Misunderstand by Jws and Protestants

[miamited]

An example is that in that same verse we see......"A child is born".

Which I'm pretty sure we know was not a completed act at the time that it was written. It was pointing to a future event. It's a prophecy! For unto us a child is born, A Son is given. Is a prophetic picture that was to come true at some point. At which point we, the believers, should be able to say, "That's it!!! He's the one!!!!" And yet the very people that it was written to didn't get it. And for many, many Jews, still don't. They didn't see it when it became an actual historical event in the history of the world and still don't see, even now, some hundreds of years later that the prophecy is fulfilled!

God bless,
Ted

 

[journeyman]

Now, IF the Torah forbides it, what was all the bulls and sheep and doves killed for???

I told you why. The children of Israel were to slay the sacrifice for the purpose of confessing their own sins.

Like the sin of putting an innocent man to death. This is why I asked you to look at the passages I cited from Deut.24 and Eze 18, where God outlaws penal, or substitutionary sacrifice.

Jesus wasn't taking any sinners place. He was taking His Fathers' place. That's what Mk.12 is about.

My friend,
You don't need to explain church doctrine to me because I sat under it for years. It blinded me to the truth of what our Lord and the Apostles and Prophets said about Him.
I didn't come to the belief I did now until I actually looked at what someone showed me that I'm showing you now. He was a Jew by the way.

 

[Rodger]

I told you why. The children of Israel were to slay the sacrifice for the purpose of confessing their own sins.

Like the sin of putting an innocent man to death. This is why I asked you to look at the passages I cited from Deut.24 and Eze 18, where God outlaws penal, or substitutionary sacrifice.

Jesus wasn't taking any sinners place. He was taking His Fathers' place. That's what Mk.12 is about.

My friend,
You don't need to explain church doctrine to me because I sat under it for years. It blinded me to the truth of what our Lord and the Apostles and Prophets said about Him.
I didn't come to the belief I did now until I actually looked at what someone showed me that I'm showing you now. He was a Jew by the way.

First may I say that I respect you as a long time member here and I am very new. I am new here, but I am very old in teaching the Word of God and I have in no way a desire to argue with you.

Now, at 1st glance it seems to me that you are trying to mix Law and Grace because you have used the Torah several times.

Please understand that I do not teach Church doctrine. I teach BIBLE DOCTRINE and I am a Literalist!

So then, may I say to you that when a Jew, living under the Torah sinned they were responsible for what they had done, but if they repented they could be forgiven by a sacrifice that would bear their sin before God. The Torah itself explains this.

Leviticus 4:28-31....................
"He must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect. He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.'

WHY is that the case???????

Again tthe Torah says in Lev. 17:11.......
"For the life of a creature is in the blood , and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life."

You then said.........
"Jesus wasn't taking any sinners place. He was taking His Fathers' place. That's what Mk.12 is about."

I disagree totally! According to the Torah, a sacrifice ...." In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.'
If Jesus took The Fathers place as you said then God the Father would be a sinner!!!!
No! Since Jesus died on the cross for our sins, it means God Himself took our place. We all deserved to die a painful death on the cross, yet Jesus took this upon Himself. Instead of allowing us to suffer this pain, agony, and suffering of the cross, He took our place.

You then said..........
"I didn't come to the belief I did now until I actually looked at what someone showed me that I'm showing you now."

My friend, someone showed you what they wanted to belive....NOT what the Bible literally says.

 

[Rodger]

Which I'm pretty sure we know was not a completed act at the time that it was written. It was pointing to a future event. It's a prophecy! For unto us a child is born, A Son is given. Is a prophetic picture that was to come true at some point. At which point we, the believers, should be able to say, "That's it!!! He's the one!!!!" And yet the very people that it was written to didn't get it. And for many, many Jews, still don't. They didn't see it when it became an actual historical event in the history of the world and still don't see, even now, some hundreds of years later that the prophecy is fulfilled!

God bless,
Ted

Yes Ted, you are correct!

For Isaiah it was a done deal that just had not yet happened in the space of time. It had already taken place in the mind and plan of God and God allowed Isiah to see into the future just as He did John and Daniel.

It is a blessing to agree with you.

 

[Rodger]

Hi Rodger

I'm not familiar with the term 'proleptic', but you do recall that the Hebrews got several other matters about Jesus wrong also... right? I honestly doubt that anyone can even know what Isaiah meant or understood about the passage when he wrote it. It's my understanding that a lot of Hebrews never understood Daniel's prophecy of the 69 sevens. So, while I'm always willing to hear what others, especially the Jews, thought about the things of God, I do know for an absolute fact that a lot of them got some of it wrong. Even Jesus brought this up among them!

For example, I'm all in that the Jews are correct about the number of years the creation has existed from the beginning. But that's an easy matter of them just keeping an accounting of the years as they passed, and accepting the basic understanding and construct of the book of Genesis. The historical books are much, much easier to be in agreement with than the prophetic books. It is the prophetic books that they had trouble understanding. At least as it pertains to their Messiah.

