PDA

View Full Version : Meshiach Nagid



Richard Amiel McGough
02-03-2010, 12:33 AM
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [Meshiach Nagid] shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Rose and I had a long conversation about the meaning of Meshiach Nagid this evening because she understands "unto Messiah the Prince" as referring to the birth of Christ. I think it refers to the public presentation of Jesus as Messiah at his baptism.

So what does "Meshiach Nagid" mean? There are two possibilities:

1) It could be just a title like "Christ the Lord" that applies to Jesus Christ at all times, specifically from his birth as in Luke 2:11.

2) It could mean Messiah functioning as a Nagid, that is, in his public role as the Messiah manifest to Israel at his baptism as in John 1:30-31:
John 1:30-31 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
This question is important to understand Daniel 9:26. Do the 69 weeks unto Meshiach Nagid speak of the time of his birth or the time of his baptism? There is about a 30 year difference, so any interpretation of the 69 weeks will depend on the meaning of Meshiach Nagid.

I think the meaning and etymology of "nagid" fits best with the second possibility. The word "nagid" means "leader, ruler, captain, prince" (Strong's #5057). It is based on the verb nagad which means "1) to be conspicuous, tell, make known 1a) (Hiphil) to tell, declare 1a1) to tell, announce, report 1a2) to declare, make known, expound 1a3) to inform of 1a4) to publish, declare, proclaim." This is why a leader or ruler is called a "nagid" - he plays a prominent public role amongst the people. He "shows forth" and is "conspicuous" amongst his contemporaries.

The baby Jesus certainly was not functioning in his role as "nagid" and I think this may be the reason that God modified the noun Messiah with Nagid. From this point of view, the prophecy was speaking of the time that the Messiah would show himself unto Israel and begin his public role, which happened at the time of his baptism.

Richard

joel
02-03-2010, 04:55 AM
Daniel 9:25-26 (King James Version)

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

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

Richard, in verse 25 there is time referring to Messiah the Prince as 69 weeks......which also says that the street shall built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Then in verse 26.......after threescore (60)....and two (2) weeks shall Messiah be cut off.

Surely, the "cut off" must mean His crufixion, death, and burial......and, that is when the city is destroyed by another prince. It also says that.......the end thereof (the city)....will be "unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Doesn't this indicate that there are yet 7 more weeks referring to Messiah the Prince (which also indicates that there is yet 1 more week for the people.....for a total of 70)?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-03-2010, 01:08 PM
Daniel 9:25-26 (King James Version)

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

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

Richard, in verse 25 there is time referring to Messiah the Prince as 69 weeks......which also says that the street shall built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Then in verse 26.......after threescore (60)....and two (2) weeks shall Messiah be cut off.

Surely, the "cut off" must mean His crufixion, death, and burial......and, that is when the city is destroyed by another prince. It also says that.......the end thereof (the city)....will be "unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Doesn't this indicate that there are yet 7 more weeks referring to Messiah the Prince (which also indicates that there is yet 1 more week for the people.....for a total of 70)?

Joel
Hey there Joel, :yo:

Yes, I agree completely that "Messiah shall be cut off" refers to the crucifixion. :thumb:

But I am confused by your statement that "there are yet 7 more weeks referring to Messiah the Prince." Were not those 7 weeks already accounted for in the sum 7 + 62 = 69?

It seems like you are saying that the time line goes like this:

62 weeks until Messiah the Prince is cut off followed by 7 weeks and then followed by one more week (the 70th week).

Here is how I understand it:

7 weeks unto the rebuilding of the walls, etc. followed by 62 weeks unto Messiah the Prince, followed by one week (the 70th week).

Could you please clarify this for me?

Thanks!

Richard

Rose
02-03-2010, 02:29 PM
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [Meshiach Nagid] shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Rose and I had a long conversation about the meaning of Meshiach Nagid this evening because she understands "unto Messiah the Prince" as referring to the birth of Christ. I think it refers to the public presentation of Jesus as Messiah at his baptism.

So what does "Meshiach Nagid" mean? There are two possibilities:

1) It could be just a title like "Christ the Lord" that applies to Jesus Christ at all times, specifically from his birth as in Luke 2:11.

2) It could mean Messiah functioning as a Nagid, that is, in his public role as the Messiah manifest to Israel at his baptism as in John 1:30-31:
John 1:30-31 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
This question is important to understand Daniel 9:26. Do the 69 weeks unto Meshiach Nagid speak of the time of his birth or the time of his baptism? There is about a 30 year difference, so any interpretation of the 69 weeks will depend on the meaning of Meshiach Nagid.

I think the meaning and etymology of "nagid" fits best with the second possibility. The word "nagid" means "leader, ruler, captain, prince" (Strong's #5057). It is based on the verb nagad which means "1) to be conspicuous, tell, make known 1a) (Hiphil) to tell, declare 1a1) to tell, announce, report 1a2) to declare, make known, expound 1a3) to inform of 1a4) to publish, declare, proclaim." This is why a leader or ruler is called a "nagid" - he plays a prominent public role amongst the people. He "shows forth" and is "conspicuous" amongst his contemporaries.

The baby Jesus certainly was not functioning in his role as "nagid" and I think this may be the reason that God modified the noun Messiah with Nagid. From this point of view, the prophecy was speaking of the time that the Messiah would show himself unto Israel and begin his public role, which happened at the time of his baptism.

Richard

In using the word Nagid in its verbal construct of Nagad meaning: to declare, to show, or to announce, would it then be correct to interpret verse 25 as saying....
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the showing of Messiah [Meshiach Nagid] shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

If so, what is the justification for using the verbal construct of Nagid [Nagad] in this particular case and not latter in the passage when it's used as Prince, referring to the title of someone in authority?
Dan.9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince [Nagid] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
.
Rose

joel
02-04-2010, 06:20 AM
A-----------------------------------B-----C-D

A=the going forth of the order to
rebuild and restore Jerusalem

A to B = 62 weeks, when B is the cutting off the Messiah (vs. 9:26). This can only mean the cross of Christ. He came as the suffering servant.

A to C = 69 weeks, when C is the showing forth of Messiah Nagid.
(vs. 9:25). Jesus is revealed to Israel as the King of Kings, the captain of the people. Some will embrace Him as King, but others will not and will enter into covenant with the "prince of the covenant" (11:22, 11:30).

