|
Post by Josh on Mar 11, 2014 17:44:10 GMT -8
If you look at the tables near the top of the commentary, I bolded the incidences that were Passovers. Jesus was baptized near a Passover, died on a Passover, and I see only one clear Passover mentioned between those two. So give or take a few months, I would place his ministry at a maximum of 2-1/2 years. I did all the gospels in one commentary with the intent of carefully matching events and sequences so as to establish this with as much accuracy as I'm able. One would have to presume an additional Passover that was simply ignored in order to make Jesus' ministry more than 2-1/2 years in length. Some dispute one of the festivals as non-Passover, but this only shortens the duration. And the main reason I don't agree with a shorter one is because of all the details that would have to be crammed into a very short time. So my best guess is 2 to 2-1/2 years. Re. the covenant, I still think that such a monumental thing would be obvious and marked by a concrete declaration. Otherwise we could pretty much call anything a covenant. And again, since Daniel's prophecy is very specific that the covenant is broken halfway through, yet we know the other half of the final 7 must take place nonetheless, I would need some clear evidence to support the claim that the end of the 7 had been reached. And this end must include the restoration of Israel as faithful to God, as well as all the other stipulations in the 70 weeks prophecy's stated purpose. As for the gap, I can ask preterists the same question: If they concede the fact that gaps in prophecy can occur without any prior indication, then who is to say that such gaps must be limited to whatever is required by their argument? We only know of them in hindsight, and there is nothing in the prophecy of Daniel to require that the gap has an outside limit. So neither side has any firm ground to stand on when gaps are involved. It can qualify as begging the question for either side. Just curious: can you explain how determned that exactly 3-1/2 years transpired between Jesus' baptism, death, and conversion of Paul? My rational for 3 1/2 years is that AD 27 as the starting point of Jesus' ministry makes best sense of John 2:20, and no one I know of is proposing a year earlier than 30 AD for Jesus' death.
As to the stated goals of the 70 7's (finishing transgression, etc..) I do think they were all met in the 1st century. True Israel is faithful to God, in the church. But I suspect that's another can of worms that we could discuss that further here: Israel and the Church
Lastly, not so fast.... I'm not ready to concede "gaps in prophecy without prior indication". Let's try out a few test cases and see if there are some we can agree on.. I'll start a thread: aletheia.proboards.com/thread/4080/gaps-prophecy-agree-on
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 11, 2014 17:57:05 GMT -8
If you look at the tables near the top of the commentary, I bolded the incidences that were Passovers. Jesus was baptized near a Passover, died on a Passover, and I see only one clear Passover mentioned between those two. So give or take a few months, I would place his ministry at a maximum of 2-1/2 years. I did all the gospels in one commentary with the intent of carefully matching events and sequences so as to establish this with as much accuracy as I'm able. One would have to presume an additional Passover that was simply ignored in order to make Jesus' ministry more than 2-1/2 years in length. Some dispute one of the festivals as non-Passover, but this only shortens the duration. And the main reason I don't agree with a shorter one is because of all the details that would have to be crammed into a very short time. So my best guess is 2 to 2-1/2 years. Re. the covenant, I still think that such a monumental thing would be obvious and marked by a concrete declaration. Otherwise we could pretty much call anything a covenant. And again, since Daniel's prophecy is very specific that the covenant is broken halfway through, yet we know the other half of the final 7 must take place nonetheless, I would need some clear evidence to support the claim that the end of the 7 had been reached. And this end must include the restoration of Israel as faithful to God, as well as all the other stipulations in the 70 weeks prophecy's stated purpose. As for the gap, I can ask preterists the same question: If they concede the fact that gaps in prophecy can occur without any prior indication, then who is to say that such gaps must be limited to whatever is required by their argument? We only know of them in hindsight, and there is nothing in the prophecy of Daniel to require that the gap has an outside limit. So neither side has any firm ground to stand on when gaps are involved. It can qualify as begging the question for either side. Just curious: can you explain how determned that exactly 3-1/2 years transpired between Jesus' baptism, death, and conversion of Paul? My rational for 3 1/2 years is that AD 27 as the starting point of Jesus' ministry makes best sense of John 2:20, and no one I know of is proposing a year earlier than 30 AD for Jesus' death.