God bless,
Ted

Hi brother. Good to speak with you.

I am new here at this forum but very old in the Word of God. I was educated at DTS and Liberty. I only say that to you so that you will know that I am a vert conservative, fundmental believer who is now retired.

So then....."Propeptic" is the English word for the Greek word of "Prolepsis". In the Bible then, prophecies given by men from God may be viewed as a rhetorical feature that allows the writer to mingle present and future events. It is a technique that indicates the certainty of future events. In other words, the writer is putting forth a statement that he does not understand but is giving it as IF IT HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.

I can understand how the Jews missed a lot of things. It is because we look back at real history through a Biblical lense and then we can SEE what the Old Test. was trying to tell them then.

I hope that you understand that the Jews had been for 2000 years been looking for a Military General as their Messiah. They wanted him to come and deliver them from Roman oppression. They rejected the man of God and love and grace because He did not fit their world view of that day.

May the Lord bless you.

 

[Rodger]

Thank you for sharing what you believe. I have heard the mystery of the incomprehensible Trinity explained numerous times. Yes I do reject it still.

One thing I would add is that I think the verses you quoted get by on technicalities. For example, as miamited pointed out, Isaiah 9:6 says he would be "called" those things and yet where was he called those things? There don't seem to be any examples. I would offer you that language translation can take many different possible directions, but the general context of the Bible should inform a good translation. Isaiah 9:6 has been translated differently.

Also, in Titus 2:13, it actually doesn't necessarily say Jesus is God still. Why? Because in English translations the placement of punctuation can drastically alter the way a sentence reads. For example, if the comma is removed then suddenly Jesus is isn't the Great God and Savior anymore, but rather Great God and Savior Jesus become two distinct persons. As John 3:16,17 says, God saves through Jesus. They can both be saviors without being the same person, but only one is God. With the Father being that one God, that's the precedent I believe we should work from.

Colossians 2:9 saying "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" doesn't really hit the mark either. Ephesians 3:19 says that Christians can be filled with the fullness of God. That changes everything. Being filled with God doesn't mean someone is God then.

May I get your perspective on those points I made, please?

Certainly my friend.

As I pointed out to miamited, the Isiah 9:6 Scripture is called, "Proleptic". It means that when Isiah wrote it, it was already a done deal.

In Isiah 9:6, the Hebrew ...........

Strongs 3205 [e]

יֻלַּד־ yul-laḏ-

is born "Done"

V-Pual-Perf-3ms

The child points to the humanity of Jesus; he came in the flesh so that we can experience God in a whole new way. God to die for mans sin but The title of son points to the deity of Jesus; while he came in the flesh he was still fully God so that He could not stay dead.

OK. Now Titus 2:12–13 says that the grace of God teaches us “to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” This passage identifies the “blessed hope” as the glorious appearing of Jesus Christ, our great God and Savior."

Now LOOK at the literal words of the Scripture above. I am one who says that Jesus is God and Saviour Because there is no definite article “the” before “Saviour”. That means logically and grammatically it is then true that “God and Saviour” refers to a single person, who is then identified with “Jesus Christ”: the great God and Saviour of us (who is) Jesus Christ.
Now Colossians 2:9........
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Again, look at and read carefully what is said. Colossians 2:9 says that Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead. This means that He fully reveals God to us. He didn’t reveal just part of God, or the loving side of God. Jesus did not reveal the loving and gracious side of God while the Old Testament revealed the wrathful and vengeful side of God. No, Jesus reveals all of God.

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" is in the Greek............
[οτι εν αυτωι κατοικει παν το πληρωμα της τεοτητος σωματικως]

This sentence is given as the reason The fulness of the God-head was in Christ before the Creation and before the Incarnation (John 1:1, John 1:18; Philemon 2:6), and during the Incarnation (John 1:14, John 1:18; 1 John 1:1-3).

It was the Son of God who came in the likeness of men (Philemon 2:7). It was argued in Paul's day that Jesus did not have a human body and Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.

My friend, Ephesians 3:19 does not say that we are God or that we will be God. Read what it does say......
" And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God."

When we accept Jesus as the Christ, we are then filled or indwelt with the Holy Spirit and it is then that the Scriptures become easy to believe and accept.

May I say to you that it would do you a great blessing to get involved in a Bible believing Baptist church Sunday School program because from what YOU have posted and asked, it would be a blessing to you.

I will be more than happy to answer any of your Bible questions to the best of my ability.

 

[Rodger]

And not to quibble, but he wasn't ever called those things. Actually, it would seem most Trinitarians deny the Son is the Everlasting Father. I have yet to find a "mighty God" reference to Jesus in the Bible.

With all respect due to you......You come across as a "Skeptic"!

