Sterling

Do then do you believe Daniel is talking about the End Times and not the Last Days? The angels in Daniel gave specific time time frames. You said in your other post that you were trying to discern how long the gap was. Curious as to what the point of giving a time frame was if the clock was to be stopped indefinately in the 11th hour. There's a problem with you "day a thousand years, a thousand years a day" theory relating to the 2nd and 3rd day. Most would believe that Christ was talking about His body. You believe there is a double fullfillment of this prophecy, one relating to His body and another relating to His body the church let me ask you where in scripture you draw that from. What other prophecies can you find that have a "double-fullfillment"? The are none and none promised. No other prophecy had more then one fullfillment (save your specultaions regarding the Last Days). Also, one point you seemed unwilling to look at, if what Paul was saying is to be taken literally then you could have it backwards. The 2000 cubits could relate to 2,000,000 years away. Also the 1000 year reign of Christ could be taken to mean a single day in our time. Also, you took Hebrew 4:7-9 and completely stripped it away from it's audience. That book wasn't written to you, me or anyone else who's to come. It was written to the converted Jews living in Jerusalem. You're making it seem as though this comfort offered wasn't to those people to whom it was written. What little comfort indeed to say; Rom 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now [it is] high time to awake out of sleep: for now [is] our salvation nearer than when we believed. Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. if their salvation wouldn't come and the night not end for 2000+ years. I'd be cautious with all that you try to insert into the scripture; Revelation 22:18 I testify to the one who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 22:19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.

Granted. However, after the apostles recieved the Holy Spirit they still seemed to believe that Christ was coming right back. They use phrases like "at hand" refering to His coming; Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us 0 therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. Rev 1:3 Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand. "At hand" means within reach. What part of 2000 years is within reach to the people these books were written to? Other times the phrase was used it had nearly immediate consequence; Gen 27:41 And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob. Deu 32:35 To me [belongeth] vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in [due] time: for the day of their calamity [is] at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. Or if you'd like some more recent examples; Mar 14:42 Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand. Jhn 2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, I'm not actually asserting that Christ was a liar or a perpetuator of false promises. What I'm trying to get out of someone is how these scriptures are rectified with your 2000 years later. Saying that it isn't to be understood in the plain language in which it's used but instead requires some version of "faith" that you've decided upon, doesn't take away from the fact that you still haven't told me where or why you take these simple words of Christ and transpose them for millenia and counting. As a side note; Logic must be used in approaching any and all subjects objectively. God is logical and in fact the source of all logic. Logic is not "common-sense or worldly wisdom" but rather Sense and Wisdom. They come from God. Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Greek for "Word" is "Logos" and it is the basis for the english word "logic" so while the world can pervert the words God has given us to use by changing the meaning of words at will ("Gay" for an easy example) it doesn't change the context in which I am trying to use it. I suppose then if I asked for "reason" or some "proof" I would be condemned for my lack of "faith" (in your understanding of the word).

I have to ask, why do you write G-d instead of God? By the way that's one of my favorite sayings.

Wow, didn't mean for you to take such offence. What exactly did I say that came across as an accusation? If Christ said things to the apostles that led them to believe something that Christ knew was untrue, then he was deceiving them. That doesn't seem like a stretch to me. You can word it colourfully if you'd like to try to make it sound better but he didn't just fail to address their ignorance because it was convinient for His purpose. He said things to them knowing they would take them in a certain way. How is that not deceiving? You can split the hairs all you like but God doesn't lie to His people. If you have no logical response feel free to get emotional again. That is what people tend to do when they've run out of things to say.

(pretend I quoted the entire above post) I love it when people can articulate points more clearly than I can. Thank you and God bless you!

Did you forget that the Jews had a hard buying and selling at the time the Holocaust was getting under way. They didn't have to wear any physical marks untill long after the "No Jews" signs started going up.

Thank You!

Not really actually. I liked your response regarding tasting death meaning spritually and not physically. That position could hold some fruit. But is God the author of confusion? He let the disciples be decieved by Christ in order to be better witnesses? In which way did this make them better witnesses and not just the perpetuaters of a false hope? Do you think they would have become lax in their ministries if they thought they wouldn't live to see the prohecies come to pass? Did Peter? He knew he wouldn't survive that long but the Spirit led him where he didn't want to go. Not only that but how has watching for the last 2000 years done anyone any good. I'd say it's done quite a bit of damage. The Holocaust for example. Hitler believed he was doing God's work by persecuting the Jews.

I think it's important to mention that the changing of the law isn't because the law was imperfect, but because we in our application of the law perverted it. I was curious as to where you learned this. You response was very well done. I wish I had your gift for articulation and simplicity. Why, however, do you think that Melchisedec wasn't actually a priest?

That particular issue sent up a lot of red flags with me actually, but I've since come to grips with his difference of opinion from the mainstram church. It's important to remember that it's not cannon. He mearly reiterates the oral traditions passes down through the Jews. There were a few points of contraversy such as whether the Flood was global or local that pretty much got lost in the sands of time but there were a lot of people who believed that the flood was local. Josephus subscribed to this theory. He was pretty maticulous in his accounts. Don't forget that there was also contraversy over the book of Enoch which is now a technically banned book in a large portion of the world and Jesus Himself quoted out of it. The reason I think it may be of help to you is because it's an impartial point of view to what was happening in the time of Christ (he was a Jew who never converted to Christianity.) Also, he speaks of Jesus and it's pretty cool to see what he has to say about the old testament in general. He picks up on the events of the Jews after the bible drops off on the subjest (about a 500 year period of time) and he has a bit to say about the what the Jews of the time thoguth concerning things like the Flood and Melchizedek. That's all. Remember it's NOT cannon and should never be thought of as such but as interesting a read as the Book of Enoch. God Bless your search.

