PDA

View Full Version : From the Mailbag: Are all prophecies fulfilled?



Richard Amiel McGough
12-20-2007, 07:20 PM
I received this email and thought it would be good to answer it here since I am sure other folks would like to know where I stand on these issues.

The first thing to note is my Fundamental Rule of Biblical Hermeneutics which states that every doctrine of Christianity must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous passages of Scripture. This standard quickly cleans out the weeds from our eschatological garden. For example, the doctrine of the earthly millennial reign of Christ could be true, but it is not sufficiently supported by Scripture to be taught as doctrine because Revelation 20 doesn't say He rules on earth, and the OT never says the kingdom will last a thousand years (as well as other problems).



Hello Richard,

A couple of nights ago I was researching the Book of Esther, and came to your site for some more dimension to certain issues, and discovered your forum.

I was shocked to learn that you feel that all prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. I have not read all your forum pages, so I don't want to assume anything, and wanted to write you to see if I understand what you are saying, correctly. Are you saying that there is NO prophecy to be yet fulfilled? And that the endtimes were in Jesus day in the 1st century, and nothing for today?


The Bible clearly states that the "end times" occurred in the first century. A few examples:
Acts 2:16-17 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:
Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. In the last example from John, he told his first cerntury audience that the "last time" (literally last hour) was happening right then in the first century, and that they knew it because the antichrists were appearing, just as Christ had warned in the Olivet Discourse that false Christs and false prophets would appear before He came on the clouds of heaven in judgement on Jerusalem.


No second coming?

Most of the verses that you have been reading as referring to a "second coming" were in the context of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation, which we know were fulfilled in the first century. There could be a future second coming, but if so, I am not aware of any clear prophecy of it in the Bible.


Is everything I've believed, as well as my parents, grandparents, and their parents before them, about the consumation of the ages already over 2,000 years ago?

Everything you have believed about eschatology appears to have been colored by a futurist view that completely ignored the first century fulfillment declared by the Bible and confirmed in history. For example, at Pentecost, Peter said that "all the prophets" had spoken of "these days." And Jesus said that the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century were "the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22). Everything confirms everything else. This is the plain teaching of the Holy Bible.

I am always surprised when folks implicitly minimize the the great and glorious coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in the first century as if it were "disappointing" to learn that the Lord God Almighty was born a baby, lived a perfect life, died for our sins, and rose victorious unto life eternal - all back in the first century.


If so, do we just follow the Lord, grow old and die, before we can be with Him?

That's how its been done by every Christian person who has ever lived. Why do you have a problem with that?


Was His Second Coming just in judgment for Jerusalem (and to live in our hearts?)

The Bible doesn't call it "His Second Coming" so neither do I.


Is He not coming for His church, His Bride?


He has come for His Bride. We are it! The New Jerusalem is His Church, the Bride, that "came down out of heaven." The Bible is explicit on this point:
Revelation 21:9-10 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,See now what happens when we read what the Bible really teaches? The futurist idea that there will be a literal city called "New Jerusalem" is not in the text at all! The Bible says that the New Jerusalem is the Bride, and we know that the Bride is the Church. Everything ties together with simplicity, clarity, and perfection.


What about Armageddon? When was that?

The Book of Revelation describes the destruction of apostate Jerusalem (the Harlot called Mystery Babylon) by the Roman beast. Armageddon represents the final war in which over a million Jews were slaughtered, much like what Jesus warned. Though there are many symbols in Revelation that folks can dispute and discuss, there proof of the overall meaning of the book comes from its profound integration with Daniel and the Olivet Discourse. Four example, immediately before the discourse Christ said that all the blood of the martyrs would be required of the first century Jews, and when Babylon is judged in Revelation, she "And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth" (Revelation 18:24). Again, the all the pieces fit together with great precision. There is nothing like this high degree of integrity found in the futurist writings.


What was the mark of the beast?

We don't have space here to discuss all the possible intepretations. But I can certainly tell you what it is not. It is not a bar code. It is not your social secutity number. It is not a biochip implant.


When was Damascus destroyed? Isa 17:1 says that Damascus is taken away from being a city, and shall be a ruinous heap. When He destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah and Babylon they didn't come back, although there are plans to re-build Babylon--time will tell. But, Damascus is the oldest inhabited city, and still is in existence.
Isaiah 17 does not say that Damascus would be ruined forever. It simply says it would be ruined. His prophecy was fullfilled in 735 BC by Tiglath-Pileser III. This is common knowledge. Here's a typical statement of the history of Damascus (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/damascus.htm) that you can find from many sources:

Damascus was captured and destroyed by the Assyrians under Tiglath-Pileser. The inhabitants were carried captive into Assyria, just like the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 16:7-9). This fall was a fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 17:1, Amos 1:4-5, Jeremiah 49:24)
Do you see the problem? Pop prophecy teachers just rip these prophecies out of context and proclaim they were not fulfilled. This is why there is so much confusion in the field of eschatology.