To be clear, every person I know who is born again calls Jesus the Everlasting Fathe, The Creator, The King of Glory, The Saviour, The Messiah.

All of those including "Might God" are names but the person is Jesus who is the Christ!

 

[miamited]

Hi brother. Good to speak with you.

I am new here at this forum but very old in the Word of God. I was educated at DTS and Liberty. I only say that to you so that you will know that I am a vert conservative, fundmental believer who is now retired.

So then....."Propeptic" is the English word for the Greek word of "Prolepsis". In the Bible then, prophecies given by men from God may be viewed as a rhetorical feature that allows the writer to mingle present and future events. It is a technique that indicates the certainty of future events. In other words, the writer is putting forth a statement that he does not understand but is giving it as IF IT HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.

I can understand how the Jews missed a lot of things. It is because we look back at real history through a Biblical lense and then we can SEE what the Old Test. was trying to tell them then.

I hope that you understand that the Jews had been for 2000 years been looking for a Military General as their Messiah. They wanted him to come and deliver them from Roman oppression. They rejected the man of God and love and grace because He did not fit their world view of that day.

May the Lord bless you.

Hi Rodger

Isn't DTS where Tony Evans hailed from? I believe that's a fine seminary. I would expect you to be well versed in the Scriptures and appreciate dialoguing with you.

Speaking of all that the Jews missed, I've always been amazed that they never seemed to remember the account of the angels that opened up the night sky heralding his birth! And why, when Jesus was making claims of being God's Son didn't any of the ruling council of Jews ask his mother about that birth. I mean, "Were you a virgin when your son was born?" But the biggest miss for me has always been Daniel's prophecy of the 69 sevens. 500 years before Jesus came to us Daniel wrote a specific prophecy that literally says that this is when Messiah will be here and be put to death, or cut off, as Daniel wrote.

Surely, their meticulous records of the Jews knew when that decree had been issued where they were given permission to leave the area of Babylonia and return to their land and rebuild their city. I suppose without calendars everywhere keeping track and counting years, as we have today, it would have required some head work to count out the 69 periods of seven years. But the Jews have always been held as a fairly wise group and it would seem that some 'wise' men in Babylonia had kept the records. Daniel's prophecy was written in their area and they had apparently been keeping track of the years.

But I have to temper all of that knowledge that I would have expected the leaders of Israel to have, with the fact that Jesus had to die and they were to be the people to carry that out. God wasn't going to let the greatest sacrifice for the salvation of mankind to be handled by the Gentiles. God raised up the Jewish nation to do His bidding upon the earth and despite their often stiff-necked and rebellious ways, they did accomplish God's work. God has said that His plans will not be thwarted. Yes, the world goes on and lives in rebellion to His will for us, but His plan of salvation was not going to be cast aside or somehow thrown off track by the whimsical will of mankind. So He had written to them this prophecy of exactly when Jesus would come, they didn't get it, which would have to have been God's plan... otherwise they wouldn't have killed him, would they. I mean, I can't imagine any faithful Jew willingly killing someone that they knew to be their long awaited Messiah. And as Jesus said to them when he rode into Jerusalem, 'now it is hidden from your eyes'. God can do some pretty amazing things with the will and understanding of man, when it is in His purpose to do so.

So I fully believe that it was God's will that they not understand that Scripture. But we today, can use it as just further proof, and for me unarguable proof, that Jesus is the one we should be looking to. That he is the one Moses referred to as the one we should listen to. Even though he was speaking specifically to the Jew and not the Gentile in that comment.

God bless you and I hope that you are enjoying your retirement as much as I am. I worship with a fellowship of the church known as Concord Baptist Church here in little Anderson SC and I do so appreciate that we have a pastor/teacher that has served for 20 years steadfastly teaching the truth of God's word. However, I was pretty amazed that he said he's in agreement with the secular understanding of the existence of the earth and the universe. That seems to be a hard thing for even strong believers to stand against. This teaching that the creation is really billions of years in existence rather than some 6,000 years.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again Rodger

So then....."Propeptic" is the English word for the Greek word of "Prolepsis". In the Bible then, prophecies given by men from God may be viewed as a rhetorical feature that allows the writer to mingle present and future events. It is a technique that indicates the certainty of future events. In other words, the writer is putting forth a statement that he does not understand but is giving it as IF IT HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.

Well, that's a fairly worthless word to define God's prophecies, as I understand it.

God gave Israel a test to know who the one true God is, in that what He would have a prophet say, that did not come true, was not a prophet that had spoken for Him. So for any prophet who 'is' speaking for God, then every prophecy is covered by this strange word 'proleptic'. Because God has said that all of His prophecies would come to pass.

Hey, let me pick your brain a bit. In Daniel 9 we read in some translations: 24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

But in others we read:
King James Version
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

American Standard Version
24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.

