132 Look thou upon me, and be merciful unto me, as thou usest to do unto those that love thy name. # Ask for mercy because of your sin-guilt you desperately need it.
133 Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me. # Don't ever imagine that sin and Satan's forces will not try to divert you to another path. Also don't think that sin+Satan are a pushover, they are not, and you are still with sin. Thus pray that God will direct your path daily, - you need HIS input all the time.
134 Deliver me from the oppression of man: so will I keep thy precepts. # It is interesting that these two points are combined here. The oppression of man around us - and God's deliverance that we obey.
135 Make thy face to shine upon thy servant; and teach me thy statutes. # Keep an eye on us Lord and YOU teach us your laws. Avoid the conviction that learning without the grace will work. It won't!
136 Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law # Tears should also be in your eyes because they don't keep the law today either.
Go to www.withchrist.org for definition.
I am Classical (Darby and Scofield) with greater emphasis on Paul (Stanford and Newman) in making distinction between God's program for Israel (see Romans 9-11) and God's program for the Church (Ephesians 1:19-23; 2:11-3:13; and 5:23-33) in which the acended and glorified Jesus revealed to him seven mysteries (one reference was already given) and I am not Modified (Ryrie and Chafer), Progressive (C Blaising and D Bock) or Hyper (Charles H Welch, A E Knoch).
Protestant(the Five Solas)Reformed(the Doctrines of Grace and Regulative Principle)Covenantal
Why? 1. If by faith and works, Christ died in vain. 2. The saints are predestinated and preserved in Christ and kept from falling..called, justified and shall be glorified. 3. What God has not commanded should be not be accepted into the church as valid worship, piety or evangelistic techniques.
DJC49 wrote:a] Incorrect. Amillennialism was the predominant eschatological system held by nearly ALL in the Church (etc.)
"The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risensaints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of disting uished teachers." - Philip Schaff
I then started studying Hebrew back in 1998 with a Genius of a Gentleman, an atheist at that too.It is clear from examining the passage in Aramaic and Hebrew that Daniel 9 is without doubt refering to Christ.
The break in the passage referring to the prince that shall come is a literary style which breaks from the subject matter as an interjection.
The same sort of thing occurs in Matthew 24 referring to the destruction of the temple.
In regards to the subject of the two witnesses, it might be worthwhile to listen to M J Mencarow's messages on Revelation to start with as an introduction. he is well balanced and not dogmatic.
It would be wise to carefully not swallow the deceptions of a future anti christ when the one we have right now will be the one for the future.Check out the teachings of 2 Jesuits Ribera and Lacunza alias Rabbi Ben Ezra who were commissioned by the magisterium to pen alternative views to the protestants and take the heat off the Pope. Most Christians today believe their teachings.
There is Hope wrote:Did it ever occur to you that in the original KJV the word prince is capitilized meaning that this is the Messiah the Prince. The people are the armies of God that he used through Titus to destroy the temple in 70AD.Even if this was Titus, he never made any kind of peace treaty with Israel.At least you made an honest attempt to answer the question.
So let's test this considerationAND THE PEOPLE of the prince who is to come...did either the Jews or Christians destroy Jerusalem? No! So that CANNOT be it, the Truth, the true interpretation can it.
btw this is sufficient for me to know the one world ruler of the end times will be from what used to be the Roman Empire and not from the US, the far east, etc. etc.
Oops, the covenant mentioned here in Daniel isn't talking about the general who destroys Jerusalem is it either, it is talking about the prince who is to come.
God knows what He is talking about we simply do not have to try to spiritualize what He says into somekind of Symbolism that denies Almighty God will have a very real and specific fulfillment of His word.
Michael Hranek wrote:There is Hope Perhaps you should carefully reread the last two verses. Who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD? Why! The people of the prince who is to come.Daniel 926 “And after the sixty-two weeksMessiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;But in the middle of the weekHe shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,Even until the consummation, which is determined,Is poured out on the desolate.”
Even if this was Titus, he never made any kind of peace treaty with Israel.
At least you made an honest attempt to answer the question.
jago wrote:I have heard the explanation that the two witnesses are the Holy Spirit and the Word. The Word (Jesus Christ) lay dead three days when He arose He'd defeated Satan and therefore death.They are certainly not olive trees or candlesticks which is the literal explanation given in the book of Revelation.
No, there is (will be ) a very real fulfillment of what God Himself moved the apostle John to write for us in Revelation and we simply do NOT have to try to come up with some symbolic interpretation either ourself nor that of another.
DJC49 wrote:If you wish to believe the cartoon version of the above, go right ahead. I take it as highly figurative language throughout.
Miguel wrote:a] Amillennialism is based on a nonliteral or spiritualized interpretation OF THE BIBLE.DJC49,b] To spiritualize Revelation where it is not called for (where the context does not make it obvious that the language is symbolic) will lead you to making the same errors as the JW's do, who also heavily spiritualize Revelation.
DJC49,b] To spiritualize Revelation where it is not called for (where the context does not make it obvious that the language is symbolic) will lead you to making the same errors as the JW's do, who also heavily spiritualize Revelation.
b] Okay, let's take LITERALLY Rev 11 concerning the 2 witnesses.Here goes:The 2 witnesses are both olive trees and candlesticks. Literal fire comes out of their mouths. If anyone hurts them, the fire kills them. They go around making plagues as often as they will. Their dead bodies lie in the street for 3½ days rotting away and the people rejoiced & give gifts to one another in celebration.
