The Irreducible Complex System (Psa. 77:13)
- Thread starter TulafonoESefulu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The type to be followed by antitype. Jesus was not High Priest at Calvary, but was priest and sacrifice. He was not anointed to be High Priest until Pentecost, Psalms 133:1-3; Acts 1-2; Revelation 5:6. Jesus is now High Priest, but not until 10 days after He ascended the second time, being from the Mt. Olivet (Luke 24; Acts 1). As such, the High Priest must minister first in the Holy Place (Heb. 9:12) in His "daily" duties, until such time as the Day of Atonement in the "yearly", as per Daniel 8 and Leviticus 16.
“The daily” of the holy place:
There was also the “daily” service which took place in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle/Sanctuary behind the first veil, wherein “...[was] the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread ...” [Hebrews 9:2 KJB] and also having the “altar of incense” [Exodus 30:27 KJB].
In Exodus 25:30 KJB, we see that “the table” [Exodus 35:13, 39:36 KJB], the “table of shewbread”, “shewbread table” [2 Chronicles 29:18 KJB], “the tables whereon the shewbread [was set]” [2 Chronicles 4:19 KJB], the “pure table” [2 Chronicles 13:11 KJB]; the “table of gold” [1 Kings 7:48 KJB] was to be “set upon” “alway” [“continually/perpetually/daily”] with the “continual shewbread” [Numbers 4:3,7; 2 Chronicles 2:4 KJB], set “alway” “before the LORD” [1 Samuel 21:6 KJB] which was replaced/refreshed every week's end on the 7th Day Sabbath of the Lord thy God [Leviticus 25:4-9; 1 Samuel 21:6; 1 Chronicles 9:32 KJB], even as Numbers 4:7 KJB and 1 Samuel 21:3-6 KJB [see also Matthew 12:3-4; Mark 2:25-26; Luke 6:3-4 KJB in conjunction] verifies.
In the Sanctuary holy place, besides the shewbread being the “continual” bread of the presence, and its changing on the 7th day, every week “continually”, there was also to be the “daily” [day by day, perpetually, always, continually] service/upkeep of the “Oil”, “Lamp” and “Incense” [Exodus 27:20,21, 30:1-10; Leviticus 24:2-4 KJB] and these too were to happen from:
[A.] “evening” [Exodus 27:21, 30:7 KJB] to,
[B.] “morning” [Exodus 27:21, 30:8 KJB].
In fact, the High priest [Aaron] was, in type, to wear a mitre with a golden plackard, “continually”, and was to bear “the names of the Children of Israel” [Exodus 28:29 KJB] upon Himself when He “goeth in unto the Holy [place]” [Exodus 28:29 KJB], “before the LORD” [Exodus 28:30 KJB].
“The daily” of the holy place:
There was also the “daily” service which took place in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle/Sanctuary behind the first veil, wherein “...[was] the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread ...” [Hebrews 9:2 KJB] and also having the “altar of incense” [Exodus 30:27 KJB].
In Exodus 25:30 KJB, we see that “the table” [Exodus 35:13, 39:36 KJB], the “table of shewbread”, “shewbread table” [2 Chronicles 29:18 KJB], “the tables whereon the shewbread [was set]” [2 Chronicles 4:19 KJB], the “pure table” [2 Chronicles 13:11 KJB]; the “table of gold” [1 Kings 7:48 KJB] was to be “set upon” “alway” [“continually/perpetually/daily”] with the “continual shewbread” [Numbers 4:3,7; 2 Chronicles 2:4 KJB], set “alway” “before the LORD” [1 Samuel 21:6 KJB] which was replaced/refreshed every week's end on the 7th Day Sabbath of the Lord thy God [Leviticus 25:4-9; 1 Samuel 21:6; 1 Chronicles 9:32 KJB], even as Numbers 4:7 KJB and 1 Samuel 21:3-6 KJB [see also Matthew 12:3-4; Mark 2:25-26; Luke 6:3-4 KJB in conjunction] verifies.
In the Sanctuary holy place, besides the shewbread being the “continual” bread of the presence, and its changing on the 7th day, every week “continually”, there was also to be the “daily” [day by day, perpetually, always, continually] service/upkeep of the “Oil”, “Lamp” and “Incense” [Exodus 27:20,21, 30:1-10; Leviticus 24:2-4 KJB] and these too were to happen from:
[A.] “evening” [Exodus 27:21, 30:7 KJB] to,
[B.] “morning” [Exodus 27:21, 30:8 KJB].
In fact, the High priest [Aaron] was, in type, to wear a mitre with a golden plackard, “continually”, and was to bear “the names of the Children of Israel” [Exodus 28:29 KJB] upon Himself when He “goeth in unto the Holy [place]” [Exodus 28:29 KJB], “before the LORD” [Exodus 28:30 KJB].
-
1
- Show all
Yes, the earthly Levitical priesthood (lineage of Levi) is no longer relevant, since it was merely the type, now we have the antitype. In so saying, that does not negate what the rest of Hebrews, etc states in regards Jesus needing to fulfill all the reality that the type points to.
Also the law referred to therein, is not the Ten Commandments, for God's Eternal Law mentions no such thing.
