Seven Year Tribulation?

[Justin Adams]

1 minute ago, Diaste said:

Ah. It's 'shoe'.

One legged? It is cap where I hail from.

"if the cap fits, wear it used as a way of suggesting that someone should accept a generalized remark or criticism as applying to themselves. Early examples of this saying show that the cap in question was originally a fool's cap. The variant if the shoe fits, wear it is also found, mainly in North America."

[DeighAnn]

6 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, THOU that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the LORD.'"

Hi Retro, 

 

 

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Well, I can understand that and I sympathize with your thinking; HOWEVER, we also have Yeshua`s own words to consider, which were said JUST PRIOR to this:

Matthew 23:29-36 (KJV)

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell (Greek: tees kriseoos tees ge-ennees = "the sentencing of-the [judgment] of-Gei-Hinnowm," the Valley of Hinnowm just outside Jerusalem where kings would set up their judgment seats)?

 

I will get more specific and then will let it go as something we will have to disagree upon unless you have a reason to continue.  But first, Please
explain what 'and I sympathize with your thinking' means exactly.  Is this a true feeling of yours, and if so,  what does that mean?? (I keep reading it over and over and really don't know what it means but it just keeps feeling....ucky,  for lack of a better way to say it.  I apologize UP FRONT if I am reading it wrong, that is why before I allow any negative feelings to occur on my end, especially because of a miscommunication on my part I thought I best attempt to clear it up by asking.  If we were talking face to face I would be able to discern from your tone and expression but in writing all that is lost and going with the content that follows... I hope you can understand why I find it concerning.  Anyway, 

these are the more specific reasons, on why I don't believe that it was to that one generation and that one generation only, EVEN though it was spoken to them (every word had to be spoken to someone of some generation and it is WHAT is said and what comes to pass that sometimes and not only to whom it is said, IMHO anyhow
 
1) God had been sending Prophets to Jerusalem for many many generations and many of them were killed throughout all that time something specific TO THE PLACE, not ONLY that one generation.  The Scribes and the Pharisees were not particular to just that one.

2) 'How often I would have gathered...' also does not speak to just the ONE but speaks to many generations who have resided in Jerusalem.
 
3) Once that generation was gone, Jerusalem remained.
 
I do believe the temple destruction was prophesized to OCCUR in that generation, but it was not ONLY because of the crucifixion of Christ/the Messiah but for what had taken place throughout many.  If it was just about that one generation only,  it would have been rebuilt,  don't you think?

Looking to your response...D

[DeighAnn]

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

You're right that they weren't saying that in 70 A.D.; that's why I KNOW there will be yet another Temple before our Lord Yeshua` the Messiah returns! The phrase of welcome, "BLESSED IS HE THAT COMETH IN THE NAME OF THE LORD," comes from Psalm 118:26. Read the REST of this verse:

I am confused. Do you believe the LORD came in 70AD or do you not?  

You said,  "You're right that THEY WEREN'T SAYING that in 70AD"  

 

Luke 13:30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

Luke 13:31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.

Luke 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Luke 13:35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you,



Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

So,  IF you believe they WERE NOT SAYING IT  so your belief in another temple being built

Do you or do you not believe 
'Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?' 

I do.  
Therefore for me another 'temple' being built is not necessary

BUT I wouldn't be surprised if 'the image' coming our way didn't look just like one either.....

Trying to keep 'em short and more specific...  D

[DeighAnn]

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Don't succumb to gematria or numerology. "Six" (6) is JUST A NUMBER. It doesn't have that much significance of itself. Now, if it is USED in such a way that the context of the TEXT gives it some significance, then ... sure.

Please go back and read what I wrote as that is what I said.  

 

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

"Sackcloth of hair" is the BLACK fabric that is woven from the black hair of goats in the Middle East, and THAT is the reason for its usage in the description of the sun going BLACK! It's not a symbol of mourning here. It's just an analogy to describe what the sun will look like!

I DON'T have this right 

Black fabric made from goats hair in the Middle East is the REASON for its usage in description of the sun going black.  

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  (Apart from what I do understand,  the sackcloth fabric made of hair, the color, the way it is made,  what it is made from, where it is made).  

Will the sun be black or not?  What's the analogy?  