A to D = 70 weeks, when D is the total time allotted to the people and to the holy city.
(vs. 9:24)

The people of the prince come and destroy the city and the sanctuary at B (vs. 9:26). This occurred in 70 A.D. The people of Israel are "lo ammi" (not my people, Hosea) throughout the time from the cutting off of Messiah to the lifting away of the blindness that is upon them even throughout a vast time until it is removed so that they can see Jesus for who He is (Romans 11).

The prince of the covenant (Daniel 11:22), the vile person(11:21) who exalts himself above all called God, will come forth at a latter time,....at the end of the sequence and is the person described by Paul in II Thess who will be vanquished by the Lord and end the process that has taken a vast amount of time to accomplish.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-04-2010, 11:44 AM
A-----------------------------------B-----C-D

A=the going forth of the order to
rebuild and restore Jerusalem

A to B = 62 weeks, when B is the cutting off the Messiah (vs. 9:26). This can only mean the cross of Christ. He came as the suffering servant.

A to C = 69 weeks, when C is the showing forth of Messiah Nagid.
(vs. 9:25). Jesus is revealed to Israel as the King of Kings, the captain of the people. Some will embrace Him as King, but others will not and will enter into covenant with the "prince of the covenant" (11:22, 11:30).

A to D = 70 weeks, when D is the total time allotted to the people and to the holy city.
(vs. 9:24)

Thanks for clarifying that Joel.

But I still need a bit more clarification. I don't understand why you put the seven weeks after the sixty-two weeks. The text says it the other way:

"from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and [plus] threescore and two weeks:

Or to paraphrase: "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be 69 weeks (divided into 7 + 62):

So it seems to me the text says this:

A----(7 weeks)----B--------(62 weeks)--------C---(1 week)---D

Why do you think the 7 weeks happened after the 62 weeks? What happened 49 years after the crucifixion?



The people of the prince come and destroy the city and the sanctuary at B (vs. 9:26). This occurred in 70 A.D. The people of Israel are "lo ammi" (not my people, Hosea) throughout the time from the cutting off of Messiah to the lifting away of the blindness that is upon them even throughout a vast time until it is removed so that they can see Jesus for who He is (Romans 11).

I'm glad we agree about 70 AD, but there I think we would need to discuss the meaning of "lo ammi" (which Paul seems to apply to the Gentiles in Rom 9:25) and the idea of a "vast time" that is not anywhere predicted in Scripture (see below).



The prince of the covenant (Daniel 11:22), the vile person(11:21) who exalts himself above all called God, will come forth at a latter time,....at the end of the sequence and is the person described by Paul in II Thess who will be vanquished by the Lord and end the process that has taken a vast amount of time to accomplish.

Joel
If that view is true, then that prophecy is different than any other prophecy in the Bible because God very specifically declared the precise number of years of all the other major prophecies involving Israel, Jerusalem, and the coming of Messiah. I wrote about this in a thread called Continuity of Prophetic History confirms Preterism (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=617). Here is what I wrote:

There is a continuity of prophetic history from Genesis to Revelation. The primary events in the history of Israel were predicted with numerical precision. I just fell upon this idea yesterday. Here are my first thoughts:

400 YEARS OF EGYPTIAN BONDAGE
In Genesis God predicted the 400 years affliction in Egypt:
Genesis 15:13-14 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. This was fulfilled in Exodus:
Exodus 12:40-41 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. 40 YEARS IN THE DESERT
In Numbers God predicted the 40 years of the wandering, and the reason for it, and that He would fulfill His promise to their children but destroy the faithless adults:
Numbers 14:30-35 Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun. 31 But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. 32 But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness. 33 And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness. 34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise. 35 I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die. 70 YEARS OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE
Jeremiah predicted the 70 years captivity in Babylon:
Jeremiah 25:11-12 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.
Jeremiah 29:10 For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. Note that in all three cases God declared both the duration of the captivity as well as the promise of good things that would come when the captivity was completed.

490 YEARS UNTIL MESSIAH
Daniel predicted the 490 years unto the coming of Christ and the destruction of the Temple:
Daniel 9:24-27 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. 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 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. Christ confirmed the prophesies of Daniel and even quoted him by name in the Olivet Discourse. Both the prophecies of Daniel and Christ were completely fulfilled in the events of the first century, as predicted. The words of Christ are TRUE!
Luke 21:20-23 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22For 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 [of this generation]. The Preterist view of Revelation confirms the fulfillment of those prophecies in the destruction of Jerusalem, the "great harlot" that chose servitude to Rome over servitude to their God YHWH in the day of His visitation.

Thus we have a continuous prophetic history from Genesis to Revelation with numerically specific predictions and their fulfillment as confirmed by Scripture and History.

Richard Amiel McGough
02-04-2010, 12:58 PM
In using the word Nagid in its verbal construct of Nagad meaning: to declare, to show, or to announce, would it then be correct to interpret verse 25 as saying....
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the showing of Messiah [Meshiach Nagid] shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

If so, what is the justification for using the verbal construct of Nagid [Nagad] in this particular case and not latter in the passage when it's used as Prince, referring to the title of someone in authority?
Dan.9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince [Nagid] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
.
Rose
Hello my dear! :flowers:

I examined the etymology of that word to show why a "nagid" is called a "nagid." I did not say that the same meaning did not apply to the second occurence of "nagid" in Dan 9:26. On the contrary, exactly the same meaning applies. If we are correct that the "prince to come" refers to Titus, then it makes perfect sense that Scripture calls him a "nagid" because he most certainly was functioning in his role as a prominent public leader when he led the army that destroyed Jerusalem.

Does that answer your question, or did I miss your meaning?

Much love,

Richard

joel
02-04-2010, 02:49 PM
Let me try again........

What we agree upon........

A----------------------------B (62 sevens).
The decree to rebuild to the cutting off of Messiah

What we should also agree.............

A--------------------------------C (69 sevens).
The decree to rebuild to Messiah the Prince

Are we saying the same thing?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-04-2010, 03:02 PM
Let me try again........

What we agree upon........

A----------------------------B (62 sevens).
The decree to rebuild to the cutting off of Messiah

No, that is where we disagree. I say there were 69 weeks from the command to rebuild unto Messiah the Prince:

A----(7 weeks)----B--------(62 weeks)--------C---(1 week)---D

A = The decree to rebuild
B = Rebuilding complete (after 7 weeks)
C = Messiah the Prince (after another 62 weeks, total of 69 weeks)



What we should also agree.............