Heb_7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Levites as a priesthood did not yet exist in Exodus 20. The Ten Commandments were not given by or under the Leviticual priesthood (but rather by God Himself, from Heaven, adding no more), but did receive commandments in regards their own priesthood and the ceremonial types.
Also the law referred to therein, is not the Ten Commandments, for God's Eternal Law mentions no such thing.
Heb_7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Levites as a priesthood did not yet exist in Exodus 20. The Ten Commandments were not given by or under the Leviticual priesthood (but rather by God Himself, from Heaven, adding no more), but did receive commandments in regards their own priesthood and the ceremonial types.
-
1
- Show all
I do not. Daniel 9:27 is not about the antichrist, but about Jesus Christ. I do not subscribe to Jesuit Futurism. It is error, as seen here - Link
Dan 9:26 KJB - 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.
Dan 9:26 HOT - ואחרי השׁבעים שׁשׁים ושׁנים יכרת משׁיח ואין לו והעיר והקדשׁ ישׁחית עם נגיד הבא וקצו בשׁטף ועד קץ מלחמה נחרצת שׁממות׃
Dan 9:26 HOT Str#/wRMAC - ואחריH310 השׁבעיםH7620 שׁשׁיםH8346 ושׁניםH8147 יכרתH3772 משׁיחH4899 ואיןH369 לו והעירH5892 והקדשׁH6944 ישׁחיתH7843 עםH5971 נגידH5057 הבאH935 וקצוH7093 בשׁטףH7858 ועדH5704 קץH7093 מלחמהH4421 נחרצתH2782
Dan 9:26 HOT translit. - w'achárëy haSHävuiym shiSHiym ûsh'nayim yiKärët mäshiyªch w'ëyn lô w'häiyr w'haQodesh yash'chiyt am nägiyd haBä w'qiTZô vaSHe†ef w'ad qëtz mil'chämäh nechéretzet shomëmôt
Even if one does not read Hebrew (which is unnecessary), but simply the English, carefully, and with the bible in mind in other places, which shed light upon these events, we can know for certain, that the "prince that shall come" was indeed Jesus Christ. How can we know from the English (KJB)?
[1] in Daniel 9:25, Jesus is called "Messiah the Prince" (משׁיח נגיד;
משׁיחH4899 נגידH5057; mäshiyªch nägiyd)
[2] in Daniel 9:26a, Jesus is again called "Messiah" (משׁיח; משׁיחH4899; mäshiyªch) and thus Daniel 9:26 is simply enlarging upon Daniel 9:25's "Messiah (a.) the Prince (b.)", when vs 26 says, "Messiah (a.) ... the prince (b.) that shall come ..."; in other words "the ruler" that was prophesied to be sent by God to rule all (Isaiah 9:6,7; Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:6).
[3] the word "prince" (נגיד ; נגידH5057; nägiyd) is only used for Jesus Christ the Messiah in all of Daniel, see Daniel 9:25,26, 11:22 ("prince of the covenant") as the anointed ruler thereof. Other examples in scripture of this are seen in the anointed kings of Israel (see 1 Samuel 25:30; 2 Samuel 6:21, 7:8; 1 Kings 1:35, 14:7, 16:2; 1 Chronicles 5:2, 11:2, 17:7, 28:4, 29:22; 2 Chronicles 6:5, 11:22), the anointed rulers of the priests (1 Chronicles 9:11,20, 12:27; 2 Chronicles 31:12,13, 35:8; Jeremiah 20:1; Nehemiah 11:11; or those associated, 1 Chronicles 26:24, 27:4), the leaders of the tribes of Israel (1 Chronicles 27:16), generals/captains over others (1 Chronicles 13:1; 2 Chronicles 11:11; Psalms 76:12), or as one like Job (Job 31:37). (There are a few rare instances in scripture where the word can be used in a general sense for any ruler or captain over others (Job 29:10), even an opposing ruler/s, captains (see 2 Chronicles 23:21; Ezekiel 28:2), but the context is always clear in these instances; and it can mean a few other things in rare instances (Proverbs 8:6)).
[4] Gabriel and Daniel (Daniel 10:20), under guidance of the Holy Ghost, when referring to a foreign power and its leadership thereof, as a 'prince' (such as in the case of Grecia), another word is used instead, which is (שׂר ;שׂר H8269; sar; which means 'ruler'), and thus the word, "prince" (נגיד ; נגידH5057; nägiyd)" in Daniel 9, in its own context and surrounding, is not a reference to the Roman ruler (Caesar) in Daniel 9, though the word "sar" can be applied.
[5] the entire context of Daniel 9 is the Messiah and His people,
[a.] Daniel 9:24a, "thy (Daniel's) people", the Israelites
[b.] Daniel 9:24b, "thy (Daniel's) holy city, earthly Jerusalem
[c.] Daniel 9:24c,d,e,f,g,h - dealing with the sins of the professed people of God and the ministration of the Great High Priest/Jesus and his work on earth and in Heaven.
