The "Gap" Between the 69th and 70th Week of Daniel

[Mickey]

The "Gap" Between the End of the 69th Week and the Beginning of the 70th Week

Preterist Gary DeMar,an outspoken critic of the interpretation of the 70 Weeks put forth by dispensationalists,writes the following in regard to the "gap" between the 69th and 70th Weeks:

"While nearly all Bible scholars agree that the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy refer to the time up to Jesus’ crucifixion,only dispensationalists believe that the entire seventieth week is yet to be fulfilled.Without a futurized seventieth week,the dispensationalist system falls apart.There can be no pretribulational rapture,great tribulation,or rebuilt temple without the gap.How do dispensationalists find a gap in a text that makes no mention of a gap?"

If we are to understand why there is a "gap" then we must understand that the blessings promised at the end of the 70 Weeks were "conditional" upon the nation receiving the Lord Jesus as her promised Messiah.That was the purpose of the ministry of John the Baptist:

"And I knew Him not: but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water…And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God" (Jn.1:31,34).

The Baptist preached that "the kingdom is at hand",which meant that the time was near when the promised Messiah would begin to rule first over Israel,and then the whole world.However,when the leaders of the nation of Israel decided that the Lord Jesus was not the Messiah they plotted His death and His ministry underwent a change.Instead of preaching a king coming to reign,He spoke of a sower going forth to sow.He began to speak in parables in regard to the "mysteries of the kindom".These "mysteries" were in regard to things which had not been revealed to the prophets and had been kept secret.One of the parables is the "Parable of the Marriage Feast":

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding;and they would not come" (Mt.22:2-3).

The Lord was speaking in parable in regard to the fact that the nation of Israel ("them that were bidden to the wedding") would not accept Him as the Messiah.This was fulfilled at the Cross.But while He was on the Cross the nation received a repreive when He asked the Father to "forgive them for they know not what they do"(Lk.23:34).

The nation was to receive another chance to receive Him as their King.On the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter told the nation that they had crucified Him "through ignorance"(Acts3:17),and then told them that if they would receive Him now that He would be sent back to earth to usher in the "times of refreshing" and "times of restitution of all things":

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts3:19-21).

The parable of the Marriage Feast revealed that even after the second invitation the Jews would still not receive the Promised Messiah:"And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner… come unto the marriage. But they made light of it…And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them" (Mt.22:3-6).

Shortly after the invited guests were bidden by the Apostles to receive the kingdom the Jews "laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison" (Acts5:18).In response to the preaching of Spirit filled Stephen the Jews "cast him out of the city, and stoned him" until he died (Acts7:58,60).

According to prophecy Israel was to be the "light of the world" (Mt.5:14).But since that nation rejected their promised Messiah the promises to Israel in regard to the 70th Week have been postponed until the "fullness of the Gentiles of the Gentiles be come in":

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Ro.11:25).

So the "gap" between the 69th and 70th week was not revealed in the OT prophecies.It was kept secret.And the fulfillment of the 70th week awaits the time when the "fullness of the Gentiles of the Gentiles be come in".

The preterists cannot see the conditional nature of the blessing promised to Israel of the 70th Week,and they say that the 70th Week was fulfilled despite the fact that Israel did not repent and accept the promised Messiah.They also throw their reason to the wind and say that the "blesssings" of the 70th week were brought in when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Tim C.]

"While nearly all Bible scholars agree that the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy refer to the time up to Jesus’ crucifixion,only dispensationalists believe that the entire seventieth week is yet to be fulfilled."

Only dispensationalists believe that? Actually, that is the common view among futurist premillennialists in general.

Hey Mickey, did DeMar bother telling his readers that our futurist premillennial interpretation of Daniel 9 is the oldest Christian interpretation of the prophecy? I'll bet he didn't bother telling his readers about that.

"The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: 'I have come in my Father's name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,' calling Antichrist 'the other,' because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one 'who feared not God, neither regarded man,' to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,-that is, the earthly Jerusalem,-to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that (city), and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: 'And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active, and gone on prosperously.' And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: 'And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding (dark) questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence, and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath (round their neck); deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs.' And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: 'And in the midst of the week,' he says, 'the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation (shall be brought) into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.' Now three years and six months constitute the half-week." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, ch.25:4

"He says, therefore, 'They shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall;' which in reality took place. For the people returned and built the city, and the temple, and the wall round about. Then he says: 'After threescore and two weeks the times will be fulfilled, and one week will make a covenant with many; and in the midst (half) of the week sacrifice and oblation will be removed, and in the temple will be the abomination of desolations.' For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested, viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world." - Hippolytus, On Daniel, sec.21-22

"With respect, then, to the particular judgment in the torments that are to come upon it in the last times by the hand of the tyrants who shall arise then, the clearest statement has been given in these passages. But it becomes us further diligently to examine and set forth the period at which these things shall come to pass, and how the little horn shall spring up in their midst. For when the legs of iron have issued in the feet and toes, according to the similitude of the image and that of the terrible beast, as has been shown in the above, (then shall be the time) when the iron and the clay shall be mingled together. Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, 'And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease.' By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations. For as two advents of our Lord and Saviour are indicated in the Scriptures, the one being His first advent in the flesh, which took place without honour by reason of His being set at nought, as Isaiah spake of Him aforetime, saying, 'We saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness, but His form was despised (and) rejected above all men; a man smitten and familiar with bearing infirmity, (for His face was turned away); He was despised, and esteemed not.' But His second advent is announced as glorious, when He shall come from heaven with the host of angels, and the glory of His Father, as the prophet saith, 'Ye shall see the King in glory;' and, 'I saw one like the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven; and he came to the Ancient of days, and he was brought to Him. And there were given Him dominion, and honour, and glory, and the kingdom; all tribes and languages shall serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away.'" - Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, sec.43-44

-Tim

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

The "Gap" Between the End of the 69th Week and the Beginning of the 70th Week

Preterist Gary DeMar,an outspoken critic of the interpretation of the 70 Weeks put forth by dispensationalists,writes the following in regard to the "gap" between the 69th and 70th Weeks:

"While nearly all Bible scholars agree that the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy refer to the time up to Jesus’ crucifixion,only dispensationalists believe that the entire seventieth week is yet to be fulfilled.Without a futurized seventieth week,the dispensationalist system falls apart.There can be no pretribulational rapture,great tribulation,or rebuilt temple without the gap.How do dispensationalists find a gap in a text that makes no mention of a gap?"

If we are to understand why there is a "gap" then we must understand that the blessings promised at the end of the 70 Weeks were "conditional" upon the nation receiving the Lord Jesus as her promised Messiah.That was the purpose of the ministry of John the Baptist:

"And I knew Him not: but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water…And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God" (Jn.1:31,34).

The Baptist preached that "the kingdom is at hand",which meant that the time was near when the promised Messiah would begin to rule first over Israel,and then the whole world.However,when the leaders of the nation of Israel decided that the Lord Jesus was not the Messiah they plotted His death and His ministry underwent a change.Instead of preaching a king coming to reign,He spoke of a sower going forth to sow.He began to speak in parables in regard to the "mysteries of the kindom".These "mysteries" were in regard to things which had not been revealed to the prophets and had been kept secret.One of the parables is the "Parable of the Marriage Feast":

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding;and they would not come" (Mt.22:2-3).

The Lord was speaking in parable in regard to the fact that the nation of Israel ("them that were bidden to the wedding") would not accept Him as the Messiah.This was fulfilled at the Cross.But while He was on the Cross the nation received a repreive when He asked the Father to "forgive them for they know not what they do"(Lk.23:34).

The nation was to receive another chance to receive Him as their King.On the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter told the nation that they had crucified Him "through ignorance"(Acts3:17),and then told them that if they would receive Him now that He would be sent back to earth to usher in the "times of refreshing" and "times of restitution of all things":

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts3:19-21).

The parable of the Marriage Feast revealed that even after the second invitation the Jews would still not receive the Promised Messiah:"And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner… come unto the marriage. But they made light of it…And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them" (Mt.22:3-6).

Shortly after the invited guests were bidden by the Apostles to receive the kingdom the Jews "laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison" (Acts5:18).In response to the preaching of Spirit filled Stephen the Jews "cast him out of the city, and stoned him" until he died (Acts7:58,60).

According to prophecy Israel was to be the "light of the world" (Mt.5:14).But since that nation rejected their promised Messiah the promises to Israel in regard to the 70th Week have been postponed until the "fullness of the Gentiles of the Gentiles be come in":

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Ro.11:25).

So the "gap" between the 69th and 70th week was not revealed in the OT prophecies.It was kept secret.And the fulfillment of the 70th week awaits the time when the "fullness of the Gentiles of the Gentiles be come in".

The preterists cannot see the conditional nature of the blessing promised to Israel of the 70th Week,and they say that the 70th Week was fulfilled despite the fact that Israel did not repent and accept the promised Messiah.They also throw their reason to the wind and say that the "blesssings" of the 70th week were brought in when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.

In Christ,
Mickey


:strawman:

[Tim C.]

:strawman:

strawman? As far as I can tell, all preterists emphatically deny the existence of a "kingdom offer" in John Baptist's ministry and Christ's ministry. And, yes, they do indeed state that the kingdom was granted to "Israel" despite the fact Messiah was rejected at his first advent (John 1:11). This contradicts Matthew 23:37-39 and many other passages.