A--------------------------------C (69 sevens).
The decree to rebuild to Messiah the Prince

Are we saying the same thing?

Joel
Yes. This is identical to what I said above.

I am confused by the fact that you seem that the Messiah would be cut off during the 69th week. The text says that the Messiah the Prince would be cut off after the 69 weeks. I understand that to mean during the 70th week.

I am also confused by the fact that you seem to put the seven weeks after the 62 weeks. According to what you wrote:

A to B = 62 weeks, when B is the cutting off the Messiah (vs. 9:26). This can only mean the cross of Christ. He came as the suffering servant.

A to C = 69 weeks, when C is the showing forth of Messiah Nagid.

Rose
02-04-2010, 03:07 PM
Hello my dear! :flowers:

I examined the etymology of that word to show why a "nagid" is called a "nagid." I did not say that the same meaning did not apply to the second occurence of "nagid" in Dan 9:26. On the contrary, exactly the same meaning applies. If we are correct that the "prince to come" refers to Titus, then it makes perfect sense that Scripture calls him a "nagid" because he most certainly was functioning in his role as a prominent public leader when he led the army that destroyed Jerusalem.

Does that answer your question, or did I miss your meaning?

Much love,

Richard

Hello back to you my Dear :hug:

I think you missed my point.....:huhsign:

If you take the verbal construct of Nagid [Nagad] meaning to declare, or to show, and apply that to the declaration of Messiah then you cannot also apply the meaning of Nagid as Prince, ruler, or captain to the same Messiah, otherwise you have a double application nagad//nagid, which would read something like this:
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the showing of Messiah being ruler [Nagad Meshiach Nagid] shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Also, you are using the construct Nagid in the second occurrence when you apply it to Titus as being a captain of the Roman army, otherwise you would be saying:
Dan.9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the declared one [Nagad] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Lastly, you did not answer what was the justification for using Nagid in its verbal construct of Nagad when clearly Scripture does not use it that way.

Hope I clarified my questions...:D
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
02-04-2010, 04:17 PM
Hello back to you my Dear :hug:

I think you missed my point.....:huhsign:

If you take the verbal construct of Nagid [Nagad] meaning to declare, or to show, and apply that to the declaration of Messiah then you cannot also apply the meaning of Nagid as Prince, ruler, or captain to the same Messiah, otherwise you have a double application nagad//nagid, which would read something like this:
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the showing of Messiah being ruler [Nagad Meshiach Nagid] shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Also, you are using the construct Nagid in the second occurrence when you apply it to Titus as being a captain of the Roman army, otherwise you would be saying:
Dan.9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the declared one [Nagad] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Lastly, you did not answer what was the justification for using Nagid in its verbal construct of Nagad when clearly Scripture does not use it that way.

Hope I clarified my questions...:D
Rose
Hello my dear! :icon_hello:

I don't understand what you mean by "verbal construct." I never used that phrase and never drew any conclusions from it. I examined the etymology of nagid only to show why a nagid is called a nagid. I didn't use nagid "in its verbal construct of Nagad" so there is no need to "justify" something I didn't do.

If I were going to paraphrase the verses following your lead, I would do it like this:
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah [in his prominent public role as a Nagid] shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Dan.9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the Nagid [= Titus in his prominent public role as the Nagid of the Romans armies] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Does that make sense? Or did I miss your point yet again? :doh:

Many hugs :hug: and kisses! :flowers:

Richard

Rose
02-05-2010, 08:22 AM
Hello my dear! :icon_hello:

I don't understand what you mean by "verbal construct." I never used that phrase and never drew any conclusions from it. I examined the etymology of nagid only to show why a nagid is called a nagid. I didn't use nagid "in its verbal construct of Nagad" so there is no need to "justify" something I didn't do.

If I were going to paraphrase the verses following your lead, I would do it like this:
Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah [in his prominent public role as a Nagid] shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Dan.9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the Nagid [= Titus in his prominent public role as the Nagid of the Romans armies] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Does that make sense? Or did I miss your point yet again? :doh:

Many hugs :hug: and kisses! :flowers:

Richard

Hey my dear, thanks for the effort....:signthankspin:

We are just about there, I think...:sCo_hmmthink: so I will give it one more shot then put this to rest in the great graveyard of unresolved Biblical problems....:D


So what does "Meshiach Nagid" mean? There are two possibilities:

1) It could be just a title like "Christ the Lord" that applies to Jesus Christ at all times, specifically from his birth as in Luke 2:11.

2) It could mean Messiah functioning as a Nagid, that is, in his public role as the Messiah manifest to Israel at his baptism as in John 1:30-31:What it seems like to me is that in Dan.9:25 you are using the word Nagid as the verb Nagad. We know that the word Nagid comes from the root Nagad, but does that justify its use in this case. It seems by doing so the title of Nagid "Prince" is lost to the action of the manifestation of Messiah, and if that what was to be conveyed why wasn't Nagad used in the first place?

In the second usage of Nagid in Dan.9:26, it is used in its proper context as a title.


Much love, :hug:
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
02-05-2010, 10:05 AM
Hey my dear, thanks for the effort....:signthankspin:

We are just about there, I think...:sCo_hmmthink: so I will give it one more shot then put this to rest in the great graveyard of unresolved Biblical problems....:D


So what does "Meshiach Nagid" mean? There are two possibilities:

1) It could be just a title like "Christ the Lord" that applies to Jesus Christ at all times, specifically from his birth as in Luke 2:11.

2) It could mean Messiah functioning as a Nagid, that is, in his public role as the Messiah manifest to Israel at his baptism as in John 1:30-31:

What it seems like to me is that in Dan.9:25 you are using the word Nagid as the verb Nagad. We know that the word Nagid comes from the root Nagad, but does that justify its use in this case. It seems by doing so the title of Nagid "Prince" is lost to the action of the manifestation of Messiah, and if that what was to be conveyed why wasn't Nagad used in the first place?

In the second usage of Nagid in Dan.9:26, it is used in its proper context as a title.

Much love, :hug:
Rose
Good morning my dear! :hippie:

I'm not sure why there is such a persistent misunderstanding of my meaning. I never said anything that should suggest I am "using the word Nagid as the verb Nagad." I examined the etymology of the word nagid only to show why a nagid is called a nagid. I never used the verb nagad in the description of Meshiach Nagid. I only used it to understand the meaning of nagid that applies to anyone who is called a nagid.

