Marcus O'Reillius

“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Luke 11:20 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Mt 3:2 “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'” Mt 10:7 “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:21 The various Kingdom passages do not define the bounds of space and time for God's Kingdom with any accuracy. These verses contradict your attempt to limit the Kingdom of God to the future only. The quotes I have provided show that the realization of God's Kingdom with Jesus' victory over the Rule of Man, while not achieved, still does not mean that we are not surrounded by His Kingdom in other ways. As far as the Book of Enoch, since the Apostles reference it, it is Scripture. Our only problem is that we don't have a reliable copy of it so that it was included in the Council of Nicea and subsequent rulings. It is not Canonical only according to Man. You cannot define the boundaries of the Kingdom of God and Heaven in Scripture.

Good answer in a way, I hadn't connected the aspect of God's Glory in the smoke. I was wondering about the interplay between that and the time of the seven Bowl Judgments. Why are those two connected in time?

Got it all defined Retro? Why can't anyone enter the Temple in Heaven while the Bowl Judgments are administered?

They occupy the spiritual realm that's all around us. Some people just take things way out of line. Funny. Paul is the one who interjected the whole notion of layers of Heaven to begin with - AND HE is the one who said the Dead in Christ must be "called" by the Last Trumpet to be with Christ. So the question is: why did Paul teach babes in faith a very simple life lesson rather than try to teach them eschatology like he did at first with the Thessalonians.

Alternately, the First Heaven - another realm of space and time - is Paradise, where the Dead in Christ await without knowing. The Second Heaven is under the Altar in the Temple of God the Father in the Third Heaven where the Martyrs wait impatiently. And the Third Heaven is being in the Presence of God the Father, which we cannot attain until either the Day of the Lord for the Dead in Christ or after the one 'seven' for the Martyrs.

This is where inchrist persist s in his attack and elevate himself to post turtle status. I am not going to argue with such a person. He has no proof, just his word "he says so" and has the audacity to quote the Lord for himself. Such a claim should never be made, but when a person seeks to win rather than find truth, this is where one ends up.

First of all, he uses the word: "clearly", which means it's anything but "clear". Rather it is his conclusion, and inchrist's credibility on Bible interpretation has been questionable. Second of all, Luke's account does NOT "demand" a fourth festival, being parallel to John. The Feast of Tabernacles is not the Passover Appointed Time.

Luke is an historical account written after the fact, he researched his account and Luke was not an eyewitness, and as such is parallel to John's account and not in addition to in series. Standard theology: Christ Jesus' THIRD year of ministry is one of conflict and falling out. He never completed that third year and moved into a fourth year. Jesus' First Advent was not equal to the first half of the one 'seven'. The entire notion is false, and the only way to arrive at such a conclusion is to make up Scripture and inject things that aren't there. Preterist, partial or full, remains the least supported eschatology.

Three Passovers: 24-25 months with the first being the start and the third being the end. I said: 30-35 months for Jesus' Ministry. So I DID take all that into account. Some people just don't bother to read other people's posts before they're ready to mount the attack against them.

1. In his Gospel, John records three Passovers. John alone recorded the three separate Passover celebrations. John mentions the first in John 2, the second Passover in 6:4 and the third one in 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28, 39; and 19:14. This third Passover was the one that occurred on the night before Jesus died, and it is the one recorded by all four Gospel writers in conjunction with the Last Supper and the death of Jesus. 2. No one knows when Jesus was born. His birth has NOTHING to do with how long His Ministry was; His Baptism determines the start. 3. Three Passovers happen in two years' time when the first one is counted as the starting point, and you can do the all three in 24-25 months. Given that His Baptism happened at some other time before the first Passover recorded in John, and He died with the third one 24-25 months later; Jesus' first Ministry is LESS THAN one half of the one 'seven', and LESS THAN THREE YEARS in length, perhaps 30-35 months long. 4. The ONLY Covenant Jesus makes at all, is at the end of His First Advent. 5. There is NO abomination (idol) associated with this time. 6. Jesus' karat -cutting off- which comes after the sixty-two 'sevens', happened right after He made that NEW Covenant. 7. The destruction of the city and the sanctuary happened 35+ years later. 8. No idol was erected IN the Temple at that time either. 9. War continues until the end IAW Dan 9:26, and there is war in both halves of the one 'seven' until Armageddon - which is the end.

