thing.

It is you and your book worm pals on here who are ever going back and forth with one another about what commentary writer said what "about" what.

Bookworms often conclude others "picked that up from books 'about' too..."

Project away, GA.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Nope in the middle of it. I can't understand where this is coming from STP. EVERY normal expression in the Bible is stood on its head, butt side out, after you read it. Rom 11, Acts 13, Acts 2, Acts 26.

:chuckle:

The years are broken up into 7, 62, and 1.

The destruction of the city and sanctuary are before the last week.

Read it again 1000x.

 

[Interplanner]

The destruction is in the middle of the last week to the end, even if that means the end of the destruction (which it did).

You really need to learn how to express yourself with something other than cartoons and 'read it 1000x'. If you really know the material, you would easily be able to produce a paragraph. you don't even quote Hebrew commentaries.

You would also know that the 7 and 62 don't really mean anything. There is nothing that corresponds to those points in the sequence or in history.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The destruction is in the middle of the last week to the end, even if that means the end of the destruction (which it did).

Made up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You would also know that the 7 and 62 don't really mean anything. There is nothing that corresponds to those points in the sequence or in history.

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

Made up.

Made up.

 

[Interplanner]

:chuckle:

I should have said 'there are no events.' There is of course the numerical beauty of 7 weeks and then 70 that include the 7. But there are no events to know at 7 "weeks" (49 years after the prophecy), and the 69th is obviously when Messiah is at work.

STP, just so you know, I won't 'pounce' on you for referring to a Hebrew commentary on these things; I'd love to hear if there is any new work being done. In 2 years you only quoted yourself, which is ingrown and unreliable. But when I read them for master's level research, the latest thinking was agreed: "the one" in 27b is not Messiah, but rather his counter. Otherwise the paragraph tracks or is anchored on Messiah as the topic. And 'the one' who desolates is first ID'd in ch 8.

 

[Wick Stick]

There we have it again, folks. When the going gets rough for D'ists, they get out books and then slam you for your commentaries.

D'ism and its futurism was developed by a guy who thought the Bible didn't make sense until he came along, after 200 years of teaching by Reformation theologians.

Hey Einstein,

I'm not a Dispensationalist. My theology is covenant based. My eschatology is irregular, but most would call it postmillennial or partial preterism.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I should have said 'there are no events.' There is of course the numerical beauty of 7 weeks and then 70 that include the 7. But there are no events to know at 7 "weeks" (49 years after the prophecy), and the 69th is obviously when Messiah is at work.

STP, just so you know, I won't 'pounce' on you for referring to a Hebrew commentary on these things; I'd love to hear if there is any new work being done. In 2 years you only quoted yourself, which is ingrown and unreliable. But when I read them for master's level research, the latest thinking was agreed: "the one" in 27b is not Messiah, but rather his counter. Otherwise the paragraph tracks or is anchored on Messiah as the topic. And 'the one' who desolates is first ID'd in ch 8.

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

Hey Einstein,

I'm not a Dispensationalist. My theology is covenant based. My eschatology is irregular, but most would call it postmillennial or partial preterism.

Good for you but I don't pretend to keep track of every individual, just the ones who keep tearing down what I find in the ordinary meaning of the text involved.

 

[Interplanner]

:chuckle:

OK you discredit yourself by 1, not knowing Hebrew; 2, not knowing any commentaries enough to know what the main talking points of the paragraph are, and 3, by the mind-numbing insistence that if I "just read" it 1000x, I will know what you is inside your head. By studying it and comparing to what little you have said, I know you are miles behind the research and are in a pretend world of study.

Paragraphs, like sentences, keep to one subject. It is tricky in the Dan 9 paragraph with 2 other key characters, but we are on the back side of the 490 (normal) years, so it ends up not being that hard; it has been interpreted by history because it is now history.

The whole purpose of a forum is discussion and learning. I don't know what you think and I think your stupid cartoons reduce your view to the 'least skill involved' in coming to a conclusion about the material. If you had answers you would talk; you are the opposite of communication.

 

[Interplanner]

Through commentary you find out things like:
'to confirm a covenant' implies that it was announced previously and is put into effect. An exact description of what Jesus did in completing what Jeremiah and Isaiah said was coming (Is 59 and 27 in Rom 11). There's reasons why things like that are there. It's not announce; it is not 'cut'; it is confirm.