It looks like the confusion is based on my reference to the "manifestation of Messiah" in John 1:31. I was not "using" the verb "nagad" in that statement. I cited that verse to show that there was a time when Christ was not functioning as a nagid, that is, in his prominent public role as Messiah. Thus, the verse in Dan 9:25 could be talking about the time when Christ began his public ministry as a nagid.

Alternately, it could be that nagid is merely a title not unlike "savior" or "king" that applies to Christ at all times, as I stated in my initial statement of the two possibilities.

To summarize, there are two possibilities:

1) It could be just a title like "Christ the Lord" that applies to Jesus Christ at all times, specifically from his birth as in Luke 2:11.

2) It could mean Messiah functioning as a Nagid, that is, in his public role as the Messiah manifest to Israel at his baptism as in John 1:31.

I hope that clears things up. If not, I think it important that we continue this discussion until we can find that actual point of disagreement or confusion.

Much love my dear!

Richard

Victor
02-05-2010, 04:34 PM
There is some interesting gematria concerning this title:


Meshiach Nagid = 425


But 425 is also the value of Diakonos (Minister) and Andros (Adult male)! The title seems to remind of Christ's ministry when He was an adult man. Now, that is curious! :)

joel
02-05-2010, 05:09 PM
There is some interesting gematria concerning this title:


Meshiach Nagid = 425


But 425 is also the value of Diakonos (Minister) and Andros (Adult male)! The title seems to remind of Christ's ministry when He was an adult man. Now, that is curious! :)

Thanks, Victor, for bringing that up........it is worthy to look into. Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-05-2010, 06:22 PM
There is some interesting gematria concerning this title:


Meshiach Nagid = 425


But 425 is also the value of Diakonos (Minister) and Andros (Adult male)! The title seems to remind of Christ's ministry when He was an adult man. Now, that is curious! :)
Hey there Victor!

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Those are very significant associations. I checked my database and found another very suggestive identity:

Isa 11:2 And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him = 425

It seems that there probably is some significance to the prime factors (425 = 5 x 5 x 17) but I'll have to think about it for a while.

Richard

Victor
02-06-2010, 07:24 AM
Hey there Victor!

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Those are very significant associations. I checked my database and found another very suggestive identity:

Isa 11:2 And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him = 425


This is absolutely baffling my brother! What a find! :dizzy:

Isa 11:2 reminds everyone of the baptism of Christ! It was His anointing as "Messiah!"

The Number 425 also reminds me of Isaiah 42:5.

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Christ is the New Adam, upon whom God gave the Breath/Spirit of the New Creation.

Better yet, the context of Isaiah 42 specifically reminds us of the baptism of Christ:

Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
Amazing!

And here's a final connection:


I have put my spirit upon him = 1200 (http://www.biblewheel.com/gr/gr_1200.asp) = Baptize (baptizo)



It seems that there probably is some significance to the prime factors (425 = 5 x 5 x 17) but I'll have to think about it for a while.

Richard

I cannot see the significance of this factorization upon first look.

joel
02-06-2010, 02:41 PM
A----(7 weeks)----B

Richard, in seeking to understand your model,
A=the decree to rebuild the city,
If 7 weeks = 49 years, what occurred in the 49 years following the decree, and in what book of the OT would that segment apply?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-06-2010, 03:47 PM
A----(7 weeks)----B

Richard, in seeking to understand your model,
A=the decree to rebuild the city,
If 7 weeks = 49 years, what occurred in the 49 years following the decree, and in what book of the OT would that segment apply?

Joel
The basic idea is that the decree to rebuild was around 445 BC and that 49 years later it was completed. There are verses from Ezra and Nehemiah that folks use to justify this understanding. But I don't think we need to worry about the details yet, because there seems to be a fundamental confusion about the order. As far as I can tell, you are suggesting this pattern:

62 weeks unto Messiah
7 weeks (church age?)
1 week (Events of Revelation?)

Is that how you see it? It would be good if we could just speak plainly about what we mean without getting tangled up in minutia yet.

joel
02-06-2010, 04:41 PM
The basic idea is that the decree to rebuild was around 445 BC and that 49 years later it was completed.
I am still trying to sort this out..........

Here are some of my thoughts;

1.) 49 years (the 1st heptad) takes us to Malachi...........which ends the prophetic visions of the OT.

2.) the Messiah Prince.......and the prince of the people are not the same person. Messiah Prince is the Lord Jesus.

3.) There are prophetic interruptions throughout the history of Israel. I am currently studying on this. When they are a nation, it seems that prophecy years apply......and when they are not.......prophecy is interrupted. This is currently a view of mine that I am seeking confirmation or abandonment.

4.) I am not currently seeing that Church history lies within the prophecies of Israel. I do not see a "Church Age", per se.........but, as Paul describes it, there is a time of the Gentiles which is to be "filled"....when Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles......which I see as still yet current in view of world events that are facing us today (I say this in view of the preterist position which sees Israel as past, and the church as current and continuing as "God's people" from henceforth).

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-06-2010, 06:41 PM
I am still trying to sort this out..........

Here are some of my thoughts;

1.) 49 years (the 1st heptad) takes us to Malachi...........which ends the prophetic visions of the OT.

2.) the Messiah Prince.......and the prince of the people are not the same person. Messiah Prince is the Lord Jesus.

3.) There are prophetic interruptions throughout the history of Israel. I am currently studying on this. When they are a nation, it seems that prophecy years apply......and when they are not.......prophecy is interrupted. This is currently a view of mine that I am seeking confirmation or abandonment.

4.) I am not currently seeing that Church history lies within the prophecies of Israel. I do not see a "Church Age", per se.........but, as Paul describes it, there is a time of the Gentiles which is to be "filled"....when Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles......which I see as still yet current in view of world events that are facing us today (I say this in view of the preterist position which sees Israel as past, and the church as current and continuing as "God's people" from henceforth).

Joel
Thanks Joel - that helps me understand things.

1) It is interesting that the first heptad ends around the time that Malachi was written. There might be something going on there, but it is not clear to me what.

2) I think you are correct. I think Messiah the Prince is Jesus, and the Prince to come was Titus.

3) I think there might be a problem with the "interruption" theory. Was Israel a "nation" during the Babylonian exile? If not, then why did God count the 70 prophetic years of the exile? But if so, why wouldn't we think Israel has been a nation during for the last 2000 years when they were exiled from the Holy land just like in Babylon?

