arvy

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon your people, and upon your 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 prophesy, and to anoint the most holy. arvy: This prophecy, given through only Daniel, is the one most importat of prophecies. Why? Because without this prophecy any one person might have laid claim to having been "Messiah" or "the Son of God" even under all the other seeming significant details with regard to certain events that were to transpire leading up to "Messiah's" Fisrt advent into history. Without Daniel's description giving information with regard to the time of "Messiah's First appearing, No proper time for His reality in history could possibly have been confirmed. The "Revelation," through Daniel was intended for affirmation to all Israel and the Nations of history of the "right time" measured from a ffortold event for the start of the time to a foretold event to close the Time. The whole of that time was a predetermined period of "seventy weeks" of years. Interesting that although the Jewish people do understand this statement for the time relative to Messiah's advent. Yet they do not accept that Jesus was the Christ ("Messiah"). They, to this date, still live in the expectation of "Messiah's" First Coming,-- "In The Flesh."! They have chosen to refuse that "Messiah" has come in the flesh and was "Cut off" (Isa. 53:8-12; Dan.9:26,) for both the Jewish nation and all the nations of the world, becoming the sacrifice of all sacrifices, "causing all the ritual sacrifices and offerings to cease (Dan.9:27) which had been "imposed upon them until the time of reformation" was come (Heb.9:8-10). Such continuation, or "overspreading" of those rituals after "Messiah should be "cut off" would thereafter be looked upon by God as an "Abomination" in His eyes, with their collective national punishment pre-determined to follow thereafter (Dan. 9:27). I believe that God would have me understand that the time (70 weeks of years, 70x7, or 490 years) He predetermined should transpire in a firm logical unbroken sequence from the point of commencement through to close of the of the 490 literal years. "Messiah" would therefore have been crucified ("cut off, but not for Himself," Dan.9:26) in the mid-part ("Midst") of the last 7 years. For whom was Jesus "Cut off" if not for Himself? I believe He was "cut off" (i.e., Crucified) for the Jewish nation, the Nations of this world, and for me, and for you, and all who are now reading this post. Now if there was no predetermined unbroken sequence by which the time set might be calculated then the prohecy is open to any "wind" of interpretation and process for computation. Too many theologians both Catholic and Protestant have already split the prophetic sequence described by Daniel into two segments. 69X7 to end at the crucifixion of "Messiah." The calculation, or time clock, was then come to a stop at the event of Christ's being 'Cut off." But to begin ticking off the last 7 years toward the beginning count for the thousand years of the book of Revelation. Most begin their count for the 69 weeks from twentieth year of King Artexerxes, 445/444 BC. 483 years less 444/445 years leaves a period of 38/39 years into Anno Dominum. Thats interesting considering Saul was standing by to watch Stepen being Stone for his steadfast belief in the Risen Messiah in about 34/35 AD! History with the Bible will afirm that Jesus was "Cut Off" after His baptism in the Jordan by John the Baptist, 26/27AD at about 31/2 years. If we add those 31/2 years to, say, 27AD we will find Jesus was crucified about the year 30/31. So by These theologians perception of the time distorted, the 483 years are not in agreement with either history or the Bible and the last 7 years are broken off from the described, consistant sequence, to conform to the doctrine of a restoration of Israel as a nation, at the last 7 years just before the count of the thousand years of Revelationis. However. If we count from the 7th year of Artexerxes the king of Persia (457/458 BC, Ezra 7 - the letter is cited there) for Daniel's description for a letter of decree instructing the freedom of Israel to begin their prophesied restoration, we will find that the 483 years will bring us to Jesus beginning of HIs Messianic Ministry at His Baptism in the Jordan by John the Baptist at about "30 years of age"(Lk.3:23), or at about 26/27AD. ad 31/2 years to "the Midst of the last week" of years and we are brought to The date of Jesus being "cut Off" and causing "the sacrifice and oblation" of the "shadow" types "to cease" by His own submission to the death on the cross, about 30/31 AD. Add another 31/2 years beyond Jesus' ascension and we are brought to about AD 34 with Saul standing by as Stephen is stoned to death for testifying, among the Jewish nation, to the reality of the resurrected/ascended Messiah of the "Prophets." From the Book of Acts we begin to learn of the History of the rise of Christianity from this very point. The Gospel from here forward in History is no longer "to the Jew FIRST and THEN the Gentiles; but to ALL who will hear, heed and trust in Jesus as "the Messiah" of promise come to the world "in the Flesh." If Jesus did not present Himself, born of a miracle birth, inthe flesh, in the province of Juda, in the city of Bethlehem, become baptised by His cousin and "forerunner," John the Baptist, to begin his Messianic ministry at "about the age of thirty years" at the close of the 69th week of years, and was not "cut off as our supreme "sacrifice and Oblation" for all Israel, Me, and You in the Midst of the last week __ then perhaps we, as Israel, the national religionists, should look for the coming of another Messiah! God forbids! What an "abomidable thought to His Mind!" Isa.66:1-4. What do you think?