 

[Danoh]

Through commentary you find out things like:
'to confirm a covenant' implies that it was announced previously and is put into effect. An exact description of what Jesus did in completing what Jeremiah and Isaiah said was coming (Is 59 and 27 in Rom 11). There's reasons why things like that are there. It's not announce; it is not 'cut'; it is confirm.

Where book writers turn out right on a thing, it is because they had followed the Scripture on that.

Scripture ever being its own best commentary.

You'd know that had you invested years in the Scripture - preferring it OVER your ever obvious over reliance on the ever endless writings of men.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[Wick Stick]

Good for you but I don't pretend to keep track of every individual, just the ones who keep tearing down what I find in the ordinary meaning of the text involved.

So you're not going to keep track of who you're talking to, or what discussion you've already had?

But you have no hesitation to slap labels on others, even though you admittedly are not paying attention to what they have said? :blabla:

Did I get that about right?

You know what? My fault.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -George Carlin

Thanks, George

 

[john w]

Through commentary you find out things like:
'to confirm a covenant' implies that it was announced previously and is put into effect. An exact description of what Jesus did in completing what Jeremiah and Isaiah said was coming (Is 59 and 27 in Rom 11). There's reasons why things like that are there. It's not announce; it is not 'cut'; it is confirm.

Made up.

Again, the NC has been ratified, but not enacted-that awaits a future date with Israel, not the BOC.

"By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." Hebrews 7:22

And just why is the Lord Jesus Christ right now the surety, i.e., guarantee, of a better covenant? He guarantees it only because the Lord Jesus Christ has not yet enacted the better covenant. If He had already enacted it, no need for a guarantee would exist.

Hebrews 8:6 KJV-This contrasts the OC, given through the "mediator" Moses, with the new one coming through the Lord Jesus Christ. The better covenant stands upon better promises. The Lord Jesus Christ mediates the better covenant in the heavenly throne room(Hebrews 12:22-44 KJV). Once He enacts it, He will no longer be the mediator, but rather the enactor of the NC.

As STP pointed out many times, just as the enactment of the Mosaic Covenant with the children of Israel did not occur until Moses came down from the mountain, so Christ's return apart from sin for salvation of Israel(Hebrews 8:8-13 KJV, Romans 11:26-32 KJV). While Moses was on the mount, mediating the covenant, the Israelites were in unbelief, as it is today. The LORD God desired to cast them off from His sight. However, Moses interceded for them(obviously, Moses as a type of Christ), and established the covenant with the nation Israel after a second attempt. The covenant was ratified while Moses was on the mount, Exodus 19:3-24:3 KJV, but enactment did not happen until Moses descended=2nd coming from that mount, and the people agreed to the covenant, Exodus 24:3 KJV, Exodus 24:7 KJV

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Made up.

Again, the NC has been ratified, but not enacted-that awaits a future date with Israel, not the BOC.

"By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." Hebrews 7:22

And just why is the Lord Jesus Christ right now the surety, i.e., guarantee, of a better covenant? He guarantees it only because the Lord Jesus Christ has not yet enacted the better covenant. If He had already enacted it, no need for a guarantee would exist.

Hebrews 8:6 KJV-This contrasts the OC, given through the "mediator" Moses, with the new one coming through the Lord Jesus Christ. The better covenant stands upon better promises. The Lord Jesus Christ mediates the better covenant in the heavenly throne room(Hebrews 12:22-44 KJV). Once He enacts it, He will no longer be the mediator, but rather the enactor of the NC.

As STP pointed out many times, just as the enactment of the Mosaic Covenant with the children of Israel did not occur until Moses came down from the mountain, so Christ's return apart from sin for salvation of Israel(Hebrews 8:8-13 KJV, Romans 11:26-32 KJV). While Moses was on the mount, mediating the covenant, the Israelites were in unbelief, as it is today. The LORD God desired to cast them off from His sight. However, Moses interceded for them(obviously, Moses as a type of Christ), and established the covenant with the nation Israel after a second attempt. The covenant was ratified while Moses was on the mount, Exodus 19:3-24:3 KJV, but enactment did not happen until Moses descended=2nd coming from that mount, and the people agreed to the covenant, Exodus 24:3 KJV, Exodus 24:7 KJV

This makes too much sense, saint john.