GOD'S WORD Translation
24 "Seventy sets of seven time periods have been assigned for your people and your holy city. These time periods will serve to bring an end to rebellion, to stop sin, to forgive wrongs, to usher in everlasting righteousness, to put a seal on a prophet's vision, and to anoint the Most Holy One.

I'm curious, is the word 'place' a part of the oldest manuscripts of Daniels writing?

I ask, because this is where Daniel is told that his people had certain tasks to perform, and I believe that they performed each one. This is one of those places where it was the will of God and God's will was not going to be thwarted. Since God has said throughout the Scriptures that Jesus had to die, I believe that Israel completed each of these tasks. To anoint the 'Most Holy' is how I believe God intended this passage to be written and understood and it was that woman at the meal who accomplished that for God. Jesus was, in that moment, anointed with what would have been the most finest perfume with which anyone could be anointed. Most translations of the Scriptures that have the little title headings added even call this passage the 'anointing of Jesus'!

So, should it be 'place' or should it just be 'Most Holy'?

God bless,
Ted

 

[Rodger]

Hi Rodger

Isn't DTS where Tony Evans hailed from? I believe that's a fine seminary. I would expect you to be well versed in the Scriptures and appreciate dialoguing with you.

Speaking of all that the Jews missed, I've always been amazed that they never seemed to remember the account of the angels that opened up the night sky heralding his birth! And why, when Jesus was making claims of being God's Son didn't any of the ruling council of Jews ask his mother about that birth. I mean, "Were you a virgin when your son was born?" But the biggest miss for me has always been Daniel's prophecy of the 69 sevens. 500 years before Jesus came to us Daniel wrote a specific prophecy that literally says that this is when Messiah will be here and be put to death, or cut off, as Daniel wrote.

Surely, their meticulous records of the Jews knew when that decree had been issued where they were given permission to leave the area of Babylonia and return to their land and rebuild their city. I suppose without calendars everywhere keeping track and counting years, as we have today, it would have required some head work to count out the 69 periods of seven years. But the Jews have always been held as a fairly wise group and it would seem that some 'wise' men in Babylonia had kept the records. Daniel's prophecy was written in their area and they had apparently been keeping track of the years.

But I have to temper all of that knowledge that I would have expected the leaders of Israel to have, with the fact that Jesus had to die and they were to be the people to carry that out. God wasn't going to let the greatest sacrifice for the salvation of mankind to be handled by the Gentiles. God raised up the Jewish nation to do His bidding upon the earth and despite their often stiff-necked and rebellious ways, they did accomplish God's work. God has said that His plans will not be thwarted. Yes, the world goes on and lives in rebellion to His will for us, but His plan of salvation was not going to be cast aside or somehow thrown off track by the whimsical will of mankind. So He had written to them this prophecy of exactly when Jesus would come, they didn't get it, which would have to have been God's plan... otherwise they wouldn't have killed him, would they. I mean, I can't imagine any faithful Jew willingly killing someone that they knew to be their long awaited Messiah. And as Jesus said to them when he rode into Jerusalem, 'now it is hidden from your eyes'. God can do some pretty amazing things with the will and understanding of man, when it is in His purpose to do so.

So I fully believe that it was God's will that they not understand that Scripture. But we today, can use it as just further proof, and for me unarguable proof, that Jesus is the one we should be looking to. That he is the one Moses referred to as the one we should listen to. Even though he was speaking specifically to the Jew and not the Gentile in that comment.

God bless you and I hope that you are enjoying your retirement as much as I am. I worship with a fellowship of the church known as Concord Baptist Church here in little Anderson SC and I do so appreciate that we have a pastor/teacher that has served for 20 years steadfastly teaching the truth of God's word. However, I was pretty amazed that he said he's in agreement with the secular understanding of the existence of the earth and the universe. That seems to be a hard thing for even strong believers to stand against. This teaching that the creation is really billions of years in existence rather than some 6,000 years.

God bless,
Ted

Yes he did. He is among many highly God loving men. It is well known that many women in the ancient world, who became pregnant out of wedlock, told their fellow men that a god had visited them, in order to evade being murdered by the harshly partiarchal males.
The easy answer is that they did not believe Mary at all.

Daniel actually prophesied the Messiah to THE DAY! Using 360 days per calendar year by the 483 years to get the 173,880 days. The angel Gabriel was telling Daniel that 173,880 days after the command is given to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem” the Messiah would come. Daniel was right to the very day!

HOW did the Jews miss Daniels prophesy is not all that hard to realize. You must remember that even as of today, there are many arguments over what Daniel said so I can see how it would be a problem 2700 years ago.

Then it is probably as you just said......"It was not meant for them to understand then".

I was just through Anderson SC last year. Imagine that! We went up HY 8 from Athens to Greenville and then to NC.

Thank you. I am now 75 and retired two years ago. My wife is in a wheel chair and I have had spine surgery and was just unable to continue to visit and go to hospital etc.