Being on the FiveDoves, I know that you know where I'm coming from. I see the rise of a great evil in Islam; just as though it was the fourth reich. I see the Islamic countries in Eze 38 and Psa 83 coming to the forefront wanting to wipe Israel out from being a nation.
Let me speak frankly. I believe you are reading things into the Bible that are not really there. Folks have interpreted those verses for many years with no reference to Islam - until late in the 20th century after the fall of the USSR, and especially now after 9/11. And this is how "prophecy" always goes. Folks read the newspapers and try to find the headlines in the ancient prophecies. And of course, you can always find a link or two ... and then the headlines change again, and so do the interpretations of the futurist prophecies. I don't believe any of it! Like datesetters, they have always been wrong.


And no the USSR doesn't exist anymore, but Russia sure does, and is gaining strength as a world power feeding arms to the Islamic states, including nukes that could end our civilization.

That's all speculation without any real links to anything in the Bible.


And then there is the New World Order and the verichip tracking they intend to force on us May of '08.

How many false predictions have you believed in the past? When May 08 comes and goes and there is no "New World Order" and no "verichip tracking" will you think to youself "I was wrong again! Why do I believe these stories anyway?" I pray you will, so you will be free from these unbiblical end time distractions. They do not serve God at all. People have been talking about stuff like this for decades and they are always wrong. And things that are wrong are not true, and we worship the Truth, do we not? So let us abandon falsehood and seek the full light of God's Truth in Jesus Christ our Lord.


I have also noticed that even secular people are talking about end-time issues, feeling something BIG is about to happen.

Yes, I've noticed that too. "Global warming" is just another "end times scenario" for unbelievers.


I see the church today divided with dozens of different and conflicting doctrines.

When hasn't it been like that?


I see the Jews fervently praying at the Wall during Annapolis crying out to God in the only way they understand. Do you not see this as a possibility that God plans to do another great work, as in Zec 12?


Zechariah 12 was fulfilled in the first century. John said so explicitly:
John 19:36-37 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. [Zech 12:10]And the verse that follows it speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century.


The rabbis (Pharisees) have greatly deceived the Jewish people with the oral law IMHO, what about Romans 11:11-12, v 25-26, 28 or Isa 40:31? Plus all the scriptures (post-Pentecost, as well as Paul's teachings) where we are told to "Watch for His Coming?"
This is too small a space to discuss Romans 11, but I would be delighted if you would join the forum and explain why you think it is relevent.

You say that "we are told to Watch for His Coming?" That's not exactly correct. The Bible records the words of Christ that He spoke to His first century disciples. He told them to watch, because He was coming soon, in the first cerntury, just like He said. We must read the Bible carefully or we can easily get confused.


I'm writing you personally because I respect the work you have done with the BibleWheel, and have always felt it was Holy Spirit inspired, and that you have been used in a great way. I guess the reason I'm confused now is that I don't see your conclusion fitting with what I see happening in our world.
I understand, and I am very glad you have written. It is interesting that I came to this understanding of prophecy by writing the Bible Wheel book, which required a carefull review of all 66 books of the Bible so I could write about how each triplet linked up on each Spoke. It was then that I noticed the great theme of consummation on Spoke 22, and that Acts aligned with Revelation, and both spoke of this great consummation.

I know it can be confusing because folks act like the futurist teachings are actually in the Bible! But much of what they teach is not really there ... at best, they teach a "possible" interpretation, but even that is stretching it because much of what they teach is just plain made up. Invented and inserted, like the 1937+ year gap in Daniel 9:26, or the rebuilt temple, or the premill rapture, or the doctrine of the earthly millennium reign itself! I just can't believe that people feel so free to abuse the Bible that way.


Do you not think that some prophecies in God's plan can have another fulfillment?

Yes! There certainly are double fulfillments.


Do you not feel that the framework of the BibleWheel will ever grow any more dimensions, as flesh on bones, if you know what I mean?

Yes indeed. I am excited to see how that will happen.


If you are just now in the 21st Century discovering the Wheels within the the Wheels, how could anyone in the former centuries have understood? And since you relate the 22 Hebrew letters with the centuries, does that mean that you believe the 22nd century is the last?

I have good reason to think that the 22 century will correspond to the 22 Spoke ... you can read about my view of time and the Bible Wheel in my article called The Key to the Kingdoms (http://www.biblewheel.com/History/KingdomKey.asp).


OK, I just now read where you believe in a consummation. Could you please tell me what you feel is left to be fulfilled or direct me to a page explaining this in your forum? I for one, would not mind foregoing an antichrist, mark of the beast, trib, etc., but unfortunately that's IS what I see lining up in our world. I would be most interested in studying your ideas of what prophecies you feel are yet to be fulfilled.