-Tim

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

strawman? As far as I can tell, all preterists emphatically deny the existence of a "kingdom offer" in John Baptist's ministry and Christ's ministry. And, yes, they do indeed state that the kingdom was granted to "Israel" despite the fact Messiah was rejected at his first advent (John 1:11). This contradicts Matthew 23:37-39 and many other passages.

-Tim

Then you don't understand preterism. Thus :strawman:

[Tim C.]

Then you don't understand preterism. Thus :strawman:

I know preterism all too well... even better than most preterists.

-Tim

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I know preterism all too well... even better than most preterists.

-Tim

:bow: Wow! This is exactly what I have been looking for!!!!!! Someone who knows what I beleive better than I do. From now on, I am going to let you tell me what I believe, and you can then debate with yourself.












































NOT!

[Tim C.]

Where is the strawman, Faramir?

-Tim

[dizzle]

Mickey I am curious - do you like other hyperdispensationalists think that Matthew 24 was conditional as well? Most others who are similar to your view have told me that preterists are right that Jesus meant "this generation" as the generation back then but the prophecy was conditional and since Israel did not repent, that did not happen.

Please no posturing, I just want to know if that is what you hold or not.

[Tim C.]

Mickey I am curious - do you like other hyperdispensationalists think that Matthew 24 was conditional as well? Most others who are similar to your view have told me that preterists are right that Jesus meant "this generation" as the generation back then but the prophecy was conditional and since Israel did not repent, that did not happen.

Please no posturing, I just want to know if that is what you hold or not.

Ahhh... I see off-topic stuff being brought up. I notice that no answers to the initial points have been provided. I see undesirable labels such as "hyperdispensationalist" being thrown around. Sounds like a troll to me. What do you think, Mickey?

-Tim

[Mickey]

Ahhh... I see off-topic stuff being brought up. I notice that no answers to the initial points have been provided. I see undesirable labels such as "hyperdispensationalist" being thrown around. Sounds like a troll to me. What do you think, Mickey?

-Tim
Tim,

I can see that nothing is chaged from when I was here last.Dee Dee continues to avoid the subject of the thread,and when she finally gets up the courage to attempt to answer the verses that prove that her cherished fables invented by the preterists are in error she sticks her foot in her mouth.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Tim C.]

Where is the strawman, Faramir?

-Tim

[Sheepdog]

unfortunately, a gap isn't evident in the NT either. the closest you get is Rom. 11:25, but nothing in that verse nor its context implies a "stop" in the "prophecy clock" of Daniel 7. as far as i can tell Daniel's prophecy doesn't even come up there.

as a matter of fact, Romans 11 would have us interpret the opposite. the argument in verse 11:1 and following is that there was still a remnant, much like in Elijah's day, saved by grace. one would expect, if not driven by a futurist theology, that this remnant established a continuity between the God fearing Jews of the OT era and the early Christian era.

there's no reason to suppose a prophecy gap. none of the cited passages speak to that specifically, it's just hash, taking vaguely related passages and forcing them into an ad hoc theologic grid.

contrarily, in the DeMarr book you quote (but you didn't cite, you bad boy :bonk:), he gives a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the 69th and 70th weeks, without a gap.


i would agree on one point though. the gap isn't limited to dispensationalism, as the ECF quotes show, any sort of futurist would have to come up with an ad hoc gap in the 70 weeks to shield their futurism.

[Tim C.]

unfortunately, a gap isn't evident in the NT either. the closest you get is Rom. 11:25, but nothing in that verse nor its context implies a "stop" in the "prophecy clock" of Daniel 7. as far as i can tell Daniel's prophecy doesn't even come up there.

Paul's revelation of the Mystery clearly plays into this theme. And even though you don't like it, Romans 11 does indeed play directly into this theme.

What we don't find in the New Testament is the idea that Israel was metamorphosed into the Church, and that the present age is a "new" sort of fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, literal fulfillments are to be abandoned, and all of the previous meanings of "Israel" and the "Covenants" are to be abandoned. That theory certainly is nowhere to be found in the New Testament, nor is any trace of such a theory found in the earliest Church of the first two or three centuries following the Apostolic era (other than certain heretical teachings of the Gnostics, of course). No wonder it was so difficult for the forth century amillennialists to provide a solid foundation for their new view... they even needed to go so far as to badmouth the early Christians, and dispute the rightful place of the Apocalypse in the canon.

-Tim

[Mickey]

unfortunately, a gap isn't evident in the NT either.
I spoke of the blessings promised to the Jews that will happen at the end of the 70th weeks,and here they are:

"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"(Dan.9:24).

This is in reference to the restoring of the kingdom to Israel.And that is what Peter is referring to at Acts 3:19-25,the "times of the restitution of all things" and the "times of refreshing":

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts3:19-21).

The setting up of these "times" was dependent on the repentance of the nation of Israel.The same "times" are also dependent on the return to earth of the Lord Jesus and His presence.

Israel did not repent and therefore He did not return to set up His kingdom.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Tim C.]

They simply don't have the ability to understand your points, Mickey. Your efforts to explain these things to them are futile.

The solution to this problem is simple... let the preterists read their Bibles. Until they carefully read their Bibles, there is little else we can do to help them.

-Tim

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Where is the strawman, Faramir?

-Tim

They also throw their reason to the wind and say that the "blesssings" of the 70th week were brought in when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.

There's one for starts (the one I originally responded to).

[Hitch]

The preterists cannot see the conditional nature of the blessing promised to Israel of the 70th Week,and they say that the 70th Week was fulfilled despite the fact that Israel did not repent and accept the promised Messiah.They also throw their reason to the wind and say that the "blesssings" of the 70th week were brought in when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.

In Christ,
Mickey Do you have any truth in you at all Mickey? You sure dont like anything Jesus says.


It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

[Mickey]

Quote: Originally posted by Mickey

They also throw their reason to the wind and say that the "blesssings" of the 70th week were brought in when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.



There's one for starts (the one I originally responded to).
[/size][/font]

OK,Faramir.When do the preterists teach that the blessings of 70th week came to the Jews and upon Jerusalem?When did everlasting righteousness come unto Jerusalem?

In Christ,
Mickey

[Tim C.]

There's one for starts (the one I originally responded to).

Thats it? Thats the "strawman" which kept you from responding to Mickey's legitimate charge that you folks outright deny the "kingdom offer" theme in the New Testament? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as lazy or careless on your part. I've actually heard that view before, by folks who in turn attempted to quote Clement of Alexanderia in favor of the idea. No strawman there.

Of course, most all preterists opt for the equally ridiculous idea that Daniel 9:27 speaks of Christ's ministry, so I guess I can let you squeeze by on this one.

-Tim

[Tim C.]

Do you have any truth in you at all Mickey? You sure dont like anything Jesus says.

Your words are always so empty and angry, Hitch. Have you ever wondered why everyone always ignores your statements as useless hogwash?

-Tim

[Armor of God]

They simply don't have the ability to understand your points, Mickey. Your efforts to explain these things to them are futile.

The solution to this problem is simple... let the preterists read their Bibles. Until they carefully read their Bibles, there is little else we can do to help them.

-Tim
Funny. It was reading the Bible that pushed me away from a futurist view.

[Tim C.]

Funny. It was reading the Bible that pushed me away from a futurist view.

Words are cheap. We'll see how well you stand up to criticism in posts to come.

-Tim

[Tim C.]

Here is a funny little comment in DeMar's book:

After outlining the silly spiritualized non-premillennial interpretation of Daniel 9:27, DeMar says this: "John Nelson Darby, C.I. Scofield, and others changed this very straightforward interpretation by placing an unspecified period of time between the first sixty-nine weeks and the final week of Daniel's seventy weeks. In this view, the seventieth week does not follow immediately after the sixty-ninth week." - Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction, p.46

Either DeMar is completely ignorant of Church history, or he is intentionally deceiving his readers. Take your pick.

-Tim

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Quote: Originally posted by Mickey

They also throw their reason to the wind and say that the "blesssings" of the 70th week were brought in when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.





OK,Faramir.When do the preterists teach that the blessings of 70th week came to the Jews and upon Jerusalem?When did everlasting righteousness come unto Jerusalem?

In Christ,
Mickey

During the 70th week. Duh!

His name was Jesus. Duh!

Jesus came to the Jews, He came to Jerusalem. Duh!

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Thats it? Thats the "strawman" which kept you from responding to Mickey's legitimate charge that you folks outright deny the "kingdom offer" theme in the New Testament? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as lazy or careless on your part. I've actually heard that view before, by folks who in turn attempted to quote Clement of Alexanderia in favor of the idea. No strawman there.

Of course, most all preterists opt for the equally ridiculous idea that Daniel 9:27 speaks of Christ's ministry, so I guess I can let you squeeze by on this one.

-Tim

It was the presence of that blatant straw man and my past expereince with Mickey (and others like him) that made me realize it was not worth my time to engage in substantive debate with them.

Lazy, no (I may be lazy, but that is not the reason I did not engage Mickey in this thread). I did not engage Mickey because the presence of such a rediculous question (i.e. the straw man) by someone who has been here as much as Mickey has is a clear indication of one of two things:

Mickey is aware (as he should be by now) of the preterist position, but intentionally misrepresents it in his response OR Mickey is unaware of the pretersit position despite haveing been at this board for quite some time.

If it is 1, then he is not interested in serious debate, if it is 2 he is incapable of serious debate. Either way, a substantive response to him is a waste of my time.

I saw nothing in his post that has not been addressed here before (most of it addressed by me) so I saw no need to go over old ground.

