7 YEAR TRIBULATION?

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, Uriah said:

Acts 4:27- For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together

Acts 10- How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Shabbat shalom, Uriah.

These passages both confirm that Yeshua` is God's Anointed - God's Maashiyach - God's Messiah - God's Christos -God's Christ.

Regarding Acts 4:27, it's a bit confusing when one quotes a single verse and doesn't complete the thought. Although it makes one's post a bit lengthy (I speak from personal experience), it's best to quote the entire passage or at least the entire sentence, regardless whether it bleeds over into other verses.

Acts 4:23-31 (KJV)

23 And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them. 24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said,

"Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: 25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said,

'Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.' [Psalm 2:1-2.]

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. 29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, 30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus."

31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

This still begs the question, "What WERE the threats they made against them?" And, one will have to read MORE of the chapter to find out.

 

[Retrobyter]

On 8/16/2019 at 10:25 AM, Diaste said:

Indeed. The Assyrian is often taken to mean from present day Syria but that's not necessary. Assyria was quite large at times through history and so this person could appear from Mesopotamia and still be considered Syrian. Or he was born there and raised in Iraq, Iran, Jordan, even Asia Minor. I agree the beast will have to be able to see both sides and be 'one of them'. The general distrust in the concerned parties for the West would preclude a Western beast in my mind.

I don't see any other way to 'peace' unless somehow Israel gives up land. They have offered it several times over the years and it's rejected every time. Maybe they give up a lot in exchange for the Temple?

Maybe as you indicate, it's all business, a cash deal, economic uplift, a nation and an autonomous identity. But then would the ceding of land in exchange for peace be enough for Israel? What would they get in exchange for having a sovereign hostile nation at their border? An abstract just would not suffice in my mind. In any case I'm convinced the final agreement will concern the Temple existing where the Jews say it has to stand; Temple Mount or City of David. Where it stands is not the point, that is stands again is.

 

Shabbat shalom, Diaste.

I just noticed this in a re-read of this thread: You said, "The Assyrian is often taken to mean from present day Syria but that's not necessary."

One shouldn't confuse Assyria with Syria. The two countries were NOT the same! Today's "Syria" used to be called "Aram," from which came the ancient language of "Aramaic," which Yeshua` apparently used in daily speech.

The country of Assyria was in Mesopotamia (the Land "Between Rivers"), where modern-day Iraq is located. This is the land from which grew the Babylonian Empire and the city-state of Nineveh.

To equate the two is like saying that Prussia is the same as Russia or Austria is the same as Australia!

 

[Diaste]

13 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shabbat shalom, Diaste.

I just noticed this in a re-read of this thread: You said, "The Assyrian is often taken to mean from present day Syria but that's not necessary."

One shouldn't confuse Assyria with Syria. The two countries were NOT the same! Today's "Syria" used to be called "Aram," from which came the ancient language of "Aramaic," which Yeshua` apparently used in daily speech.

The country of Assyria was in Mesopotamia (the Land "Between Rivers"), where modern-day Iraq is located. This is the land from which grew the Babylonian Empire and the city-state of Nineveh.

To equate the two is like saying that Prussia is the same as Russia or Austria is the same as Australia!

 

From what I see the area of modern Syria was a part of the Assyrian empire for centuries, an empire that covered at times the whole of the Mideast, part of Asia Minor, and Egypt, and as far east as the Persian Gulf.

The point was that the Assyrian could be from Syria but it is not necessary. This "Assyrian" could come from any number of people groups and I was pointing out a few scenarios for the 'antichrist must come from Syria' crowd.

 

[Justin Adams]

20 hours ago, Uriah said:

I agree with the dating of Christmas you propose. 

Christmas is non Christian. It is Roman plus pagan. The yearly SUN-god day (25th Dec.). Semiramis (queen of heaven) and Nimrod stuff along with Tammuz yule pig from Babylonian culture adopted later as pagan rituals towards their deities. Non of it is truly Christian and believers should be aware of this. Yes, that hurts our traditions, but it is what it is. Pagan.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Justin Adams

[Uriah]

Yup, you nailed it!