4) What do you think about the fact that the "prophecies of Israel" spoke specifically of the Church? For example:

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Am I mistaken to think that those OT prophecies about Israel were fulfilled in the Church?

Great chatting bro,

Richard

joel
02-07-2010, 06:49 AM
Thanks Joel - that helps me understand things.

1) It is interesting that the first heptad ends around the time that Malachi was written. There might be something going on there, but it is not clear to me what.

2) I think you are correct. I think Messiah the Prince is Jesus, and the Prince to come was Titus.

3) I think there might be a problem with the "interruption" theory. Was Israel a "nation" during the Babylonian exile? If not, then why did God count the 70 prophetic years of the exile? But if so, why wouldn't we think Israel has been a nation during for the last 2000 years when they were exiled from the Holy land just like in Babylon?

4) What do you think about the fact that the "prophecies of Israel" spoke specifically of the Church? For example:

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Am I mistaken to think that those OT prophecies about Israel were fulfilled in the Church?

Great chatting bro,

Richard

As to the "interruption theory", please consider;

In Acts 13, Paul gives a brief accounting of Israel's history (vs. 18 - 22)...
Out of Egypt----in the wilderness (40 years),
Times of the Judges--------------(450 years),
King Saul------------------------(40 years),
Total-----------------------------(530 years)

We know that David reigned-------(40 years)
and that Solomon started his temple
in the third year of his reign--------(3 years)

When you add all these together, the total is 573 years from the Exodus to the building of the 1st temple.

And yet, in I Kings 6:1 it says that from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon's reign when the temple was started the time period was 480 years.

There is a 93 year discrepancy.

However, when you factor out the times in which the people of Israel, under the Judges, were given over by God to their enemies.......Judges 3:8, 3:14, 4:2,3, 6:1, and 13:1.......it is a period of 93 years.

It appears that God's reckoning of time concerning Israel, during those specific periods, was suspended.

The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson, Kregel Publications, p. 83, gives this accounting.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-07-2010, 02:00 PM
As to the "interruption theory", please consider;

In Acts 13, Paul gives a brief accounting of Israel's history (vs. 18 - 22)...
Out of Egypt----in the wilderness (40 years),
Times of the Judges--------------(450 years),
King Saul------------------------(40 years),
Total-----------------------------(530 years)

We know that David reigned-------(40 years)
and that Solomon started his temple
in the third year of his reign--------(3 years)

When you add all these together, the total is 573 years from the Exodus to the building of the 1st temple.

And yet, in I Kings 6:1 it says that from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon's reign when the temple was started the time period was 480 years.

There is a 93 year discrepancy.

However, when you factor out the times in which the people of Israel, under the Judges, were given over by God to their enemies.......Judges 3:8, 3:14, 4:2,3, 6:1, and 13:1.......it is a period of 93 years.

It appears that God's reckoning of time concerning Israel, during those specific periods, was suspended.

The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson, Kregel Publications, p. 83, gives this accounting.

Joel
Hi Joel,

I'm familiar with Anderson's theory, but there are many problems with it. An extensive review and refutation of it can be found in The Chronology of the Old Testament (http://books.google.com/books?id=ZkBasQYRy4sC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=judges+480+573+years&source=bl&ots=VtTkD0vLkU&sig=83osVd2oYS4D7gr4rHCrBqmgehc&hl=en&ei=QwBvS7D6B47KsAPd7KSxDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=judges%20480%20573%20years&f=false) by Floyd Nolen Jones and another in Joshua, Judges, Ruth (http://books.google.com/books?id=-zFGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA278&lpg=PA278&dq=judges+480+573+years&source=bl&ots=7ko9MYjYMM&sig=Jr4kxiv7qxJ6SiDeqNj41SC1VPE&hl=en&ei=QwBvS7D6B47KsAPd7KSxDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=judges%20480%20573%20years&f=false) by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch (both links point to the full text on Google books).

Here is a link (http://www.facebook.com/notes/students-of-the-word/acts-13201-kings-61-answers/60280839121) to a fellow who gave a synopsis of six of the different solutions to the apparent discrepancy between the 480 years of 1 Kings 6 and the chronology of Paul's speech in Acts 13. He included Anderson's solution but added this comment "The highly speculative nature of this explanation weakens it significantly, however, the numbers to add up nicely." And you know how I feel about speculation ... :eek:

There also is a problem of consistency. Anderson says that the 480 years are a "mystic era formed by eliminating every period during which the people were cast off by God" (The Coming Prince, pg 83). But if the years were not counted when Israel was under the dominion of pagan kings in Judges, why does Anderson count the years when Israel was under the dominion of the Greeks and Romans in his interpretation of Daniel's 490 years? This seems to directly contradict his basic assumption!

Given the wide variety of interpretations of these difficult passages, and the highly speculative nature of Anderson's solution, and the problem with its internal consistency, I find it absolutely impossible to accept it as a foundation or proof of the idea that Daniel's 490 years should form a "mystic era" that includes a 2000+ years of an uncounted "church age."

Thanks for bringing this up Joel. It was an interesting study.

As an aside: Anderson sees things very differently than you. He sees Messiah cut off after 69 weeks, whereas you believe it was after 62 weeks (if I understood you correctly).

Great to be chatting my friend!

Richard

joel
02-07-2010, 02:48 PM
Richard, sorting these things out has been the exhausting work of far more knowledgeable sudents than I, and it is not any surprise that when one such student finds a meaningful clue, there are countless others to refute the claims.

But, I cannot help but agree with some of Anderson's views; the final wars have not been fought, and the coming prince, the prince of the covenant, has not come forth.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-07-2010, 03:47 PM
Richard, sorting these things out has been the exhausting work of far more knowledgeable sudents than I, and it is not any surprise that when one such student finds a meaningful clue, there are countless others to refute the claims.

But, I cannot help but agree with some of Anderson's views; the final wars have not been fought, and the coming prince, the prince of the covenant, has not come forth.

Joel
Hey Joel,

What specifically convinces you that Anderson's view is correct concerning the "mystic eras" that skip over the actual years? Do you have an answer for the apparent inconsistency concerning the times ruled by the Greeks and the Romans? Have you evaluated the other views, or are you believing Anderson only because he confirms your personal opinion about the end times? Do you have solid Biblical reasons to accept his theory?