We live in Deland Fl, about 2 miles from Stetson University. I taught there for a few years until they turned liberal and I could not conform to the new ideas they wanted to expand on.

 

[Rodger]

Hi again Rodger

Well, that's a fairly worthless word to define God's prophecies, as I understand it.

God gave Israel a test to know who the one true God is, in that what He would have a prophet say, that did not come true, was not a prophet that had spoken for Him. So for any prophet who 'is' speaking for God, then every prophecy is covered by this strange word 'proleptic'. Because God has said that all of His prophecies would come to pass.

Hey, let me pick your brain a bit. In Daniel 9 we read in some translations: 24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

But in others we read:
King James Version
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

American Standard Version
24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.

GOD'S WORD Translation
24 "Seventy sets of seven time periods have been assigned for your people and your holy city. These time periods will serve to bring an end to rebellion, to stop sin, to forgive wrongs, to usher in everlasting righteousness, to put a seal on a prophet's vision, and to anoint the Most Holy One.

I'm curious, is the word 'place' a part of the oldest manuscripts of Daniels writing?

I ask, because this is where Daniel is told that his people had certain tasks to perform, and I believe that they performed each one. This is one of those places where it was the will of God and God's will was not going to be thwarted. Since God has said throughout the Scriptures that Jesus had to die, I believe that Israel completed each of these tasks. To anoint the 'Most Holy' is how I believe God intended this passage to be written and understood and it was that woman at the meal who accomplished that for God. Jesus was, in that moment, anointed with what would have been the most finest perfume with which anyone could be anointed. Most translations of the Scriptures that have the little title headings added even call this passage the 'anointing of Jesus'!

So, should it be 'place' or should it just be 'Most Holy'?

God bless,
Ted

My friend, "Proleptic" is not a fairly worthless word to define God's prophecies. It is the technical word used in all seminaries and universities to explain the meaning of what YOU asked.

God not only test Israel, He tested Adam and Eve and YOU!

Even in those days of the Old Test. there were false prophets. The way God determined to know the true from the false was that when a man gave a prophecy that did not come to pass....He was stoned to death.

Personally I like that because it would get rid of all the false prophets running around today.

It seems to me that you do not understand Daniel 9:24. The people of Daniel had nothing to do. Everything in Daniel 9 "IS what God will do"!..This prophecy encompasses the coming of an anointed one, a period of distress and desolation, and the ultimate establishment of everlasting righteousness.

The purpose of these 490 years is to accomplish six divine goals. The first three have to do with man’s sin, and the last three have to do with God’s righteousness and God does it all.................

1. to finish the transgression
2. to make an end of sin
3. to make atonement for iniquity
4. to bring in everlasting righteousness
5. to seal up vision and prophecy
6. to anoint the most holy place

However it was not done then because we read in verse 27..............

What happens after the first sixty-nine weeks.​

“And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined."

Messia Jesus was CUT OFF, Crucified!

After the Messiah was cut off, Jerusalem and her temple was destroyed by an overwhelming army (with a flood) of Romans. Most all Bible scholars and commentators agree that this was fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

We now live in the Church Age which is the pause between the 69th and 70th week od Daniel 70 weeks prophecy.

The 70th week which will be a set of 7 years will begin when the coming prince who will be the Anti-Christ....." shall confirm a covenant " with the Jewish people. These gaps or pauses in prophecy may seem strange to you, but they are common. Comparing Isaiah 9:6 and Luke 1:31-33 shows another significant pause or gap in prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah.

I would encourage you to think of it in this way: .......
God appointed 490 years of special focus on Israel in His redemptive plan. The years were paused by Israel’s rejection of Jesus. Now there is no special focus on Israel in God’s redemptive plan because this is the time of the church. God’s focus will return to Israel when the church is taken away (at the rapture) and the last seven years of man’s rule on this earth begin which is the SEVEN Year Tribulation.

The 70th week will begin when the Rapture removes the church.

 

[Rodger]

Hi again Rodger

Well, that's a fairly worthless word to define God's prophecies, as I understand it.

God gave Israel a test to know who the one true God is, in that what He would have a prophet say, that did not come true, was not a prophet that had spoken for Him. So for any prophet who 'is' speaking for God, then every prophecy is covered by this strange word 'proleptic'. Because God has said that all of His prophecies would come to pass.

Hey, let me pick your brain a bit. In Daniel 9 we read in some translations: 24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

But in others we read:
King James Version
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

American Standard Version
24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.

GOD'S WORD Translation
24 "Seventy sets of seven time periods have been assigned for your people and your holy city. These time periods will serve to bring an end to rebellion, to stop sin, to forgive wrongs, to usher in everlasting righteousness, to put a seal on a prophet's vision, and to anoint the Most Holy One.