All I am saying is when the TRIBULATION comes, way before the Lord does, 

there will be darkening of the sun and it is the ONLY TIME that I can find where the moon turns to blood...

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

Revelation 9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

There will be mourning, it's not JUST an analogy.  WOE to us. It is not a happy time.

D

[DeighAnn]

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I go against "thousands of years of knowledge," because, after THOUSANDS OF YEARS, human beings tend to SCREW THINGS UP! It's the one thing we're all pretty good at!

Hi Retro, 
Then that would be the thing I like about you most! Well the first 8 words anyhow.
I don't think it's the human-beings as much as the intentional workings of the opposition.  I think the place the Adversary works the hardest is in the words of God because the subjects most necessary for understanding have been so run back and forth over the coals they can't even be spoken of.  But I believe there will come a day...D 

[DeighAnn]

6 hours ago, Diaste said:

ne statement reveals the time frame of Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21:

Hi Diaste,

Do you know if there are others who believe the Matt and Mark speak to the end times and Luke speaks to 70 AD and the end?  I sat down and did a comparison a long time ago and found that I couldn't make Luke fit with the others who fit perfectly themselves no problems (not that I remember anyhow).   Just curious 

[Diaste]

49 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

Hi Diaste,

Do you know if there are others who believe the Matt and Mark speak to the end times and Luke speaks to 70 AD and the end?  I sat down and did a comparison a long time ago and found that I couldn't make Luke fit with the others who fit perfectly themselves no problems (not that I remember anyhow).   Just curious 

I think Luke fits quite well. It's further detail we don't see in Matt and Mark.

Luke 21:7

“Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

[WilliamL]

On 7/18/2021 at 10:21 AM, DeighAnn said:

Hi Diaste,

Do you know if there are others who believe the Matt and Mark speak to the end times and Luke speaks to 70 AD and the end?  I sat down and did a comparison a long time ago and found that I couldn't make Luke fit with the others who fit perfectly themselves no problems (not that I remember anyhow).   Just curious 

OK, so my name isn't Diaste, but thought I'd butt in anyway...

Jesus was asked two questions: when to be the Parousia, and when the Temple to be destroyed. Matthew and Mark only recorded His reply to the first question. Luke was the only one to provide answers to both.

Luke 21:8-11 and  :25-36 contain the answer to the first question; and verses 12-24 contain the answer to the second.

Note Jesus' preface words that begin verse 12: "But before all these things" of :8-11, related to the events of the Parousia.

Now note Jesus' final words of verse 24: "And Jerusalem shall be trampled by Gentiles [after the Temple is destroyed] until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." Then in verse 25, Jesus goes back to speaking about the End Times.

If you draw a line in your Bible under verse 11, and another line under verse 24, then you can remember where the two answers are separated.

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by WilliamL

[DeighAnn]

6 hours ago, WilliamL said:

OK, so my name isn't Diaste, but thought I'd butt in anyway...

Jesus was asked two questions: when to be the Parousia, and when the Temple to be destroyed. Matthew and Mark only recorded His reply to the first question. Luke was the only one to provide answers to both.

Luke 21:8-11 and  :25-36 contain the answer to the first question; and verses 12-24 contain the answer to the second.

Note Jesus' preface words that begin verse 12: "But before all these things" of :8-11, related to the events of the Parousia.

Now note Jesus' final words of verse 24: "And Jerusalem shall be trampled by Gentiles [after the Temple is destroyed] until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." Then in verse 25, Jesus goes back to speaking about the End Times.

If you draw a line in your Bible under verse 11, and another line under verse 24, then you can remember where the two answers are separated.

 

Hi William

You just jump in there any time you agree, didn't hurt one bit.  I even thank you.  Yes, I believe very much that He speaks to one subject and then the other, the destruction of the temple and then the latter days before He returns as King of kings and Lord of lords to rule with a rod of iron.  Gonna be a day like no other. 

Thanks for the joining up....D  

 

[Retrobyter]

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

Hello Retro,  

...

Events. 
The one in the verse I put forth.

Shalom, DeighAnn.

Well, I can't just go on Daniel 9:1. It says,

Daniel 9:1-2 (KJV)

1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; 2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Here's a list of the kings during Daniel's lifetime (and beyond):

Tenth Dynasty of Babylon, the Ne0-Babylonian Empire (612-539 B.C.)

Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 B.C.)
Amel-Marduk (562-560 B.C.)
Neriglissar (560-556 B.C.)
Labashi-Marduk (556 B.C.)
Nabonidus (556-539 B.C.)

Medo-Persian Empire

Achaemenid Empire (559-334/327 B.C.)

Cyrus the Great II (559-530 B.C.)
Cambyses II (530-522 B.C.)
Bardiya (522 B.C.) (7 months)
Darius I (522-486 B.C.)
Xerxes I (Ahasuerus of Esther) (486-465 B.C.)
Artaxerxes I (465-424 B.C.)
Xerxes II (424 B.C.)
Sogdianus (424-423 B.C.)
Darius II (424-404 B.C.)
Artaxerxes II (404-358 B.C.)
Artaxerxes III (358-338 B.C.)
Artaxerxes IV (338-336 B.C.)
Darius III (336-330 B.C.)
Artaxerxes V (330-329 B.C.)

Macedonian Empire (336-306 B.C.)

Alexander the Great III (336-323 B.C.)
Philip III (323-317 B.C.)
Alexander IV (323-309 B.C.)
Perdiccas (323-321 B.C.)
Antipater (321-319 B.C.)

The wording of Daniel 9:1 is a bit deceptive. I believe this is because of its Gentile influence. The wording is ...

Bishnat achat lDaryavesh ben Achashverosh mizzera` Maadaay.

This translates directly to ...

In-year one to-Daryavesh (Darius) a-son Achashverosh (Ahasuerus) of-seed of-Midian.

I believe a scribe sometime down through the copying since the verse was first written added the "dash," thinking this was a common noun construct state, as in "ben-David" meaning "son OF-David," added the "of" and neglected the "l-" prefix of Daryavesh, meaning "TO."

We can read at Britannica.com ...

"Xerxes was the son of Darius I and Atossa, daughter of Cyrus; he was the first son born to Darius after his accession to the throne. Xerxes was designated heir apparent by his father in preference to his elder brother Artabazanes."

And, we can read at wikipedia.org

"Artobazan was born to 'Darius the subject', while Xerxes was the eldest son born in the purple after Darius's rise to the throne, and Artobazan's mother was a commoner while Xerxes's mother was the daughter of the founder of the empire. Xerxes was crowned and succeeded his father in October–December 486 BC when he was about 36 years old."

Also, in Britannica, we read this about Cyrus II or Cyrus the Great...

"According to the legend, Astyages, the king of the Medes and overlord of the Persians, gave his daughter in marriage to his vassal in Persis, a prince called Cambyses. From this marriage Cyrus was born. Astyages, having had a dream that the baby would grow up to overthrow him, ordered Cyrus slain. His chief adviser, however, instead gave the baby to a shepherd to raise. When he was 10 years old, Cyrus, because of his outstanding qualities, was discovered by Astyages, who, in spite of the dream, was persuaded to allow the boy to live. Cyrus, when he reached manhood in Persis, revolted against his maternal grandfather and overlord. Astyages marched against the rebel, but his army deserted him and surrendered to Cyrus in 550 BCE."

And, Koresh (Cyrus) was counted as the benevolent King of the Maadaay (Medes) and King of the Persians. 

So, I believe the order was reversed in Daniel 9:1 and it was Darius I, a half-Mede by birth and the King of the Medes, who was the father, and Ahasuerus (Xerxes I) was the son.

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

Actually, there are 2 splits.  

Well, that's convenient, but it's also not true. There's no need for a SECOND split since the 70th Seven falls on the heels of the 69th Seven.

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

IF it indeed read like this 

AND IN THE THREESCORE AND THREE WEEKs MESSIAH IS CUT OFF 
I would say YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT,  

BUT INSTEAD IT SAYS 


Daniel 9:26 And AFTER threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

AND IF THERE ISN'T A split in the weeks THEMSELVES 

then the DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE IN 70 AD FOR SURE WOULD BE NO PART OF IT EITHER, would it?  coming 40 years later and all.  