[Diaste]

15 hours ago, Uriah said:

Hi Diaste

I am also conservative about such things. In this case it actually does fit as anyone can see. We also see this kind of pattern in shorter form in the Proverbs which is also not "poetic or a song. They are often contrasting and comparative.

Sure and I can see the expansion of thought of a given subject such as "the wall shall be built again; even in troubled times." While this literary device gives more energy to the import of the statement no structure overcomes context and meaning.

I see some dispute over just who the 'he' is in Dan 9:26-27 and I don't understand it. A normal reading yields the answer.

"Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation, until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.”"  Dan 9

"Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing.

Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."

After Messiah is "cut off" (cut down, cease, destroyed), then, or AFTER, we have the 'prince who is to come'. This 'prince who is to come' is the direct antecedent for 'he will confirm a covenant'. So I would have to say no, Jesus is not the one confirming a covenant for one week.

 

 

[Diaste]

5 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Christmas is non Christian. It is Roman plus pagan. The yearly SUN-god day (25th Dec.). Semiramis (queen of heaven) and Nimrod stuff along with Tammuz yule pig from Babylonian culture adopted later as pagan rituals towards their deities. Non of it is truly Christian and believers should be aware of this. Yes, that hurts our traditions, but it is what it is. Pagan.

I read an interesting academic paper on Dating the Two Censusus of Quirinius. The author places the birth of Jesus late May or early April in 2 AD, if memory serves. Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus and is as you say, pagan.

[Uriah]

12 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Sure and I can see the expansion of thought of a given subject such as "the wall shall be built again; even in troubled times." While this literary device gives more energy to the import of the statement no structure overcomes context and meaning.

I see some dispute over just who the 'he' is in Dan 9:26-27 and I don't understand it. A normal reading yields the answer.

"Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation, until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.”"  Dan 9

"Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing.

Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."

After Messiah is "cut off" (cut down, cease, destroyed), then, or AFTER, we have the 'prince who is to come'. This 'prince who is to come' is the direct antecedent for 'he will confirm a covenant'. So I would have to say no, Jesus is not the one confirming a covenant for one week.

 

 

Maybe so, depends on how one reads it, I guess. Do you think Jesus is referring to Dan 9:27 at the last supper? Or the same verse in Dan referring to the one in Genesis?

Edited August 18, 2019 by Uriah

[Uriah]

31 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Sure and I can see the expansion of thought of a given subject such as "the wall shall be built again; even in troubled times." While this literary device gives more energy to the import of the statement no structure overcomes context and meaning.

I see some dispute over just who the 'he' is in Dan 9:26-27 and I don't understand it. A normal reading yields the answer.

"Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed. And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation, until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.”"  Dan 9

"Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing.

Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."

After Messiah is "cut off" (cut down, cease, destroyed), then, or AFTER, we have the 'prince who is to come'. This 'prince who is to come' is the direct antecedent for 'he will confirm a covenant'. So I would have to say no, Jesus is not the one confirming a covenant for one week.

 

 

Not sure why the post from my phone isn't here. Anyway, it does depend on how one reads it. I see the context in Dan. 9 with him praying about "the covenant" and being answered about "the covenant." The two rail view WORKS here.

Do you believe that Jesus was referring to Dan. 9:27 at the last supper? Or that Dan 9:27 had the verse in Genesis I quoted in view? 

[Diaste]

3 hours ago, Uriah said:

 Do you think Jesus is referring to Dan 9:27 at the last supper? Or the same verse in Dan referring to the one in Genesis?

I do not.

The Lord's covenant's are kept throughout generations and the Dan 9:27 is broken soon after it's confirmed.

The terms of the covenants are not the same: The last supper is the everlasting covenant of shed blood, and the Genesis covenant is the promise to make Abraham the father of many nations. The covenant with Abraham has everlasting terms of relationship and Abraham will always be the Father of many nations and many kings.

Both are ongoing and only end when the need for them ends; at such a time when people no longer multiply and when the need for the shed blood of Jesus for covering sin is no longer needed. Both go on forever where the Dan 9:27 covenant does not as it's limited to 7 years.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Diaste