And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath arvy: We should note that the context of Jesus statement was made, not with any reference to the first day of the week and we know, if we believe in Creation by expression, that God, The Word was present at His own work of Creating. And if we believe the account of Creation was an actual period of six literal periods of the first weekly cycle of days ("evenings and mornings"), And if that weekly cycle was maintained from creation through the millinnia before there was a Jew. And through the millinia to the Era of Messiah (Creator become flesh) then it should not be difficult to realise that it was on the Sabbath Day which *Christ as *Creator *made the seventh day of the first week the Sabbath for the Man, Adam, and the woman, Eve, from whom all mankind sprang "from the beginning" of all Creation. The challenge presented Jesus was not concerning which day, but how the Seventh day ought to be respected as pleasing to God, the Creator. Jesus was not speaking after the sense of man's right to alter what He Himself had set apart "sanctified" "for man" since His first week of Expressing Creation. Luke 6:5 And he said unto them, The Son of man is lord of the sabbath. arvy: The above statement is applicable to this vesre as well. I must understand here that Jesus, declaring Himself "the Son of Man" is refering to His personal power and authority over the Seventh Day Sabbath with rgard to how it ought to be respected as toward Himself, as both Creator and Messiah. Again no issue was entered into about an alteration from the seventh day to another day. such a concept is stretching the words of the context far beyond the intent of the discussion involved in the context. John 20:19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20:26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" arvy: This context is an accounting of events immediately following Jesus' resurrection. It is a shame to reach for these two verses describing events in relation the time following the resurrection as though they were intended for some proofs for the change from the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Weekly cycle in honor of the Creation, to the First day of the Weekly cycle in honor of Jesus' resurrection. traditional logic on this issue is simply not sustained by the decriptive context for the time, the place, and the purpose. THe reasonhere given is plainly apart from the concept of "worship" per se'. The context plainly states these followers of Jesus were gathered together behind closed doors "for FEAR OF THE JEWS." Worship was not of this contextual intent. As for the first day of the week and the number of days that Jesus a continued to be present among His followers. The New Testament Scriptures inform us He was seen of over 500 persons after He was raised from the grave, for forty days, before He ascended back to heaven. And in all this period of days, was not ever any notable mention from Him of any transferance of His authority for respect toward the first day of the week to honor His resurrection. Neither is there any such mention by so much as one of His desciples, or apostles. That there are historical accountings of certain gatherings with reference to the first day of the week. can not be denied. But that these accountings of events prove any warranted change of authority toward the first day of the week for any form of worship on that day in honor of Jesus resurrection is not thereby confirmed by the apostles in any of these contextual mentions. And I refer to all those scripture references which you have cited. 1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. They would have been put to death if they met on the last day of the week. arvy: This context speaks nothing of a gathering for worship of honor relative to the first day of the week. The simple statement of instructionwas only that those believers, desirous to share their wealth with other less fortunate believers, were to set aside on that day perhaps wherever they might be, that hey might have their gifts prepared, collectively, ready to be received by Paul when He should pass their way. This context can not be valid support for any colletive congregational gathering for worship. And the possibility that one might be put to death for respecting the last day of the week in honor of Creation should not be construed as any valid reason for dishonoring what the Creator has said to "Remember." arvy: The total mentions of "the first day" of the week are 8 in the New Testament. Another one is in Acts I believe. In Acts we find Paul preaching on "the first day" on into the night. Eutichus falls asleep and falls from an upper level. "Next day" Paul leaves on foot. We should remember that in that time the day was measured by Jew and followers of Christ, as from sunset to sunset. sound logic then would have Paul possibly beginning his discourse at the latter end of the Seventh Day and continuing into the evening of the first day. The context tells us that early "the next day" (morning, sunrise or sometime there after) Paul walked to a port to take to a ship for passage to continue his journey. Consider again. This was not as a defined gathering for what we think of today as "worship." If it was to honor the first day in this context then we must follow this example and begin our worship from the close of the Seventh Day, at sunset. That is where the context places this described event! And remember. Jesus arose early the morning of the first day, not in the close of the Sabbath Day! There are no Bible facts whatsoever in support of the First day of the week as a day to be set apart or to be observed by Christians either by Jesus or His apostles after he was resurrected, nor after His ascension. But there is to this day "The Lord's Day," A day appointed for His honor, and it is defined by a number. This is not a judgment upon anyone it is just the simple Biblical facts, without the distortions of "church" tradition forced upon scripture. Service under fear is not Christ our Creator's desire. "If you love me. Keep (observe) My commandment/s."

it's not just the event itself, it's the timing of it, and the subject of it (the Church) agree! but it bears a striking similarity to the hallmarks of the rapture in I Thessalonians 4 Revelation 4

harv: Yes! I agree whole heartedly! We do serve and Awesome God in the person of Jesus, the Messiah.

Because you're no longer under the Law,Ood. Titus 2:11-14,"For the GRACE of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." "Grace (Jesus Christ) Is Our Teacher!" quote] ************************************************8 Ood? Is that short for "Law of God?" Where do you get the teachings of Christ from whereby you come to know His outreach to you as the Messiah? Was not the first basis for even Jesus words founded direct from the Old Testament? Grace and Law according to Psalms is not adverse one to the other. where there is no standard for judgment there is no charge to be made or imputed for either right or error. "Where there is no Law, neither can sin be imputed." Where sin can not be charged, neither can righteousness be imputed. Where ther is no sin to be charged, neither can Grace be Imputed. Hence it would have been far more simple that Christ had removed the Law and not waste His time with the man of Foolishness of men who are willing to admit to sin yet refuse to respect the Law that outright defines Sin, and is called by God Himself Holy and Good. Saved by Grace? Yes! But not to wilfully resist the simplistic yet Holy "Commands" of God that define both what is Sin and what is Right. Who is that man who would seek to zealously to convince another of sin as by his own imaginings, and yet is unwilling to receive correction himself for His own "Sins." There is sin which is committed with knowledge. And there is also sin which is committed in honest ignorance., And there is sin that is committed in willing ignorance (no concern for knowing) either the right or wrong shown through God's Holy words of counsel, "His Law." And "Grace," expressed out of context, no longer conveys God's intended meaning in accordance with "the Law and the Testimonies," whether it shall be drawn from the Old or the New Testaments.