Context - Context - Context. The unapologetic inchrist - and I can really feel the love here - is ignoring context again and is trying to create a strawman argument by putting words in my mouth. Paul is referencing a practice; not proposing it. Learned people get that... inchrist has: Tried to tie the Abramaic Covenant where God split the sacrifice in half and walked through to the use of "middle" in Daniel 9:27 based a flawed exegesis called: First Mention. Tried to say Gal 3:17 was from Daniel to Jesus when in fact, Paul is talking about the Law from Abraham to Moses. Tried to say that there cannot be a talking image when Scripture says there is. Tried to say that a rule of the common application in human matters of having witnesses support a judgment extends to prophecy. These are marks of poor scholarship, and the misuse of 1Co 15:29 is just more evidence against his flawed theology.

As to the pronoun reverting to the last person mentioned, inchrist says: The laughable aspect of trying to correct grammar is when poor grammar is used in the critique: ".....you applying english grammar". It should read: "...language functions. You're using English grammar." Second of all, I have books on Hebrew grammar, and the rule is the same. I've even had people try to tell me that rule does not apply if the person is an object of a preposition - but that simply is not the case either. Third of all, "Hebrew parallelism" is not a grammatical rule. However, parallel accounts, and parallel construction are aspects of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments.

No. This a blatant misuse of Scripture stripping away CONTEXT and then taking the point, and misapplying to a subject the original text DOES NOT ADDRESS. This is an error. It shows how dangerous it is to myopically focus on one thing - and miss the whole picture. -- Like taking "confirm" a covenant and applying to Jesus without everything around it being considered. Discipline and Prayer If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Mt 18:15-18 NASB CONTEXT: 16 If private confrontation does not work, the next step (backed by Deut 19:15) is to take two or three witnesses (though the text form of the quotation is much disputed: cf. Gundry, Use of OT, p. 139). Doubtless this Deuteronomic law was designed for what we would call "secular" cases. But the distinction is artificial and should not be pressed for the Israelite nation understood itself to be not a nation like others but a theocratic nation, God's chosen people. In conformity with his customary interpretation of the Scriptures, Jesus perceives the link joining his messianic community with ancient Israel. It is not at first clear whether the function of the witnesses is to support the one who confronts his erring brother by bringing additional testimony about the sin committed (which would require at least three people to have observed the offense) or to provide witnesses to the confrontation if the case were to go before the whole church. The latter is a bit more likely, because Deuteronomy 19:15 deals with judicial condemnation (a step taken only by the entire assembly), not with attempts to convince a brother of his fault. By the united testimony of two or three witnesses, every matter "may be established" (stathe, lit., "may be made to stand"--though the rise of deponents in Hellenistic Greek, including the use of stathe, implies that "may stand" is a superior rendering; cf. Zerwick, par. 231; Turner, Syntax, p. 57). Expositor's Bible Commentary on v.16 EVERY MATTER - does NOT include God's Word. This is strictly a human function which replicates the Court of God the Father whereby no one can be judged guilty in a he-said/she-said dispute. Again! Like with Gal 3:17, we find inchrist misusing Scripture. A good scholar would debate honestly. Someone who is trying to "win" the argument rather than debate so as to explore Scripture and its meaning: is not a good scholar.

Rev 13:14-15 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 1. Scripture says it, so not only IS it possible, it WILL BE. Scripture does NOT say the abomination comes to life, per se as a sentinel being - it says it will speak. HOW that is done, is NOT said. And it is not within your power to dictate what will be, cannot be. 2. The purpose of the text is to REVEAL. This is a crucial bit of information not found ANYWHERE else. There is no two 0r three witness test to God's Prophecy. 3. Despite the fact that Jesus forewarned us before He revealed the true nature of the abomination, that does NOT prove the purpose of Jesus' Revelation to John. The deception is a matter of the lack of faith as Paul instructed concerning the end-times.

You should really apologize for this ad hominem attack.