Or is it time for me to quit thinking today?  IDK.  I hope you answer this one  

As I said before, any time AFTER the 69th Seven, the Messiah was cut off. In that verse (verse 26), it doesn't give a "cut-off" time. Daniel 9:26 gives the OVERALL, GENERAL view, giving the destruction of the city and the Temple (in 70 A.D.), and looking forward to a flood that hasn't occurred, yet. But, he DID say that desolations (events making things empty, bare, vacant, or abandoned) are determined or decided unto the end of the war!

THEN, he gets into the particulars in verse 27:

Daniel 9:27 (KJV)

27 And he (the Messiah) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: ...

This He did at the beginning of His "ministry" (or rather, at the beginning of His offer of the Kingdom to Israel). The covenant was the DAVIDIC Covenant, which is mentioned in Luke 1:30-33.

... and in the midst of the week he (the Messiah) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ...

This He did in His death on the cross, being the ULTIMATE Sacrifice as the Lamb of God ("haKeves Elohiym" in Hebrew).

... and for the overspreading of abominations he (the Messiah) shall make it desolate, ...

This He did just prior to His death of the cross, as a final step to be enacted upon His death.

... even until the consummation ("even until the end"; that is, the end of the desolation), and that determined (what was determined to happen to them) shall be poured upon the desolate (poured upon the ones made desolate by the Messiah).

That's just the way Hebrew literature works.

The fact that this is NOT the "prince that shall come" is from two simple facts of grammar: In Hebrew, the second noun in a noun construct state cannot act as the subject of the verb or verbs in a sentence. In English, it's basically the same rule: the object of a preposition cannot act as the subject of the verb or verbs in a sentence.

The "people of the prince that shall come" is "`am nagiyd habaa' " in Hebrew. The noun construct state is found in the two nouns back-to-back, "`am nagiyd," translated directly as "people of-prince." Therefore, "prince" cannot be the subject of the verbs in this sentence, and the sentence carries on into verse 27, since there are no subject nouns within verse 27. They can ONLY point back to the next possible, masculine, singular noun, "mashiyach" in verse 26.

It's the "PEOPLE" ("`am") which is the subject of the verb "shall destroy" ("yashchiyt"). The ONLY information we are given about THIS "prince" ("nagiyd") is that "he shall come" ("habbaa'" = "the-comer").

So, it is NOT RIGHT to say that the "prince" is the subject of the three verbs in verse 27 that are given pronoun subjects, "he" three times. The "he" would refer to the "Messiah" in verse 26.

In English, we have "the prince that shall come" being the object of the preposition "of." So, neither in English would the "prince" be the subject of the verbs of verse 27. However, because English breaks the sentence into two sentences, and adds the singular, masculine pronouns "he," we have to say that the ANTECEDENT of the pronouns cannot be the "prince" as the object of the preposition. Again, the antecedent must be the word "Messiah" of verse 26.

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

I would sure like to do my own all the time but I am going to need quite a bit more than this to change it.  
 

Not a prince.  Doesn't HAVE a people but commands a part of someone elses people.  Big BIT of a difference
 

Well, even the Messiah is called a "Prince" in verse 25:

Daniel 9:25 (KJV)

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Titus, at the time that Jerusalem was under siege from 66 to 70 A.D., was indeed a "prince" in your understanding of the word because he was the SON of Vespasian, who himself was under Emperor Nero at the time. LATER, when Nero died, Titus encouraged the senate to accept his father Vespasian as their Emperor. Even later, Titus himself is selected as Emperor.

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

 

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy 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 prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

This is why I can't follow your timing. 

He was cut off AFTER the 62 Sevens, but then that doesn't mean in a GAP between the 62 Sevens and the ONE Seven! It means it happened DURING the ONE Seven, which itself was after the 62 Sevens! See, you've got the cart  before the horse! You NEED the gap to make it after the 62 Sevens and still not be IN the ONE Seven left! However, if the ONE Seven left starts IMMEDIATELY AFTER the 62 Sevens, then the Messiah is cut off DURING the ONE Seven left, because the ONE Seven left is also AFTER the 62 Sevens! Get it? The problem is that, having been taught that there IS a gap between the 62 Sevens and the ONE Seven left, you just can't see it any other way! I had the same problem!

ALL MY LIFE I was taught that there was this gap between the 69 Sevens and the One Seven left! It took a LONG TIME to see it otherwise! The gap NEVER EXISTED between the 69 Sevens and the One Seven! The gap was MADE BY THE POSTPONEMENT the Messiah put IN THE MIDDLE of the One Seven!