I'd also recommend reading the works of Flavious Josephus. He was a first century Jewish historian and wrote a lot of interesting things including an account of Jewish history from creation on. It's not scripture and has its flaws but it will at the very least give you insight into the idioms and culture surrounding the time the New Testament was written. They did use figures of speech in the bible that are, for the most part, lost on us today. If I wrote a novel and said that it was raining cats and dogs in 2000 years I doubt people would know that the statement was hyperbolic. Also Josephus goes into some detail on things the bible doesn't. His recount of the Flood, for example, states that there were survivors of the flood apart from Noah's family and also explains the lineage of the Caananites a little more indepth. Interesting read anyways.

If this is true then who standing there did taste death before his transfiguration? Also, what was the rewarding of everyman according to his works that took place?

I can't respond to your question adaquately without injecting my beliefs on Preterism so please bear with me as it is a very unpopular view. If you like you can cut and paste my beliefs to coincide with your own later as that is what most people do anyways. I'll start off by saying that you can find a little about Melchizedek in Flavious Josephus' Antiquity of the Jews. Not much new information but a little bit. The most important thing about Melchizedek is that he was given the title of High Priest from God and not through his lineage (as the Jews were not yet born). The term Salem means Peace. I'm uncertain as to whether there was a place called Salem after the term or if it means that he was the King of Peace. Regarding Christ's position as High Priest for evermore, you have to do a little studying into the role's of a High Priest and regretably it's been a few years for me so I might get some of the specifics wrong. If you would like me to address any of the following points directly please allow me the oppertunity to do so. Once a year the High Priest would enter into the Holiest of Holies to make intercession for the sins of the people. As I'm sure you're aware only the priest was allowed in and only on this occasion. The priest would go in and the people would wait. If the sacrifice was accepted the priest would come back out and the people would rejoice. If not then the priest was killed. The temple was built to VERY direct specifications (right down to the exact weights of gold) as it was a direct typecast for Heaven and the way it works with regards to salvation. It was set up into three parts the Outer Courts which were refered to as the Sea which the Gentiles were allowed into, the inner court which was refered to as the Earth and the Holiest of Holies which was refered to as Heaven on Earth. This system was flawed as nothing the people could do could achieve them salvation. It wasn't without purpose though. It was a typecast for what Christ was to do for the people and they achieved salvation through Christ which was the only acceptable sacrifice suffient for our sins. Now when Christ died he didn't go into Heaven for the three days untill he rose again. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Hades or not. No one was allowed into Heaven before Christ accomplished what he came here to do. There was what ammounted to a holding cell for the dead called the Bosom of Abraham. It was seperated into two parts Hades and Paradise. The King James boys as well as many other failed to recognize this distinction and when translating simply changed the word to Hell, death or the Grave for Hades and occasionally Heaven for the word "paradeisos" (paradise). Here are some examples of where the word Hell is used in place of Hades (KJV) Mat 11:23, Mat 16:18, Luk 10:15, Luk 16:23, Act 2:27, Act 2:31, Rev 1:18, Rev 6:8, Rev 20:13, Rev 20:14 Please note that Luke 16:23 gives an interesing account. This is not the eternal damnation or heaven that's being refered to. This is the Bosom of Abraham. Also, Acts 2:27 is where I draw an excellent example of my conclusion that this was Christ's immediate destination after the cross. Now when Christ died he went down into Hades and ministered to the people down there. After he rose from the dead and then asended he went into Heaven (the literal Holiest of Holies) to make intercession for our sins. Now the rest of the new testament was written while waiting for Christ to return signifying that the sacrifice was accepted and ushering in the dawn of the New Covanent or more accuratley the perfection of the Old. Now there was to be a spiritual fullfillment of the old temple system. The High Priest was to be Christ, an eternal and perfected priest. The Sacrifice was to be Christ, an eternal and perfected sacrifice. The King was to be Christ, an .... you see where I'm going with this? What that means for us the people; The temple is no longer a physical dwelling place for the Lord. The old things have passed away. The temple is now a spiritual one. There is no more death or hell (both refering to Hades not physical death or eternal Hell). We can come to God through Christ our High Priest who is forever making intercession for our sins. We can get into heaven. Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. Now this is a real stumper of a verse for a lot of people. But if you recognize the idioms refering to the way the old temple was set up you can clearly recognize that this means there will be no more distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the courts of God. I'm sure there are more questions and points that I haven't answered but please contact me for anything else you'd like to discuss. I pray that you won't take my word for it but look these matters up on your own. All scriptures are good for teaching and God is not the Author of confusion. There is an answer and if you look for it with the knowledge that you might be wrong in you presuppositions then God will surely direct you to the knowledge of him. God Bless

Christ prefered the most base members of society. He came to save those that knew they needed Him. He didn't come to save the "rightous". I think that's why he was so hated by the church leaders. I'm sure there are many people who would be gunning for Christ if he was born to this generation. I always feel the need to remind myself that many people I wouldn't normally talk to are the ones that need it the most. What I wonder is if He would go on Televangelist programs myself. He got up in synagouges and tought publicly but with Christianity so wide spread, how would he get his message across to the masses?

Also, if Christ knew that he wasn't coming back for 2000 or so years, what did he mean by this? Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Who standing there didn't taste death untill he came? Was Jesus wrong? It is written that the day and the hour no one knows except the Father but Jesus must of had a rough timetable to be able to speak at all about when it would be without lying.