I will endeavor to write an article explaining what I believe. I can't think of anything already posted that fits the bill right now. And my fingers are tired after this long post. But as for "The Antichrist" - are you aware that the term "antichrist" is NEVER used in the Bible for a wanna be world dictator? The definition of "antichrist" in the Bible is only for those who reject certain doctrinal issues, namely, 1) they teach Christ was not messiah, or 2) they teach that Christ did not come in the flesh. This exemplifies how bad the pop prophecy teachings really are. They make up stuff that is not in the Bible, and pass it off as if it were.

Well, gotta go ... dinner's getting cold. Thanks for the great questions.

Richard

TheForgiven
12-20-2007, 07:45 PM
Wow, I didn't know you had a record of emails. I wish some of your writers would join the forum so we could discuss these issues.

That was a pretty good response I read above, and I agree with you in everything you wrote. In fact, your presentations seem to lean towards Full Preterism; a position I've defended for a long time. What caused concern in me was the resurrection. Then again, perhaps it isn't a problem when we understand that the resurrection is a new creation, not a rebuilding. In the past, I've often stated that the reason for the bodily resurrection of the Lord was that His body served as a lamb, and it was used to purify the true and actual heavenly tabernacle, where the earthly alters utilized the animal system, thereby painting a picture of what was to come. That is why His body was not left to decompose. But I try to be as careful as I can in order not to sound Gnostic in nature.

I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. And with that statement of faith, I believe we also shall be resurrected. I don't know how, if even our physical bodies are involved. But Paul makes one thing clear:


2 Corinthians 5
1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. 4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

To be absent from our earthly body is to be at Home with the Lord, abiding in tents not made by the joining of hands (marriage) but a creation of God in the heaven.

I'm beginning to believe that Full Preterism might be the correct teaching. Our earthly bodies die and perish. But those of us with faith know that we do not perish because we have bodies in the heavens prepared for us.

What do you think brother Richard? I'm also interested in your thoughts Dave.

Joe

shalag
12-20-2007, 08:00 PM
What do you do with this verse?
Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,
11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." Where is Jesus coming back to? And are you saying this already occurred? Or what about this one?
14 Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.I'm not saying you are saying the resurrection is passed - but yes I do have a problem with living on earth simply waiting for 2Peter 3 to occur.

MHz
12-20-2007, 10:32 PM
Hi Richard,

[FONT=Verdana]
The first thing to note is my Fundamental Rule of Biblical Hermeneutics which states that every doctrine of Christianity must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous passages of Scripture.
It would take 4 or 6 more passages to make those 2 or 3 references before they could be considered as clear themselves. Scripture also says where and how you will find information,
Isa:28:9: Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa:28:10: For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:


[FONT=Verdana]
This standard quickly cleans out the weeds from our eschatological garden. For example, the doctrine of the earthly millennial reign of Christ could be true, but it is not sufficiently supported by Scripture to be taught as doctrine because Revelation 20 doesn't say He rules on earth, and the OT never says the kingdom will last a thousand years (as well as other problems).

That is why the date for dates not given in the OT is in a book called Revelation.
Don't you use the beast's 42 months, the 1260 days of the two witnesses, to apply a time to events you see as past?

When do these rule on earth?
Re:5:9:
And they sung a new song,
saying,
Thou art worthy to take the book,
and to open the seals thereof:
for thou wast slain,
and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred,
and tongue,
and people,
and nation;
Re:5:10:
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests:
and we shall reign on the earth.

I say there is absolutely no reason not to think some verses from the same book that have as many similarities as these two have should be discarded as being supportive of whar each say, meaning they cover at least one event that both have some information about.

Re:20:4:
And I saw thrones,
and they sat upon them,
and judgment was given unto them:
and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,
and for the word of God,
and which had not worshipped the beast,
neither his image,
neither had received his mark upon their foreheads,
or in their hands;
and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

One says somebody will reign, the other one says how long it will be.

Wayne

Richard Amiel McGough
12-20-2007, 11:31 PM
Hey there my friend!

I'm glad you decided to jump in on this converstation. Those are good questions you asked.


What do you do with this verse?

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,
11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."
Where is Jesus coming back to? And are you saying this already occurred?


Your understanding of that verse depends on your understanding of other similar verses, such as:
Matthew 26:63-64 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
When did Caiaphas see Jesus "coming in the clouds of heaven?" Recall also that Stephen did see Jesus standing at the right hand of God. How many Christians saw Him exalted "in heaven" or "in the clouds?" Could that be a fulfillment of Acts 11:1?

Now I don't claim to have a certain understanding of Acts 1:11, but I do know that most of the verses speaking of "the Son of Man coming in the clouds" were fulfilled in the judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD. There are many reasons to believe this:

Christ said it would happen before the first century generation of Jews died
Christ said in both the Olivet Discourse (OD) and Rev that it would happen "soon ... for the time was at hand."
Christ is revealed judging Jerusalem with a sickle from a cloud in Rev 14:14.
The Son of Man ascended in clouds to the thrown of God in Daniel 7:13, and Dan 12:7 says that all things would be done in 70 AD when the power of the Jews was shattered.I could go on ... but I don't have time right now. The important thing is this: We must build the foundation of our eschatology on what we really know for sure, and be willing to leave the uncertain things "on the shelf" until God gives us more understanding. Following this methodology yields a very strong and well confirmed understanding of first century fulfillment of Daniel, Rev, and the OD. I certainly don't claim to have all the answer, but I do claim that the Bible really does teach that most prophecies were fulfilled in the first century. There could still be prophecies yet to be fulfilled, but if so, that is not taught with certainy and clarity in the Bible.