Plus I addressed that (and other issues relating to the Kindgdom) here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1530840&postcount=7).

And notice how Mickey responded? He did not address a single point I made. I even offered for him to only choose one.

And the only reason that I posted that was that I had already written that for a debate at another forum (or was it here???) with someone who was interested in honest debate.

So, I have shown that I am able and willing to take the effort to make a substantive post when the opponent is willing and/or able to engage in substantive debate. But when straw men are the norm, I feel no need to expend any more effort than it takes to post a smilie:

:strawman:

[Mickey]

It was the presence of that blatant straw man and my past expereince with Mickey (and others like him) that made me realize it was not worth my time to engage in substantive debate with them.
Faramir,

You finally got something right.You have not yet engaged in anything that could be considered "substantive debate" with me.You are under the illusion that "everlasting righteousness" was brought unto the Jews and unto the city of Jerusalem during the 70th week despite the fact that the nation of Israel has never yet received the Lord Jesus.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Mickey]

There are some non-dispensationalists who recognize that the kingdom offer was "conditional",as witnessed by the words of Alfred Eldersheim.Speaking of the ministry of John the Baptist he writes that " ‘the spirit and power’ of the Elijiah of the New Testament (John the Baptist) was to accomplish the inward restoration through penitent reception of the Kingdom of God in its reality,could only accomplish that object IF ‘they received it’—if ‘they knew him’.And as in his own view,and looking around and forward,so also in fact the Baptist,though Divinely such,was not really Elijiah to Israel—and this was the meaning of the words of Jesus: ‘And if ye receive it,this is Elijiah,which was to come.’ "[emphasis mine](Eldersheim,"The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah",Book 1,p.341).

When the Jews rejected the Lord Jesus as the Messiah the Lord raised up Paul to bring in a new dispensation,a dispensation that had been kept a secret:

"And to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things" (Eph.3:9;ASV).

The present dispensation of the grace of God was not revealed in the OT prophecies,and therefore represents a "gap" between the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week.The OT prophecies completely overlook these twenty centuries of our era,the time when the "gospel of grace" has been preached to all men.Sir Robert Anderson writes:"The prophet’s glance into the future entirely overlooked these nineteen centuries of out era.As when mountain peaks stand out together on the horizon,seeming almost to touch,albeit a wide expanse of river and field and hill may lie in between,so there loomed upon the prophet’s vision these events of times now long gone by,and times still future.And with the New Testament in our hands,it would betray strange and wilful ignorance if we doubted the deliberate design which has left this long interval of our Christian era a blank in Daniel’s prophecies" (Anderson,"The Coming Prince",p.46-47).

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

You finally got something right.You have not yet engaged in anything that could be considered "substantive debate" with me.

You are under the illusion that "substantive" is defined by your agreement with the content.

I on the otherhand acknowledge when an opponent (like say Bill the Cat) post substantial responses to my questions. I do not need to agree to recognize that there is substantive argumentation.

Likewise. I do not have to agree (or disagree) with a post to recognize a lack of substance.

You may not agree with my post #7 here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1530840&postcount=7), but if you say it is lacking in substance, then you do not know what the meaning of substance is.

You are under the illusion that "everlasting righteousness" was brought unto the Jews and unto the city of Jerusalem during the 70th week despite the fact that the nation of Israel has never yet received the Lord Jesus.

So according to you, Jesus righteousness is not evelasting?

You are the one who is under an illusion!!!!!

[Mickey]

Faramir,

Earlier I asked you:

You are under the illusion that "everlasting righteousness" was brought unto the Jews and unto the city of Jerusalem during the 70th week despite the fact that the nation of Israel has never yet received the Lord Jesus.

So according to you, Jesus righteousness is not evelasting?

You are the one who is under an illusion!!!!!
DUH!

The things that will happen at the end of the 70th week are in regard to what will come upon the children of Israel and upon the city of Jerusalem:

"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" (Dan.9:24).

Evidently you can delude your mind into believing that "everlasting righteousness" came unto Jerusalem and the Jews at the end of the 70th week despite the fact that by then He had been rejected by the Jews and they were responsible for His death.

Yes,the righteousness of the Lord is "everlasting" but that righteouness only comes to them who believe in Him.You woud have us believe that His everlasting righteouness came unto the Jews and Jerusalem despite the fact they they denied Him.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

Earlier I asked you:

You are under the illusion that "everlasting righteousness" was brought unto the Jews and unto the city of Jerusalem during the 70th week despite the fact that the nation of Israel has never yet received the Lord Jesus.


DUH!

The things that will happen at the end of the 70th week are in regard to what will come upon the children of Israel and upon the city of Jerusalem:

"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" (Dan.9:24).

Evidently you can delude your mind into believing that "everlasting righteousness" came unto Jerusalem and the Jews at the end of the 70th week despite the fact that by then He had been rejected by the Jews and they were responsible for His death.

Yes,the righteousness of the Lord is "everlasting" but that righteouness only comes to them who believe in Him.You woud have us believe that His everlasting righteouness came unto the Jews and Jerusalem despite the fact they they denied Him.

In Christ,
Mickey

:blah:

Readers, see what I mean by "lack of substance". But since I have nothing to respond to of substance, I will respond in kind (but note my post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1530840&postcount=7) for a more substantial idea of my position).

Mickey:

Evidently you can delude your mind into believing that "everlasting righteousness" did not come unto Jerusalem and the Jews at the end of the 70th week despite the fact Jesus was there in the flesh.

Yes,the Jews rejected the everlasting righteousness of the Lord is but it came nonetheless.

Now I could explain how Daniel, especially the part you quoted is actually a covenantal document proclaiming a period of probation for the Jewish people and how that plays into the events of the 70th week. But I reserve such detailed responses for opponents who can/will actually address them.

Now if I can dig up something I wrote previously about this, I will re-post it here. But I will not take the time to craft a new response when all you giv me are assertions.

[David_A_Reed]

Since they lack internet connectivity at the moment, may I take the liberty of passing on these comments from Calvin and Luther, who would certainly be active members of TW if they could gain access?

Both of them saw no "gap" between the 69th and 70th weeks.

This is how Calvin understood the 70th week:

"The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week. ...the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week..."
—John Calvin, "Lecture Fifty-First"
"In the last Lecture we explained how Christ confirmed the covenant with many during the last week..."
—John Calvin, "Lecture Fifty-Second"
Available on the web at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol25/htm/iv.xx.htm on the "Christian Classics Ethereal Library" provided by Calvin College of Grand Rapids, Michigan

Luther had a similar understanding:

"For when Christ sent out the Gospel through the ministry of himself and of the Apostles, it lasted three or three and a half years, that it almost amounts to the calculation of Daniel, namely the 490 years. Hence he also says, Christ shall take a half a week, in which the daily offerings shall cease; that is, the priesthood and reign of the Jews shall have an end; which all took place in the three and a half years in which Christ preached, and was almost completed in four years after Christ, in which the Gospel prospered the most, especially in Palestine through the Apostles (that when they opened their mouth, the Holy Ghost fell as it were, from heaven, as we see in the Acts of the Apostles), so that a whole week, or seven years, established the covenant, as Daniel says; that is, the Gospel was preached to the Jews, of which we spoke before."
—Martin Luther, "Sermon for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity; Matthew 24:15-28"
from his Church Postil, first published in 1525
available online at http://www.orlutheran.com/mlsemt2415.html

Luther and Calvin both held neither the preterist nor the dispensational futurist position, but rather the premillennial historicist view that prevailed among Bible believers from before the Reformation until just about a century ago.

David

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Since they lack internet connectivity at the moment, may I take the liberty of passing on these comments from Calvin and Luther, who would certainly be active members of TW if they could gain access?

Both of them saw no "gap" between the 69th and 70th weeks.

This is how Calvin understood the 70th week:

"The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week. ...the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week..."
—John Calvin, "Lecture Fifty-First"
"In the last Lecture we explained how Christ confirmed the covenant with many during the last week..."
—John Calvin, "Lecture Fifty-Second"
Available on the web at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol25/htm/iv.xx.htm on the "Christian Classics Ethereal Library" provided by Calvin College of Grand Rapids, Michigan

Luther had a similar understanding:

"For when Christ sent out the Gospel through the ministry of himself and of the Apostles, it lasted three or three and a half years, that it almost amounts to the calculation of Daniel, namely the 490 years. Hence he also says, Christ shall take a half a week, in which the daily offerings shall cease; that is, the priesthood and reign of the Jews shall have an end; which all took place in the three and a half years in which Christ preached, and was almost completed in four years after Christ, in which the Gospel prospered the most, especially in Palestine through the Apostles (that when they opened their mouth, the Holy Ghost fell as it were, from heaven, as we see in the Acts of the Apostles), so that a whole week, or seven years, established the covenant, as Daniel says; that is, the Gospel was preached to the Jews, of which we spoke before."
—Martin Luther, "Sermon for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity; Matthew 24:15-28"
from his Church Postil, first published in 1525
available online at http://www.orlutheran.com/mlsemt2415.html

Luther and Calvin both held neither the preterist nor the dispensational futurist position, but rather the premillennial historicist view that prevailed among Bible believers from before the Reformation until just about a century ago.

David
I know that Luther and Calvin held to a historicist position. However, I do not see how the material you quoted above is contrary to the preterist (or at least this preterist) position of the 70 weeks.

Specifically as it relates to this thread. The quote of Luther seems to be particularly identical to my own position.