[d.] Daniel 9:25a, "the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (found in Ezra 6:14, 7:1-28)
[e.] Daniel 9:25b, "Messiah the Prince" - Jesus Christ
[f.] Daniel 9:26a, "Messiah" - Jesus Christ
[g.] Daniel 9:26b, "the people of the prince" - Israelites
[h.] Daniel 9:26b, "of the prince that shall come" - Jesus, being ruler over "the people" sent of God, that was to "come"
[i.] Daniel 9:26c, "the city and the sanctuary" - earthly Jerusalem
[j.] Daniel 9:27a, "And he ..." - Jesus (Pronoun pointing back to a Noun, context, Messiah the Prince, Messiah ... the prince that shall come)
[k.] Daniel 9:27b "confirm the covenant with many for one week" - Jesus confirms the New Covenant with the Apostles (Hebrews 2:3) for the first half of the week (3 1/2 years unto AD 31, His death) and then confirms with the rest of the people through His Apostles, for 3 1/2 more years, unto the stoning of Stephen (AD 34) and the rejection of it by the Sanhedrin, as they had done to Jesus.
[l.] Daniel 9:27c, "he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease" - Jesus (Pronoun pointing back to the Noun, Messiah the Prince), did this by His death, and thus there are no more sacrifices for sins as Hebrews 10:26, etc, explains.
[m.] Daniel 9:27d, "he shall make it (earthly sanctuary) desolate" - Jesus (Pronoun pointing back to a Noun) leaves and does not return to earthly Jerusalem, neither to the earthly temple ever again, see Matthew 23:38; Luke 13:35.
[6] there are previous examples given to us in scripture, and Daniel himself experienced one of them.
[a.] In the first destruction of Jerusalm and its Temple by Babylon and King Nebuchadnezzar, this very King is used by God to punish rebellious Israel, because they (the people) had rejected God, and so God withdrew, and allowed the city/temple to be destroyed. What brought the destruction? Israel's sins. Nebuchadnezzar is even called by God, "my servant" (Jeremiah 25:9).
[b.] In the events of Moses and the Israelites attempting to cross over into the promised land. Balak and Balaam came along, and could do nothing to affect them, that is until the people sinned, and so God withdrew His protection, and allowed destruction to come.
There are numerous examples of this in scripture, see the book of Judges, etc.
Therefore, the same events repeated, as per Ecclesiastes 1:9, 3:15; in that when "the people" (of God) rejected the "Messiah the Prince", the "Messiah ... the prince that shall come" (as promised by God), they actually destroyed their own city and temple, because they rejected the protection God offered in Christ Jesus. When Jesus said, "Your house is left unto you desolate", it was in exact fulfillment of Daniel as was the statement of Jesus in reference to the destruction (Matthew 23:36) that would be brought about by such rejection and refusal to repent of sin and accept Him, their Messiah, their rightful Prince.
Did the Roman armies actually destroy Jerusalem? Only in after effect (as the Babylonians), for if the Jewish leadership had accepted the Messiah their prince, no such destruction could have come, for God would have dwelt in it, and its sanctuary.
The entire context of Daniel 9, is about God's people, sin, deliverance and the Messiah.
Who destroyed the city? God's own professed people by their neglect and refusal. Even as the human city/temple may so be destroyed:
1Co_3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Mat_5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Dan 9:26 KJB - 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.
Dan 9:26 HOT - ואחרי השׁבעים שׁשׁים ושׁנים יכרת משׁיח ואין לו והעיר והקדשׁ ישׁחית עם נגיד הבא וקצו בשׁטף ועד קץ מלחמה נחרצת שׁממות׃
Dan 9:26 HOT Str#/wRMAC - ואחריH310 השׁבעיםH7620 שׁשׁיםH8346 ושׁניםH8147 יכרתH3772 משׁיחH4899 ואיןH369 לו והעירH5892 והקדשׁH6944 ישׁחיתH7843 עםH5971 נגידH5057 הבאH935 וקצוH7093 בשׁטףH7858 ועדH5704 קץH7093 מלחמהH4421 נחרצתH2782
Dan 9:26 HOT translit. - w'achárëy haSHävuiym shiSHiym ûsh'nayim yiKärët mäshiyªch w'ëyn lô w'häiyr w'haQodesh yash'chiyt am nägiyd haBä w'qiTZô vaSHe†ef w'ad qëtz mil'chämäh nechéretzet shomëmôt
Even if one does not read Hebrew (which is unnecessary), but simply the English, carefully, and with the bible in mind in other places, which shed light upon these events, we can know for certain, that the "prince that shall come" was indeed Jesus Christ. How can we know from the English (KJB)?
[1] in Daniel 9:25, Jesus is called "Messiah the Prince" (משׁיח נגיד;
משׁיחH4899 נגידH5057; mäshiyªch nägiyd)
[2] in Daniel 9:26a, Jesus is again called "Messiah" (משׁיח; משׁיחH4899; mäshiyªch) and thus Daniel 9:26 is simply enlarging upon Daniel 9:25's "Messiah (a.) the Prince (b.)", when vs 26 says, "Messiah (a.) ... the prince (b.) that shall come ..."; in other words "the ruler" that was prophesied to be sent by God to rule all (Isaiah 9:6,7; Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:6).