Or what about this one?

14 Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.
I'm not saying you are saying the resurrection is passed - but yes I do have a problem with living on earth simply waiting for 2Peter 3 to occur.
What was the error that Paul was attacking? Its not clear. All he says is that it consisted in "saying that the resurrection is already past" and that that could "overthrow the faith of some." How could it overthrow their faith? Apparently by saying that they missed the resurrection. Preterism teaches no such thing. No one's faith is overthrown by saying that all the prophecies were fulfilled in the first century.

In general, the meaning of resurrection can be quite difficult to understand because when Jesus was resurrected, His old body still existed, so it made sense to talk about that body being brought back to life (literally standing up again). But that's not the case for the vast majority of Christians. Their bodies have been annihilated. So it seems like they can not be "resurrected" in the sense that Jesus was, but have to be "recreated." Whether this is a problem, or how it relates to preterism or 2 Tim 2:18 would require a whole thread to discuss.

Good questions shalag! :thumb:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-20-2007, 11:41 PM
Hi Richard,

Hallo there Wayne,


When do these rule on earth?
Re:5:9:
And they sung a new song,
saying,
Thou art worthy to take the book,
and to open the seals thereof:
for thou wast slain,
and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred,
and tongue,
and people,
and nation;
Re:5:10:
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests:
and we shall reign on the earth.

That's right now ... you and me and all believers are reinging with Christ in Christ. We know this because the Bible tells us many times, even in the first chapter of Revelation. The Apostle John, speaking to first century Christians declared that Christ "hath made [PAST TENSE] us kings and priests unto God and his Father." I've shown you this before. Why do you not receive it? Am I misinterpreting it?


I say there is absolutely no reason not to think some verses from the same book that have as many similarities as these two have should be discarded as being supportive of whar each say, meaning they cover at least one event that both have some information about.

Re:20:4:
And I saw thrones,
and they sat upon them,
and judgment was given unto them:
and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,
and for the word of God,
and which had not worshipped the beast,
neither his image,
neither had received his mark upon their foreheads,
or in their hands;
and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

One says somebody will reign, the other one says how long it will be.

Wayne
DISCARDED? :eek: Where did you EVER get that idea? You know my position. I say that those passages really go together perfectly! They both are symbols of the Church. Note that by your definition, this is a "literal" interpretation. The Church Age is the LITERAL time period that is being represented by the symbol of the "1000 years." Its just as "literal" as the symbol of the gold head representing literal Babylon.

Richard

MHz
12-21-2007, 12:11 AM
Hi Richard,


That's right now ... you and me and all believers are reinging with Christ in Christ. We know this because the Bible tells us many times, even in the first chapter of Revelation. The Apostle John, speaking to first century Christians declared that Christ "hath made [PAST TENSE] us kings and priests unto God and his Father." I've shown you this before. Why do you not receive it? Am I misinterpreting it?
("is", with John, (was) when He was on Earth, "is to come" future tense.
Re:1:8:
I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the ending,
saith the Lord,
which is,
and which was,
and which is to come,
the Almighty.



DISCARDED? :eek: Where did you EVER get that idea? You know my position. I say that those passages really go together perfectly! They both are symbols of the Church. Note that by your definition, this is a "literal" interpretation. The Church Age is the LITERAL time period that is being represented by the symbol of the "1000 years." Its just as "literal" as the symbol of the gold head representing literal Babylon.


"we shall reign " means sometime in the future. That would never be before the wrath of the 3rd woe is past. Show me that 'tarry' lends to Revelation being written at an early time period?

Joh:21:23: Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

And how far would your doctrine fly if the thousand years was held to that period of time, to the day?

Wayne

Richard Amiel McGough
12-21-2007, 12:47 AM
Hey Wayne,

Hi Richard,
"we shall reign " means sometime in the future.

Yep ... from that time on, it would appear. Rev 5 is a victory celebration of Christ overcoming sin and death through His sacrifice and resurrection. So the people in the vision praise Him because He is worthy, and declare that He "has made them [past tense] kings and priests so now they "shall reign" on earth as the Church in Christ. It's all very plain and simple, isn't it?


Show me that 'tarry' lends to Revelation being written at an early time period?

Joh:21:23: Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

All the other apostles died before Christ came in 70 AD. John tarried till then, and wrote the Rev in the mid-60s. What's the problem with that?


And how far would your doctrine fly if the thousand years was held to that period of time, to the day?