But I am no expert on the eschatology of Luther and Calvin, so in your opinion did they place a gap between week 69 and week 70 of Daniel's 70 weeks?

[Mickey]

Evidently you can delude your mind into believing that "everlasting righteousness" did not come unto Jerusalem and the Jews at the end of the 70th week despite the fact Jesus was there in the flesh.
By the end of the 70th week the Lord Jesus had already been resurrected and He had ascended into heaven.

And if "everlasting" righteousness was brought unto Jerusalem at the end of the 70th week then why is there no longer "righteousness" there.Since "righteousness" in not there now it is evident that if it was ever there it was never "everlasting".
Yes,the Jews rejected the everlasting righteousness of the Lord is but it came nonetheless.
Let us look at the Scriptures to see if the righteousness of God comes to both believers and unbelievers:

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed-- namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1532918#note_7)for all who believe" (Ro.3:22;NET).


In your desperation you would want us to believe that this "everlasting righteousness" came upon those who crucified Him and never repented of their actions.According to you this righteousness comes to both believers and unbelievers!
Now I could explain how Daniel, especially the part you quoted is actually a covenantal document proclaiming a period of probation for the Jewish people and how that plays into the events of the 70th week. But I reserve such detailed responses for opponents who can/will actually address them.
"A period of probation"?There is nothing in the verse which describes what will come unto the Jews and unto Jerusalem when the 70th week is full:

"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" (Dan.9:24).

Daniel was praying to the Lord to turn His anger and fury away from Jerusalem.He asked the Lord to "cause Thy face to shine upon Thy sanctuary that is desolate"(Dan.9:16,17),and the Lord answered that when the 70th week was fulfilled then the Jews and Jerusalem would enjoy "everlasting righteousness" and an "end of sins".

There is nothing here that speaks of any probation.

The following verses describe what will happen at the end of the 70th week:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him...In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness" (Zech.12:8-10;13:1).

Those events have not yet happened.They remain in the future.
Now if I can dig up something I wrote previously about this, I will re-post it here. But I will not take the time to craft a new response when all you giv me are assertions.
While you are looking you might also look for an answer as to "when" the events that I just quoted came to pass.Since they have not yet occured then it remains in the future,but preterism can find no place for these events in their eschatology.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Funny. It was reading the Bible that pushed me away from a futurist view.
:hehe: :yeahthat:

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

By the end of the 70th week the Lord Jesus had already been resurrected and He had ascended into heaven.

Wrong! The resuurection/ascension happend in the middle of the 70th week.

And if "everlasting" righteousness was brought unto Jerusalem at the end of the 70th week then why is there no longer "righteousness" there.Since "righteousness" in not there now it is evident that if it was ever there it was never "everlasting".

1. My resopnse about "Jesus being the righteousness" that came during the 70th week was in response to your question. This is NOT my understanding of Daniel 9. So I, DO believe that "everlasting righteousness" came to the Jews and to Jerusalem, but I do not believe that that is what Daniel was referring to. I was just mimicking your vapid argument, not making one for my position.

2. If it were my position that Jesus is the everlasting righteousness in Daniel, your above statement is a strawman, since if that were my position, I would not have stated that the "righteousness" is still present in Jerusalem (at least not in the same sense) since the assention.

Let us look at the Scriptures to see if the righteousness of God comes to both believers and unbelievers:

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed-- namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1532918#note_7)for all who believe" (Ro.3:22;NET).


In your desperation you would want us to believe that this "everlasting righteousness" came upon those who crucified Him and never repented of their actions. According to you this righteousness comes to both believers and unbelievers!

In your desperation you say in the same breath that Christ is everlasting righteousness and that He came to Jerusalem, and then say that everlasting righteousness did not come to Jerusalme during Christ ministry.

"A period of probation"?There is nothing in the verse which describes what will come unto the Jews and unto Jerusalem when the 70th week is full:

"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" (Dan.9:24).

Daniel was praying to the Lord to turn His anger and fury away from Jerusalem.He asked the Lord to "cause Thy face to shine upon Thy sanctuary that is desolate"(Dan.9:16,17),and the Lord answered that when the 70th week was fulfilled then the Jews and Jerusalem would enjoy "everlasting righteousness" and an "end of sins".

There is nothing here that speaks of any probation.

I said I could provide details, not that I would. If you want more specifics, I did find a thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=47117&page=1&pp=16&highlight=week)where Ted does an excelent job of explaining this position. And while Ted and I do not see eye to eye on all areas of eschatology, I think that his work on Daniel 9 is among the best there is on that chapter.


The following verses describe what will happen at the end of the 70th week:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him...In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness" (Zech.12:8-10;13:1).

Nope. That passage has nothing to do with the 70 weeks of Daniel.

Those events have not yet happened.They remain in the future.

No they happened (but not at the same time). And they have nothing to do with the 70 weeks of Daniel.

While you are looking you might also look for an answer as to "when" the events that I just quoted came to pass.Since they have not yet occured then it remains in the future,but preterism can find no place for these events in their eschatology.

Zech. 12 is a reference to the events that are recorded in the book of Esther.

Zech. 13 is a reference to the first advent of Christ.

At least that is one preterist interpretation for those passages.

So are you going to retract your statement that preterist can find no place for these events in their eschatoogy? Will you admit that you were wrong?

It is pretty clear that you are wrong. Preterist do have a place for those events in our eschatology.

Note that I am not asking you to admit that the preterist interpretation is correct, just to admit that we do have a place for these events in our eschatology and that you were wrong when you said otherwise.

It is pretty darn clear that you are wrong here, and if you are interested in honest debate, show me by admitting it.

[Mickey]

Faramir,

I said: "By the end of the 70th week the Lord Jesus had already been resurrected and He had ascended into heaven."

And you say:Wrong! The resuurection/ascension happend in the middle of the 70th week.
Can you use your brain for a change?

If the Lord was resurrected and had already accended into heaven at the middle of the 70th week then that would mean that "by the end of the 70th week" that He had already been resurrected and He had already accended into heaven.

But you say "wrong"!
1. My resopnse about "Jesus being the righteousness" that came during the 70th week was in response to your question. This is NOT my understanding of Daniel 9. So I, DO believe that "everlasting righteousness" came to the Jews and to Jerusalem, but I do not believe that that is what Daniel was referring to. I was just mimicking your vapid argument, not making one for my position.
Even after I gave you a verse that states the the righteousness of God comes to those who "believe" you stand by your argument that this righteousness came unto unbelievers!
In your desperation you say in the same breath that Christ is everlasting righteousness and that He came to Jerusalem, and then say that everlasting righteousness did not come to Jerusalme during Christ ministry.
I quoted a verse that says that the righteousness of God comes to those who "believe".And I also stated that by the end of the 70th week that He had already ascended into heaven.

But you say that I am wrong despite the fact that you yourself said that He ascended in the "middle" of the 70th week!

His ministry was not going on during the end of the 70th week since He had already ascended into heaven.But since you cannot "reason" that if He had ascended during the middle of the 70th week then that means that He had ascended by the end of that same week.

I will address your other points later.But first perhaps you can put on your "thinking" cap for a change and examine your idea that the Lord Jesus had not ascended into heaven by the end of the 70th week since you yourself said that He ascended in the middle of the 70th week.

Frankly,my six year old grandson can understand that if He ascended in the middle of the 70th week then that would mean that by the end of the 70th week He had ascended,

But you say,"Wrong"!

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

I said: "By the end of the 70th week the Lord Jesus had already been resurrected and He had ascended into heaven."

And you say:
Can you use your brain for a change?

If the Lord was resurrected and had already accended into heaven at the middle of the 70th week then that would mean that "by the end of the 70th week" that He had already been resurrected and He had already accended into heaven.

But you say "wrong"!

Even after I gave you a verse that states the the righteousness of God comes to those who "believe" you stand by your argument that this righteousness came unto unbelievers!

I quoted a verse that says that the righteousness of God comes to those who "believe".And I also stated that by the end of the 70th week that He had already ascended into heaven.

But you say that I am wrong despite the fact that you yourself said that He ascended in the "middle" of the 70th week!

His ministry was not going on during the end of the 70th week since He had already ascended into heaven.But since you cannot "reason" that if He had ascended during the middle of the 70th week then that means that He had ascended by the end of that same week.

I will address your other points later.But first perhaps you can put on your "thinking" cap for a change and examine your idea that the Lord Jesus had not ascended into heaven by the end of the 70th week since you yourself said that He ascended in the middle of the 70th week.

Frankly,my six year old grandson can understand that if He ascended in the middle of the 70th week then that would mean that by the end of the 70th week He had ascended,

But you say,"Wrong"!

In Christ,
Mickey

You are right. I misread your statement. I thought you were saying that Christ was resurrected after the 70th week. I see now I was wrong.


Now I admitted that I was wrong, can you now address the part of the thread you totally ignored and admit you were wrong when you said:

...but preterism can find no place for these events in their eschatology.

I provided places for "these events" in preterist eschatology. You were wrong!

You pointed out when I was wrong, I was man enought to admit it.

Are you able to do the same?

[dizzle]

I love reading your debates Faramir.

[Mickey]

Earlier you said:
Evidently you can delude your mind into believing that "everlasting righteousness" did not come unto Jerusalem and the Jews at the end of the 70th week despite the fact Jesus was there in the flesh.
You say that Christ was in Jerusalem in the flesh at the end of the 70th week.That is your argument that you think proves that "everlasting righteousness" came unto Jerusalem.