Look, there's no justification for a gap between the 69 Sevens and the 1 Seven. There IS, however, a LOGICAL JUSTIFICATION for a gap between the 69-1/2 Sevens and the last 1/2 Seven! The Messiah PUT IT THERE when He left the Jews of Jerusalem DESOLATE UNTIL they can say, "Baruwkh haba' b-shem YHWH!" "Welcome, Comer on the authority of YHWH!"

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

Jesus is cut off which you say IS THE SAME TIMING OF 'the oblation or gift would no longer be efficacious. God had "closed down" the Temple when Yeshua` had died'. 

BUT AS WE CAN SEE JESUS WAS CUT OFF

YES He was! But, He was cut off IN THE MIDDLE of the One Seven, which is "AFTER" the 62 Sevens! THAT'S when the veil was torn down the middle, and the sacrifice and the gift were no longer efficacious! The LAST Sacrifice for sins was MADE! It was FINISHED - PAID IN FULL!

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

THEN  the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;

This was fulfilled in 66 to 70 A.D., 40 years AFTER the LAST Sacrifice!

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

and the end thereof shall be with a flood,

and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

This is still in the future.

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

Yes, He did this when He submitted to God and accepted God's role for Him at His baptism.

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

SO ARE YOU SAYING THIS HAPPENS TWICE?  OR IS THIS VERSE JUST A REPEAT OF THE VERSE ABOVE?  so does it come before or after.   I DON'T SEE HOW we eat this cake and have it too.  

No, it didn't happen twice, just once; however, verse 26 are "the MAJOR points in the outline" while verse 27 are "the MINOR points in the outline."

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

This happened at Yeshua`s death.

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Yeshua` explained the widespread abominations in the first part of Matthew 23. He even warned them that they wouldn't see Him again until they could WELCOME Him as God's Messiah. The desolation was announced prior to His death, but His death SEALED the desolation, and forty years later, it culminated in the destruction of the Temple and the deportation of the Jews from their homeland in the Diaspora. He just had to talk about it while He could and issue the warning.

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

I missed the explanation of Jesus making a covenant for JUST ONE WEEK in all that.

Okay, let me try to help you understand this portion: Yeshua` shall be given His Kingdom by God IN STAGES. He was BORN to be "King of the Jews," but the "Jews" in charge never accepted His reign!

David was "king of the Jews," that is, "king over his own tribe of Yhudah" and reigned for SEVEN YEARS in Hevrown ("Hebron").

After those seven years, the rest of the tribes of Israel came to Him and asked Him to be their king, too.

The second stage of the Messiah's Kingdom will be to become the King of Israel. This was prophesied by Gabriel in Luke 1:30-33:

Luke 1:30-33 (KJV)

30 And the angel said unto her,

"Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

"Jacob" is the same man who was later named "Israel." From him were born twelve sons, each one the father of his own family or tribe, one of which was the man Yhudah or "Judah," the father of the Yhudiym or the "Jews."

So, to be reigning over the house of Jacob forever is to be reigning over the house of Israel forever.

There's also a THIRD stage that is given to us in a Psalm:

Psalm 2:1-12 (KJV)

1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD (YHWH), and against his anointed (His Messiah), saying,

3 "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us!"

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord (Adonay) shall have them in derision (shall make fun of them, mocking them).

5 Then shall he (YHWH) speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6 "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion! 7 I will declare the decree:

"'the LORD (YHWH, God the Father) hath said unto me (the Son of God, the Messiah Yeshua`),

"'"Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel!"'

10 "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth! 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little! Blessed (Happy) are all they that (who) put their trust in him!"

God gave this prophecy about the Messiah versus the kings of the earth. He shall also be called, "King of kings and Lord (Master) of lords (masters)." This is a title of other men, like Nebuchadnezzar and Artaxerxes, mentioned in history and in the Bible, meaning a "World Emperor."

This acquisition is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28 (KJV)

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order:

(0) Christ the firstfruits;
(1) afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 
24 (2) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

So, once again, the three stages of His Kingdom are ...