What I find is how amazing it is that so many argue in defense of ignorance with regard to what God, in His own words, His Book, states plainly What sin is, as by definition. And do it with a double tongue, as though they were speaking with firm logic. When I read from John, the definition for Sin, I hear God speaking to me as through "the Law." The word "law" as used here could have reference to "all Scripture." However John's reference here to "the Law" can not logically have reference to His own letter or to any other "letters" of the "New Testsament. So His use of phrase "the Law" in this the context is necessarally connective to the Sacred Writings which were existent from before the era of Christ, "The Law, The Prophets, and Psalms." to which als o Jesus Himself cited in His doctrine. It seems to me that common intelligence should speak to our thought processes that for this definition to be "rightly" associated to the true intent of the context, we need to understand that the phrase is intended to specify another "Law" to be found within "the Law" (Old Testament Scriptures) that speaks to the term "Sin." Do we need to question or alter what was labeled as "Sin" IN "The Book Of The Law?" Who was the "Inspiration" of that book? The Spirit of Moses? Or the Spirit of Messiah? Is it possible that christ might have redefined the definition for sin, He might thereby have freed Himself of the "Need" to Suffer" for me and you? But all ARE "FREE" to REDEFINE SIN, as a matter of freedom of each persons will to either accept or reject the sound counsel of the Messiah of the Prophets, whether of the "LAW" of the Old Testament or the New, whether of the Jew or of the Nations (Gentiles). To be "under" the Law. or to be "under the curse of" the Law is a matter assigned penalty for having "broken" the Law, or living in willful disrespectful of "the Law" authored and written by the finger of God in Christ, Who Himself "sinned NOT." But we, until we come to Messiah for forgiveness for having lived in ignorance or disrespect against "His" Law, are "under the penalty" assessed and announced for such disobedience. "The wages for living in transgression of the Law is(eternal) death; but the gift of God, through Messiah, to all who walk and live Circumspectly with respect to His Law, is eternal life. I am a publican believer in Christ, under Grace, I desire to observe all God's Commands, though he retains every "right" to slay me to this very day in my Life. However I know His Grace is greater than my personal ignorance of His all the encompassing Good of His "Law." By His "Law" I am informed that He will raise me up "At The Last Day." Job, of the trusted in the same "Law" that "though the skinworms should devour him, Yet in his flesh he expected to see God in his flesh."

ugtthtrtfrgdslvdthwrldhgvhsnlysn u gt tht rt fr gd s lvd th wrld h gv hs nl sn U gt tht rt! Fr Gd s lvd th wrld H gv Hs nl sn... You got that right! "For God so loved the world that He gave His only son..."

______________ arvy 'ere, yzf-r1, Yes, is a rather bland answer. I do believe that God is an intelect of omniscience, and there fore a "Spirit" of firm reasoning logic. [isa. 1:18; 53:4-12; 9:1-2, 24-27; Jhn. 4:19-26.] Hence my questions: Q. No. 1, "Is there sound logic for the tranposition... of the 70 weeks to literal years as multiplied by 7, or 490 years? Why not 70 literal weeks, of seven literal days? Seventy "shabua" of days? Q. No. 2: "Where is the true chronological point in history from which the 70 weeks were to have begun?" What be the problem of the 70 weeks from any point of chronology if they were taken to be 70 literal weeks of 7 literal days each? Q. No. 3: what worthy biblical facts can be presented for the logic of an uninterupted 69 week sequence with an indefinite period of now more than 1900 years before the start of the 70th week?" What line of logic, __ biblical or otherwise, __ could reasonably present a sequence for a numbered set of days or years (say 1290 days or years) to begin from one point in a chronology of history, run forward for 75 days or years in unbroken succession, then take up a resumption of the same count of that number 1900 days or years at some non-certifiable point of chronology in the future? Do you think the point of this question is illogical relative to the facts set forward by the "Spirit" of the prophets Daniel and Jesus, the inspiration of "Revelations" relative to specified biblical "times?" How smart do we perceive God to be relative to simple basic mathematics? How might a change in our thinking be affected if we should find much of what we have learned to believe, as a matter of prophetic doctrines, were not in firm factual alignment with His "Mind:" His "Spirit?"

arvy ''ere, E.B. This argument you present is, from an honest perception of scripture, far removed from intent of the statements of those verses cited. When they are read for absolute understanding of intent they will be read in their complete contexts. Those who use this "theological" manner to excuse themselve from the "Memorial" day (the cited week day of "Remembrance") by including all the days of 'ordained annual ceremonial ordinance' with regard to types and sacrifices. are in grave confusion in general over who Jesus is and what His power is with regard to the power of His own resurrection. While Mose may have been the instrument of delivering the "Ten" commandment to A people whom He had just delivered from the bondage of slavery, and made the a Nation to Himself. You will find, By the Bible, that He did so in honoring His own words of promise to Abraham. But now, in this era of the "present truth," according to the "covenant of the blood" of the "New Testament" (the blood of Messiah and of the Creator of all things From the Beginning) all mmen are of the offspring of Jesus the Christ of Abraham and all the prophets. As Jsesus himself said, "He came not to destroy the Law or the prophets; but to fulfill..." Many desire that "fulfill" but in the truth of Prophetical context of the Holy Scriptures it simply means bringing His own words into firm reality. And that is why He inspired the very writings of the book to the "Hebrews" regarding the types and antitypes of His Heavenly Preist hood, which should thence forth from His ascension, have "caused all sacrifice and oblation to cease" and all those "ceremonial Sabbaths" which were a very part of those ordained "Annual rituals." But; it should be clear to us from our Creator/savior's own life example in history, that He still desired the weekly day He Himself gave reason and number to, and instituted first to Adam and Eve, then later wrote on tables of stone Himself, amid other nine of ten commands, "for the Good" of all who would choose to hold those words in moral and, Memorial "respect to His love, His knowedge, His power, His authority as both Creator and Giver of Life, in whom only we obtain life everlasting, at the last day, by that same power, the power to Recreate, to resurrect the decayed: whether righteous or wicked: The righteous in the First Resurrectioin. the non believers in the Second Resurrection. May we all meet together, "in the air," with those "blessed" with everlasting life on the day of the First Resurrection; when the dead in Christ shall rise First, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up to be with them and from then forward, be forever with our Lord.