Wayne
It would fly perfectly, because the Bible's Doctrine does not stand or fall on a single passage.

You are going about this discussion in the wrong way Wayne. It seems like everything is a "hit and miss" with you. Toss out a verse here, and another there. But where is your integrated vision of the whole? Where is your foundation? Why should anyone believe a "futurist" view of the Bible? You accept that Daniel was fulfilled in 70 AD, correct? How about the OD? Tell me which parts are past and which are future, then we might make some more progress.

Richard

Trumpet
12-21-2007, 08:22 AM
Well Richard,

You keep using the verses in Dan. 9:24 where the angel explains what this prophecy is about. First, It's about Daniels people, and DANIEL's Holy City, which is OLD Jerusalem, not the New Jerusalem. If you want to say that it also includes the new, you are going past the time restrictions on this prophecy. It also says one of the fulfillments of this prophecy is to seal up THE vision and prophecy. It DOESN't say, ALL vision and prophecy. If this were true, then things like your correlations between the 22 letters and the centuries after this time would be void.

I've been watching this thread for a while, and many things mentioned about the time period included in Daniel's prophecy, and it seems that the discussion has evolved to the point where this particular prophecy has become the crux of all things. This really sells God short! You know as well as I do, that God has put SOOO much in His Word, that we have only scratched the surface of seeing it all. And this includes prophecy. Granted, this prophecy seems to have been fulfilled during this time period, but we can't use it as the "black hole" of prophecy, sucking all others in with it. This prophecy wraps up the final time of the old Jewish way. The people that God chose to bring us His Word; written, and bodily. But that's it. This is only one phase of the total plan of God for this world. It's like trying to figure the plan of God by looking through a funnel. Granted, the fulfillment of Dan 9:24 in this time period goes a long way towards showing the proof and existence of God, and builds our faith, but we have to move on. I don't want to be like those in the wilderness that were afraid to see what God had for them at the mount, where they got scared at the voice of God and the shaking, and told Moses to do it. I know that most posters here are after the truth, with an open eye toward finding more of the things of God. Let's not be like those that build a doctrine on one piece of God's word, and then close their eyes and ears to the moving of the cloud.

I wrote a post once about the improbability of the 1st Ressurrection having been past. I got no response. I mentioned the 3 feasts of Israel. It's funny how the church has done very little studying of them, because in them, God shows how He is going to redeem mankind. I mentioned how that God took GREAT pains to show the fulfillment of Passover, on the exact date, (Which has multiple fulfilments), and Pentecost, also on the exact date, (which has only been partially fulfilled), and Tabernacles, (which has also only been partially fulfilled). But in each case God has provided exact fulfilment in timing, AND physical evidence. Concerning the 1st Ressurrection, this evidence is lacking. The only thing evident is the report by Josephus and the other Roman describing some event in the sky. But events like these often accompanied things that happened to the nation of Israel in the past in a judgmental way. There is no absolute proof here that people were ressurrected. If God showed without a doubt and left the evidence of Jesus' ressurrection, and he left sure account of the 120 in the upper room, He would have left indesputable evidence of the 1st Ressurrection too. But He didn't. And we can't go on a "looks like it", or a "maybe". That would put us in the same group as some others.:Date_Setting:

God bless! Don

Richard Amiel McGough
12-21-2007, 09:23 AM
Good morning Don! :yo:

Thanks for the great post! It is good to be challenged on these things.


Well Richard,

You keep using the verses in Dan. 9:24 where the angel explains what this prophecy is about. First, It's about Daniels people, and DANIEL's Holy City, which is OLD Jerusalem, not the New Jerusalem.

I agree completely. I don't think I've ever said that Dan 9:24 was a prophecy of the "New Jerusalem" per se. Indeed, the whole point of Dan 9:24-27 is about the consummation of the Old Covenant age and the destruction of "OLD Jerusalem" and the literal Temple.


If you want to say that it also includes the new, you are going past the time restrictions on this prophecy.
In what way have I said that "it also includes the new?"


It also says one of the fulfillments of this prophecy is to seal up THE vision and prophecy. It DOESN't say, ALL vision and prophecy. If this were true, then things like your correlations between the 22 letters and the centuries after this time would be void.

Again, I agree with that. I don't advocate the idea that Daniel was talking about the "end of all prophecy" but rather the fulfillment of his own prophecy. I have wondered about its interpretation out loud in this forum, so perhaps I said something that made you think I had concluded that all prophecy (meaning the entire New Testament) was "sealed up" (meaning completed) by the end of Daniel's 70th week. There are two problems with that idea: 1) its not written in the text, and 2) it causes a gap of about 37 years in the prophecy.


I've been watching this thread for a while, and many things mentioned about the time period included in Daniel's prophecy, and it seems that the discussion has evolved to the point where this particular prophecy has become the crux of all things. This really sells God short! You know as well as I do, that God has put SOOO much in His Word, that we have only scratched the surface of seeing it all. And this includes prophecy.