(1) King of the Jews for 1 Seven - seven years, like His ancestor David
(2) King of all Israel FOREVER
(3) King of kings or World Emperor until all have been subjected to Him. THEN, He hands the World Empire over to His Father, YHWH!

Stage (1) is SPLIT IN TWO. The first half, the three and a half years of Yeshua`s offer of the Kingdom to the Jews, ended in His rejection and crucifixion (BUT also in the JUSTIFICATION AND REDEMPTION available to ALL mankind, for Yeshua` came as the "LAMB of God")! (Isn't God AMAZING how He turned that around?!)

The second half, will pick up where He left off, offering the Kingdom to the Jews again, a NEW generation, as THIS time, His Second Advent, He comes as the "LION of the Tribe of Yhudah!" and, THIS time, He shall be accepted as their King!

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

If you will look you have the question for the next part of the verse in with the answer from the previous making it all confusing.  But my question still stands.   


THE JEWS HAVE HAD A BLINDNESS PUT UPON THEM.  CORRECT?  

SO THEY HAVE HAD NO CHANCE TO CHANGE.  DO YOU BELIEVE THE SINS OF THE FATHER are placed upon the son?  biting the sour grape and all?  We are told NO. 

SO if the final generation SHOULDN'T PAY FOR the sins of their fathers and they have had a blindness placed upon them my question is

why?  

HOW IS IT THEN JUST FOR JESUS TO MAKE THEM DESOLATE?

The answer to this is the same as the answer to the Hyper-Calvinists. Yes, God knows who's predestinated to be Justified; that is, who's going to be Justified and who's not going to be Justified, but HE'S NOT TELLING! And, it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS to know that information! It's OUR job to assume all COULD be justified and to tell all that we meet how they can be justified by God, too!

Back in my Bible college days, it was explained as a doorway through which one may enter to come to God: As one enters the doorway, above the door is written "Whosoever will may come." Once THROUGH the doorway, one can look back and see above the inside of the door is written, "foreknown before the foundation of the world!"

The Jews have a blindness put upon them OF THEIR OWN MAKING and OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING! They've had their chances, but the odds have been stacked against them. No, they're not suffering for their father's sins; HOWEVER, if they are still rejecting their Messiah Yeshua`, then it's ON THEM! If they suffer for their sins, it was ultimately their OWN choice to do so, and they are suffering for THEIR OWN sins.

You should know, though, that the "veil is being lifted!" Many have come to know their Messiah Yeshua` and are becoming believers. There's not enough, yet, to make a significant difference in the state of Israel today, but it's happening just the same! Through Jews for Jesus and the Messianic Movement, many are beginning to understand who their Messiah is!

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

AND WHO DID JESUS SAY THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES WERE?  
OF THEIR FATHER THE DEVIL. VIPERS.  LIARS.  

Yes, there's always that element. In the Tanakh, the "Old Testament," they were called "sons of Belial" or "worthless fellows." There may be no hope for them, but God gives them a chance anyway. As the saying goes, God "gives them enough rope to hang themselves."

It may be harder for a Jew to accept Yeshua` as His Messiah, but it's still possible, and God will give them a chance if they ask Him. See, they have an in-bred fear and distrust for "Christians" after CENTURIES of being labeled "Christ-killers," being persecuted and hounded in every part of Europe and Russia, subjected to Pogroms, Crusades, Inquisitions, and the Holocaust all in the name of "Christ!" So, how do you think they would react when someone mentions the name of "Christ?"

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

I missed this somewhere but will address it here, 

a comment about Jesus already coming back in 70 AD.  

If Titus did it, what did Jesus need to come for?

Yeshua` DID NOT come back in 70 A.D.

On 7/17/2021 at 6:34 PM, DeighAnn said:

We are told when Jesus returns the dead are raised and those who are alive and remain are changed.  

Since once we have been 'changed' and we have received our incorruptible bodies we become like the angels in heaven neither taking nor giving in marriage, hence NO CHILDREN.  

How has anyone been born since 70 AD?  

Got me thinking in a lot of different directions that's for sure, but truly loving it.  Thank you for giving me your time and energy, iron on iron....  Hope to hear more...D

Don't be so fixated on the 70 A.D. stuff. The Temple was destroyed, and the Jews suffered at the hands of the Romans, but there will be children in God's Kingdom, because there will be children during the Millennium.