But when I pointed out that Christ had already ascended into heaven by the end of the 70th week you said "wrong".But after I pointed out that I was not "wrong" you say:
You are right. I misread your statement. I thought you were saying that Christ was resurrected after the 70th week. I see now I was wrong.
So now perhaps you can explain how "everlasting righteousness" came unto the non-believing Jews and unto Jerusalem at the end of the 70th week.

Are you still under the impression that both believers and non-believers receive the righteousness of God,despite the fact that I provided a Scriptual passage that says that it comes unto the person who "believes"?

Now you say that the following verses are in regard to events in the book of Esther:
Zech. 12 is a reference to the events that are recorded in the book of Esther.
In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him"(Ez.12:8,9,10).

The events described in the book of Esther happened when the Jews were captives in Persia.In that book there is no description of any army coming against Jerusalem,much less the Lord defending the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Please quote the verses from Esther that you think are in regard to Zechariah 12.
Zech. 13 is a reference to the first advent of Christ.But are not the words "in that day" found at Zechariah 12:8,9 & 11 the same day that is used at Zechariah 13:1,"In that day there shall be a fountain..."?

You have a fertile imagination,my friend,but it is inconceivable that the words "in that day" in chapter 12 do not refer to the same day when the words "in that day" are used in the next chapter.
So are you going to retract your statement that preterist can find no place for these events in their eschatoogy? Will you admit that you were wrong?
O yes!Of course a preterists can say that those events are in regard to an event in Esther but proving it is another matter.And of course a preterist can say that the 13th chapter of Zechariah is in regard to when Christ was on the earth,but in order to say that they must say that the words "in that day" in one chapter means an entirely different day than the words "in that day" in the other chapter.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Earlier you said:

You say that Christ was in Jerusalem in the flesh at the end of the 70th week.That is your argument that you think proves that "everlasting righteousness" came unto Jerusalem.

But when I pointed out that Christ had already ascended into heaven by the end of the 70th week you said "wrong".But after I pointed out that I was not "wrong" you say:

So now perhaps you can explain how "everlasting righteousness" came unto the non-believing Jews and unto Jerusalem at the end of the 70th week.

Well that was just me being sloppy. You see I was not trying to make a point, on my position but show how weak your arguments were by mimicking your "lack of argument" what I did was cut and paste your words:

Evidently you can delude your mind into believing that "everlasting righteousness" came unto Jerusalem and the Jews at the end of the 70th week despite the fact that by then He had been rejected by the Jews and they were responsible for His death.

And changed a few words to the below:

Evidently you can delude your mind into believing that "everlasting righteousness" did not come unto Jerusalem and the Jews at the end of the 70th week despite the fact Jesus was there in the flesh.

What I should have said was:

Evidently you can delude your mind into believing that "everlasting righteousness" did not come unto Jerusalem and the Jews atby the end of the 70th week despite the fact Jesus was there in the flesh.

The "at the end" was actually your words, that I cut and paste and should have changed. Not what I meant to say.

Again, I was not trying to make my point, but expose the weakness of your arguments.

Now I could have responded something like:

"At the end of the 70th week, Jesus was seen by Stephen so His righteousness was there" OR even better "The righteousness of Christ was "available" at the end of the 70th week and was only removed by the Jew's continued rejection of Christ as displayed by the execution of Stephen (which is my actual position).

But that is not what I meant. I meant to change "at" to "by" and did not.

I am interested in honest debate, so when I make a mistake, I am honest and admit it. I do not try to "dodge" it.

Are you still under the impression that both believers and non-believers receive the righteousness of God,despite the fact that I provided a Scriptual passage that says that it comes unto the person who "believes"?

I was never under that impression. :strawman:

Now you say that the following verses are in regard to events in the book of Esther:

In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him"(Ez.12:8,9,10).

The events described in the book of Esther happened when the Jews were captives in Persia.In that book there is no description of any army coming against Jerusalem,much less the Lord defending the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Please quote the verses from Esther that you think are in regard to Zechariah 12.
But are not the words "in that day" found at Zechariah 12:8,9 & 11 the same day that is used at Zechariah 13:1,"In that day there shall be a fountain..."?

Actually this is Gary DeMar's position on Zech. 12. I think it is pretty solid, but am not 100% convinced. However, you statement was the preterist have "no place for these events in thier eschatology".

I do not need to show why I (or DeMar) think these passages reffer to Esther to prove your statement wrong.

Plus, you are asking me for a lot more than you are giving me. You stated that these verses were still future. As if your mere assertion made it so. I responded with an equally unsupported assertion. (I have support, I just did not provide it).

So if you can tell me what verse in Zech. 12 makes you think that makes those events:
1. Future and

2. A part of Daniels 70th week,

then I will provide you with an argument for Zech. 12 being Esther.

But what give you the right to expect me to provide a detailed explanation when you have not done the same?

So far, all you have provided is assertions that these events are future and part of Dan's 70th week. I have responded in kind with assertion.

I have been in too many debates (some with you likely as not) where my opponent asserted something, I provided a detailed exegisis that was completely ignored. I don't play that game anymore.

If you want me to explain my position, you need to show you are willing/able to show the same level of explanation.

I have done that in this thread. You asserted, I asserted back. You demanded that I take it to the next level, without you doing the same. No dice.

You have a fertile imagination,my friend,but it is inconceivable that the words "in that day" in chapter 12 do not refer to the same day when the words "in that day" are used in the next chapter.

"Inconceivable" You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. -

It is very conceivable. I have no problem conceiving it.

O yes!Of course a preterists can say that those events are in regard to an event in Esther but proving it is another matter.And of course a preterist can say that the 13th chapter of Zechariah is in regard to when Christ was on the earth,but in order to say that they must say that the words "in that day" in one chapter means an entirely different day than the words "in that day" in the other chapter.

Nice dodge. Do you now admit that your earlier statement was an error.

Let me remind you what your statemen was:

...but preterism can find no place for these events in their eschatology.

Note that it did not say, "preterism can not find a good place" or "... a valid place" or "...a provable place" or anything about "in that day" but it said we could find "no place".

Qualifying your statement after the fact is NOT an admission of mistake but a dodge.

So do you now admit you were wrong? Yes or no will do.


I had the cajones to admit I was wrong, plainly and clearly. Do you?

[Armor of God]

"Inconceivable" You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. -

:haha:

[Mickey]

Faramir,

Earlier you said that the events in the following verses are events that happened in the book of Esther:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him"(Zech.12:8,9,10).

Here is your bold statement:
Zech. 12 is a reference to the events that are recorded in the book of Esther.
But when I ask you where in Esther those events can be found you say:
Actually this is Gary DeMar's position on Zech. 12. I think it is pretty solid, but am not 100% convinced. However, you statement was the preterist have "no place for these events in thier eschatology".

I do not need to show why I (or DeMar) think these passages reffer to Esther to prove your statement wrong.
You made an assertion to explain those verses and now you will not give any evidence that what you said is true.

Now if you are going to argue by saying that those events are from the book of Esther then tell us where they can be found.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

Earlier you said that the events in the following verses are events that happened in the book of Esther:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him"(Zech.12:8,9,10).

Here is your bold statement:
[/size]
But when I ask you where in Esther those events can be found you say:

You made an assertion to explain those verses and now you will not give any evidence that what you said is true.

Now if you are going to argue by saying that those events are from the book of Esther then tell us where they can be found.


Mickey

They can be found in the book of Esther :doh:. I already told you that.

I also told you what you must do if you want more information than that.

You said that Zech. 12 was part of Daniels 70th week and still future.

You made an assertion to explain those verses and now you will not give any evidence that what you said is true.

So you back up your assertions, and I will back up mine. But until then, don't demand that I provide a level of explanation to you that you have not provided to me. I don't play that game. I have matched your assertion with my own assertion. You back yours up, then I will do the same.

Did you not get that the first time I said it:

Plus, you are asking me for a lot more than you are giving me. You stated that these verses were still future. As if your mere assertion made it so. I responded with an equally unsupported assertion. (I have support, I just did not provide it).

So if you can tell me what verse in Zech. 12 makes you think that makes those events:
1. Future and

2. A part of Daniels 70th week,

then I will provide you with an argument for Zech. 12 being Esther.

But what give you the right to expect me to provide a detailed explanation when you have not done the same?

So far, all you have provided is assertions that these events are future and part of Dan's 70th week. I have responded in kind with assertion.

I have been in too many debates (some with you likely as not) where my opponent asserted something, I provided a detailed exegisis that was completely ignored. I don't play that game anymore.

If you want me to explain my position, you need to show you are willing/able to show the same level of explanation.

I have done that in this thread. You asserted, I asserted back. You demanded that I take it to the next level, without you doing the same. No dice.


Oh, and can you also answer this question that I have asked now for the third time:

Are you man enough to admit you were wrong?

Let me remind you what your statemen was:

emphasis added][/i]

...but preterism can find no place for these events in their eschatology.




Note that it did not say, "preterism can not find a good place" or "... a valid place" or "...a provable place" or anything about "in that day" but it said we could find "no place".

Qualifying your statement after the fact is NOT an admission of mistake but a dodge.

So do you now admit you were wrong? Yes or no will do.

I had the cajones to admit I was wrong, plainly and clearly. Do you?

You see Mickey. Debate is only productive when both parties are interested in honest debate. Part of honest debate is conceding an error when pointed out.

I have done this. You have not.