As to the stated goals of the 70 7's (finishing transgression, etc..) I do think they were all met in the 1st century. True Israel is faithful to God, in the church. But I suspect that's another can of worms that we could discuss that further here: Israel and the Church
Lastly, not so fast.... I'm not ready to concede "gaps in prophecy without prior indication". Let's try out a few test cases and see if there are some we can agree on.. I'll start a thread: aletheia.proboards.com/thread/4080/gaps-prophecy-agree-on
So for you, everything hinges on particular dates, and for me it hinges on events/sequence of Passovers and other seasonal clues. But again, it's only your view that absolutely must have a duration of exactly 3-1/2 years, whereas my view is flexible and not driven by time constraints.
I also still don't see the requirements of the 70 weeks as having been met in any clearly objective manner. There are also many other OT prophecies to consider, such as Ezekiel 38-39, and of course Revelation has to be allegorized completely in order for anyone to claim it's been fulfilled-- unless they keep saying "it happened but you couldn't see it".
I believe there is ample precedence for some things being hidden in the past, such as what Paul mentioned about the church itself in Rom. 16:25 and 1 Cor. 2:7.
On another note, my thoughts on verses 26-27 (inserted from another thread):
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
'He' is 'the ruler' who will 'destroy the city and the sanctuary', and clearly Jesus did neither. There is also a span of unknown duration for "war and desolations". Then this same ruler will confirm the 7-year covenant, and Jesus did no such thing (even if one holds that he established a covenant at his baptism, it was never given a duration of 7 years). And of course, Jesus set up no abomination.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 13, 2014 16:31:01 GMT -8
Mind you, I haven't read your full article, but it seems to me that dating the start and end time of Jesus ministry by an actual statement of the start year in John, Roman history, and Passover calendar history is more solid that the conjecture that just because another Passover isn't mentioned, Jesus' ministry must have been shorter. But, yes, my view relies heavily on a 3 1/2 year ministry. I see Ezekiel 38-39 as referring to the same as of yet future events that Rev. 20 describes:
7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
I think this event, after the current millennial reign of Christ, is a reference either symbolically to a future persecution of the church (the camp of God's people, the city he loves), or possibly a reference to an actual conflagration in the middle east, or both.
As to Revelation, I think chapters 1-18 (and possibly 19) describe, in a symbolic but pretty precise manner, the literal events of the late 60's in the first century AD. We can talk about that on another thread. Obviously, I hold to a pre-70 authorship of Revelation.
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
'He' is 'the ruler' who will 'destroy the city and the sanctuary', and clearly Jesus did neither. There is also a span of unknown duration for "war and desolations". Then this same ruler will confirm the 7-year covenant, and Jesus did no such thing (even if one holds that he established a covenant at his baptism, it was never given a duration of 7 years). And of course, Jesus set up no abomination. Did you read the description of the alternate translation of verse 27 in my original post? I'll repost that section here:
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.
Indeed, after 26 AD, Messiah was “cut off”- which means rejected and killed- in 30 AD.
In regard to “will have nothing”, the phrase fits Jesus’ experience well, though there are alternate readings you will find in your footnotes that translate “will have nothing” as: “cut off and will have no one”, which could speak of Isaiah’s prediction that the Messiah would have no physical descendants, or Zechariah’s statement that his flock would be scattered, or “cut off, but not for himself”, which could refer to the sacrificial nature of His death.
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
Though not identifying exactly how many years after the Messiah is cut off, this prediction anticipates a future ruler who will destroy Jerusalem closely after Jesus’ death. We know this to be the case: the Roman general Titus, under the command of the Emperor Vespasian, besieged and destroyed Jersualem in 70 AD, bringing “the end” of the Jewish sacrificial system and their entire world as they knew it (which then had to be re-invented). The Jews suffered many desolations in this time period, the worst of which was the desecration of the Temple first by murderous and profane Jewish rebels, and then by the Roman occupiers.
The end here should not be seen as the “end of the world” (as it could not have been, following so closely after Jesus’ first coming) but the end of the Jewish sacrificial system.
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.
'He' who? Futurists (like Tim Lahaye, of Left Behind fame) say the ‘he’ here is a future antichrist, who rules during a future 7 year tribulation.