I am confused by your reference to the "prince of the covenant." The Bible does not actually use that phrase, and in Daniel 9 the covenant is all about Christ, and we know he came already and confirmed the New Covenant. But this reminds me that you don't believe that the New Covenant has been "ratified" with Israel yet. As you can see by my signature, that seems to contradict the plain text which says "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. - Acts 2:36"

It seems that something has prevented us from agreeing upon the ROCK FOUNDATION of what the Bible actually teaches. Do you have any idea what has hindered us? At the very least, we should by now have a perfect understanding about the differences of our beliefs and the reasons for them. We have been chatting for over two years with each other but I still have not seen a truly Biblical foundation for the futurist speculations about the 2000+ year gap, the re-desolation of Israel in the modern era, "worldwide" scope to the tribulation in the Olivet Discourse, etc. What is the foundation of your beliefs? If I wanted to agree with you, what Scriptures would I base my beliefs upon?

Great to be chatting, as always,

Richard

joel
02-07-2010, 04:15 PM
I am confused by your reference to the "prince of the covenant." The Bible does not actually use that phrase,

I was referring to Dan. 11:22; "the prince of the covenant".

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-07-2010, 04:38 PM
I was referring to Dan. 11:22; "the prince of the covenant".

Joel
Thanks Joel! I had overlooked that reference. Probably because I've never seen a convincing exegesis of Daniel 11. So I have yet to understand how it really fits with the rest of the Bible.

joel
02-08-2010, 11:54 AM
It seems that something has prevented us from agreeing upon the ROCK FOUNDATION of what the Bible actually teaches.

What we do agree upon is.....Jesus is both Lord and Christ.

His victory as the suffering savior on the cross is the foundation truth.....what we differ on....are the truths that accompany the foundation....the truths that build upon it.

And as we reason together in peace we will help each other, as we have in the past, see more clearly......

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-08-2010, 12:04 PM
What we do agree upon is.....Jesus is both Lord and Christ.

His victory as the suffering savior on the cross is the foundation truth.....what we differ on....are the truths that accompany the foundation....the truths that build upon it.

And as we reason together in peace we will help each other, as we have in the past, see more clearly......

Joel
Hello my good friend!

I think you have misunderstood what I meant by "ROCK FOUNDATION." Unfortunately, this appears to be a persistent misunderstanding. I am not talking about the foundation of Christ which goes without question. I am talking about the ROCK FOUNDATION of what the Bible really says on matters of eschatology. This is what confounds me.

Is there a Biblical foundation for futurism? If so, what is it and where can it be found?

Many blessings to you,

Richard

joel
02-09-2010, 07:05 AM
Richard, you said,

"I am talking about the ROCK FOUNDATION of what the Bible really says on matters of eschatology."

You also asked,

"Is there a Biblical foundation for futurism?"

You have heard me say before.......I try to avoid labels. "Futurism" can mean countless things to countless people. I do not label myself as a "Futurist".

Eschatology is a study of the "last" days......it comes from the Greek word, eschatos....last. It characterizes the final event, or events in a sequence.

Paul used the word sparingly.....He was the "last" of the apostles to see Jesus (at a time separated from the 12)......death is the "last" enemy to be destroyed.....Jesus is the "last" Adam.....at the "last" trump the dead in Christ shall be raised.

In Daniel's visions, the use of the "last times" is abundant. In the "last" chapters, 10, 11, 12, there are descriptions of events and people that will be revealed at a time beyond the former visions.

The Bible has a lot to say about "last"......as it also has a lot to say about "first".

As history continues, we cannot say that the "last" lies behind us with a finality as that defies common sense.

What lies behind may be the "first" of the "last".......but to claim that what lies behind is the "last" of the "last" seems so absurd to me, and yet there are those who now make such claims.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-09-2010, 09:47 AM
Richard, you said,

"I am talking about the ROCK FOUNDATION of what the Bible really says on matters of eschatology."

You also asked,

"Is there a Biblical foundation for futurism?"

You have heard me say before.......I try to avoid labels. "Futurism" can mean countless things to countless people. I do not label myself as a "Futurist".

I understand that you are sensitive about labels, but that's all we have to work with. Every word is a "label" - house, bird, tree, etc. We can't talk without using these "labels."

You frequently make very specific statements about things that "have not happened yet." For example, you recently stated that "the final wars have not been fought, and the coming prince, the prince of the covenant, has not come forth." This means you put these, and many other prophecies, into the future. Likewise, you adhere to Anderson's concept of a "mystic era" of the "church age" (though you have not used those exact "labels"), which means that you hold the 70th week as yet future, asserting that there is a 2000+ year gap in Dan 9.

These beliefs are "futurist" by definition. I don't understand why you would feel limited if I used that label. Is there something about the label "futurist" that you feel incorrectly categorizes your beliefs?

We've been talking about this for over two years. It's rather frustrating that we have not even come to a common understanding of what words to use in the discussion.



Eschatology is a study of the "last" days......it comes from the Greek word, eschatos....last. It characterizes the final event, or events in a sequence.

Paul used the word sparingly.....He was the "last" of the apostles to see Jesus (at a time separated from the 12)......death is the "last" enemy to be destroyed.....Jesus is the "last" Adam.....at the "last" trump the dead in Christ shall be raised.

In Daniel's visions, the use of the "last times" is abundant. In the "last" chapters, 10, 11, 12, there are descriptions of events and people that will be revealed at a time beyond the former visions.

The frequency of the use of the specific word "eschatos" is essentially irrelevant. The real issue concerns the meaning of the prophecies. For example, Christ did not use the word "eschatos" in the Olivet Discourse, but every person I have ever talked to believes that the OD concerns the "last days."

It is important not to get lost in mere words. We need to look at the meaning of the text.



The Bible has a lot to say about "last"......as it also has a lot to say about "first".

As history continues, we cannot say that the "last" lies behind us with a finality as that defies common sense.

This would be interesting to pursue. The Bible is a very strange book because it is one of the few areas of study in which "common sense" loses all its meaning. If this were not the case, we could have come to some agreement long ago. But the disputes go on and on and we are not even able to define the basic "labels" (technical nomenclature) required for progress to be made.

Think about it. All of the "common sense" elements have been stripped of there meaning in the Bible. Soon means 2000 years. Near means distant. White means black. The variety of interpretations of "common sense" elements is simply insane. And no amount of discussion fixes this. It goes on and on year after year. There is never any general agreement about the ROCK FOUNDATION of what the Bible is really teaching.