I'm curious, is the word 'place' a part of the oldest manuscripts of Daniels writing?

I ask, because this is where Daniel is told that his people had certain tasks to perform, and I believe that they performed each one. This is one of those places where it was the will of God and God's will was not going to be thwarted. Since God has said throughout the Scriptures that Jesus had to die, I believe that Israel completed each of these tasks. To anoint the 'Most Holy' is how I believe God intended this passage to be written and understood and it was that woman at the meal who accomplished that for God. Jesus was, in that moment, anointed with what would have been the most finest perfume with which anyone could be anointed. Most translations of the Scriptures that have the little title headings added even call this passage the 'anointing of Jesus'!

So, should it be 'place' or should it just be 'Most Holy'?

God bless,
Ted

It should be as it is printed.

The question you are asking is complicated by the fact that "Most Holy Place" can also be translated as "holy of holies" and it is not certain here if it refers to a place or a person.

In addition, An example of "most holy" applied to persons is found in 1 Chron. 23:13.......
"The sons of Amram were Aaron and Moses. Aaron was set apart to be consecrated as most holy, he and his sons forever, to offer sacrifice before the Lord, to minister to him, and to bless in his name forever."

In all Scripture understandings, CONTEXT plays the biggest role. Keeping this in mind, the context of this passage can be read as referring either to an anointed high priest or an anointed king, as well as to the sanctuary and or both. The Annointed King in the Holy Place.

 

[miamited]

Hi Rodger

It is well known that many women in the ancient world, who became pregnant out of wedlock, told their fellow men that a god had visited them, in order to evade being murdered by the harshly partiarchal males.

While I have heard that said before, no one has ever shown me any historical evidence that it was really true on any wide scale basis. And really, if men didn't believe a woman's testimony about such a thing, which is one of the reasons given for the Jewish leaders not asking Mary about it, then why would they have then been convinced that other women were making the claim, and I suppose your conclusion from that is that they were then not disdained by them. I find that a bit difficult to swallow. I mean, you know that we have evidence for Neanderthal man also, right? That's another false fact, as I understand the Scriptures.

The easy answer is that they did not believe Mary at all.

I do know that's true. There is ample written evidence that a woman's testimony, even today in some of the middle eastern nations, is largely discounted. And that could be why they wouldn't have asked that of her, but Joseph may have still been alive when Jesus started his ministry. And as I said above, that would also discount that any woman's testimony concerning any other unwed pregnancy would be believed. Anyway, that's really the least of the prophecies that they could have checked out. Another would have been those who had knowledge of the days when Herod ordered the slaughter of every male child in Jerusalem because the wise men had told him that the birth of the Messiah was expected. And again, the greatest and most specific prophecy of God as to the time of Messiah's visitation to us would be Daniel's testimony.

HOW did the Jews miss Daniels prophesy is not all that hard to realize. You must remember that even as of today, there are many arguments over what Daniel said so I can see how it would be a problem 2700 years ago.

Daniel actually prophesied the Messiah to THE DAY! Using 360 days per calendar year by the 483 years to get the 173,880 days. The angel Gabriel was telling Daniel that 173,880 days after the command is given to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem” the Messiah would come. Daniel was right to the very day!

Yes, that was actually the message I gave to our small group last night. Showing them how it is figures out to the 173,880 days. But my point is that the Jews, who had that 360 day calendar should have more easily figured it out. But then again, I also know that it was God's will that Jesus die at the hands of His people as their work for Him to bring His salvation to the whole earth, as Isaiah also proclaims to us. And while there may be discussions like the one I'm bringing to the table about whether Daniel wrote 'place' in the anointing, I really haven't ever heard that any believer is confused concerning whether Gabriel actually said 7 sevens and 62 sevens until Messiah was cut off.

After the Messiah was cut off, Jerusalem and her temple was destroyed by an overwhelming army (with a flood) of Romans. Most all Bible scholars and commentators agree that this was fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Certainly not in any connected seven. The Jewish temple wasn't utterly destroyed as Jesus said until 70 A.D. That's a bit more than 7 years from his death at the end of the 69 sevens. So, I'm one who believes that the final seven is yet to be fulfilled. In fact, for the next 7 years after Jesus' death, I don't think there is any record that would match the words of what would be happening in that final seven.

We now live in the Church Age which is the pause between the 69th and 70th week od Daniel 70 weeks prophecy.

I refer to it as Peter seemed to, we live in the age of God's patience, the times of the Gentiles. Praise God!!!! Because I am one! I'm not sure the term 'church age' is really a biblical term. Where would I find that reference?

The years were paused by Israel’s rejection of Jesus.