Posted Today, 09:52 AM "" If anyone can impose Sabbath upon you, then it is no longer rest but a "work". Yet there is a time set apart by God Himself for us to stop from all labors and consider that He has it all under control. It really is a matter of the heart, not a date of the week, but rejecting what the Lord has given us to choose another way seems like the heighth of "religion" I'm not saying you "must" observe Sabbath from Friday night to Saturday night. I'm saying you should want to meet Him at the time He has set for it... Yes, we can be with Him throughout the weekdays! We absolutely MUST be "in Him" no matter what time or date it is! But you can't understand the Sabbath from the outside using theological lenses. It's not about doctrine or "being right". It's not about going somewhere and looking at the back of someone's head while someone else at the front of the rooms yaks for an hour. It's not about liturgy or singing or preaching. It's not even about obedience so much....it is about rest. This is the one sign that the jewish people have given the entire planet. Nobody took a day off before God commanded them to rest. Now everyone has a day off. The day they choose says a lot about where they put their trust. Some trust in the church to tell them why the church has the authority to change God's "suggestions". Some say Mohammed has the authority to make it Friday... Without any malice, I say it is a mistake to ignore the Sabbath as somehow a "lesser" commandment than the other 9 of the Decalogue. It won't kill you but you will never know the blessing you have missed. "" ___ As a matter of logic, I can perceive how this post will align with the whole of scripture on true Sabbath observance. I believe that the Bible is intended to convey to the reader its own logic (the logic of Him who inspired the writers of it). I also believe I am free to choose to observe the Sabbath as God's Memorial to Himself, as Creator of all things. And I am equally free to choose not to observe the Sabbath as God's Memorial to Himself as Creator of all things. I am equally free to choose to disregard all of the commandments of God, even to the denial of Christ. But what then? will I be freed from the penalty of sin? "God forbid!" Rom. 7 "What shall I say then of the Law. Is it made sin to me. "God forbid!" Is it possible we have become as the Israel who chose to reject the very inspiration of the prophets (Jesus) in an attempt to justify our choice for disbelief in His Memorial? Have we not yet come to undertood biblical definition for sin? What do we say we are freed from? From sin or the penalty for sin? Or Has Christ freed us from sin that we may sin freely? Can none perceive the difference between "types" and 'Memorial.' The memorial for all the "types" "Rest" in baptism and what most of us as "Christians" (followers of Christ) have termed today as "Communion." A "ritualistic" recalling to our minds of that fact of History When Jesus sacrificed Himself "God In the FLesh," Body and blood" for our now and at His Second Advent. Does not our final hope for everlasting life rest in the giver of life, The "Creator of all things" by the Expressions of His Mouth. Gen, 1:1; 2:1-3; Jhn. 1:1-14.

Does the Bible give us any definition whereby any individual can know they are in right standing with regard to God's standards for rights or wrongs. Or are we simply left to personal conscience thought without any set of moral guidelines?

You might want to check out www.templemountfaithful.org Remember that when Israel returned from exile in Babylon, sacrifices were resumed ON THE FOUNDATION of the temple before the temple was complete, during the time of Ezra. Well, there may not be a temple restored, but there is most assuredly a foundation there by the Western Wall. Twice a year, the Temple Mount Faithful seek to resume sacrifices. They do ask permission. The secular government denies it, fearing a public riot from the Muslim sector. The Temple Mount Faithful usually stage a protest, but are not above attempting a sacrifice against official denial. Twice they have come very, VERY close to succeeding by getting in a movable altar. Everything needed has already been made and prepared. There is a high Kohain. Even among Messianics, there is discussion of revisiting theology, seeing animal sacrifice as looking back upon the death of Yeshua, as once it looked forward to it. As I read the Bible from Genesis through Revelation I fail to perceive the need for a repeat of the types with regard to Jesus, the Messiah's Sacrifice, not even among the religion of the Jewish sects. It is my understanding that Jesus Sacrifice was "Once for all" and should could conclude those "foreshadowing types representative of Christ in the wilderness Tabernacle services. How would animal sacrifices since the shedding of God's own Son for the sins of all humanity avail any thing for the Jews Love of Messiah, as a nation, when, as a nation to God, they refused to believe, at the time of HIs First Advent, He was the Messiah Come from God "In The Flesh?" That is with the exception of those Jews, who did receive Him as Messiah come "In The Flesh," and were called "Christians" as a derogatory expression of contempt. Consider now whom John was referring to as being the "Anti- Christs" by description, in 1 Jhn. 2:18&22,4:3; @ Jhn.7. Now who was it of that time Jhn was referrimg to? Was it not to those who "denied" that Messiah had come " In The Flesh." Or I misunderstanding the lingo of the contexts? So from John's perspective of what constituted "the antichrist" for his time. Can we not perceive a change in the connotation for the word as we have chosen to apply the word to another prophetic context of the future. The biblical context was for those who simply chose not to receive Jesus as the Messiah of the prophets: prophecies. That was Johns definition for the word as He used it in His particular context. But as we have chose to apply the word to a "latter day"perspective" it now should carry a much braoder connotation of meaning. One who stang to magnify himself in opposition to Christ. But; not necessarily to deny Jesus as the Messiah having come "In The Flesh." How will he do this? By "scattering the power" of God's people. By creating confusion of sound doctrine from scripture. by the introductiions of "dark sentences." Dan. 8:22-25; 12:7; 1 Thess. 7-2 Thess.2:10; Rev. 13:1-18 (history in symbolism from Babylon to our present time. Compare symbols sequence of Dan. chapter 7 to the rise of the warring little horn against the saints. He is never biblically DEFINED as "the antichrist." He is simply defined by the work he will do as a deceiver in operations against the doctrines of Christ, and that he will hold great power in world politics, and economics. Do we know af any such soveriegn in our present day who can so affect all of Christendom "in the name of God?"

Question 1: Most scholars and theologians count the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 as 70 times 7, and transpose this multiple to literal years. Is there sound logic for this tranposition? Question 2: Where is the true chronological point in history from which the 70 weeks were to have begun? Question 3: What worthy biblical facts can be presented for the logic of an uninterupted 69 week sequence with an indefinite period of now more than 1900 years before the start of the 70th week? Question 4: Does God, the father, and God the Son present us unpredictable and incalculable results from His Prophets projections of time? Did Messiah follow any form for logic relative to the time of His first Coming? Question 5: Is there any importance that we understand and teach Bible prophecy accurately for truth sake? Amos 3:6-8; Jhn.5:39-40; Dan. 2:27-29, and 36-40 Where time has a part in an historical sequence the start of the count must be correct for the close of the count to be correct. Prophecy is History before it has transpired.