I don't see why you say that. I never talk about Daniel 9 in isolation. I never think of it as "the crux of all things." Sure, it is a "major player" in what I call "the integrated prophetic complex" that also contains Revelation and the Olivet Discourse, as well as Joel and its fulfillment in Acts at Pentecost along with the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37 at the same time, and many other "bits and pieces" that all fit together quite wonderfully. But I don't think I have anything like "all the answers!" Believe me! There are many many questions, but what I know I know confidently because it is based on the fundamental rule of multiple mutually confirming witnesses.


Granted, this prophecy seems to have been fulfilled during this time period, but we can't use it as the "black hole" of prophecy, sucking all others in with it.




Ah! I see what you are getting at. I never meant to "use" it that way. Daniel is symply one book in an integrated complex of mutually confirming prophetic witnesses. For example, when Daniel 12:7 says that "all things" would be fulfilled when the power of the Jews is "scattered" or "shattered" he obviously is talking about 70 AD, right? And this is confirmed by Christ in the Olivet Discourse:
Luke 21:22-24 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. See that? Christ explicitly refers to Daniel 9 in the Olivet Discourse, and then declares that the Diaspora would be the sign that "all things" were fulfilled, just like Daniel. So I don't make any one prophecy the "crux of all things." They strength comes from the fact that they are all integrated with all the others. This is the key to getting our feet on our exchatological ground.


This prophecy wraps up the final time of the old Jewish way. The people that God chose to bring us His Word; written, and bodily. But that's it. This is only one phase of the total plan of God for this world. It's like trying to figure the plan of God by looking through a funnel. Granted, the fulfillment of Dan 9:24 in this time period goes a long way towards showing the proof and existence of God, and builds our faith, but we have to move on. I don't want to be like those in the wilderness that were afraid to see what God had for them at the mount, where they got scared at the voice of God and the shaking, and told Moses to do it. I know that most posters here are after the truth, with an open eye toward finding more of the things of God. Let's not be like those that build a doctrine on one piece of God's word, and then close their eyes and ears to the moving of the cloud.

I agree completely! :thumb:

Daniel 9 is just one piece of a very large puzzle that shows the lion's share of all prophecy was aimed at and fulfilled in the first century. If you want to present an integrated set of mutually confirming verses that clearly teach a yet to fulfilled prophetic event like the Millennium, please share it with us here. I don't want to bulldoze folks with my many words. I truly desire to have all ideas tested out here in the open - with the hope that the truest interpretation will prevail!


I wrote a post once about the improbability of the 1st Ressurrection having been past. I got no response.

Maybe folks were busy in other conversations. That happens sometimes, and is unfortunate because valuable insights can be overlooked. Am I correct to presume you are talking about this post #7 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4621&postcount=7) from the "First century Parousia demands a first century rapture" thread? That was a good post but I got distract sparring with Wayne. Sorry!


I mentioned the 3 feasts of Israel. It's funny how the church has done very little studying of them, because in them, God shows how He is going to redeem mankind. I mentioned how that God took GREAT pains to show the fulfillment of Passover, on the exact date, (Which has multiple fulfilments), and Pentecost, also on the exact date, (which has only been partially fulfilled), and Tabernacles, (which has also only been partially fulfilled). But in each case God has provided exact fulfilment in timing, AND physical evidence.

I agree completely about the feasts of the Lord. I think they are very significant and that's why I wrote about them in the Bible Wheel book (see here (http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/Seven_Meaning.asp)).

But I am curious, as to what part of Pentecost is still to be fulfilled.


Concerning the 1st Ressurrection, this evidence is lacking. The only thing evident is the report by Josephus and the other Roman describing some event in the sky.

I don't see that as a problem because the only way we know if someone was resurrected is if God goes out of His way to display it to others as in the case with Christ and the saints in Jerusalem that rose right after Him. But in general, the resurrected body is suited fro heaven, so why should we expect to seem them running around down here unless God is putting on a show to prove a point? In general, I see no reason we should expect "external evidence" of a resurrection.


But events like these often accompanied things that happened to the nation of Israel in the past in a judgmental way. There is no absolute proof here that people were ressurrected. If God showed without a doubt and left the evidence of Jesus' ressurrection, and he left sure account of the 120 in the upper room, He would have left indesputable evidence of the 1st Ressurrection too. But He didn't. And we can't go on a "looks like it", or a "maybe". That would put us in the same group as some others.:Date_Setting:

God bless! Don
As just mentioned, I don't see any reason to expect that God wanted to give further "proof" of resurrection. It is an "unusual act" to show off the resurrected bodies down here on earth, because this is not where those saints would continue residing.

But you have brought up a central issue to the whole question of how and when the prophecies were fulfilled. The meaning of "resurrection" in the Gospel seems to need discussion. What is the meaning of the "spiritual body" versus the "natural body?" Why did God use the term "resurrection" when most bodies will never literally be resurrected but recreated because they no longer exist?

