Are The 70.Wks Of Daniel Fulfilled ?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by PaPaDon

I have lived long enough to learn that it is often the "simple" things which prove to be the most "complicated" to those who believe themselves to already "know it all."

You said more than you realize right there.

I have also lived long enough to learn that whenever we pause and take a careful, prayerful "second look" at those things which we have become so convinced that we are absolutely right about, that we generally discover that we were wrong.

On target again!

This has been my experience, especially when it comes to the many esoteric and secretive aspects of the many great and wondrous "mysteries of God," of which the particular passages I've addressed are an integral part.

The particular passage is no mystery, unless one ha sto mystify it in order for it to fit into one's paradigm, brother.

Yes, the phrase "tasting death" means precisely that, nothing more and certainly nothing less. However, our Lord did NOT assert that those to whom His remarks were directed would NEVER "taste" death, ONLY that such "tasting" of death would NOT transpire UNTIL some later point in time.

Exactly. And Matt 21:40 says that the Lord would "come" and wreak vengeance on those who abused his "vineyard", all the while the pharisees knew he was speaking of them.

Mat 21:40-41 KJV When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? (41) They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

Mat 21:45 KJV And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

And, sure enough, while some of those people were still living, before they tasted death, 40 years later judgment came.

That, my friend, is the WHOLE essence of His statement. You may assert otherwise, and that is certainly your privilege, however, for me, taking His words at their "face value," then the small word "UNTIL" takes on quite a significant degree of meaning, and one which I would highly recommend that you expend some time in prayerfully examining.

Oh, yes indeed, brother. I have kept the simple words intact and did not mystify them, as though there was some sort of "reprieve of death" rather than a simple straight-forward thought that "some" of the preople would not physically die before the Lord would "come".

And, NO, I am not "adding" to the Word, as you imply.

Sorry, but you did. You put some mystical "repreive of death" into the fray, which demands they WOULD physically die but yet not be said to have "tasted death", which mars the plain reading.

That part of your statement represents your opinion, although you fail to make that fact plain. It is certainly not mine!

Sorry if you cannot accept it, but this is the plainest view to take on the scripture, and I have no vendetta against you, personally. Please do nto make it personal.

Perhaps I should also state that, being fully aware of your end-time prophetic opinions, I assure you that your response was not unexpected.

Of course! When the plain reading of a statement is violated by a mystical thought of "reprieve of death:" although a physical death still occurs, something needs to be said.

All this futuristic thinking has so permeated people's minds, sort of like the trinity teaching, that people do not stop to think where it came from. Upon close inspection of the scritpures, the greatest violation that is really so plain to see through, if one looks carefully in scripture, is the idea of a millennium. No apostle ever proposed it. The Lord never proposed it. the only "evidence" anyone ever found for it is Rev 20, and this is in a Book that is full os imagery!

Take care.

Mike, would I be asking too much of you to provide me with your understanding of the word "until"? Also, although you seem to be so adept at finding fault with my understanding of that which our Lord was asserting within the context of Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27, would you be so kind as to outline, in some depth, precisely what you believe our Lord was saying, as well as to whom it would apply.
Thanks.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by PaPaDon

Mike, would I be asking too much of you to provide me with your understanding of the word "until"? Also, although you seem to be so adept at finding fault with my understanding of that which our Lord was asserting within the context of Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27, would you be so kind as to outline, in some depth, precisely what you believe our Lord was saying, as well as to whom it would apply.
Thanks.

UNTIL, or more correctly "till", is a preposition and adverb of continuance, and refers to TIME. The idea is that the Church will survive and actually out-survive the City of Jerusalem. Some standing there would live to see the wrath upon Jerusalem before they died physically. Jesus would come in localized wrath against Jerusalem and remove her temple so as to disallow any further nonsense of Law being carried out since Grace had come, and firmly establish the church as NEW Jerusalem (Heb 12:22; Gal 4:26). Again, the coming is noted in Matt 21:40.

Adam Clarke says it well:

Mat 16:28 -
There be some - which shall not taste of death - This verse seems to confirm the above explanation, as our Lord evidently speaks of the establishment of the Christian Church after the day of pentecost, and its final triumph after the destruction of the Jewish polity; as if he had said, “Some of you, my disciples, shall continue to live until these things take place.” The destruction of Jerusalem, and the Jewish economy, which our Lord here predicts, took place about forty-three years after this: and some of the persons now with him doubtless survived that period, and witnessed the extension of the Messiah’s kingdom; and our Lord told them these things before, that when they came to pass they might be confirmed in the faith, and expect an exact fulfillment of all the other promises and prophecies which concerned the extension and support of the kingdom of Christ.

To his kingdom, or in his kingdom. Instead of βασιλεια, kingdom, four MSS., later Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Saxon, and one copy of the Itala, with several of the primitive fathers, read δοξη, glory: and to this is added, του πατρος αυτου, of his Father, by three MSS. and the versions mentioned before. This makes the passage a little more conformable to the passage already quoted from Daniel; and it must appear, very clearly, that the whole passage speaks not of a future judgment, but of the destruction of the Jewish polity, and the glorious spread of Christianity in the earth, by the preaching of Christ crucified by the apostles and their immediate successors in the Christian Church.

Chirst would come in localized judgment against Jerusalem. Matthew 24 clearly agrees, for the great tribulation would be avoided by THOSE IN JUDAEA FLEEING TO THE MOUNTAINS... not those in all the world wherever there is a church, as though the great tribulation is a world-wide issue.

Mat 24:16-21 KJV Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: (17) Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: (18) Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. (19) And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! (20) But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: (21) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

You would not tell people in one local area to flee to the mountains because great tribulation is coming if the tribulation was worldwide. It was restricted to JUDAEA.

What is so sad is that people overlook the great import that Jerusalem had with the Lord. He wept over her for good reason when He told her that her house would be left desolate. SHE WAS HIS BRIDE. (See Ezekiel 16). Turned whore (See Ezekiel 16). And a man can get concerned over a lot of things, BUT all of that is NOTHING like the prosects of His own bride adulterating away from him and setting out to slay him!

NOTHING was worse than Christ's bride committing adultery against Him with Caesar, and seeking to slay Him. The punishment fits the crime. No tribulation could be as great as that towards the greatest of all atrocities. It all goes back to the CROSS! Let not anyone persuade us into thinking something worse than the cross could and will occur to warrant tribulation such as never was nor ever shall be. But as the emphasis of the CROSS is replaced with sensationalism, so goes prophecy into diSpENSATIONALISM, too.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Wow... I've never heard that one before. That looks more like the Son of Man going than the son of man coming. Do you feel that the scriptures you quoted above are the coming of the Son of Man?

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

So when the Bible speaks of the son of man coming in his kingdom... do you feel that it was the ascension that was being spoken of?

In other words... do you feel that the ascension is the coming of the son of man in his kingdom?

I believe what we saw there was the transfiguration, not the ascension. The ascension took place in Acts 1


***UPDATE***
Never mind. I scrolled down and see where you recognized it was the transfiguration:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Oops... sorry.. I have been saying ascension... I meant transfiguration.

Carry on.