Remember that there is still a final week (7 years) that Daniel has not addressed (the 70th 7)? Futurists say, with scant justification, that there was somehow a 2000+ year gap between the 69th 7 and the 70th 7. This they see as a future 7 year Tribulation in which the Antichrist makes some kind of treaty or agreement with [usually] the Jews.
Because they think this verse refers to a future Antichrist ending sacrifice, they posit that a Temple must be rebuilt at some time in the future, and that Temple sacrifices must be re-instituted in order for the Antichrist, as they see in this verse, to “put an end” to that sacrifice.
But a more natural reading, in my opinion, is that the ‘he’ in this verse is Jesus Himself. He is the real ‘finisher of sacrifice’. And he accomplished his once and for all sacrifice, which ended the need for future sacrifice forever exactly 3 ½ years after He began His ministry! That brings us half-way into the 70th 7, following directly on the heels of the 69th.
The covenant Jesus made in AD 26, at his baptism, was to minister to the Jewish people, and to them almost exclusively (“I was sent to the lost sheep of Israel”, etc.. reference coming) This focus on bringing the good news to the Jews first continued after his death for the first 3 ½ years of the Church as well, until the scattering of the Church from Jerusalem, Peter’s vision about taking the gospel to the Gentiles and Paul’s conversion. That was the 70th 7; beginning with Christ’s baptism, climaxing in his death and the end of sacrifice that brough, and ending with the extending of the Gospel message to the Gentile world which brought to a completion God’s designs among the Jewish people specifically.
And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
But surely the ‘he’ must not be referring to Jesus, because of this verse! Ah, it’s a travesty of bias. Look at the footnote for this verse and you’ll see another alternate, equally viable translation, which reads:
And one who causes desolation will come upon the pinnacle of the abominable temple , until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city.
Here it stands out much more clearly that the subject is now someone else- someone who will desolate the temple, and bring about it’s destruction. This could easily be either the leader of the Jewish rebellion who performed many profane acts in Jersulame prior to its destruction (read Josephus and you’ll see what I mean vividly) or Titus, the Roman general who set up the Roman eagle standards in the Temple before utterly destroying it.
And also, in this verse, the “end that is poured out” is more focused on the city, not the person doing the destruction, as fits Jesus’ focus not on an Antichrist in the coming conflict over Jerusalem, but on the final fact that “not one stone would be left upon another” in that great city.
Lastly, Jesus need not have announced how long the covenant was for it to have still been a 7 year covenant.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 13, 2014 17:39:14 GMT -8
Mind you, I haven't read your full article, but it seems to me that dating the start and end time of Jesus ministry by an actual statement of the start year in John, Roman history, and Passover calendar history is more solid that the conjecture that just because another Passover isn't mentioned, Jesus' ministry must have been shorter. But, yes, my view relies heavily on a 3 1/2 year ministry. History has been revised and corrected many times, but the scriptures remain the same. For example, long-held theories about the dynasties of the Pharaohs have come under strong criticism in recent years. I could also refer the many skeptics over the years who claimed events such as Jericho's walls or people such as the Hittites were myths and fables, but they became silent when evidence was eventually discovered to back up the Bible's claims. So I wouldn't advise holding too tightly to the latest theories. Yet this same appeal to scholarship is something I could use to prove that Revelation had to have been given around 95 AD. I also don't consider it conjecture (or guessing) to appeal to scripture for calculating the duration of Jesus' ministry. And note that I have no ax to grind on that duration; I had no preconceived conclusion to try and read into the text. I simply observed what's in the text and tried my best to determine inside and outside limits. So no one can claim that I had some ulterior motive in concluding that Jesus' ministry was not 3-1/2 years... yet you clearly are highly motivated to conclude that it was. The same for the dating of Revelation; you must date it before 70 AD, but I can let the evidence take me wherever it leads. So we have two clear instances where preterism