It is my hope that you continue to avoid this issue. It really makes you look bad; not the error you made, that was a simple overstatement. What makes you look so bad is the way you avoid admitting this error. If you will not admit to a simple error that has no impact on your argument, it can safely be assumed that you will not concede when your opponent makes a point (which is exactly what you are doing on another thread regarding Dee Dee's position re: "coming").

IOW, your credibility with the readers is shot.

[dizzle]

"Inconceivable" You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

You didn't!

:rofl:

Gah!

:rofl:

:rofl:

[Mickey]

You said that Zech. 12 was part of Daniels 70th week and still future.

You made an assertion to explain those verses and now you will not give any evidence that what you said is true.

So you back up your assertions, and I will back up mine.
OK.The end of the 70th week is also the end of the "great tribulation".

And here is what we read about the end of that tribulation:

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened" (Mt.24:21,22).

Here is how those days are shortened:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:8,9).

And after the Lord defends the city then the following blessings come upon the Jews and the city of Jerusalem:

"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"(Dan.9:24).

The first thing that must happen before the blessings to come upon them is to "believe" in the Lord Jesus.And that is exactly what we see:

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (Zech.12:10).

Then we see that the believers will be cleansed from their sins:

"In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness"(Zech.13:1).

At Daniel 9:24 we read that "everlasting righteousness" will be brought unto Jerusalem.Here we can see the state of Jerusalem after the 70th week is fulfilled:

"And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited" (Zech.14:11).

The next verse shows the "great tribulation" and the effects that follow after the Lord defends the people:

"And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God" (Zech.13:8,9).
Debate is only productive when both parties are interested in honest debate.
Now I await the verses from the book of Esther where the Lord defends the inhabitants of Jerusalem and where He defeats all the armies that come against that city.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I see you have once again conveniently failed to acknowledge your clear and glaring error (again).

So I will remind you (again) that you made a glaring (though minor) error. And a person interested in honest debate will admit their error (as I have done, not once but twice on this thread).

And since you have problems responding to this question when it is in quote tags, I have removed the tags, but all the text below has been stated earlier in this thread:
__________________________________________
Faramir: Oh, and can you also answer this question that I have asked now for the third fourth time:

Are you man enough to admit you were wrong?

Let me remind you what your statemen was:

Mickey:...but preterism can find no place for these events in their eschatology. (emphasis added).

Faramir: Note that it did not say, "preterism can not find a good place" or "... a valid place" or "...a provable place" or anything about "in that day" but it said we could find "no place".

Qualifying your statement after the fact is NOT an admission of mistake but a dodge.

So do you now admit you were wrong? Yes or no will do.

I had the cajones to admit I was wrong, plainly and clearly. Do you?
___________________________________________________________


I would like to thank you for not answering this (again). Every time you do not answer, it becomes more and more apparent to the readers that you are more interested in “appearing right” than in actually “being right”. Because in order to “be right” you would have to acknowledge your error.

Now on to the portion of my post that you did respond to:

You said that Zech. 12 was part of Daniels 70th week and still future.

You made an assertion to explain those verses and now you will not give any evidence that what you said is true.

So you back up your assertions, and I will back up mine.

OK.The end of the 70th week is also the end of the "great tribulation".


This is yet another assertion. This is the one thing I wanted answered. Where in the world do you get that the 70th week is the same as the “great tribulation”?

And here is what we read about the end of that tribulation:

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened" (Mt.24:21,22).

Again, no explanation of how Mt. 24:21,22 is connected to the 70th week. :sigh:

Here is how those days are shortened:


"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:8,9).

Yet once more, you fail to state what this has to do with the 70th week! :bugeyes:


And after the Lord defends the city then the following blessings come upon the Jews and the city of Jerusalem:


"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"(Dan.9:24).



Finally you “try” to make a connection to the 70th week. But the connection is very weak indeed (if there at all). . You made no effort to show why this is applicable to only the 70th week. And thus still future. You provide no reason why the 70th week is separated from the other 69 weeks by nearly 2000 years. In other words, you did not really answer my question.

The first thing that must happen before the blessings to come upon them is to "believe" in the Lord Jesus.And that is exactly what we see:

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (Zech.12:10).

Again, you assert that this is connected to week 70, yet you fail to provide any reason why it is connected. What’s up with that?

Then we see that the believers will be cleansed from their sins:

"In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness"(Zech.13:1).

I thought that happened on the cross!!!!! (which in my eschatology WAS during the 70th week :grin: )

At Daniel 9:24 we read that "everlasting righteousness" will be brought unto Jerusalem. Here we can see the state of Jerusalem after the 70th week is fulfilled:

"And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited" (Zech.14:11).


What rationale do you have for equating “safely inhabited” with “everlasting righeousness?

The next verse shows the "great tribulation" and the effects that follow after the Lord defends the people:

"And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: [b]I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God" (Zech.13:8,9).

I am still not seeing this alleged connection between “the great tribulation” and Daniel’s 70th week. :sigh:

Debate is only productive when both parties are interested in honest debate.

Now I await the verses from the book of Esther where the Lord defends the inhabitants of Jerusalem and where He defeats all the armies that come against that city.

And I am still waiting for honest debate!!!!! I have showed you that you were wrong, you have not been honest enough to admit it.

And you didn’t really answer my question at all. I saw nothing explaining why the 70th week is still future and separate from the other 69.

However, I will give you an A for effort (on a sliding scale of course :mwaha: ) and will provide the verses from Esther that you asked for:

Note my statements are based on this article (http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demarzechariah12.pdf) by Gary DeMar. Please read it in full before asking for additional information. If you ask questions that are addressed in the article, I will not answer them directly but direct you back to the article.
We learn from Esther that the Jews were rescued from their enemies in a dramatic and decisive way. First, Haman, “the enemy of the Jews,” is hanged (7:10; 9:25), and his ten sons were later executed (9:7–9). Sec­ond, “on the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, it was turned to the contrary so that the Jews themselves gained the mastery over those who hated them” (9:1). Third, we are told that anyone who sought the harm of the Jews could not stand before them (9:2). Fourth, “the Jews struck all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroy­ing; and they did what they pleased to those who hated them” (9:5). Fifth, more than 75,000 of those who hated the Jews were killed (9:16). Sixth, what could have been days of “sorrow” and “mourning” for the Jews were turned into days of “gladness” and celebration (9:22) because the wicked scheme which Haman devised was returned “on his own head” (9:25). Israel was indeed a “cup that causes reeling” and a “heavy stone for all the peoples around” (Zech. 12:2). Seventh, this rescue of Israel was so significant that it was to be remembered by “every gen­eration, every family, every province, and every city” so that the “days of Purim were not to fall from among the Jews, or their memory fade from their descendants” (Esther 9:28).

DeMar goes on to explain that though Jerusalem was not specifically mentioned, (as Esther was written from the perspective of the Jew’s still living in Persia at that time), it was certainly a target of Haman’s plot to kill all the Jews in “the Kingdom” that included Jerusalem at that time.

Finally (for the purpose of answering your specific questions), DeMar explains that the term “every nation” is an idiom used both in scripture and other Ancient Near East writings to indicate a “kingdom” or “group” composed of many different ethnic peoples.

So will you NOW retract your statement that the preterist have “no place” for Zech. 12 in our eschatology? I provided a “place”, will you acknowledge it? Note, I am not asking you to agree, just acknowledge that it is exist and that you were wrong when you said we had “no place” in our eschatology for Esther 12.

And can we now get back to the topic of this thread which is the gap between 69 and 70 of Daniel’s weeks?

:sig:

[Mickey]

So will you NOW retract your statement that the preterist have “no place” for Zech. 12 in our eschatology?
When one speaks of eschatolgy the meaning is in regard to what the Scriptures reveal.And the quote you gave proves that Gary DeMar's idea of when Zechariah 12 was fulfilled is not according to what the Bible reveals.

The book of Esther is in regard to events that took place in Persia,not the land of Israel.
I provided a “place”, will you acknowledge it?
The "place" is not in regard to Bibical eschsatology.Instead it is in regard to a fictional "eschatolgy" made up by someone who obviously cannot distinguish between Persia and Isreal.
Note, I am not asking you to agree, just acknowledge that it is exist and that you were wrong when you said we had “no place” in our eschatology for Esther 12.It exists in some fictional fairy-land,but it does not even come close to existing in Bibical eschatology.

Now let us examine this insult on the Sacred Word presented by DeMar:
We learn from Esther that the Jews were rescued from their enemies in a dramatic and decisive way. First, Haman, “the enemy of the Jews,” is hanged (7:10; 9:25), and his ten sons were later executed (9:7–9). Sec­ond, “on the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, it was turned to the contrary so that the Jews themselves gained the mastery over those who hated them” (9:1).
This all took place in Persia.The verses from Zerachiah are in reference to Jerusalem,which is in Israel and not Persia.
Third, we are told that anyone who sought the harm of the Jews could not stand before them (9:2).
Yes,but again this refers to the cities throughout all the provinces of the king,Ahasuerus (v.2).That king was never the king of Israel bt instead he was king of Persia.

DeMar needs to read both Ezra and Nehemiah in order to learn these simple facts.
Third, we are told that anyone who sought the harm of the Jews could not stand before them (9:2). Fourth, “the Jews struck all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroy­ing; and they did what they pleased to those who hated them” (9:5).
Again,this is in regard to the provinces in Persia,not Israel (v.3).