whollybybill, or (Holy Bible), arvy "ere. For sound doctrine of the truth and hope for our eternal salvation. I Rest my case, upon the Inspired Scriptures only. However; I am also aware that the Bible, with regard for world events that were and are, to effect all Christendom, beginning from the areas immediately around the Mediteranian and the Aegean seas, and extending outward into our western Civilization, was first rooted in the religion, Judaism. Obviously, biblically, and historically there is much we can not reveal relative to all the historical facts which will support your basic understanding of the whole issue around the "Sabbath /Sunday" Issue. whollybybill: "Oh and I find it curious that the change was made during the First Christian emporer named Constatine." Constantine was but the instrument that got fixed the issue to a document by making it and official decree in 325 AD. There had already been issues between Jews and Christians and Pagans over this earlier in history, probably beginning a little before John wrote thte revelations of Jesus Christ. THe greater part of the issue seemed to have been between the Jews and the Christians to start. The issue of itself became one of an Identification problem for Christians. Why because the first Believers in Christ of the first century were Sabbath observers. This tended to put them, by identification, among the persecuted Jews. If we check history (as undistorted by theologians) we will discover that the alteration of observance, from Seventh day to First day was one of incorporation into the practices of Paganism for the sake of preservation from persecution. the practice became more and more acceptable amid the developing leaders of Christendom (Bishops of the Greek and the Roman church as a whole until "tradition" began using the very scripture in an attempt to justify the "change of Times and Laws." and so it was forcast by Daniel in chapter 7:25" What "times?" What day of the week has proclaimed in scripture for His personal Memorial as Creator of Heaven and Earth? What "Laws?" What "Laws" contain God's proclamation tto be the Creator of Heaven and Earth?" What Day did Jesus as Saviour declare Himself "Lord (having authority over) of?" Any one with courage to discern the truth of this message need only to read the Catholic Catechism concerning the 4th commandment, and the book, "Great Documents of Western Civilization," by Milton Viorst, copyright 1965). Remember. as a matter of Documentation, Constantine was but an instrument in that present time of bring prophecy into reality as histor: it is up to us as individuals to discover and to discern truth from fiction. Sound Counsel from the penman of God, Paul: 1 Thess. 5:20-23 ...

mr. Norton, ' arvy 'ere. To you a new believer in Christ, I offer a suggestioin that you read the Letters of John, a whole 7 chapters. John will encourage you toward growing in your accptance and understanding of true confidence in Jesus as our Messiah. Then back up and read the Book St, John, on the life of Christ and His work on earth and in heaven as our Messiah and "daily" mediator for our salvation. If you do not have these books: Young's Analytical Concordance Halley's Hand Book, and possibly THe Bible Dictionary. You can find these at any Bible Book store. Or maybe you are already aware of the "Blue Letter Bible" which you can access free on line, and perhaps even tha Bible Dictionary. Numerous Bible commentaries and helps may be found for free online on the Blue Letter Bible web site. Get it all for the click of your mouse. You will want, as you have indicated to Jump into scriptures to learn as dilligently and rapidly as your mind will permit the prophetic hope that is yours and mine through the promises of Jesus the Messiah of both the Old and the New Testament books. Because therein are the Words of "the faith of Jesus" to be found for us to apply to our daily living and hope for our future with Christ in "the New heaven and New earth" of Revelation 21. Hebrews 11:1, 3, 6 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear... Without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He IS the Rewarder of them that Diligently Seek Him." 1John. 21-26 Hold fast to Jesus. Seek to know the sound doctrine of His book of all that Jesus "began to do and teach...". Acts 1:1-2.

["their is a new law written than the law on stone, it is in our heart, IF we are His. Our Sabbath is Today--capitalized in Hebrews 4. Eternal and always, in Jesus. Nothing is binding on christians. Each man is a law unto himself. Who needs the Word of God anyway? It only contains some helpful suggestions that we can pick and choose from according to our particular situations. "Do what thou wilt" is the whole of the law according to Anton Levae Doesn't everyone agree?"] "Nothing is binding on christians. Each man is a law unto himself." "Do what thou wilt" is the whole of the law according to Anton Levae" Jesus: "Eat drink and be merry, for tommorrow you shall die..." I am only familiar with the name Anton Lavae. I suspect he may be some well read philosopher. Is this correct? No matter. when one is familiar with the whole of the bible, and can respect that there is but one supreme authority who is the Inspiration of the whole. When we can begin to understand and accept how great a love He has for every person of His Created Works, and that He, the Creator put Himself into our settings of History to prove His own words of love, warnings and judgments with penalties, intended for our instruction in faith and reverend respect for His personal Sacrifice, intended to free us from the foretold penalty (eternal death) for our "trangressions of His Law" Penned for our for our individual welfare with hope; then do we need to seek a reason why we need not rest upon His Grace, and submit our life in willing obedience to affirm that His Law and His counsel are worthy to be upheld as "Right, and Good?" Rom.7:1-25 Or should we desire the reverse to deny "the Law" as non-beneficial, and expect He shall forgive us if we desire a life adverse to any of His counsel statements from any part of His Wordds, especially His great Ten Words to all men, inclusive His Sabbath gift for remembrance of His power to lift us from the dust of the earth itself by His omnipotent expression. The scripture logic is before us. If God, in Christ, did not create all things by expression, as biblically stated, from His own Mouth; then what is th value of our Testimony of confidence for His Personal power to Recreate(resurrect) us from the "pit" of death?" Should we not more willingly CHOOSE to yieid to "His counsel (Law of the Scriptures for life)" and to His Great ten words, which includes also the commandment to both Jews and Gentiles for Remembrance of Himself as the only God and Creator of all things in just six "evenings and mornings." Yes, "The Sabbath was made for Man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore The Son of Man (Christ, is Lord (authority) also of the Sabbath." Consider now Isa. 55:8-56-12. Note that the issue In Mrk. was not about WHAT day ought to be observed. That was already well understood, probably by both Jew and Gentile alike. The issue at hand in this context was HOW ought one to observe the Sabbath.