is constrained by dating/timing, while futurism is not. But seriously, I'm getting tired of you continuing to call my difference of opinion guessing or conjecture. Guessing would be if I simply asserted something without any rationale at all. It doesn't matter if you reject my rationale; the fact is that I am basing my opinions on what I consider valid evidence. Yes, Ezekiel 38-39 is future, though it can also fit within the Seals. Rev. doesn't necessarily articulate every single detail of OT prophecy. For example, nowhere does it speak of the 7 years that Israel burns the weapons of their enemies for fuel, yet we know this is yet future. Re. the church, I don't accept that every mention of saints or the elect is the church. As I've said before, Paul specified that the church was something new and unforseen, so if there were saints before the church, there can be saints after the church. And the saints are never called the church in Rev. after the 7 letters, until Jesus returns to the earth. Also note that though Jesus promised "the gates of hell will never prevail" against his church, in Rev. the beast does exactly that (Rev. 13:7-- "The beast... was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them"). And the church is not "the city he loves" in Rev. 20:9; that is Jerusalem, asi is evident by all the terminology used in the prophecy. To spiritualize it as the church means also spiritualizing pretty much the whole book, and once again I consider that a copout. We cannot possibly disguss anything about the Bible when it's all reduced to "weird" spiritualizations, such that the Bible never can be clear or precise. So while you see my "gaps" as wild guesses, I see your "spiritualizations" as copouts. If Rev. has happened and is finished, then words simply mean nothing and we're wasting our time debating it. Yes, briefly. And by the way, the 70 weeks prophecy says that the 69th ends when Jesus is killed, not when he is baptized and begins his ministry. So your un-announced covenant had to start at his crucifixion-- which is exactly where I said it was done, signed in his blood. Anyway, your alternate translation is exactly that: alternate. To claim that this alternate should be the correct interpretation is begging the question. It is notoriously difficult linguistically, which is why the meaning is disputed. So you can hardly fault me for accepting the primary rendering rather than the alternate. And if the primary is true, then preterism must be false. And surely you must admit that "desolations" have continued to the present era at the very least. If "the end" came in 70 AD, then there is no rationale for the subsequent 2,000 years of history. Or if end doesn't really mean end, I think preterism has its own dictionary and redefines a lot of words so as to avoid their normal and contextual meanings. How can we discuss the text when the words don't mean what they appear to mean? Why is the 70 weeks prophecy to be taken so literally until it comes to its end-- which apparently really isn't the literal end? Why isn't what Jesus said about the signs in the sun and moon to be taken literally? Preterism is a mishmash of the fallacy of "special pleading"; it cherry-picks what is to be literal and what is to be spiritualized. I've given up trying to make sense of it. You call what futurists believe as having "scant justification", but there is no evidence that preterism is any improvement. (And FYI, I've never read any of the Left Behind books.) So you can make up covenants out of thin air, but I can't calculate the number of Passovers to determine the duration of his ministry?? Luke 22:20-- In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 16, 2014 18:41:45 GMT -8
I'm open to "going where the evidence" leads, to the degree of the strength of that evidence. I can't see how you're offended that I'm saying your argument about the length of Jesus' ministry is an argument from silence. The fact that a third Passover isn't mentioned gives your view some weight, but I don't think as much weight as the evidence I'm relying on. But then again, the strength of evidences is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. When I say conjecture, I don't mean a claim that has no weight, I simply mean a claim that doesn't seem to have enough weight to prove itself. Def. of conjecture: " the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof." And I don't think I used the term guessing on this claim of yours, but let me know if I did, because I definitely think your position is more evidenced than mere guessing. I also hope you see me as being honest in rating my own claims on the spectrum from guessing to conjecture to well-evidenced, because I try to not over-claim.