How can anyone take DeMar seriously?
Fifth, more than 75,000 of those who hated the Jews were killed (9:16). Sixth, what could have been days of “sorrow” and “mourning” for the Jews were turned into days of “gladness” and celebration (9:22) because the wicked scheme which Haman devised was returned “on his own head” (9:25).
Nothing here about Jerusalem,and that is because none of these verses occured in Jerusalem,as anyone with the most basic understanding of the book of Esther can know.
Israel was indeed a “cup that causes reeling” and a “heavy stone for all the peoples around” (Zech. 12:2).
That proves nothing in regard to DeMar's assertion that these verses somehow are in regard to the Lord defending the "inhabitants of Jerusalem".
Seventh, this rescue of Israel was so significant that it was to be remembered by “every gen­eration, every family, every province, and every city” so that the “days of Purim were not to fall from among the Jews, or their memory fade from their descendants” (Esther 9:28).
"Israel" was not rescued by anyone in the book of Esther.That is just a figment of the imagination of Gary DeMar.
DeMar goes on to explain that though Jerusalem was not specifically mentioned, (as Esther was written from the perspective of the Jew’s still living in Persia at that time), it was certainly a target of Haman’s plot to kill all the Jews in “the Kingdom” that included Jerusalem at that time.
Jerusalem was laying in ruins at the time of the events described in Esther.That city was not a target for anyone.
Finally (for the purpose of answering your specific questions), DeMar explains that the term “every nation” is an idiom used both in scripture and other Ancient Near East writings to indicate a “kingdom” or “group” composed of many different ethnic peoples.
Again,this proves nothing since all of the events described in Esther took place in Persia,not Israel.

And the verses which we are discussing are in regard to "Jerusalem":

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech.12:8,9).

Nothing that happened in the book of Esther are in regard to Jerusalem.And I would be interested in what DeMar said about the fact that in that day the Lord will "seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem".

I am sure that that would be even a bigger fairy tale that the one he spun about the defense of the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

How anyone could believe that DeMar's explanation about the verses in Zechariah 12 being fulfilled in Esther is beyond me.And I rebuke Geary DeMar for his writings,that are nothing but a gross perversion of the Scriptures.

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2Tim.4:2-4).

The place which DeMar assigns the prophecies of Zechariah 12 has nothing whatsoever to do with Bibical eschatology.All he has done is turned his ears away from the truth so that he can add support to the "fables" invented by the preterists.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Mickey has mastered the art of "goalpost shifting".

He said, "...but preterism can find no place for these events in their eschatology" .

Not, Preterism can find no place for these event that make sense. Not, preterism can find no place that I agree with but Preterism can find no place for these events in thier eschatology.

He assumed (wrongly) that there was no preterist answer. And when shown that there is an anwer, he first ignored the glaring error, and when pressed, instead of admitting his error (or even acknowledging he was less than clear) he shifts the goal post.

Now, he is saying that yes preterist do have a position, but he does not agree with it. But that is not what he said at first. He said we did not have a positon in our eschatology. The position I presented fits very neatly into preterist eschatology.

The simple fact is that when Mickey said that preterism has no place in their eschatology for Zech. 12, he was wrong.


There are only two options.

1. He thought that there was no preterist answer and meant what he said

OR

2. He meant to say that there was no "valid" preterist interpretation of that passage, but said something else.

This can clearly be demonstrated with a comparison of his posts:

When one speaks of eschatolgy the meaning is in regard to what the Scriptures reveal.And the quote you gave proves that Gary DeMar's idea of when Zechariah 12 was fulfilled is not according to what the Bible reveals.

If this is what he really meant when he said:
Preterism has no place for these verses in their eschatology, then he must think that preterism has an eschatology, which means (by his own words) "meaning..in regard to what the Scripture reveal.

Because he identified preterism as having an eschatology. Right?

But now he redefines eschatology in order to avoid admitting an error.

I wonder what else he redefines (maybe scripture??) to avoid admitting an error.


The book of Esther is in regard to events that took place in Persia,not the land of Israel.

The "place" is not in regard to Bibical eschsatology.Instead it is in regard to a fictional "eschatolgy" made up by someone who obviously cannot distinguish between Persia and Isreal.


Again, he is redefining words and/or adding to his original statement. He never qualified his "...but preterism can find no place for these events in their eschatology" as "real" (as opposed to fictional) eschatology. He specifically said, "their eschatology".

So unless he is now claiming that preterism is "real" and not "fiction" then he is changing the meaning of what he said in an attempt to weasle out of his error. I (nor would I think anyone else) am not buying it.

It exists in some fictional fairy-land,but it does not even come close to existing in Bibical eschatology.

You statement was not "...but preterism can find no place for these events in biblical eschatology" But "...but preterism can find no place for these events in their eschatology"

It is the "their" eschatology that I presented. You can't deny that (well you can, because you did, but you just look silly).

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong? Is it so hard? My six year old used to have a really hard time admitting she was wrong, but that was when she was five, she has since learned that it is OK to say you are wrong. Maybe she could teach you.

Now let us examine this insult on the Sacred Word presented by DeMar:

This all took place in Persia.The verses from Zerachiah are in reference to Jerusalem,which is in Israel and not Persia.

Both I and DeMar addressed this.

Yes,but again this refers to the cities throughout all the provinces of the king,Ahasuerus (v.2).That king was never the king of Israel bt instead he was king of Persia.

Do you do any research, or do you just spout nonsense. Have you ever read Ezra. Have you ever read Daniel? Heck have you even read Zechariah?

All these tell us that, at the time of their writing, Israel was controled by who, Persia. And where did many Jews live? Israel? This was explained in Demar's article.

DeMar needs to read both Ezra and Nehemiah in order to learn these simple facts.

He read them, but he is not the one who needs to read them again to get thier facts straight.

Again,this is in regard to the provinces in Persia,not Israel (v.3).

Israel was a province of Persia. I told you to read the article. :smack:

How can anyone take DeMar seriously?

How can anyone take Mickey seriously?

Nothing here about Jerusalem,and that is because none of these verses occured in Jerusalem,as anyone with the most basic understanding of the book of Esther can know.

Unless they also have a basic understaning of history and know that Israel was a province of Persia at that time. :duh:

That proves nothing in regard to DeMar's assertion that these verses somehow are in regard to the Lord defending the "inhabitants of Jerusalem".

"Israel" was not rescued by anyone in the book of Esther.That is just a figment of the imagination of Gary DeMar.

Denial, it is more than just a river in Egypt. But since you can't actually address DeMars point, you proclame them to be figments of his immagination.

Jerusalem was laying in ruins at the time of the events described in Esther.That city was not a target for anyone.

Care to provide a timeline to back that up??

King Cyrus issued a decree permitting the Jews to return to Jerusalem in 538 B.C.

The events in Esther took place in 473 B.C.

If you had actually read the article you would knowt that and would have saved yourself some embarassment.

Mickey= :blush:

I am looking forward to seeing how you wiggle out of this mistake. :grin:

Again,this proves nothing since all of the events described in Esther took place in Persia,not Israel.

That is as lame as saying that the events described in "Mississippi Burning" took place in the USA, not Mississippi.

And DeMar explains that. Why don't you actually address his reasoning instead of pretending he did not give any?

And the verses which we are discussing are in regard to "Jerusalem":

Then address DeMar's points that he raised regarding that very thing. (I told you to read the article, you would have saved yourself a huge deal of embarassment if you had).

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech.12:8,9).

Nothing that happened in the book of Esther are in regard to Jerusalem.And I would be interested in what DeMar said about the fact that in that day the Lord will "seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem".

If you were so interested, you should have read the article. He addressed this. You may not agree, but he addressed it, you asserted it was not true. He wins, you loose, now you've got a big bruise.

I am sure that that would be even a bigger fairy tale that the one he spun about the defense of the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

How anyone could believe that DeMar's explanation about the verses in Zechariah 12 being fulfilled in Esther is beyond me.And I rebuke Geary DeMar for his writings,that are nothing but a gross perversion of the Scriptures.

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2Tim.4:2-4).

Hey, can I rebuke you for the same reason??? Rebuking your opponent always scores persuasive points in a debate. NOT!

It is evidence of desperation.

The place which DeMar assigns the prophecies of Zechariah 12 has nothing whatsoever to do with Bibical eschatology.All he has done is turned his ears away from the truth so that he can add support to the "fables" invented by the preterists.

But it is preterist eschatology, and you did say that we had "no place" in our eschatology for that verse. I have soundly shown that we do have a place in our eschatology for those verses. Your histrionics that it is not "biblical" does not change the fact, nor does your goalpost shifting change what you originally said.

The fact is that YOU WERE WRONG!!!!

And in the process of trying to cover up your minor error, you made a much bigger error in saying that Jerusalem was uninhabited during the time of Esther. And look even less credible.

If I didn't know better I would say you are a preterist posing as a futurist to make futurist look bad. (oops. did I just blow your cover)?

In Christ,
Mickey[/QUOTE]

[Mickey]

Mickey has mastered the art of "goalpost shifting".
He said, "...but preterism can find no place for these events in their eschatology" .If they want to claim that their eschatology is Bibical,then I stand by my statement.If they admit that their eschatology is not Bibical then I admit that I was wrong.
Israel was a province of Persia. I told you to read the article.
The verses in Zechariah are about Jerusalem,and all the evnts which Gary DeMar cited happened in Persia.

Here is the verse again:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech.12:8,9).

To say that the events that happened in Persia fulfilled that verse you must close your eyes to the truth.
Care to provide a timeline to back that up??