Very good point. And what would 14 billion years (the scientific age of the universe) mean to them? They didn't even have numbers that big! The Bible's first readers simply couldn't accept a plainly written Genesis. It wouldn't make sense to them. Luckily the exact age of the universe is not terribly important to our spiritual salvation. Jesus is. That's what matters, and that's why figurative language sufficed in Genesis. arvy 'ere, mates, on Popes, Protestants, Bible, language, Science, and heresy. I am familiar with a number of varied views about the origin of the universe, the earth, and the life forms upon thte earth. I am also familiar with the Bible use of the word "science" (Dan. 1:4, 1 Tim.1:20)as per context. And of the word heresy, as relative to "heretics," in context. I have no difficulty perceiving the knowable facts presented from Genesis will firmly agree. I believe most people have intelligence for firm logical reasoning to percieve by hearing and sight what they may not be able to explain by verbal expression. In almost every language, inclusive of Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English, our expressions, no matter what the label of the literary form may be, is more of a descriptve nature than of the definitive (i.e. connotation, denotation)of the words themselve. The definitve is too often dwelt upon by theologian's attempts to lock the minds of hearers into his or her mode of assumed, or presumptuous doctrinal logic. As per description from context, Daniel's referencial useage of the word "science" is limited to specific persons who lay claim to known facts concerning the earth and the universe: facts known to them in the era of Babylon. So we may be sure that Daniel was cultured among persons of "scientific" of that time in history. But was their culturing without the imagination that tended toward "science falsley so called?" Absolutely not, They of then were often guide in their thought processes by either their own power for imagining, and/or thier "religious orientations," Pagan or Hebraic. Now as per the "Hebraic" description, now translated to our English Language. Should we be so technical of the Hebrew language itself as to disrupt the flow of the "scientific" descriptive order with regard to its reflections toward true science relative to the natural sequence from energy (as per "evenings and mornings") to natural states of the known elements from: gas > liquid > solid. Or of the natural "scientific" sequencial order of vegetation, in full maturity for reproduction. Or of the life in the waters of the streams, rivers, lakes and seas, in their maturity. Followed by the land creatures in their maturity. Followed by God's own personal touch of the hand, forming of the elements of the earth, the first two humans, male and the Female, within the same period stated to be the sixth "even and morning," to populate his work work of Creating. Both receiving the breath of life into their "nostrils" that same "day." And Both beginning life in the MATURE form. Now if we can follow the logic sequence presented from Gen. chapters 1-2 presented to us through Moses who was God's penman for Origins ("Genesis") we will find this manner of Creation by design and expression by statment and order is affirmed by the prophet David in Psalms 33:1-11, 'God spoke and the objects of His intents became physical reality.' If we, who name the name of God in Christ, and proclaim His prophetic "Virgin Birth" into this world; __ Yet deny the expressive power of God to Create "In a moment, in the twinkling of the eye." How shall we escape the mind of our own Hypocrical testimonial for Him whom we say we TRUST for our hope of Resurrection (RECREATION)unto everlasting life "at the last day?" "Remember the Seventh Day, The Sabbath of the Lord your God, to keep it holy ... For in six days, the lord made the heaven and the earth, and rested the seventh day: Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy." As per "heretic, or heresy." That is simply a word whether of the Bible of of the dictionary synonymous of the word "opinion." Now we know that the Bible as a whole, nor the context of Titus 3:10 (Acts 24:14; 1 Cor.11:19; Gal. 5:20; 2 Pet. 2:1) is not opposed to any person simply having an opinion. That is until that "opinion" is propagated against the intent of God's own words of instruction for sound belief as per the MIND of Christ, who himself is stated by the very scripture to be the AUTHOR of BOTH Creation and Salvation. Never the less we are free to continue to hold even to our heretical, or to reject such views for God's eveer present operations which are "more certain for hope beyond the perceptions of the evolutionary mind: But one then must move his or her mind to conformity with "the Mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:1-16*) for His second coming and "the first resurrection" "at the last day."

cjjc, arvy 'ere. As one noted here on this messi-board. There is the "Antichrist" and then there is another "anti-christ." Somewhat confusin' aint it. Know why? 'Cause one is referrence to a well described and well perceived "Antichrist" direct from the scripture. The other use of the word is one of a theological and doctrinal development: a word used APART FROM THE FIRST INTENDED MEANING given by John. 2 John 2:18; 21-23, defines the biblical Antichrist as one who denies that Jesus is the Christ. This is more than a suggestion of one who stands in a doctrinal opposition to the person of Jesus. These "many Antichrists" are of the mind that The Messiah has not yet come "in the flesh," in the person of Jesus. these would accept the physical, "historical" Jesus while denying Him to be the Messiah of the prophets, "The Word Made Flesh." This is the "spirit of antichrist" as well defined from the words of John. 2 John 4:1-6. As per the second use. More often used in reference to the "little horn" of Daniel chapters 7 and 8 and applied to "that Man of sin," "the son of perdition" mentioned in 2 Thess. 21-8-11. This term is both secular and non-biblical in its general usage. This "little horn" figure from Daniel, is described to "magnify itself against ... the Prince of the Host (The Messiah)" to stead of Christ, between God and man, as intecessor in the very authority of God, as he works to "scatters the power of God people." It is not His attempt to deny who Messiah (Christ) is but rather to use and abuse the doctrines of Christ for unity of authority and for collective gain the world over. When will this unifying power begin its prophetic function in opposition to the "name of" the Messiah. First Rome had to arise on the world seen after the fall of the Grrecian Empire. then Rome should have become divided as the "little horn" was in its prophetic rise to its poltical and religious activities toward its projected "times" of power over God's people to "scatter them." Then near the close of the Roman Empirical era, "the little horn" was decribed to "pluck up three of the ten horns" to set itself in the power prophecied of it. Historians are in agreement that the fall of the Roman Empire was about the year 476 AD. and our History of Western Civilization, with the rise of the primacy of the Roman bishops over nominal Christendom, in the name of catholicty: the term catholic then meaning the church universal. When will this era of prophecy relative to "the little horn" come to a close? When "the Prince of Princes" shall Come the Second time to break the little horn "without hand." Dan. 8:9-14 and 23-25. As per the time relatioinships spoken of by Daniel. It is my perception that Paul KNEW that the stated "times" relative to the chronological order for events to transpire as history toward the close of all history. Therefore, in his time, none could have any knowledge to understand and to begin the counting of foretold "times." However; today, I believe WE ARE living in the Latter end of Daniel's prophecy, and era of a more present truth of Christ Second Advent and the end time of the little horn. I can not believe that either Antiochus Ephipanes was an answer to the little horn of Dan. 8 Neither can I accept that present day view that concludes the stated number of times/"days" Dan. 8:9-14 in the year 1844. I have been open over the years to consider the Bible facts as compared to the several theological and eschatalogical interpretations placed upon them. I have learned that quite often that certain views proclaimed as "biblical" may not have a sound biblical base for reasonable acceptance. Thus is the "biblical" counsel to us all, "Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that need not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word of truth."