All the best,

Richard

joel
02-09-2010, 01:17 PM
Richard,

If you take the letters of Paul, in the order they are presented in the canon which is commonly called the New Testament, and identify the elements of the gospel that he presents, therein you can find "foundational" truths.

Here is a brief summary;

1.) All are under sin..........and subject to the wrath of God.
2.) Justification by faith in His blood places the believer "under the blood" of Christ.....whereby God's righteousness is reckoned to the believer. The penalty of sin is covered over.
3.) But, shall we continue in sin........where sin has a rule? Only if we do not believe and act on it.....as to the death of God's Son....we have been placed into His death, and faith must receive it.
4.) We are under grace.......and must also be under the teaching to which we have been delivered.
5.) We are exempt from the law's demands and when we attempt to do good as per the commandment, sin revives and takes us prinsoner again.
6.) Our bodies are bodies of death as long as we attempt to serve God out of the old man.
7.) The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus frees us from the law of sin and death.
8.) We are sons of God when we are led by the spirit of God.
9.) We yearn for the liberty which will characterize the redemption of our bodies.
10.) Nothing can separate us from Christ, or His love.

These are a summary of the foundation of the truth as presented by Paul in Romans 1-8. These truths focus on Christ, Who He is, and what He has accomplished. The gospel concerns Him, as God's Son.

The gospel contains the power of God to save and is to be presented in the same manner as when Paul presented it. A departure from it lays down another foundation.

The "last days" are not a part of that foundation.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-09-2010, 01:34 PM
Richard,

If you take the letters of Paul, in the order they are presented in the canon which is commonly called the New Testament, and identify the elements of the gospel that he presents, therein you can find "foundational" truths.

Here is a brief summary;

1.) All are under sin..........and subject to the wrath of God.
2.) Justification by faith in His blood places the believer "under the blood" of Christ.....whereby God's righteousness is reckoned to the believer. The penalty of sin is covered over.
3.) But, shall we continue in sin........where sin has a rule? Only if we do not believe and act on it.....as to the death of God's Son....we have been placed into His death, and faith must receive it.
4.) We are under grace.......and must also be under the teaching to which we have been delivered.
5.) We are exempt from the law's demands and when we attempt to do good as per the commandment, sin revives and takes us prinsoner again.
6.) Our bodies are bodies of death as long as we attempt to serve God out of the old man.
7.) The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus frees us from the law of sin and death.
8.) We are sons of God when we are led by the spirit of God.
9.) We yearn for the liberty which will characterize the redemption of our bodies.
10.) Nothing can separate us from Christ, or His love.

These are a summary of the foundation of the truth as presented by Paul in Romans 1-8. These truths focus on Christ, Who He is, and what He has accomplished. The gospel concerns Him, as God's Son.

The gospel contains the power of God to save and is to be presented in the same manner as when Paul presented it. A departure from it lays down another foundation.

The "last days" are not a part of that foundation.

Joel
Hi Joel!

Thanks for the explanation. But I think there has been a misunderstanding.

Soteriology is the "study of the doctrines of salvation."

Eschatology is the "study of the doctrines of the last things."

I agree with those foundational soteriological truths that you posted. But we are not discussing soteriology, so I don't know why you mentioned them. I had asked about the foundation for your doctrines of eschatology.

Do you have a solid biblical foundation for the "Big Eschatological Picture" that believe in? You have shared many "bits and pieces" of your beliefs over the years, but I have never been able to find the "foundation" so the conversation always seems to be mere assertion of "I believe this, and you believe that." I would love to move beyond this stalemate and on to constructive conversation in which we can build upon the ROCK FOUNDATION that we know the Bible really teaches concerning eschatology.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

joel
02-10-2010, 05:48 AM
Hi Joel!

Thanks for the explanation. But I think there has been a misunderstanding.

Soteriology is the "study of the doctrines of salvation."

Eschatology is the "study of the doctrines of the last things."

I agree with those foundational soteriological truths that you posted. But we are not discussing soteriology, so I don't know why you mentioned them. I had asked about the foundation for your doctrines of eschatology.

Do you have a solid biblical foundation for the "Big Eschatological Picture" that believe in? You have shared many "bits and pieces" of your beliefs over the years, but I have never been able to find the "foundation" so the conversation always seems to be mere assertion of "I believe this, and you believe that." I would love to move beyond this stalemate and on to constructive conversation in which we can build upon the ROCK FOUNDATION that we know the Bible really teaches concerning eschatology.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

Richard, how enlightening that is............to see that you categorize the two different studies under a specific category...........before we continue......what other categories are there besides these two? It would be helpful for you to provide that as well.

I am going on a short trip and will respond when I get back..........for now, I know that there are at least two fields of study concerning Bible which you have studied.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-10-2010, 09:29 AM
Richard, how enlightening that is............to see that you categorize the two different studies under a specific category...........before we continue......what other categories are there besides these two? It would be helpful for you to provide that as well.

I am going on a short trip and will respond when I get back..........for now, I know that there are at least two fields of study concerning Bible which you have studied.

Joel
Hey Joel,

Here are some standard categories used by Biblical scholars to clarify the study of Scripture:

Ecclesiology is the study of the Church.

Theology is the study of God.

Christology is the study of Christ.

Bibliology is the study of Scripture (it's inspiration, innerrancy, etc.)

Angelology is study of Angels

Etc., etc., etc..

These topics are deeply interconnected. For example, your Eschatology is founded upon your Ecclesiology which states that the Church is separate from Israel, and that God has separate plans for the Church (rapture) and Israel (earthly rule). If we ever hope to come to a mutual understanding, we need to make all these assumptions explicit so we can test them in light of what the Bible really says. That's what I mean when I ask you to define the foundation of your beliefs.

Richard

joel
02-13-2010, 06:20 AM
Hey Joel,

Here are some standard categories used by Biblical scholars to clarify the study of Scripture:

Ecclesiology is the study of the Church.

Theology is the study of God.

Christology is the study of Christ.

Bibliology is the study of Scripture (it's inspiration, innerrancy, etc.)

Angelology is study of Angels

Etc., etc., etc..

These topics are deeply interconnected. For example, your Eschatology is founded upon your Ecclesiology which states that the Church is separate from Israel, and that God has separate plans for the Church (rapture) and Israel (earthly rule). If we ever hope to come to a mutual understanding, we need to make all these assumptions explicit so we can test them in light of what the Bible really says. That's what I mean when I ask you to define the foundation of your beliefs.