[3] the word "prince" (נגיד ; נגידH5057; nägiyd) is only used for Jesus Christ the Messiah in all of Daniel, see Daniel 9:25,26, 11:22 ("prince of the covenant") as the anointed ruler thereof. Other examples in scripture of this are seen in the anointed kings of Israel (see 1 Samuel 25:30; 2 Samuel 6:21, 7:8; 1 Kings 1:35, 14:7, 16:2; 1 Chronicles 5:2, 11:2, 17:7, 28:4, 29:22; 2 Chronicles 6:5, 11:22), the anointed rulers of the priests (1 Chronicles 9:11,20, 12:27; 2 Chronicles 31:12,13, 35:8; Jeremiah 20:1; Nehemiah 11:11; or those associated, 1 Chronicles 26:24, 27:4), the leaders of the tribes of Israel (1 Chronicles 27:16), generals/captains over others (1 Chronicles 13:1; 2 Chronicles 11:11; Psalms 76:12), or as one like Job (Job 31:37). (There are a few rare instances in scripture where the word can be used in a general sense for any ruler or captain over others (Job 29:10), even an opposing ruler/s, captains (see 2 Chronicles 23:21; Ezekiel 28:2), but the context is always clear in these instances; and it can mean a few other things in rare instances (Proverbs 8:6)).
[4] Gabriel and Daniel (Daniel 10:20), under guidance of the Holy Ghost, when referring to a foreign power and its leadership thereof, as a 'prince' (such as in the case of Grecia), another word is used instead, which is (שׂר ;שׂר H8269; sar; which means 'ruler'), and thus the word, "prince" (נגיד ; נגידH5057; nägiyd)" in Daniel 9, in its own context and surrounding, is not a reference to the Roman ruler (Caesar) in Daniel 9, though the word "sar" can be applied.
[5] the entire context of Daniel 9 is the Messiah and His people,
[a.] Daniel 9:24a, "thy (Daniel's) people", the Israelites
[b.] Daniel 9:24b, "thy (Daniel's) holy city, earthly Jerusalem
[c.] Daniel 9:24c,d,e,f,g,h - dealing with the sins of the professed people of God and the ministration of the Great High Priest/Jesus and his work on earth and in Heaven.
[d.] Daniel 9:25a, "the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (found in Ezra 6:14, 7:1-28)
[e.] Daniel 9:25b, "Messiah the Prince" - Jesus Christ
[f.] Daniel 9:26a, "Messiah" - Jesus Christ
[g.] Daniel 9:26b, "the people of the prince" - Israelites
[h.] Daniel 9:26b, "of the prince that shall come" - Jesus, being ruler over "the people" sent of God, that was to "come"
[i.] Daniel 9:26c, "the city and the sanctuary" - earthly Jerusalem
[j.] Daniel 9:27a, "And he ..." - Jesus (Pronoun pointing back to a Noun, context, Messiah the Prince, Messiah ... the prince that shall come)
[k.] Daniel 9:27b "confirm the covenant with many for one week" - Jesus confirms the New Covenant with the Apostles (Hebrews 2:3) for the first half of the week (3 1/2 years unto AD 31, His death) and then confirms with the rest of the people through His Apostles, for 3 1/2 more years, unto the stoning of Stephen (AD 34) and the rejection of it by the Sanhedrin, as they had done to Jesus.
[l.] Daniel 9:27c, "he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease" - Jesus (Pronoun pointing back to the Noun, Messiah the Prince), did this by His death, and thus there are no more sacrifices for sins as Hebrews 10:26, etc, explains.
[m.] Daniel 9:27d, "he shall make it (earthly sanctuary) desolate" - Jesus (Pronoun pointing back to a Noun) leaves and does not return to earthly Jerusalem, neither to the earthly temple ever again, see Matthew 23:38; Luke 13:35.
[6] there are previous examples given to us in scripture, and Daniel himself experienced one of them.
[a.] In the first destruction of Jerusalm and its Temple by Babylon and King Nebuchadnezzar, this very King is used by God to punish rebellious Israel, because they (the people) had rejected God, and so God withdrew, and allowed the city/temple to be destroyed. What brought the destruction? Israel's sins. Nebuchadnezzar is even called by God, "my servant" (Jeremiah 25:9).
[b.] In the events of Moses and the Israelites attempting to cross over into the promised land. Balak and Balaam came along, and could do nothing to affect them, that is until the people sinned, and so God withdrew His protection, and allowed destruction to come.
There are numerous examples of this in scripture, see the book of Judges, etc.
Therefore, the same events repeated, as per Ecclesiastes 1:9, 3:15; in that when "the people" (of God) rejected the "Messiah the Prince", the "Messiah ... the prince that shall come" (as promised by God), they actually destroyed their own city and temple, because they rejected the protection God offered in Christ Jesus. When Jesus said, "Your house is left unto you desolate", it was in exact fulfillment of Daniel as was the statement of Jesus in reference to the destruction (Matthew 23:36) that would be brought about by such rejection and refusal to repent of sin and accept Him, their Messiah, their rightful Prince.
Did the Roman armies actually destroy Jerusalem? Only in after effect (as the Babylonians), for if the Jewish leadership had accepted the Messiah their prince, no such destruction could have come, for God would have dwelt in it, and its sanctuary.
The entire context of Daniel 9, is about God's people, sin, deliverance and the Messiah.
Who destroyed the city? God's own professed people by their neglect and refusal. Even as the human city/temple may so be destroyed:
1Co_3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Mat_5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
-
1
- Show all
No, that is a misreading of Hebrews 9:8, for Hebrews defines what it means by "first tabernacle":
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Notice, "the tabernacle" = Holy Place
Heb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
followed by Most Holy Place:
Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
This is described by Paul in the first 3 verses, using the 'tent' of the wilderness as the example to the Heavenly reality:
Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Heb 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
Heb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
Two "tabernacles", a Holy and Most Holy. Two veils.