becca, arvy 'ere. You sound like a person who has just heard too much all at once. You show a fair ability to hear, file and recall information quite well. But you had too much information put to your mind all at once and most like without ant previous knowedge from the reading of the Bible prophets or history of the Western hemisphere from which our Church histories began from the era of the birth, death and resurrection of Messiah (Jesus Christ). Dan. 9:25-27, Isa. 53:1-12, compare phillip's use of Isa. to explain and show that Jesus was The Messiah of the prophets words. Acts. 9:26-38. As Phillip helped the Ethiopian piece together the evi together sound facts from both prophecy and History. So the Evidential Facts relative to the purpose of Jesus' life and death activities to the day of His resurrection, as they had been foretold by the prophets, impressed upon the mind of the Ethiopian his personal need for God's annionted Messiah for his eternal hope and that Jesus was truly that Messiah of the prophets. Note the Ethiopian's response once he comprehended and was convinced of the truth of Isaiah, the prophet's words, and the manner in which Phillip had collated them to him: "And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water: and the eunuch said (in response), See, Here is water : What does hinder me to be baptized? And Phillip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And the Ethiopian replied, I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD." And both Phillip and the ethhiopian went down into the water together and the ethiopian believer submitted his life to Jesus as Lord and Messiah of his life. Dan. chapter 9 should probably be your first introduction to the prophets with regard to Christ's Personal affirmation and confirmation of the prophets. Daniel is the only Bible prophet to ever match the personal, first appearance of Messiah (Jesus) to a particular place in history with a literal time segment attached with it. However we must be dilligent in our study of Bible history relative to secular histories to discern the correct points of chronology in history for both the beginning and the close of the "70 weeks" of years. Dan. 9:24-27. Hint: It is a doctrinal error that propagates the concept of placing the last "week" (7 years of the 490 years) out the close of time. The whole of these years were intended to extend only to the first advent of Christ). Of that the context is reasonably obvious, but almost the whole of Christianity (Catholic and Protestant) tend to present God as somewhat mathmatically ignorant, breaking up chronological and arithmetical sequence. As per Daniel chapter 8, and its chronology relative to the 2300 days presented there in verse 14. In its proper context, the "days" must be tranposed into a sequencial depletion of the number of years to become accurately fitted to its intended outline of world events (cahpters 2 and 7) to close time at the event of Messiah's ("the Prince of Prince's" second advent). SDAs close it to early at the date 1844 AD. Protestants and Catholics close it as far back as in the era of Greece. again. Too early to properly follow the chronological outlines given relative to one the other from chapters 2, and 7 and 11. becca, note that Nebuchadnezzar, in chapter 2 is representative of only the kingdom of Babylon with the metals mentioned represented of three other kingdoms to follow after in a defined sequence. the latter kingdom, of the four previous respective kingdoms, in their described sequencial order was "the everlasting kingdom" of God. That would bring time to a final close on earth. note this chapter names ony the first of the kingdoms of the sequencec of kingdoms to rise and to fall as a matter of history, In this case of the Biblical account prophecy is the telling of HISTORY before the actual events shuld transire as reality. This is also true of chapter 7. This chapter is also the foretelling of ceratin sequences of History which were to effect all of God's people from that era towrd the close of all time, and with interjections of specific "times" (years) include for the measuring of certain of those events toward the latter end of all time. Note the 7th chapter in no way names any of the kingdoms, yet it adds to chapter twos accounting beyond the fourth kingdom of chapter 2, Ten horns out of which a little horn arises to pluck up three of the 10 horns. It is the little horn to whom is attached the time period to war with the people of God: the "time, times and dividing of time." (Dan. 7:25, 12:7). In the accounting of Daniel 8, we find that Babylon has passed it years of Dominion relative to God's people. As a kingdom Babylon is about to become, as a kingdom, an hhistorical fact, and God has given to Daniel another view of History to come. Babylon is now seen as a colapsed empire. WE CAN KNOW THIS by the facts presented concerning the prophetic insite given to Daniel with the interpretation. We know because the Angel actually now names the kingdoms represented (symbolized) by "the ram" and "the rough goat." The ram is named representative of "the Medes and the Persians" verse 20. "The rough goat" is also specifically named as representing "Grecia" (Greece) verse. This is nothing more than an order of history well written in the history books affirming this very sequence as was forestated by the Spirit of all true Prophecy, and further affirmed by the Presence of Messiah, "the prince of the Host" (verse 11) in the Roman era of history. Rome then must have been the fourth kingdom of chapter 7 to arise after the fall of the third kingdom. to arise. And again so secular history will also solidly affirm the prohecy, the preceding kingdoms were divided and fell. so Rome would become divided and fall before the rise of the warring little horn should take his place in the sequences described So the primary focus of events to transpire as we look forward to the "last day" beyond the first appearing of Jesus as the Messiah of the prophets, is upon that warring "little horn" of Daniel 7 and 8, referred to by Paul when writing to the Thessalonians as "that Man of Mystery" (2 Thess. 1-10 which must precede the primary event of all event, the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah of the prophets: especially of the prophets Daniel and John of th Revelations of Jesus Christ. It was "the little horn" which should "pluck up three of the ten divisions of the Roman Empire. History tells us that Rom faded away as an Empire about 476 AD. It was from that point forward the focus of Western world affairs of mind, with regard to Christianity as a whole, became fixed with formality upon the Papal dominion as it developed into a world influence, in its first years of power ("a time times and the dividing of times") over god's people. This period of tiime, as a matter of ordered sequence should have begun between 476 AD and 538 AD. It is then, a matter of both secular and church historical sequence we can then locate who is the intended representive in the works of "the little horn," in opposition to the truth of the Words of God (Dan. 7:25; 8:23-25; 12:7) and apply the scriptures of the prophets to a particular head as that overpowering leader. Not as to a singular person only: but with referrence to a body of people under both a political and a religious leader presuming to speak as from the throne of God in His authority. Up to the 1798 AD The Papacy literaly had a dominion of its own by landed properties in a large part of Italy. These properties were title , "Papal States." The city of Rome was, in esence the Bishops Cathedral, or capital of its dominion. That began to meet interferrence from the time of Nepoleon Bonaparte when THe Bishop of Rome was driven from his "capital." History accounts that the lands which had been were ruled over by the Papacy politically, were taken back by the the Country, Italy. For several years The Bishops of Rome reside only in the confines of 108 acres of what we know as The Vatican and refused to be any removal from that 108 acres. It's dominion had been "wounded" But a healing of that domnion was also forecast in this prophecy of the little horn. And so it was that in the year 1929 the Lateran Treaty, a political solution, signed by Both the Vatican and Mousilini of Italy was signed. The political agreement was that these 108 acres on which the Vatican sat should now be repected not simply as a church based astablishment; but as a SOVEREIGN NATION and the country Italy, was committed to payment to the Vatican Nation for all the lands of the "Papal States" that had now become a part of the country of Italy. So now the Papal dominion is a Dominion of a religious and politicacl state of mind that extends from that 108 acre sovereignty all around the globe and to which more that 120 nations, inclusive of our United States, send their respective political ambassadors. And these all will admit that as per world leader, none excell the power of the Papacy in either field, political or religious. When is this forcast to come to an close? only at the Second Coming of the Prince of Princes, The Messiah, The Lord, Jesus CHrist. May your general confusion become a firm fix in the general knowledge and understanding of the Spirit of the Prophets as they were given sound insite for us who now are living in the "latter day" era of "the Present Truth" of Jesus Christ for this, and certain of our future generations. I suggest, becca, you copy this little dissertation and compare it back several times to the scripture, like as Paul commended the "Bereans" that you may perceive whether what I have presented will "rightly" collate to first the scriptures and the to the secular history books. Also if you have a Youngs Analytical Concordance and a Bible Dictionary handy. these two books will help advance your study and learing processes to a great degree. your friend in Christ, arvy