As to Revelation, the evidence was stronger for a post-70 dating of Revelation, I might be persuaded to hold that view again (and thereby revise much of my thinking on eschatology), but as it stands now I think the evidence is stronger for a pre-70 date.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 17, 2014 5:28:05 GMT -8
If I'm arguing from silence, then what is it when you insist that the extreme signs Jesus said would happen have indeed happened, yet nobody could see them? Or what is it when you insist that Jesus' baptism fulfilled the signing of a 7-year covenant, though he himself stated that it was his death that would sign "the new testament" in his blood... and it wasn't just for 7 years? There is no evidence whatsoever to observe for either of those claims; you simply insist that they must be true to fit your conviction that Daniel's 70 weeks cannot have any gap. I don't call that being open to evidence, or qualifying as something to lean on. So yes, it's definitely in the eye of the beholder, because I see no better evidence for preterism. From what I've read, the evidence for the dating of Rev. is 95 AD, even by some who care little for eschatology. I think the best we can do is to acknowledge that scholars are divided on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2014 17:27:28 GMT -8
Are you talking about the "sun will be darkened" and the "trumpet call"? I've already said I'm open to those still being future (I consider that a possibility). I don't think the "sun will be darkened" section need be taken literally as it occurs in the Old Testament figuratively (such as in Joel chapters 2 and 3). But in general I think the whole passage after Matthew 24:29 fits better with as of yet future events (such as what Paul speaks of in 1 Thess 4) than with AD 70 events. I'm undecided, and readily admit that the end of the Olivet discourse may include yet future events. But I don't think that negates the point I'm making that all the predicted events from 24:1-28 were fulfilled before AD 70.
I'm not insisting, I'm suggesting that it's more logical to see the 70 7s as contiguous or as containing only a small gap. I agree there is no clear mention of a 7 year covenant by God toward the Jews, but because I believe a 3 1/2 year ministry by Christ follow directly on the heels of the 69th 7, followed by either another 3 1/2 years of Jewish-focused ministry by the early believers, or followed by a short gap of war and desolation leading to 3 1/2 years of tribulation.* I'll freely admit that the 7 year covenant referring to Jesus' ministry is not the strongest aspect of the preterist position. It definitely involves some conjecture. I just think it involves less conjecture than the alternatives, when both cases are assessed (and I can respect that you are of the opposite opinion).
Well, it says that the anointed one will be cut off "after the 69 7s". It doesn't actually specific when after.
I'm not faulting you for preferring the primary rendering. One rendering supports the futurist view, the other the preterist view. So neither side had better rest it's case on Daniel 9:27. But it's enough to say that that verse can work for both views.
We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on what "literal" meanings are. A word like "end" can literally mean all sorts of kinds of ends. It's not spiritualizing for it to mean "the end of an age" or "the end of a Temple sacrificial system."
Likewise, it's not preterism that is a mishmash of literal and figurative-- it's apocalyptic literature itself. The genre flits back and forth between the two so often that we should never assume differentiating the two will be easy. As I mentioned before, just read Joel 2 and 3 as an example. Or read a Futurist commentary of Revelation. I don't know too many Futurists commentators who hold that satan is literally a dragon or that the beast is literally a monster or that there are literal seals.
*actually, Mauro suggests a third option: that there may be no need for the last 3 1/2 years anyway, as Jesus puts an end to sacrifice in the middle of the last 7, meeting the criteria for the prophecy in the first place. However, it seems weird to have specified a last 7 if it only ends up being 3 1/2.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 17, 2014 19:03:37 GMT -8
I think Mat. 24:21-22 are clearly future events, as there is nothing in the context to indicate exaggeration or poetic license, and I don't know how Jesus could have expressed such things in a way preterists would accept. In other words, how would Jesus have expressed it if he meant that these things were to happen literally and "immediately after"? What does preterism look for to justify interpreting it as spiritualized or poetic license?
Then I'm not insisting either. I don't see how you could allow even the smallest gap in the 70 weeks, since you argue that it is a linear time-limited prophecy. Yet futurism can allow a gap, since the weeks of years have and will proceed in succession but not necessarily in linear time. Let me try to express this with an example, since I'm not sure this is coming across: Suppose I say that I will complete 7 days of workouts. The total workout time will be exactly 7 days' worth. But I'm only working out on every other day. So the total span of linear time will wind up being 13 consecutive days, yet I will still have only worked out for 7 days total. Does that help? I honestly don't see how your view of the 70th week involves less conjecture than mine. Evidence is something observable, not a deduction we make, and the only hard evidence of a covenant was the one Jesus announced at the Last Supper. I at least have that.
Yet the " cutting off", not the beginning of Jesus' ministry, is the mark of the end of that 69th 7. The 70th cannot begin before the end of the 69th. So there cannot have been 3-1/2 years of an un-marked 7-year covenant by then.