First veil, Revelation 4:1
Second Veil, Revelation 3:7-8.
Jesus is seen in the First apartment in Revelation 1-5. 7 Branch Candlestick and the Table of Shewbread (Throne of God on the side of the North in the Holy Place), which Lampstand was across from (before).
Jesus and the Father do not move into the most Holy until later, Daniel 7:22; Revelation 3:7-8, etc. This the vision of the "evenings mornings" ("daily") had to be accomplished in the Holy Place, Daniel 8.
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Notice, "the tabernacle" = Holy Place
Heb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
followed by Most Holy Place:
Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
This is described by Paul in the first 3 verses, using the 'tent' of the wilderness as the example to the Heavenly reality:
Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Heb 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
Heb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
Two "tabernacles", a Holy and Most Holy. Two veils.
First veil, Revelation 4:1
Second Veil, Revelation 3:7-8.
Jesus is seen in the First apartment in Revelation 1-5. 7 Branch Candlestick and the Table of Shewbread (Throne of God on the side of the North in the Holy Place), which Lampstand was across from (before).
Jesus and the Father do not move into the most Holy until later, Daniel 7:22; Revelation 3:7-8, etc. This the vision of the "evenings mornings" ("daily") had to be accomplished in the Holy Place, Daniel 8.
If sin is covered, it still exists under the covering. It may be exposed if uncovered.
Lev 4 is in the greater context of the whole years services. The "daily" forgiveness can still be negated in the "yearly" if found unworthy of the time pf probation granted in that year.
Matthew 18.
Here are some commentaries for those that are into that sort of thing:
Matthew 18:21-35, Forgiveness Revoked:
John Wesley [Methodist] Commentary on Matthew 18:34 -
"... How observable is this whole account; as well as the great inference our Lord draws from it: The debtor was freely and fully forgiven; He wilfully and grievously offended; His pardon was retracted, the whole debt required, and the offender delivered to the tormentors for ever. And shall we still say, but when we are once freely and fully forgiven, our pardon can never be retracted? Verily, verily, I say unto you, So likewise will my heavenly Father do to you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. ..."
Matthew Henry [Non-Conformist] Commentary [read carefully please] on Matthew 18:21-35 -
"... here is forgiveness with God for the greatest sins, if they be repented of. Though the debt was vastly great, he forgave it all, Mat_18:32. Though our sins be very numerous and very heinous, yet, upon gospel terms, they may be pardoned. [3.] The forgiving of the debt is the loosing of the debtor; He loosed him. The obligation is cancelled, the judgment vacated; we never walk at liberty till our sins are forgiven. But observe, Though he discharged him from the penalty as a debtor, he did not discharge him from his duty as a servant. The pardon of sin doth not slacken, but strengthen, our obligations to obedience; and we must reckon it a favour that God is pleased to continue such wasteful servants as we have been in such a gainful service as his is, and should therefore deliver us, that we might serve him, Luk_1:74. I am thy servant, for thou hast loosed my bonds. ...
(2.) How he revoked his pardon and cancelled the acquittance, so that the judgment against him revived (Mat_18:34); He delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. ..."
The Pulpit Commentary [Rev. Joseph S. Exell and Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones] on Matthew 18:21-25 -
"... Christ’s teaching on this point has even a severe side—even his forgiveness may be revoked, if he finds, by our behaviour after forgiveness, that we were morally unfitted to receive it.—R.T. ..."
Jospeh Benson [Methodist] Commentary on Matthew 18:34 -
"... Who in like manner acknowledged his debt, and promised payment, showing thee, in his supplication, though thine equal, as much respect as thou showedst to me, thy lord and king? And his lord was wroth — Was exceedingly enraged; and delivered him to the tormentors — Not only revoked the grant of remission which he had just before made, as forfeited by so vile a behaviour; but put him in prison, commanding him to be there fettered and scourged; till he should pay all that was due unto him — That is, without any hope of release, for the immense debt which he owed he could never be able to pay. ..."
Preacher's Homiletical [Commentary]:
"... Mat_18:23-35. The unforgiving temper.—There is a fine story illustrative of this parable, told by Fleury (Hist. Eccles., 5:2, p. 334). It is briefly this: Between two Christians at Antioch enmity and division had fallen out; after a while one of them desired to be reconciled, but the other, who was a priest, refused. While it was thus with them, the persecution of Valerian began; and Sapricius, the priest, having boldly confessed himself a Christian, was on the way to death. Nicephorus met him, and again sued for peace, which was again refused. While he was seeking, and the other refusing, they arrived at the place of execution. He that should have been the martyr was here terrified, offered to sacrifice to the gods, and, despite the entreaties of the other, did so, making shipwreck of his faith; while Nicephorus, boldly confessing, stepped in his place, and received the crown which Sapricius lost. This whole story runs finely parallel with our parable. Before Sapricius could have had grace to confess thus to Christ, he must have had his own ten thousand talents forgiven; but, refusing to forgive a far lesser wrong, to put away the displeasure he had taken up on some infinitely lighter grounds against his brother, he forfeited all the advantages of his position, his Lord was angry, took away from his grace, and suffered him again to fall under those powers of evil from which he had once been delivered. It comes out, too, in this story, that it is not merely the outward wrong and outrage upon a brother, which constitutes a likeness to the unmerciful servant, but the unforgiving temper, even apart from all such.—Archbishop Trench. ..."