While I agree that, for the most part, Israel did reject Jesus, but I don't think that you're thinking that through. Where would we be if they hadn't? As Paul seems to allude, Israel's rejection was in part for the purpose of God's salvation. So, as I understand it, even their rejection was supposed to be. As I say, would they have killed the Messiah if they had loved him and believed him to be their Messiah? What do you think? And I believe that every born again believer understands that we are saved by the shed blood of Jesus' perfect sacrifice. And we are assured of the promise of God that He can do what He has promised to do, but his resurrection. God has given us a sign! He has shown us that He has the power to raise a dead man to life. And that's what our hope rests upon.

It should be as it is printed.

The question you are asking is complicated by the fact that "Most Holy Place" can also be translated as "holy of holies" and it is not certain here if it refers to a place or a person.

And apparently it can also be translated as just "Most Holy". So what I'm looking for is someone with the knowledge of the manuscripts from which the Scriptures have been compiled and what the oldest that we have on this passage of Daniel actually say. Because for me a reference to a 'place' is totally different than a reference to a 'person'. And, as I have explained, I believe that Israel did complete the tasks that Gabriel said they had to complete before the 69 sevens when Messiah would be cut off. That woman anointed Jesus. That's a known fact and that's even how translators title that particular passage. You don't think there's any connection between the anointing spoken of by Gabriel and the anointing that the woman did actually perform on Jesus?

So honestly, to say that it should be as written is going to still depend on which translation that you read it written, still. I'd like to understand and investigate that seemingly great matter as to whether the angel Gabriel told Daniel, "Most Holy" and that was the end of it, or was it "Most Holy place"? I believe it's important for us to understand. Because if it is "Most Holy" or "Holy one", then yep there's a pretty good argument to be made that it was that woman that completed that part of God's task for His people to accomplish within the 70 sevens.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

My friend, "Proleptic" is not a fairly worthless word to define God's prophecies. It is the technical word used in all seminaries and universities to explain the meaning of what YOU asked.

Hi Rodger

Apparently you're missing my point. 'IF' all of the prophecies given by God will come to pass, as God Himself has said, then if proleptic means that what God says will come to pass, I find it a rather redundant word. I'm also not in agreement that God sees His prophecies as already having been completed. He's just giving us a method by which we can be assured that He knows the beginning from the end. When Daniel wrote his prophetic writing, the city of Jerusalem had not been rebuilt. When God's word tells us that the virgin will be with child. Mary wasn't already pregnant. So, I'm a simple guy and I don't understand this gobbledegook word that's supposed to infer to us some deep spiritual truth that the events prophesied had already happend. God knew they were going to happen, but I don't think what you're describing as proleptic really has any purpose but to confuse and confound. And whether it comes out of some fine university or not, we are to test everything by the word and the testmony of Jesus.

And please, feel free to use that word if it supports your position, but I'm fine with God's prophecies 'will' always come to pass. That's the verb that God used. I honestly can't find anyplace in the Scriptures where God infers or says that what He tells us through His prophecies has already happened.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again Rodger

I should have done this in the beginning. As I said, I'm not familiar with the word 'proleptic'. So I went and looked it up.

proleptic​

[ proh-lep-tik ]SHOW IPA

---

adjective

1. (of a date) retroactively calculated using a later calendar than the one used at the time:To make comparisons more simple, all dates are shown using the proleptic Gregorian calendar—that is, the modern Western calendar extrapolated into the past.
2. involving or characterized by prolepsis, the anticipatory use of arguments, adjectives, etc.:The proleptic idiom “to be dead meat” uses a present-tense description to suggest one’s future doom.

1. anticipatory; foreshadowing:The proleptic detail of the borrowed scythe clearly reveals that the character’s life on stage will be of short duration.
   
   Honestly, I don't see that any of that defines the word as you seem to be. The proleptic idiom “to be dead meat” uses a present-tense description to suggest one’s future doom. Not that it's already happened in some sense when stated, but that it's a present-tense description to suggest one's FUTURE doom.
   
   God bless,
   Ted
   
   
   
   

 

[journeyman]

Now, at 1st glance it seems to me that you are trying to mix Law and Grace because you have used the Torah several times.

I'm not mixing law and grace. I'm saying Jesus endured sin against Himself...and responded with grace. He didn't destroy the sinners who abused Him.

Please understand that I do not teach Church doctrine. I teach BIBLE DOCTRINE and I am a Literalist!

Then please interpret the passages I cited where God forbids substitutionary sacrifice.

So then, may I say to you that when a Jew, living under the Torah sinned they were responsible for what they had done, but if they repented they could be forgiven by a sacrifice that would bear their sin before God. The Torah itself explains this.

I know. The problem is you're not seeing that every sin they committed against Jesus they were committing against God. The Son was showing mercy to sinners, instead of wiping them out, just as our Father does.

Leviticus 4:28-31....................
"He must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect. He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. Then the priest is to take some of the blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. He shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.'

WHY is that the case???????

I told you why and you ignored me. You're not looking at how the passages you're citing mesh perfectly with what I'm citing. They're contrary your way.