King Cyrus issued a decree permitting the Jews to return to Jerusalem in 538 B.C.

The events in Esther took place in 473 B.C.
The city remained in ruins at the time of the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes.And since he began his reign in 465 BC then that means that the city remained in ruins as late as 445 B.C.
If you had actually read the article you would knowt that and would have saved yourself some embarassment.
It is you who should be embarrased,but considering that you are defending DeMar's article it appears that you will not be embarrased about anything.
And DeMar explains that. Why don't you actually address his reasoning instead of pretending he did not give any?
He threw away his reason and imagined that the events that took placein Persia fulfilled the following verses:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech.12:8,9).

Again,nothing that happened in the book of Esther even remotely fulfilled the events in those verses.

DeMar is a joke,and anyone that can take his wild exegesis seriously will believe anything,no matter how ridiculous.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

If they want to claim that their eschatology is Bibical,then I stand by my statement.If they admit that their eschatology is not Bibical then I admit that I was wrong.

Translation: I said they have "no place" in thier eschatology, and when I am shown otherwise, I create this elaborate definition to avoid admitting my error.

You were the one who said there was no place for these scripture in "thier" eschatology. Did you not think that Preterism was unbiblical when you wrote that?

The fact is that you did not say they have no "biblical" place, you did not say "reasonable place" you said they have no place. Period. and when you were shown otherwise you try to change the subject from a place period to a "biblical place" a qualification you never made until shown your error.

Pride goes before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction.



The verses in Zechariah are about Jerusalem,and all the evnts which Gary DeMar cited happened in Persia.

Let' substitue some city/country name (again) to show how silly this is.

The verses in Zechariah are about Birmingham, and all the events which Gary DeMar cited happened in Alabama.

See how silly that is considering Jerusalem was in Persia. You say that as if DeMar did not acknowledge this and address this. He did. You may hope the reader will not bother to read DeMar, and not know this, but not on my wathc, I am going to tell. :nana:

Reader: The objections raised by Mickey were anticipated by Mr. DeMar, and addressed in the article (which is a much shorter version of his book by the same title).

Mickey, DeMar explained how the verses in Esther apply to Jerusalem. Now you may not agree with him, but just saying that Persia is not Jerusalem is like saying Birmingham is not Alabama. It is just not true. You need to address the points DeMar brings up and say whay he is wrong. Just saying, "it ain't so" does not mean "it ain't so".


Here is the verse again:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech.12:8,9).

To say that the events that happened in Persia fulfilled that verse you must close your eyes to the truth.

What truth? The truth that Jerusalem was under Persian rule at the time????



The city remained in ruins at the time of the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes.And since he began his reign in 465 BC then that means that the city remained in ruins as late as 445 B.C.

You make it sound as if the rebuilding of Jerusalem was a one shot deal. One day it was ruineous and the next day it was done.

The second temple was completed in 515 B.C. well before the events of Esther. It is true that the walls were left down for some time after, but it was far from a deserted ruin in the 470's.

But my guess is that you knew that, but are yet again weaseling out of admitting you made a mistake.

It is you who should be embarrased,but considering that you are defending DeMar's article it appears that you will not be embarrased about anything.

Who is defending DeMar's article? I am stating that you are not addressing his points. I am not saying he is right (or wrong). For the purpose of this thread, I don't care. This thread is about the "Gap" in the 70 weeks. You brought up Zech. 12 and said that "the preterist do not have a place for this passage in thier eschatology". I have shown that. My job regarding Zech. 12 in this thread is done. I have showen that there is a place in preterist eschatology for that verse. It is not my job (as defined by me, I don't give a rodent's hind quarters what you think I need to do) to argue for or against this position, I just showed that there is in fact a preterist position on this.

If you were interested in honest debate you would acknowledge this (but your pride gets in the way), and move on to the "gap" and either start a new thread to discuss Zech. 12 or agree to discuss it after we actually address the topic of the thread.

However, my job to expose your lack of substance is needed every time you post (as you never have much substance). So when you say completely stupid things like "Jerusalem is not Persia" totally ignoring Mr. DeMar's explanation to the contrary, (and the historical fact) it is my job to expose the poor argument.

Note, I am not "defending" Gary DeMar's position, I am just exposing your total lack of adequately addressing his points.

He threw away his reason and imagined that the events that took placein Persia fulfilled the following verses:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem...And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech.12:8,9).


Hey, if you repeate that it was just DeMar's imagination enough times, maybe that will make it true.

NOT!

Quit beating that dead horse. :beathorse:

Why don't you actually tell us which of DeMar's arguments (not his conclusions but his arguments) you disagree with and why?

I, never mind, I know why. You can't!!!! All you can do is claim it is his "imagination". :blah:

Again,nothing that happened in the book of Esther even remotely fulfilled the events in those verses.

Hey, I can make baseless assertions too:

Again, everything that happened in the book of Esther fulfilled the events of those verses.

But then I provided some detail and a link to a much more detailed article. You have provided squat but your "It's all his imaginiation". Well his well supported imagination trumps your baseless assertion every day.

DeMar is a joke,and anyone that can take his wild exegesis seriously will believe anything,no matter how ridiculous.

You would like to belive that wouldn't you. You would love for me to believe that you didn't say, "preterist have no place for those verse in thier exegisis". But you said it, shown it to be untrue, and refused to admit your error.

There are somethings that even fans of DeMar won't beleive.

[Mickey]

Faramir,

Are you sure that you have ever read the book of Nehemiah?I wonder.You said:
The second temple was completed in 515 B.C. well before the events of Esther. It is true that the walls were left down for some time after, but it was far from a deserted ruin in the 470's.

But my guess is that you knew that, but are yet again weaseling out of admitting you made a mistake.
Here is the shape of Jerusalem in 445 BC.Nehemiah said:

"Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach"(Neh.2:17).

"Now the city was large and great: but the people were few therein, and the houses were not builded" (Neh.7:4).

You say that it was far from a deserted ruin,but Nehemia (who was there) said that "it lieth waste" and there were few people and the houses were not built.

Where did you get your ideas?

From Gary DeMar?

Perhaps you should spend a little more time in the Scriptures instead of reading those fables written by Mr.DeMar.

I have no more time for your empty arguments,Farimar.You either do not know what the Scriptures say or you refuse to believe them.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

Are you sure that you have ever read the book of Nehemiah?I wonder.You said:

Here is the shape of Jerusalem in 445 BC.Nehemiah said:

"Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach"(Neh.2:17).

"Now the city was large and great: but the people were few therein, and the houses were not builded" (Neh.7:4).

You say that it was far from a deserted ruin,but Nehemia (who was there) said that "it lieth waste" and there were few people and the houses were not built.

Where did you get your ideas?

From Gary DeMar?

Perhaps you should spend a little more time in the Scriptures instead of reading those fables written by Mr.DeMar.

I have no more time for your empty arguments,Farimar.You either do not know what the Scriptures say or you refuse to believe them.

In Christ,
Mickey

Mickey, denial is more than just a river. The second temple was completed by the time of Esther.


There were people there. I never said it was populous, but it was not totally deserted as you implied. DeMar said as much too. Your straw men are getting tiring. You said the city was not a target for anyone, yet scripture is full of descriptions of people trying to thwart the plan to rebuild. Nehimiah has gaurds posted, what is the need if Jerusalem was not a target.

And how could Haman have carried out his plan of destroyig every Jew in the kingdom without attacking Jerusalem? Even if Jerusalem had "but few people" Not to mention the fact that Jeruslalem was the center of worship.

Plus, Haman's target was all the Jews in the Kingdom. That would include Jerusalem as a target. You can not say that "Jerusalem was a target for no one" unless you ignore the fact that Jerusalem was populated and was in the Persian Empire. Unless you do not think that Esther is true.

I don't think you can keep from responding, even though you said you had no time.

No, wait, I know. I'll pull what you do when Dee Dee says she has no time.

....ahem.....

Mickey has no time for my arguments. No surprise there, since he can't answer. He is afraid of the truth of scripture, so he makes excuses.

How was that? Was that a pretty good Mickey impersination????

[ForHimAlone]

unfortunately, a gap isn't evident in the NT either. the closest you get is Rom. 11:25, but nothing in that verse nor its context implies a "stop" in the "prophecy clock" of Daniel 7. as far as i can tell Daniel's prophecy doesn't even come up there.

as a matter of fact, Romans 11 would have us interpret the opposite. the argument in verse 11:1 and following is that there was still a remnant, much like in Elijah's day, saved by grace. one would expect, if not driven by a futurist theology, that this remnant established a continuity between the God fearing Jews of the OT era and the early Christian era.

there's no reason to suppose a prophecy gap. none of the cited passages speak to that specifically, it's just hash, taking vaguely related passages and forcing them into an ad hoc theologic grid.

contrarily, in the DeMarr book you quote (but you didn't cite, you bad boy :bonk:), he gives a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the 69th and 70th weeks, without a gap.


i would agree on one point though. the gap isn't limited to dispensationalism, as the ECF quotes show, any sort of futurist would have to come up with an ad hoc gap in the 70 weeks to shield their futurism.

I strongly concur with the sentiments quoted above. I have not seen a futurist properly explain the context of Dan. 9.24-27 in relationship to Christ and what He did at Calvary. Verse twenty-four is most certainly accomplished at Golgotha and the ensuing events leading up to the decimation of the Jewish religious worship.

How do the futurists interpret Gal. 6.16? By tossing the label "replaceme