Ellicott's [Charles John, English Christian] Commentary on Matthew 18:35 -
"... Do also unto you.--The words cut through the meshes of many theological systems by which men have deceived themselves. Men have trusted in the self-assurance of justification, in the absolving words of the priest, as though they were final and irreversible. The parable teaches that the debt may come back. If faith does not work by love, it ceases to justify. If the man bind himself once again to his old evil nature, the absolution is annulled. The characters of the discharge are traced (to use another similitude) as in sympathetic ink, and appear or disappear according to the greater or less glow of the faith and love of the pardoned debtor. ..."
Coffman's [James Burton, Church of Christ] Commentaries on the Bible Matthew 18:21-35 -
"... The forgiveness the king extended to the unmerciful sinner was total, complete, and uncluttered with any penalties whatsoever. It would also have been permanent if the servant's conduct had not led to its revocation. That he later fell into condemnation was not due to any quality lacking in the full and free pardon that he received, but was due to his later conduct. ..."
Lev 4 is in the greater context of the whole years services. The "daily" forgiveness can still be negated in the "yearly" if found unworthy of the time pf probation granted in that year.
Matthew 18.
Here are some commentaries for those that are into that sort of thing:
Matthew 18:21-35, Forgiveness Revoked:
John Wesley [Methodist] Commentary on Matthew 18:34 -
"... How observable is this whole account; as well as the great inference our Lord draws from it: The debtor was freely and fully forgiven; He wilfully and grievously offended; His pardon was retracted, the whole debt required, and the offender delivered to the tormentors for ever. And shall we still say, but when we are once freely and fully forgiven, our pardon can never be retracted? Verily, verily, I say unto you, So likewise will my heavenly Father do to you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. ..."
Matthew Henry [Non-Conformist] Commentary [read carefully please] on Matthew 18:21-35 -
"... here is forgiveness with God for the greatest sins, if they be repented of. Though the debt was vastly great, he forgave it all, Mat_18:32. Though our sins be very numerous and very heinous, yet, upon gospel terms, they may be pardoned. [3.] The forgiving of the debt is the loosing of the debtor; He loosed him. The obligation is cancelled, the judgment vacated; we never walk at liberty till our sins are forgiven. But observe, Though he discharged him from the penalty as a debtor, he did not discharge him from his duty as a servant. The pardon of sin doth not slacken, but strengthen, our obligations to obedience; and we must reckon it a favour that God is pleased to continue such wasteful servants as we have been in such a gainful service as his is, and should therefore deliver us, that we might serve him, Luk_1:74. I am thy servant, for thou hast loosed my bonds. ...
(2.) How he revoked his pardon and cancelled the acquittance, so that the judgment against him revived (Mat_18:34); He delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. ..."
The Pulpit Commentary [Rev. Joseph S. Exell and Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones] on Matthew 18:21-25 -
"... Christ’s teaching on this point has even a severe side—even his forgiveness may be revoked, if he finds, by our behaviour after forgiveness, that we were morally unfitted to receive it.—R.T. ..."
Jospeh Benson [Methodist] Commentary on Matthew 18:34 -
"... Who in like manner acknowledged his debt, and promised payment, showing thee, in his supplication, though thine equal, as much respect as thou showedst to me, thy lord and king? And his lord was wroth — Was exceedingly enraged; and delivered him to the tormentors — Not only revoked the grant of remission which he had just before made, as forfeited by so vile a behaviour; but put him in prison, commanding him to be there fettered and scourged; till he should pay all that was due unto him — That is, without any hope of release, for the immense debt which he owed he could never be able to pay. ..."
Preacher's Homiletical [Commentary]:
"... Mat_18:23-35. The unforgiving temper.—There is a fine story illustrative of this parable, told by Fleury (Hist. Eccles., 5:2, p. 334). It is briefly this: Between two Christians at Antioch enmity and division had fallen out; after a while one of them desired to be reconciled, but the other, who was a priest, refused. While it was thus with them, the persecution of Valerian began; and Sapricius, the priest, having boldly confessed himself a Christian, was on the way to death. Nicephorus met him, and again sued for peace, which was again refused. While he was seeking, and the other refusing, they arrived at the place of execution. He that should have been the martyr was here terrified, offered to sacrifice to the gods, and, despite the entreaties of the other, did so, making shipwreck of his faith; while Nicephorus, boldly confessing, stepped in his place, and received the crown which Sapricius lost. This whole story runs finely parallel with our parable. Before Sapricius could have had grace to confess thus to Christ, he must have had his own ten thousand talents forgiven; but, refusing to forgive a far lesser wrong, to put away the displeasure he had taken up on some infinitely lighter grounds against his brother, he forfeited all the advantages of his position, his Lord was angry, took away from his grace, and suffered him again to fall under those powers of evil from which he had once been delivered. It comes out, too, in this story, that it is not merely the outward wrong and outrage upon a brother, which constitutes a likeness to the unmerciful servant, but the unforgiving temper, even apart from all such.—Archbishop Trench. ..."