Again tthe Torah says in Lev. 17:11.......
"For the life of a creature is in the blood , and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life."

Yes Rodger, His life makes atonement possible. He sprinkled His life (showed love, mercy, forgivness) on sinners making atonement with Him possible.

You then said.........
"Jesus wasn't taking any sinners place. He was taking His Fathers' place. That's what Mk.12 is about."

I disagree totally! According to the Torah, a sacrifice ...." In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.'
If Jesus took The Fathers place as you said then God the Father would be a sinner!!!!
No! Since Jesus died on the cross for our sins, it means God Himself took our place. We all deserved to die a painful death on the cross, yet Jesus took this upon Himself. Instead of allowing us to suffer this pain, agony, and suffering of the cross, He took our place.
You then said..........
"I didn't come to the belief I did now until I actually looked at what someone showed me that I'm showing you now."

My friend, someone showed you what they wanted to belive....NOT what the Bible literally says.

The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel saying,
The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasionany more to use this proverb in Israel. Eze 18:1-3 KJV

Interpret this proverb according to the chapter. What is God saying Rodger?

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deut. 24:16 KJV

What does Deut.24:16 mean to you Rodger?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Hi journeyman

I don't really know what pieces of Scripture that JW's use to understand that Jesus is not God. For me, it would be Jesus' own words to Mary when he spoke with her at the tomb.

‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’

Another reasonably sound argument to me, is that I know that God cannot die.

God bless,
Ted

What is the chance the disciples believed Jesus' God was different than "their God"?

If there is "zero chance", then Jesus was not speaking about God per se, He is speaking about His relationship with God, and their relationship.

Let's read it again:

Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them,`I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'" (Jn. 20:17 NKJ)

Jesus proved by supernatural works God the Father was in Him, and He in the Father. They are intimate, One.

Now Jesus is revealing to Mary and the disciples they enjoy the same relationship with God as He does, because they are in Him.

A similar premise can be deduced from this:

33 But He answered them, saying, "Who is My mother, or My brothers?"
34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers!
35 "For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother." (Mk. 3:33-4:1 NKJ)

AND only non-trinitarians can't figure out how God---incarnate in human flesh, can experience death as a human would, yet as God never die.

Its odd, given this world of avatars, where people experience all sorts of things playing video games, that anyone can't understand how God can experience death as a human being, when incarnate in human flesh.

 

[Runningman]

With all respect due to you......You come across as a "Skeptic"!

To be clear, every person I know who is born again calls Jesus the Everlasting Fathe, The Creator, The King of Glory, The Saviour, The Messiah.

All of those including "Might God" are names but the person is Jesus who is the Christ!

Admitting that Jesus was never called those things from Isaiah 9:6 is not a strike against me as you seem to be suggesting, but rather it’s to my advantage.

Now, do you want to see something really interesting? You won’t recognize Isaiah 9:6 translated from the Septuagint.

Esias 9 (LXX)​

6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.​

The Jewish people who translated the Old Testament into Greek hundreds of years before the Trinitarians did didn’t see it the same way as how it’s seen in the modern day. See why Jesus the Son isn’t Everlasting Father or Mighty God now? It’s because it isn’t Biblical. The Bible has been fiddled with a lot over the millennia. We need to actually look into these things.

Isaiah 9:6 from the Septuagint I completely agree with.

 

[miamited]

Hey Rodger

Wow! God is good and God is quick. I began having this question about the anointing spoken of in Daniel only 2-3 days ago. Today, I get a pop-up advertisement about a new Jewish translation of the Scriptures. See here if interested: https://free.messianicbible.com/ They are offering their bible absolutely free to anyone who asks.

But the amazing part is that within their site is a study of several prophecies and one of them is on Daniel, but of all the many, many prophecies that Daniel wrote they only have Daniel 7:13-14 and Daniel 9:24-27. Their translation says this: “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

It seems that God has sent me the answer to my question. Just sayin' you may find out that woman that Jesus said that the whole world would talk about her anointing him, really did fulfill one of God's prophecies.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Free]

Admitting that Jesus was never called those things from Isaiah 9:6 is not a strike against me as you seem to be suggesting, but rather it’s to my advantage.

It doesn’t matter if he was called all or none, as the ideas of him being all of those is given.

Now, do you want to see something really interesting? You won’t recognize Isaiah 9:6 translated from the Septuagint.

Esias 9 (LXX)​

6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.​

The Jewish people who translated the Old Testament into Greek hundreds of years before the Trinitarians did didn’t see it the same way as how it’s seen in the modern day. See why Jesus the Son isn’t Everlasting Father or Mighty God now? It’s because it isn’t Biblical. The Bible has been fiddled with a lot over the millennia. We need to actually look into these things.

Isaiah 9:6 from the Septuagint I completely agree with.

You agree with that particular English translation, which is one of many, of that particular version of the Septuagint, which is also one of many.