If you wish to believe the cartoon version of the above, go right ahead. I take it as highly figurative language throughout.
There is Hope wrote:Michael, we actually agree on something. With that in mind, let's look at the context of the prophecy of Daniel 9:27. Where in the immediate context is the antichrist even mentioned by name or even eluded to. Is he mentioned at all in the 9th chapter?
Daniel 926 “And after the sixty-two weeksMessiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;But in the middle of the weekHe shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,Even until the consummation, which is determined,Is poured out on the desolate.”
Michael Hranek wrote:MiguelPerhaps it might be good to point out one doesn't have to be a "dispensationalist" to believe God Himself brings about a very real fulfullment (not symbolic) of the prophecies in the Bible but one does need to believe God knows what He is talking about and is faithful to fulfill His word.And I have to think since you mentioned context, it is context that is the first and foremost way we should come to a honest true interpretation and application of what God Himself has said to us in the Bible.
With that in mind, let's look at the context of the prophecy of Daniel 9:27. Where in the immediate context is the antichrist even mentioned by name or even eluded to. Is he mentioned at all in the 9th chapter? Keep in mind for the personal pronoun "he" to be used it needs to be linked back to a specific individual named previously.
Just because one takes a literal interpretation of scripture, that doesn't make him a dispensationalist. I am premil, but not dispensational. I just so happen to take the literal, historical and grammatical interpretation rather that allegorical.
Miguel wrote:Amillennialism is based on a nonliteral or spiritualized interpretation of the Bible. Instead of just believing what the Bible plainly teaches they look for some other meaning....
And I have to think since you mentioned context, it is context that is the first and foremost way we should come to a honest true interpretation and application of what God Himself has said to us in the Bible.
Michael Hranek wrote:DJC49 Amillenial Theology is so "neat", but how in the World do they explain away the two witnesses of Revelation?
A literal interpretation of the Bible will lead one to a premillennial view.
DJC49,To spiritualize Revelation where it is not called for (where the context does not make it obvious that the language is symbolic) will lead you to making the same errors as the JW's do, who also heavily spiritualize Revelation.
DJC49 wrote:They "explain away" nothing, Michael.Now then, the VERY short answer to the question: "Who are the 2 witnesses?" Simply put, they symbolize the Church which is made up of the faithful and their attending ministers of the Gospel.Please remember that in Rev 11:4, these "2 witnesses" are also referred to as the "2 olive trees" and the "2 candlesticks."Without getting into any detail whatsoever, I must make you aware that much of the book of The Revelation is couched in figurative language. Symbolism and imagery are used throughout and the genre of the book is apocalyptic. To read this book literally leads to MUCH error and fanciful nonsense which is the hallmark of modern Dispensationalism.
Michael Hranek wrote:DJC49 Amillenial Theology is so "neat", but how in the World do they explain away the two witnesses of Revelation? You know the two guys who strike the earth with plagues, lay dead in the streets of Jerusalem (seen by the whole world - oops does that mean only the elect) and are raised from the dead and taken up into heaven.From the best of the info/facts/history that I know of this is a yet to be fulfilled part of the prophecy of Scripture...but one that most certainly will be fulfilled in a very real way and not just symbolically.
From the best of the info/facts/history that I know of this is a yet to be fulfilled part of the prophecy of Scripture...but one that most certainly will be fulfilled in a very real way and not just symbolically.
Now then, the VERY short answer to the question: "Who are the 2 witnesses?" Simply put, they symbolize the Church which is made up of the faithful and their attending ministers of the Gospel.
Please remember that in Rev 11:4, these "2 witnesses" are also referred to as the "2 olive trees" and the "2 candlesticks."
Without getting into any detail whatsoever, I must make you aware that much of the book of The Revelation is couched in figurative language. Symbolism and imagery are used throughout and the genre of the book is apocalyptic. To read this book literally leads to MUCH error and fanciful nonsense which is the hallmark of modern Dispensationalism.
And because you have bought into Dispensational eschatology, all other Scripture will SEEM to you as backing up your belief that there is mention of "Antichrist," "Israel," "peace treaty," "Great Tribulation," and a "breaking of the 'peace treaty'" within the following verse:
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."
Also this:There is absolutely NO reason to believe that within the Daniel 70 weeks prophecy that there was some sort of 2000+ year GAP between week 69 and 70. If unforeseen "gaps" are possible within the prophecy of Daniel, then what makes anyone think that there is not a 2000+ year gap between, say, the 21st and 22nd week and that Messiah the Prince has NOT already come at all!
Prophecies which contain numbers are no prophecies at all if "gaps" are allowed.
2) Where in the entire 28th chapter of Isaiah is Egypt, or Babylon, or the captivity of Judah even mentioned? It's not there at all. To the contrary, it speaks of a "consumption...determined upon THE WHOLE EARTH." (vs.22) Sounds like tribulation talk to me.
3) Judah was judged by sword, famine, and pestilence in the case of the captivity (Jer. 14:12). Verse 17 mentions hail and water. There will be judgements involving hail and water in the tribulation.
4) Given Israel's long standing and continuing idolotry and involvement in the occult, is it ant suprise that they will make an agreement with the anti-christ? He will be Jewish after all, an imitator of the real Christ.
5) I was not spiritulizing this passage at all and see it as very logical that it would refer to the future agreement of Israel with the antichrist.