Richard

Richard,

Don't you think it somewhat confusing that there has evolved "systems" of teaching, and doctrine?

And, that we spend so much time trying to locate and embrace "the system" that is most correct?

Once we embrace one system, it seems that we have to defend it to others who don't hold the same.

To the 1st century Gentiles, do you think that the apostles presented a "system".......oir.....did they proclaim the "gospel" as they were taught it. I don't find any place where the gospel is a called a "system". For that matter, where would you find a word in the scripture to describe or explain a system?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-13-2010, 09:33 AM
Hey Joel,

Here are some standard categories used by Biblical scholars to clarify the study of Scripture:

Ecclesiology is the study of the Church.

Theology is the study of God.

Christology is the study of Christ.

Bibliology is the study of Scripture (it's inspiration, innerrancy, etc.)

Angelology is study of Angels

Etc., etc., etc..

These topics are deeply interconnected. For example, your Eschatology is founded upon your Ecclesiology which states that the Church is separate from Israel, and that God has separate plans for the Church (rapture) and Israel (earthly rule). If we ever hope to come to a mutual understanding, we need to make all these assumptions explicit so we can test them in light of what the Bible really says. That's what I mean when I ask you to define the foundation of your beliefs.

Richard
Richard,

Don't you think it somewhat confusing that there has evolved "systems" of teaching, and doctrine?

Joel,

You have introduced a new topic. I was not talking about any particular "system" of teaching or doctrine. The categories I listed are universal categories that folks who study Scripture have developed over the years to clarify their study. It's like any other study - in physics we define mass, energy, work, force, acceleration, etc. so that we can talk about the subject!

The terms I listed are independent of any particular theological system - Dispensationalism, Idealism, Preterism, the Reformed Tradition, Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, etc. all recognize those terms.



And, that we spend so much time trying to locate and embrace "the system" that is most correct?

I've never said anything about locating a system. I have consistently asked for Scriptures that support your point of view. That's all.



Once we embrace one system, it seems that we have to defend it to others who don't hold the same.

Only if you find that interesting or helpful in your study of Scripture.



To the 1st century Gentiles, do you think that the apostles presented a "system".......oir.....did they proclaim the "gospel" as they were taught it. I don't find any place where the gospel is a called a "system". For that matter, where would you find a word in the scripture to describe or explain a system?

Joel
I don't recall using the word "system" in my recent posts to you. Why did you introduce it into the conversation? I was asking about the Scriptural foundation of your believe in futurism since you made the assertion that there was a lot of stuff that has not been fulfilled.

All the best,

Richard

joel
02-13-2010, 10:02 AM
Richard,

I was referring to "preterism"......and to "dispensationalism"......and to "futurism"......and all the other "...isms".....that have been developed by man.

I will try to simplify the "...ism" that I embrace.....it is the faith that arises out the gospel as presented by Paul, the apostle of the uncircumcision.

That body of teaching that came from him who had been instructed by the risen Lord Who appeared to him, and apparently instructed him in the details that he would present as "my gospel".

All of the other "....isms" seem to be a departure from what Paul taught.

As to matters which are yet impending, there are specific truths which Paul presented.....and he did not tie them into the "Olivet Discourse".....or the "destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD".

There is the matter of.........the resurrection of dead in Christ as taught in I Corinthians 15......the redemption of our bodies (the huiosthesia) of Romans 8........the process of conformity to His body and our bodies of Phillipians.....and the awaiting of the Lord from heaven as discussed in both of his letters to the Thessalonians.

Those who hold the "preterist position" (which I will refer to a system of teaching) insist that these matters refer to either past events,.......or......disappear into a haze of uncertainty.

If you would want to discuss those matters separately I would be happy to accomodate and participate. What Paul did disclose, which I am not aware of any particular thread on this forum, concerns the gospel which he taught, the gospel of the uncircumcision, and that which was presented by Peter, the gospel of the circumcision.

Paul exhorted us to "rightly divide the word of truth"........and we get bogged down in the "..isms" taught by men.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-13-2010, 10:08 AM
Richard,

I was referring to "preterism"......and to "dispensationalism"......and to "futurism"......and all the other "...isms".....that have been developed by man.

I will try to simplify the "...ism" that I embrace.....it is the faith that arises out the gospel as presented by Paul, the apostle of the uncircumcision.

That body of teaching that came from him who had been instructed by the risen Lord Who appeared to him, and apparently instructed him in the details that he would present as "my gospel".

All of the other "....isms" seem to be a departure from what Paul taught.

As to matters which are yet impending, there are specific truths which Paul presented.....and he did not tie them into the "Olivet Discourse".....or the "destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD".

There is the matter of.........the resurrection of dead in Christ as taught in I Corinthians 15......the redemption of our bodies (the huiosthesia) of Romans 8........the process of conformity to His body and our bodies of Phillipians.....and the awaiting of the Lord from heaven as discussed in both of his letters to the Thessalonians.

Those who hold the "preterist position" (which I will refer to a system of teaching) insist that these matters refer to either past events,.......or......disappear into a haze of uncertainty.

If you would want to discuss those matters separately I would be happy to accomodate and participate. What Paul did disclose, which I am not aware of any particular thread on this forum, concerns the gospel which he taught, the gospel of the uncircumcision, and that which was presented by Peter, the gospel of the circumcision.

Paul exhorted us to "rightly divide the word of truth"........and we get bogged down in the "..isms" taught by men.

Joel
Very well stated Joel! :thumb:

I will follow your lead if you would like to set the direction of the conversation. I think it could be very interesting and helpful to us all in our mutual effort to understand Scripture.

Many blessings my friend,

Richard

joel
02-13-2010, 10:40 AM
Very well stated Joel!

I will follow your lead if you would like to set the direction of the conversation. I think it could be very interesting and helpful to us all in our mutual effort to understand Scripture.

Many blessings my friend,


We have embarked upon the "gospel" ship.......and press towards the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

I will respond looking forward to genuine fellowship.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough
02-13-2010, 10:45 AM
We have embarked upon the "gospel" ship.......and press towards the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

I will respond looking forward to genuine fellowship.

Joel
Perhaps it would be best to start a new thread. You could call it "Sailing on the Good Ship Gospel" or whatever you like. It sounds like it should go in the "Hermeneutics" section, or the Bible Studies section. Whatever you choose.

Richard