If by Zechariah's use, inchrist would use say Jesus "strengthened" some Covenant which he still cannot name, does such a word usage test provide "witness" (his term - not a scholarly approach at all) to how we should look at gabar as translated by the King James? Or can we look at other places the OT uses gabar? Prevailed: Gen 7:18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. (3 times as “rose”) ____________________________ GE 7:24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days. ____________________________ Ex 17:11 As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. (2 times as “winning”) ____________________________ 2Sa 11:23 The messenger said to David, "The men overpowered us and came out against us in the open, but we drove them back to the entrance to the city gate. Based on inchrist's false test of "First Mention" we should say the he ROSE a covenant with many for one 'seven'. See? That is poor scholarship and doesn't make sense at all. In the case of both Exodus and 2nd Samuel, we do get a sense of the military component of gabar when used as a verb in which they "prevail."

Word study is important. It is also important to go to those who study them the most, and don't have a bias such as inchrist who defines words as they suit him based on false tests. 310נכד (gābar) prevail, be mighty, have strength, be great. (ASV and RSV similar.) Derivatives 310a (geber) man. 310b (gibbôr) mighty man. 310c (ge bûrâ) might. 310d (ge bîrâ) lady, queen (masc. lord, Gen 27:29, 37). 310e (ge beret) lady, queen. This root and its derivatives occur 328 times in the OT, of which the verb account for but 26. The cognate is well attested in the semitic languages, appearing in Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Phoenician, and Moabite. At present, it is only known in a proper noun in Ugaritic. In general the same meaning is shared throughout. In Arabic, the basic meaning of the root is “to rise, raise, restore,” with the idea of being strong, or prevailing over coming only in the only in the derived stems. That the Hebrew may share a similar range of meaning is seen in the Hithpael where the idea is not so much to make oneself prevail over God, as it is to raise oneself up in arrogance and stand in his face (Job 15:25; 36:9; Isa 42:13). The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior. In the first analysis, might and mighty men were causes for celebration in the OT. During much of the biblical period Israel was in a heroic age. Thus the feats and exploits of her champions we causes for delight and storytelling. Such an exploit was that of David’s three mighty men as they broke through the Philistine lines to bring him water from Bethlehem (I Chr 11:15-19). I Samuel 1 is a lament for the fallen heroes, Saul and Jonathan, extolling their valiant deeds. Similarly II Sam 23 records the glories of various mighty men. I and II Chronicles contain many references to the mighty men of Israel, commonly employing the phrase gibbôr hayil “mighty men of valor” to describe them. Although Chr generally uses the term to express “warrior” or “soldier,” there are indications that originally this was a technical term for men of a certain social class, “nobles” who had the privilege of bearing arms for the king (cf. Ruth 2:1; I Sam 9:1; II Kgs 15:20, etc. where “warrior” is too narrow a translation. It is not surprising that in such a society God was often depicted as a warrior. God is the true prototype of the mighty man, and if an earthly warrior’s deeds are recounted, how much more should God’s be. Thus the psalmists recount God’s mighty acts (106:8; 145:4, 11, 12; etc.) and in various places those attributes which a warrior-king might be expected to possess ―wisdom, might, counsel and understanding― are attributed par excellence to God (Job 12:13; Prov 8:14). Isaiah (9:6; cf. 10:21) indicates that these will be the attributes of the Coming King, whose name is the Mighty God as well as the Prince of Peace, but he also makes it plain that justice and righteousness will accompany his might (cf. Ps 89: 13-14 [H 14-15]). God’s might draws the limits to man’s might, for man’s prowess is to be gloried in just so long as it does not overstep itself. When man sees his might as all he needs for successful living, he is deluded (Ps 33:16; 90:10; Eccl 9:11). When he, in the arrogance of his strength, pits himself against the Warrior-God, he will be destroyed (Ps 52; Jer 9:22; 46:5; etc.). Rather might must be tempered with wisdom (I Sam 2:9; Prov 16:32; 21:22) and the greatest wisdom of all is to trust God. Thus it is said that he is geber (a male at the height of his powers) who trust God (Ps 40:4 [H 5]). The man possessed of might who yet distrusts his own powers and instead trusts those of God is most truly entitled to the appellation “man” (Job 38:3; jer 17:7; Mic 3:8). This is the “new man” of Paul, for he will have discovered that although transgressions have prevailed over him (Ps 65:3 [H 4]), the Lord’s mercy will prevail over them (Ps 103:11) and that the Lord is indeed “might to save” (Ps 80:3). geber. Man. As distinct from such more general words for man as ’ādām, ’ish, ’enosh, etc., this word specifically relates to a male at the height of his powers. As such it depicts humanity as its most competent and capable level. Sixty-six occurrences. gibbor. Mighty, strong, valiant, mighty man. (RSV often translates “warrior.”) The heroes of champions among the armed forces. Occurs 16 times. gebûrá. Might. Refers especially to royal power. As such it is commonly ascribed to God. Sixty-three occurrences. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke; © 1980, Moody Press, p 148/9, author: John N. Oswalt, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky. נכד vb. be strong, mighty in the Aramaic; compel, force, overbearing behavior, constraint in Arabic; subigere in Ethiopic; play the man in Syriac. ―1. be strong, mighty, abs. mighty in power Jb217 2. prevail:―abs. e.g. enemies Ex 1711.11 with לע prevail over, subj. enemies 2S1123, blessings Gn 4926 (J), mercy of God Ps10311 1172. Piel stem: Perfect Zc 106; sf. Zc 1012; Imperfect Ec 1010 make strong, strengthen. Hiphil stem: Perfect confirm a covenant Dn 927; Imperfect we will confirm a covenant with our tongue (or, to our tongue will we give strength) Ps 125. Hitpael stem: Imperfect Jb 1525 Is 4213; Jb 369:―of Yahweh, shew himself a mighty one against לע Is 4213; of wicked, behave proudly toward (אל) Jb 1525; of erring righteous (abs.) 369. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs Reprinted from the 1906 Edition Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. Ninth printing ― September 2005.