 

[Interplanner]

So you're not going to keep track of who you're talking to, or what discussion you've already had?

But you have no hesitation to slap labels on others, even though you admittedly are not paying attention to what they have said? :blabla:

Did I get that about right?

You know what? My fault.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -George Carlin

Thanks, George

D'ism was defined by Ryrie in D'ISM TODAY. I had to read it at Bible college: "The single essential definitive doctrine is that there are two separate programs going on in the Bible."

That is a D'ist. If you don't practice with that, good for you. It is the most tortured concoction parading as a system there ever was. Because it dishonestly never says 'you have to read Ellen White, or the Book of Mormon.' Yet their system is as foreign as you can get but insists it is correct.

 

[Interplanner]

This makes too much sense, saint john.

It doesn't make sense because Jesus is the 2nd Israel, doing what Israel was supposed to. That's found through many NT passages quoting the OT, which JohnW hates to do (he loves to quote the OT, but not what the NT says the OT means).

God made Christ a 'covenant for the nations.' Not as something new but to complete what Genesis 'all nations will be blessed in your Seed' meant

There is nothing in Hebrews about enacting vs ratifying (not even sure of ratifying in it) because it is present tense. It is about the 'good things that are already here.' There is no waiting for one nation and for its land. No other NT passage confirms what you are saying. This is just an elaboration on the myth that the NC as expounded in chs8-10 is actually just for and about Israel and is future. All three points are failures.

AT least you tried to include Heb 12 instead of fight with it. Unless of course you think it is Israel only, which would be a problem for your cartoon pal because his Israel has to be in Judea, and that one is in heaven. Dang, that means Israel gets the old one again! lol

I don't know one place where STP has written out that much of an attempt at a complete statement, and I'm not sure you wrote what you did anyway. Not that it has to be chased down, but seriously the longest thing STP ever did was something about 3 heavens or 3 resolutions to 3 groups of people. (I wouldn't show up in public quoting STP anyway. Pasting up gigglies about 100s of questions instead of rational answers? And you quote him as some kind of 'leader.'? )

The better thing in the NC is not a place. it is that the Spirit of God creates the obedience. That is also why it is a present reality. The NHNE is a reality just like 2 Cor 5 says about the new creation being here, and Gal 6 about our being the new creation already.

You've missed the sense of what is left to be future. it is not that he is only a guarantor. He is better because his life was indestructible, which is why we want to be found in him.

 

[Interplanner]

Back to Dan 9 which STP also loathes to explain himself on:

1, the subject is Messiah.
2, the 2nd character introduced is a ruling power 26b; the expressions are the same as previously in the book.
3, the 'end' is described. The people of the ruler will ruin the city; that's the end that is being described.
4, 26a puts the paragraph back on its rails by focusing back on the Anointed.
5, v27a's 'He' is what is often debated, but I find the natural to be Messiah again, because confirming a covenant is said to be a positive thing, not something the destroying ruler would do, and the one who causes desolation has not been mentioned yet. To show that it is diverging from the old covenant, he (Messiah) puts an end to sacrifices (to me that's like a miniature of the letter of Hebrews). This should connect with vs 24 and 'and end to sin' has been said to mean 'an end to sin offerings.' Cp 2 Cor 5:21, which is the same debate about word choice.
5, Most commentators do not think 'One who causes...' is the Messiah, of course, nor is he the ruler of 26b with all his people like a flood. Instead the language/expression was first found in 8:13 and then further in 8. It is very specific that he is going to die in the end, and nothing indicates more than one 'end' in the paragraph. It's simply not elaborate enough to mention a rebellion against that ruler in 26b, but the original expression was the 'rebellion that desolates.'

There are three figures:
Messiah/Anointed
the ruler with lots of people
One who causes desolation

While JohnnyW thinks STP is a great quote source, I have asked STP to write out his view of Dan 9's final paragraph for 2 years. Writing it out is a very clarifying thing, much more than reading it 1000x in a way like Goebbels who wanted to snow people with sheer repetition. STP has refused, and I know why.

 

[john w]

It doesn't make sense because Jesus is the 2nd Israel,

There you go, folks...Add that magic trick to "Jesus is the New Covenant!!!!," as the magician just makes things appear, and disappear.


Next up: "Jesus" is the new and 2nd Paul!!!!!!!


You poser, clown, Basil.