It seems to me that the idea of resurrection has been misunderstood in terms of the "natural body" as if folks expect us to see a bunch of folks running around down here in the "natural world" with their "spiritual bodies." That may not be correct. Or maybe it is! In either case, it needs to be discussed (which is currently happening in the thead Physical or Spiritual Body?)

Thanks again Don, and God bless you!

Richard

kathryn
12-21-2007, 09:26 AM
It is wonderful, how the bible wheel demonstrates the fulfillment of prophecy, with the book of the Acts of the first century church, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ, on the spoke 22. There is one other dimension, that hasn't yet been added however...and that is the FULNESS of the Holy Spirit. The Acts of the first century church, took place under the "earnest" or downpayment of the Spirit. The downpayment of the Spirit, has not yet been altered. What event of history, will mark the giving of the Fullness?
How about some more emphasis on the prophetic aspects of the Law, in determining what was utterly fulfilled, and what was legally fulfilled, at the cross? I see great strengths in the understanding of the prophets, and of history, on the forum, but I seldom see anyone take any scriptural witness from the Law, to explain their viewpoint. The sacrificial laws, for example, all point to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Each sacrifice pointed to an aspect of His sacrifice. Without understanding them, we can't understand what was utterly fulfilled and legally fulfilled at the cross. The two goats and the two doves, are , I believe,prime examples of the first and second coming of Christ...one a death work, one a living work(in us). One is killed....one is not. I would really like to hear how others interpret this.
As Trumpet said...it seems as though, by focusing exclusively on the 1st century fulfillment, we are staring through "a funnel" at the first goat. What about that second one?

Richard Amiel McGough
12-21-2007, 10:14 AM
Wow, I didn't know you had a record of emails. I wish some of your writers would join the forum so we could discuss these issues.

Me too!


That was a pretty good response I read above, and I agree with you in everything you wrote. In fact, your presentations seem to lean towards Full Preterism; a position I've defended for a long time. What caused concern in me was the resurrection. Then again, perhaps it isn't a problem when we understand that the resurrection is a new creation, not a rebuilding.

That's pretty much how I see it. And I don't think that the demands for external evidence have much weight at all. There is no reason to expect a bunch of witnesses reporting things like "I saw uncle Joe and Aunti Mae having tea in their new resurrected bodies!" The only reason God displayed the resurrected bodies of any previously dead persons was as proof of His authority over life and death. He didn't have to repeat that proof with every resurrection.


In the past, I've often stated that the reason for the bodily resurrection of the Lord was that His body served as a lamb, and it was used to purify the true and actual heavenly tabernacle, where the earthly alters utilized the animal system, thereby painting a picture of what was to come. That is why His body was not left to decompose. But I try to be as careful as I can in order not to sound Gnostic in nature.

That idea could be true, but I couldn't establish it on Scripture so I don't have much confidence to speculate about the "why's" very much.


I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. And with that statement of faith, I believe we also shall be resurrected. I don't know how, if even our physical bodies are involved. But Paul makes one thing clear:

1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. 4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

To be absent from our earthly body is to be at Home with the Lord, abiding in tents not made by the joining of hands (marriage) but a creation of God in the heaven.

Yes, that is very important. Paul spoke of our new resurrected spiritual body in HEAVEN, not on earth. This shows again how easy it is for us earthly critters to focus only on things of this world, no matter how plainly God tells that His Kingdom is not of this world.


I'm beginning to believe that Full Preterism might be the correct teaching. Our earthly bodies die and perish. But those of us with faith know that we do not perish because we have bodies in the heavens prepared for us.

What do you think brother Richard? I'm also interested in your thoughts Dave.

Joe
I think you are probably correct ... though I don't really know what the definition of "full preterism" would be. You see, I don't have any reason to say that there are NO prophecies yet to be fulfilled, but only that the lion's share of all the intergrated prophecies have been fulfilled. There might be little bits and pieces here and there that are "future" - for example, one possible interp of Rev 20 includes future events. But its meaning is highly debateable because God did not give us a clear set of integrated verses to prove with certainty and finality its correct interpretation. Therefore, it has a "question mark" associated with it. And there are many other passages like that ... and perhaps someone will discover a compelling interpretation that shows how many of these ambigous verses link together to form an integrated pattern. Time will tell! But the things we know, we know, and we can build on that biblical foundation as on an Everlasting Rock, which it truly is.

Richard

Trumpet
12-21-2007, 04:33 PM
Hi Richard,

I'm not trying to cause trouble, just trying to keep us on our toes. First I'm sorry if I made it look as if you were putting everything as being done in the 1st century. I'm glad you cleared that up.

Secondly, I still have some arguments to make, but I can't get to them right now. I'll e back later! Don

Richard Amiel McGough
12-21-2007, 09:06 PM
Hey there Kathryn!


