Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
Something is wrong in this timeline since we know that both Annas and Caiaphas were still alive in the AD30s (cf. Acts 4:6).
What was the source for your dates?
How do you figure?
Not much except they didn’t die on those dates but were removed from the priesthood.
Amen. That's why I'm postmil and not a fantasy futurist. The only thing I left behind was my Scofield Notes.
You mean no one after the rapture follows Jesus Christ? Do you have a text to support your theory, Thou Quibbler of Terms?
The Word says all things are restored.
In order to be a priest much less a high priest, one has to be 30 years old. If he was atleast 30 years old in 18 AD when appointed, then he would have been 60 years old and thus dead by 48 AD. Incidentally Annas was apparently his father-in-law not his father.
The Word says all things are restored.
Yes, that is referring to the Kingdom being established.
There are still aspects of the curse present during the Millennial reign of Christ, such as death.
These are removed in the New Heaven and Earth (Rev.21-22)
The time lines are the years that they were high priest. One had to be at least 30 to be a priest and I assume a few years on the job to learn the ropes and get the gelt to buy the position from Rome and some reputation with the other priests. You can find some history here;
http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caiaphas/caiaphas.htm
Interesting, the last you hear of Caiaphas is Acts 4:6 with his son, Annas, the next high priest but no mention of his father, Annas, as was the case with the trial of Jesus. In fact there is no mention of the high priest by name after Acts 4.
Of course this all assumes that a) the bones discovered are actually his, b) that the dating is accurate, and c) all your assumptions are valid.
BTW, I went back and checked the Greek in Matt 26:64. In the phrase "you shall see the son of man" the word "you" is plural. So any of the men standing there could have witnessed the events in AD70. They did not all need to personally witness it. The same is true when the Jews offered this self-malediction; "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27:25). Not all those Jews personally experienced the sack of Jerusalem in AD70, but many no doubt did.
I still do not know what that means, esp. in light of the fact that there is still sin in the futurist millennium.
Oh Well — he missed a good show. Too bad.
Please, topcat, can't we atleast have a few moments of silence to mourn poor Caiaphus ---- a man who died before his preterist time -------------------
and a few moments more to mourn that ridiculous theory of yours built upon him that just fell to pieces.
[sniff!!!]
I'll trust that Christ knew what He was talking about and that all the narratives fit. It's better than the futurist fantasy.
” I went back and checked the Greek in Matt 26:64. In the phrase “you shall see the son of man” the word “you” is plural.”
Odd, I went back to my old Summers, “Essentials of New Testament Greek” and he says it’s a contract verb in the middle voice, future tense, 3rd person singular which would correspond with the opening of Matt 26:64, “Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”. Jesus is speaking directly to the high priest, not to an audience or any one around him.
“Jesus saith unto him, ....: nevertheless I say unto you,..... Hereafter shall ye see ...”
= = =
Brazen FALSEHOOD yet again.
BTW, it is
SCRIPTURE that describes satan's being bound during the millenium
AND IT IS SCRIPTURE
that THEN describes
him being loosed for a season--evidetnly a relatively short season--to tempt those born during the millenium.
AND IT IS SCRIPTURE
that THEN describes
him being bound to the bottomless pit and, so to speak, the key being thrown away.
Replacementarians who have a problem with those descriptions and that sequence have a bigger beef with God and His Word than they ever imagined having with Dispies.
Thankfully, GOD IS FAITHFUL IN EXECUTING HIS WORD EMPHATICALLY AND TO THE TINIEST DETAIL.
Witness the "higher criticisms" and secular, hostile archeologsts
of the last 100+ years
WHO ALL EMPHATICALLY INSISTED
that this or that Biblical detail
HAD to be symbolic, literary license, figurative etc. because it just COULD NOT be literally true . . .
only to have subsequent diggings prove every detail to be literally and precisely true.
The Replacementarians are in philosophical bed with such forces hostile to Scripture, God and the Truth.
They, too, shall find God's Word emphatically and precisely and overwhelmingly LITERALLY proven true repeatedly in coming months and years.
Their contrariness on such scores will not hinder God's fulfillment of His Word a gnat's burp's worth.
Nor did the disciples who fled when they saw the abomination of desolation (Jerusalem surrounded by armies).
Oh my — another new definition for the “abomination”. So now the “holy place” [Mt 24:15] is the hills and valleys outside of Jerusalem, not Jerusalem or the temple??? and the Roman armies are “the abomination” and not Cesar Nero???
= = =
INDEED. The Rubber Bible twangs yet again in a DIFFERENT off-key.
Don’t you just love that preterist “exegesis” or whatever they call it???
= = =
Replacementarian ‘exegesis’
. . .
= Replacementarian expanding rubber stretching just to accommodate yet another far-fetched prickly absurdity pretending to be Biblical.
Don’t you just love that preterist “exegesis” or whatever they call it???
It does have the markings of desperation.
Say anything to hide what the verse is referring to in Daniel.
= =
INDEED!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.