The semantic range of a word is the outside limit of its meanings, and the context is the inside limit, which I think we can agree on. Yet it seems that preterism doesn't consistently apply this; it seems completely arbitrary. Of course, we agree that eschatology is nothing near an exact science. But I still hold that it is in fact preterism that is a mishmash of literal and figurative interpretation. Your examples of the imagery of Revelation is a good example of our impasse: we have interpretations in the text by the angel to sort many such things out, and statements such as "the seven lampstands are the seven churches", etc. The text tells us when something is representative of something else. This is hardly arbitrary or baseless. Yet I still contrast this with things such as the invention of a 7-year contract beginning with Jesus' baptsim, and wonder how that can be considered better grounds than futurism has.
(Trying to get these nested quotes right is very annoying!) I'm giving up at this point...)
How can he say there's no need for the last 3-1/2? How can he say that somehow 70 weeks are fulfilled while also saying there were only 69-1/2? Either there are 70 weeks or there aren't, and if there aren't, then nothing in that prophecy can ever be figured out.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2014 21:07:42 GMT -8
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 18, 2014 3:18:28 GMT -8
I never responded because I never saw examples cited. And I wouldn't call the guy's view "weird" but inconsistent, arbitrary, and/or contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 18, 2014 16:48:47 GMT -8
Do you see the examples now?
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 18, 2014 17:36:48 GMT -8
Do you see the examples now? I'd have seen them faster if you'd have given a post link instead of a thread link. Anyway, I finally found the post where you have the list, and none of them are hyperbole. So let me ask you this one more time: If Jesus wanted to say that literally all flesh would die, how would he have to say it to your satisfaction? Is it even possible? But really, I thought we had agreed we were going in circles on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 24, 2014 18:54:01 GMT -8
He could have said "all flesh" would die "among all the nations" or something like that, I suppose.
But the whole context is those involved in the siege of Jerusalem. What would be the point in warning people to escape if they would die anyway?
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 25, 2014 2:58:56 GMT -8
He could have said "all flesh" would die "among all the nations" or something like that, I suppose.
But the whole context is those involved in the siege of Jerusalem. What would be the point in warning people to escape if they would die anyway? I think it's more logical to take "all flesh" as being absent of qualifiers to mean "all flesh", rather than presuming it's limited and requiring qualifiers. But here again you presume that the seige of Jerusalem is all Jesus was talking about; this is begging the question. I think this difference in approach and presumptions is what will keep us forever unable to agree on much of anything on any topic, anywhere, in the world, among the nations. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 25, 2014 9:18:51 GMT -8
The lead up to and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem has been the only context he's been talking about since the beginning of the chapter, so it makes sense to me. How is it that you're not "begging the question"--- especially when you're trying to shift the context simply because a phrase (never before, never again) causes you to assume it must have changed?
But, yes, perhaps we've exhausted the topic.
|
|
onthe3dge
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
How did you find the Aletheia Forums?: proboards site
|
Post by onthe3dge on Mar 25, 2014 9:58:59 GMT -8
The lead up to and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem has been the only context he's been talking about since the beginning of the chapter, so it makes sense to me. How is it that you're not "begging the question"--- especially when you're trying to shift the context simply because a phrase (never before, never again) causes you to assume it must have changed?
But, yes, perhaps we've exhausted the topic.
It has not been the only topic... unless you first presume that it must be. This is circular reasoning. Too much of what Jesus said in that whole discourse doesn't fit the 1st century... unless you restrict "all" to "some" and "never before/again" to hyperbole. So who is really trying to shift the context here? Who is arbitrarily restricting and redefining everything? Yes, of course phrases like "never before, never again" make me assume it must extend (NOT "have changed") to yet future events. Yes, we are going in circles.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 28, 2014 14:07:58 GMT -8
In regard to my interpretation of the 70th 7 being the Messiah's announcement of the New Covenant to Israel and the world, I found it interested to note, as I was reading N.T. Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God today, that the Essenses interpreted the 70th 7 in just that way: that their version of the Messiah, the "Teacher of Righteousness" would decree the new covenant during those 7 years. This apparently means they read the "he" in "he will confirm a covenant with many for one 7" as a reference to the Messiah, not the ruler to come.
Wright, quoting Wise page 148 of Paul and the Faithfulness of God
|
|