It is wonderful, how the bible wheel demonstrates the fulfillment of prophecy, with the book of the Acts of the first century church, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ, on the spoke 22. There is one other dimension, that hasn't yet been added however...and that is the FULNESS of the Holy Spirit. The Acts of the first century church, took place under the "earnest" or downpayment of the Spirit. The downpayment of the Spirit, has not yet been altered. What event of history, will mark the giving of the Fullness?

That could be a future transformation of this cosmos - and given the correlation with the history and the wheel, I would tend to think (hope) it will happen in the 22nd century which would be a perfect alignment. But if it is going to happen, I don't see many explicit prophecies like what we see in the first century coming of Christ. Many hints, yes, but no clear prophecies like Daniel's 70 weeks, or the Olivet discourse, or Ezek 37.


How about some more emphasis on the prophetic aspects of the Law, in determining what was utterly fulfilled, and what was legally fulfilled, at the cross? I see great strengths in the understanding of the prophets, and of history, on the forum, but I seldom see anyone take any scriptural witness from the Law, to explain their viewpoint. The sacrificial laws, for example, all point to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Each sacrifice pointed to an aspect of His sacrifice. Without understanding them, we can't understand what was utterly fulfilled and legally fulfilled at the cross. The two goats and the two doves, are , I believe,prime examples of the first and second coming of Christ...one a death work, one a living work(in us). One is killed....one is not. I would really like to hear how others interpret this.
As Trumpet said...it seems as though, by focusing exclusively on the 1st century fulfillment, we are staring through "a funnel" at the first goat. What about that second one?
I agree that there is much to be learned in the law. For example, an aspect I (and Don) have emphasized is on the feasts of the Lord. They are really obvous because its all spelled out in the NT. And I have a book that shows many of the connections between the Tabernacle and NT docrtines and Christ. So these things would be very fruitful to explore. I think perhaps the reason they have been "neglected" is because they are not sufficient to establish doctrine so much as illustrate doctrine, and we have been busy trying to establish doctrine.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
12-21-2007, 09:08 PM
Hi Richard,

I'm not trying to cause trouble, just trying to keep us on our toes. First I'm sorry if I made it look as if you were putting everything as being done in the 1st century. I'm glad you cleared that up.

Secondly, I still have some arguments to make, but I can't get to them right now. I'll e back later! Don
No worries bro! All is good. I meant it when I said it was good to challenge our ideas (yours, mine, everyone's!)

I look forward to your future contributions as you find time. (I've been very busy myself with my day job. But I should find some time this weekend to answer some posts that have been overlooked).

Richard

kathryn
12-22-2007, 09:44 AM
Good morning Richard and all,
Richard, could you clarify a little more clearly, what part of scripture is used to establish doctrine, as opposed to that part of scripture which is used to illustrate it? Jesus used the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, after the resurrection, to open the disciples eyes, as to everything He had been teaching them, pre-resurrection. This suggests to me, that in order for them to have full revelation on what He had established by His death and resurrection, He needed to illustrate it, through the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Isn't this a balance that we need to adhere to as well, before we can determine what has been established?

Richard Amiel McGough
12-22-2007, 11:46 AM
I agree that there is much to be learned in the law. For example, an aspect I (and Don) have emphasized is on the feasts of the Lord. They are really obvous because its all spelled out in the NT. And I have a book that shows many of the connections between the Tabernacle and NT docrtines and Christ. So these things would be very fruitful to explore. I think perhaps the reason they have been "neglected" is because they are not sufficient to establish doctrine so much as illustrate doctrine, and we have been busy trying to establish doctrine.
Good morning Richard and all,
Richard, could you clarify a little more clearly, what part of scripture is used to establish doctrine, as opposed to that part of scripture which is used to illustrate it? Jesus used the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms, after the resurrection, to open the disciples eyes, as to everything He had been teaching them, pre-resurrection. This suggests to me, that in order for them to have full revelation on what He had established by His death and resurrection, He needed to illustrate it, through the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Isn't this a balance that we need to adhere to as well, before we can determine what has been established?
Good morning Kathryn,

I am would be the first to say that we need to study and use all Scripture - both the Old and New Testaments - in order to illustrate and establish doctrine. I was not talking about which Scriptures to use or not use, I was talking about which methods to use or not use to establish, as opposed to illustrate, doctrines.

Now the difference is this - if we didn't already have a doctrine of the Kingdom established through the clear teachings of Scripture, we couldn't illustrate it with parallels and typology. So we use all Scritpure in this study, but we recognize that some methods can not establish doctrine. And the reason for this is that without the doctrine already established, we could err by making false parallels with things in the OT.

Richard

kathryn
12-22-2007, 01:12 PM
Ok...gotcha Richard. Sorry.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-23-2007, 12:18 AM
Ok...gotcha Richard. Sorry.
Hey Kathryn,

I just looked at my post, and it had a bunch of half-typed sentences that weren't sposed to be there. Sorry bout that! I think I'll go edit them out.

But anyway, you need never apologize for asking questions! I do my best to be clear, but I mess it up as often as anyone else I suppose.

God bless you sister,

Richard