FALSE TEST. THERE IS NO "WITNESS" TEST TO PROPHECY. Daniel 9:27 is the ONLY time the start of the one 'seven' is stated. Revelation 13:14-15 is the ONLY time that the abominations desolation is said to be a talking image.

You are no scholar. Your "witnesses" are mere coincidences of words. You have tried in vain to link Daniel 9:27 to Gen 15:10 on the flimsiest basis: the mere usage of the word - middle. There is no comparison to be made. You said Paul was going from Daniel to Jesus in Gal 3:17, when in fact, Paul was going from Abraham to Moses. You said that Jesus' Words announcing the New Covenant was proof-positive He had confirmed an Old Covenant, when He said no such thing. gabar in both Zechariah 10:6 and 10:12 is in the Piel stem, meaning: intensive action; active voice. He performs the action. gabar in Daniel 9:27 is in the Hiphil stem, meaning: causative action; active voice. He causes the action. You can even lend an interpretation to both cases in Zechariah which says that God will make them prevail by His Might (gabar). Now if you want to say that Jesus "confirms" a covenant in Daniel 9:27- As Jesus is the Son of God, He would simple DO the action. In this case, the actor - and the pronoun reverts to the last person mentioned: the prince who will come and further identified by the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary - CAUSES the action, in this case - forcing through (prevailing) with might, usually military, an agreement: berit. Furthermore, the same person for the pronoun must be used throughout, and in the end, God's desolations are poured out on him. That is true for the anti-Christ, but not Christ. So far the evidence is against you, and your evidence wilts for lack of the water of the Spirit.

In other words, what you write is not that important that I have to read it, and I've already shot down your attempts to say the New Covenant is a temporarily strengthened Old Covenant. Trying to maintain that so your eschatology works out is just plain ludicrous theology and the wrong way to go about things.

"Yip?" This is what you call "grasping at straws" folk. Take anything different and call it a strengthening. Meanwhile, when used as a verb, gabar doesn't mean be strong. It means to prevail. It only means be strong when used as an adjective, like God's strong Right Arm.

Excuse me for not even bothering to read past this: You're still wrong, and you still have nothing to offer. Your theology is really messed up. Tell me again how Ephraim is Christian?

I don't agree here. I think the first four Seals have already been unsealed - they are not desolations, but to term the answer Zechariah was given: they are spirits which go out to do work in the world. As such, they bring us to the point of the one 'seven' - which has yet to be begun.

I don't disagree with you, I think, based on what you wrote here, but I'll take a look at what you're saying. I'm just battling false notions relating to Preterism which I think, can only keep people mired in error.

Jesus said NEW Covenant. Jesus did not say STRENGTHENED OLD Covenant. inchrist has NOTHING to back up what he says.