Ellicott's [Charles John, English Christian] Commentary on Matthew 18:35 -
"... Do also unto you.--The words cut through the meshes of many theological systems by which men have deceived themselves. Men have trusted in the self-assurance of justification, in the absolving words of the priest, as though they were final and irreversible. The parable teaches that the debt may come back. If faith does not work by love, it ceases to justify. If the man bind himself once again to his old evil nature, the absolution is annulled. The characters of the discharge are traced (to use another similitude) as in sympathetic ink, and appear or disappear according to the greater or less glow of the faith and love of the pardoned debtor. ..."
Coffman's [James Burton, Church of Christ] Commentaries on the Bible Matthew 18:21-35 -
"... The forgiveness the king extended to the unmerciful sinner was total, complete, and uncluttered with any penalties whatsoever. It would also have been permanent if the servant's conduct had not led to its revocation. That he later fell into condemnation was not due to any quality lacking in the full and free pardon that he received, but was due to his later conduct. ..."
I agree. Two things, not one.
[1] forgiveness (past sins)
[2] cleansing from all unrighteousness (present to future)
Thus the reason for the cleansing of the sanctuary in the Day of Atonement.
Forgiveness could take place any day of the year, hence "daily", Lev. 4, etc.
Yet blotting out of sin, was only "once" in the "year", not "daily", as per Lev16 & 23; Daniel 8.
[1] forgiveness (past sins)
[2] cleansing from all unrighteousness (present to future)
Thus the reason for the cleansing of the sanctuary in the Day of Atonement.
Forgiveness could take place any day of the year, hence "daily", Lev. 4, etc.
Yet blotting out of sin, was only "once" in the "year", not "daily", as per Lev16 & 23; Daniel 8.
-
1
- Show all
So, you are saying that Romans 3:25 is only about the sins of persons "BEFORE JESUS' DEATH AND RESURRECTION" having been paid for, correct?
Rom_3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Where does that place you, being born long after that? Again, not about payment, it's the question of forgiveness.
Rom_3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Where does that place you, being born long after that? Again, not about payment, it's the question of forgiveness.
-
2
- Show all
Irreducible Complexity is not merely isolated to biology. It is a universal principle and as such, may be applied to IT, theology, etc. Yet, even so, Bio (life) ology (study there of) is really found in the Everlasting Gospel, the study of Eternal Life.
For instance.
Would the Cross of Calvary (the wood itself) mean anything without Jesus?
Would the Sacrifice of Jesus mean anything, without the office of Priesthood to minister it?
Would the Sacrifice or office and ministry of the Priesthood mean anything without the actual an real Sanctuary and Ark of the Covenant of Heaven.
All components are required.
For instance.
Would the Cross of Calvary (the wood itself) mean anything without Jesus?
Would the Sacrifice of Jesus mean anything, without the office of Priesthood to minister it?
Would the Sacrifice or office and ministry of the Priesthood mean anything without the actual an real Sanctuary and Ark of the Covenant of Heaven.
All components are required.
7
and that was in response to:
25 “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.
26 Review the past for me, let us argue the matter together; state the case for your innocence.
Isaiah 43:25-26
just go to a lock smith
it will cost you though
unlike forgiveness which you did not pay for
-
1
-
1
- Show all
[QUOTE="TulafonoESefulu, post: 3996988, member: 287857"]Irreducible Complexity is not merely isolated to biology. It is a universal principle and as such, may be applied to IT, theology, etc. Yet, even so, Bio (life) ology (study there of) is really found in the Everlasting Gospel, the study of Eternal Life.
.[/QUOTE]
Ummm... no.
Just no.
It just isn't the same to bring irreducible complexity into Theology or Philosophy.
Irreducible complexity is used to describe certain kinds of clearly definable complex systems, with universally accepted individual parts, which are WITHIN the physical universe.
It just has nothing to do with things which are NOT clearly definable complex systems, and which do NOT have universally accepted individual parts, and which are NOT within the physical universe.... like theology, philosophy, metaphysics, etc.
It just a category mistake.
When we get BEYOND the physical universe we may be talking about things which are NOT systems at all, or which don't have individual parts, or which don't have individual parts which are universally accepted, or which don't have any parts at all, or which no one can define, or which no one can agree upon, or for which we cannot even take the FIRST STEP to ASSESS IT AS OPERATING CORRECTLY AS A AN ACTUAL SYSTEM WITH ALL IT'S PARTS because we have no way to know HOW or IF it's operating at all.
It's just a category mistake.
Not to mention you were trying to use it in an entirely circular way in your opening post.
In the physical world, you can look at a system, and clearly see that it IS a system, and that it WORKS AS A SYSTEM... and then if you remove certain parts it stops functioning.
What YOU did was simply "claim", with no evidence, that a certain set of doctrines constituted a CURRENTLY VALID SYSTEM, and then, based on that UNPROVEN ASSERTION about a "supposedly" currently valid system, you claimed that irreducible complexity became some kind of proof for leaving it's parts alone.
It was a truly wacky argument.
So no.
Just no.
You started with all kinds of categorical errors, then moved to presuppositions and circular arguments... it was just a mess.
..
.[/QUOTE]
Ummm... no.
Just no.
It just isn't the same to bring irreducible complexity into Theology or Philosophy.