Also Jesus was tempted does that make him a sinner

cor, arvy 'ere. If you had a bible answer would you receive it, or choose to argue agianst the plain discriptive language of both the Old Testament (The Law, THe Prophets and Psalms), and New Testament Letters of the Apostles? There is that proper Godly "love and affection" relationship between God and humanity as per the whole. There is also that Godly proper perspective for the mind of "love" between men and men as per sexual orientatio, as well as women to women with respect to sexual orientation, and also as per Male and female with rgard to sexual orientaion. Read it for yourself and blame no one outside yoourself if you fall into this discriptive "catagory" of what God has spoken loudly to all of us to beware of as being "abominable to HIS pure Mind (Holy Spirit). Lev. 18:22-30; Romans 1:18-32. The choice and responsibility of following after either "righteous" or "erroneous" counsel is ever to the mind of the individual. and sin has always been biblically defined as "transgression of the Law," whether of 'the Torra' and 'the prophets'e, or 'The Ten Commandments' specifically.

Sorry. I wasn't aware that you were not interested in thoughtful discussion. Didnt mean to be an interference in you domain.

What was God's point for citing the days of His works as "evenings and mornings and the concluding with thesetting apart of the latter dayof the sequence of "evenings and mornings" as the "seventh day? How many of us truly accept that God, in His wisdom and power, expressed His power and wisdom ("and God said") in a specific sequencial period ("and it was so"), and the earth, and all that was then so expressed became a reality, as God's thought had so predetermined them to be? How many of us, as Christians would be apalled at the doctrine which denies the concept of the mystery of the virgin birth. Yet will refute His own words: Recall you that I am your Maker frfom the foundation of the world which I spoke into exisitence and then on the sixth day, formed you from the dust of that earth? "In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was Created. In Him was Life; and the Life was the light of men" (and women). >>> And The Word was Made Flesh, (and dwelt among, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory as The Only Begotten Of The Father [The Messiah, Isa. 53:4-12; Dan. 9:22-27], full of grace And Truth." Was not the Virgin birth of our Messiah beyond our human perception for compehension except as we should conform our minds to that logic which is presented us only through the logic of Holy Spirit found in the print of God's Book of His Testimonial with regard to His personal works?was not the power of the resurrected Messiah that was also the open show of His own power as The Creator and giver of Life? Does ouur hope for resurrection "at the last day" Rest on the Christ of history or the Messiah/Creator? So what day was recoreded thoughout the Holy Scriptures as "the Lord's day?" What was God's own reasoning for reason giving a specific number of one out of seven "for man to observe?" Of What virtue, or right is man's tradition if his (or her) doctrine is one in opposition to God's desire for our "Remembrance (Recall)?" "Study to show yourselve approved unto"... Who's prerceptions?

Nebula, Arvy 'ere. "(Of course, I'd need to learn the Arabic dialect they used back then for anything Jesus said to make any sense....)" Forgive me I seem critical. It is of no extreme importance I might suppose. I believe the bible account is that there were three languages primary to that era of Rome and the first appearing of Jesus as the Messiah of the prophets. If I remember correctly, these were Greek, Latin and Aramaic." These three languages were posted for a mockery over Jesus as He was nailed to the cross, "Jesus, king of the Jews."

Hi, HIS daughter. and all, you believers. I'm arvy, HIS son. Hey. we coulld have a really good discussion about the evevnt of Adam's formation and awakening to life and the years of both adam and Eve in God's garden. Of course we should let the Bible acounts be the center of our conversational exchange. Any thoughts or questions for open discussion? For instance does the bible give us any definuite information as to how God, as Creator of all things, formed the heavens and the earth? Gen. 1 and Ps. 33. How long was the period in which God formed Adam and Eve and gave them life? Had you or I been Adam and Eve, what might have been our response to our Father, the Creator, upon His opening of our eyes? Where might God have been at our awakening?