Irreducible complexity is used to describe certain kinds of clearly definable complex systems, with universally accepted individual parts, which are WITHIN the physical universe.
It just has nothing to do with things which are NOT clearly definable complex systems, and which do NOT have universally accepted individual parts, and which are NOT within the physical universe.... like theology, philosophy, metaphysics, etc.
It just a category mistake.
When we get BEYOND the physical universe we may be talking about things which are NOT systems at all, or which don't have individual parts, or which don't have individual parts which are universally accepted, or which don't have any parts at all, or which no one can define, or which no one can agree upon, or for which we cannot even take the FIRST STEP to ASSESS IT AS OPERATING CORRECTLY AS A AN ACTUAL SYSTEM WITH ALL IT'S PARTS because we have no way to know HOW or IF it's operating at all.
It's just a category mistake.
Not to mention you were trying to use it in an entirely circular way in your opening post.
In the physical world, you can look at a system, and clearly see that it IS a system, and that it WORKS AS A SYSTEM... and then if you remove certain parts it stops functioning.
What YOU did was simply "claim", with no evidence, that a certain set of doctrines constituted a CURRENTLY VALID SYSTEM, and then, based on that UNPROVEN ASSERTION about a "supposedly" currently valid system, you claimed that irreducible complexity became some kind of proof for leaving it's parts alone.
It was a truly wacky argument.
So no.
Just no.
You started with all kinds of categorical errors, then moved to presuppositions and circular arguments... it was just a mess.
..
-
2
- Show all
How do you explain that the word "holy places" ('into the holy places') is plural?
"By this the Holy Spirit was signifying that the way [singular into the [plural] holy places [plural] has not yet been made manifest, the first tabernacle still having a standing [G4714 stasin/stasis [from 'histemi']"
https://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/9-8.htm
...whereas in v.3, "behind the second veil a tabernacle [singular] being called [singular]"
Why the differences (plural versus singular) here?
I'm thinking that verse 9 is saying, "which is a parable for the time present" ('the tabernacle yet having a standing [stasis/stasin]' and 'not yet has been made manifest the way into the holy places [plural]').
"By this the Holy Spirit was signifying that the way [singular into the [plural] holy places [plural] has not yet been made manifest, the first tabernacle still having a standing [G4714 stasin/stasis [from 'histemi']"
https://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/9-8.htm
...whereas in v.3, "behind the second veil a tabernacle [singular] being called [singular]"
Why the differences (plural versus singular) here?
I'm thinking that verse 9 is saying, "which is a parable for the time present" ('the tabernacle yet having a standing [stasis/stasin]' and 'not yet has been made manifest the way into the holy places [plural]').
-
1
- Show all
'you're nuts'
I must remember to use this in future referrals to the mindless among us
disclaimer: there was no squirrel looking over my shoulder
I must remember to use this in future referrals to the mindless among us
disclaimer: there was no squirrel looking over my shoulder
best policy
-
2
-
1
- Show all
I don't understand all the "pre supposes and all the reasons for what ever" But one thing I am most positive of is the more I know of the Word, the more I realize I know nothing. And the levels never stop. A lot of what you wrote I need to go check out. seems I should give you the common courtesy to do that much.
So I find a lot of how you are putting things together very,,,,,,,I would like to hear more. Hopefully you have been dismissed, I am sorry to say but I do better without all the name calling.
I do understand that God forgives who ever He wants to. Nobody likes the ifs, mays, and all the other ways God tells us, it is up to Him, He is choosing eternal souls and no evil will make it.
I get the tabernacle, the veils and the Holy of Holies, but are you saying Jesus has or has not entered yet? I am so tired and lost I will have to read it all again and see and go check it out for myself. I think you have a lot more to say and I would like to hear it until I too think you are a nut. (Just kidding, maybe)
I think what got me most is the corresponding days and the fall feasts that need to be fulfilled and I don't want to be harvested out of season and the season of the locust and ...... Got into it with someone over Passover and Jesus crucifixion and Sorry, Good night from me. And thank you. and sorry. We seem to be missing a lot of the Fruits of the Spirit, but damn if we don't have tons of righteous indignation to far exceed its need.
So I find a lot of how you are putting things together very,,,,,,,I would like to hear more. Hopefully you have been dismissed, I am sorry to say but I do better without all the name calling.
I do understand that God forgives who ever He wants to. Nobody likes the ifs, mays, and all the other ways God tells us, it is up to Him, He is choosing eternal souls and no evil will make it.
I get the tabernacle, the veils and the Holy of Holies, but are you saying Jesus has or has not entered yet? I am so tired and lost I will have to read it all again and see and go check it out for myself. I think you have a lot more to say and I would like to hear it until I too think you are a nut. (Just kidding, maybe)
I think what got me most is the corresponding days and the fall feasts that need to be fulfilled and I don't want to be harvested out of season and the season of the locust and ...... Got into it with someone over Passover and Jesus crucifixion and Sorry, Good night from me. And thank you. and sorry. We seem to be missing a lot of the Fruits of the Spirit, but damn if we don't have tons of righteous indignation to far exceed its need.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
(Daniel 9:26)
they are 'the people of the prince who is to come'
are we talking about Jerusalem?
was it the disciples who destroyed the city and the sanctuary?
-
1
- Show all