Cornelius Converted

[Cyberseeker]

Cornelius Converted.

When was it? Three and a half years after the cross. Now that raises an interesting question because 3½ is one half of a ‘week.’ Could it be that the conversion of the Gentiles had something to do with Daniels prophecy?

[attachment=0:1a5p2t5a]Cornelius.png[/attachment:1a5p2t5a]

 

[Cyberseeker]

...can you at least suggest a scriptural / historical cue to substantiate the 3½-year interval?

We could start with Galatians 1:15 - 2:1. Unfortunately, the book of Acts has suffered from inaccurate chronology concerning this event, the result of which has obscured its connection to Daniel’s prophecy. This is because the date of Jesus’ death was thought to be later than AD30 and commentators felt it necessary to shoehorn the ministry of the apostles into a faulty crucifixion timeframe. Acts chapter ten is dated late and Paul’s conversion is fitted by making his stay in Damascus less than the three years stated. However a natural reading of accounts in Paul’s life shows there were seventeen years between his conversion and the Council in Jerusalem in AD 50. Therefore Paul’s conversion was early AD 33 and since Cornelius’ conversion is in sequence after Paul’s it would have fallen later in the same year.

Regards,
Cyber

 

[Vic C.]

Could it be that the conversion of the Gentiles had something to do with Daniels prophecy?

It had everything to do with it! God did not just arbitrarily choose this time to convert Cornelius. About the time when Stephen was stoned and Cornelius was converted, marks the end of Daniel's 70 weeks. Paul's conversion coincided with Cornelius', just as Cyber mentioned above. :yes

 

[Cyberseeker]

God did not just arbitrarily choose this time to convert Cornelius.

I contrast the terms 'the times of Jacob' with 'the times of the Gentiles' because there seem to be a demarcation in time that can be pinned to the calendar. Jesus even said, "Do not go to the Gentiles!" I believe his command is because He works in specific 'times and seasons' hence the gospel belonged to the Jew first then released to Gentiles when the 70th week finished. (Sep/Oct AD33) As you say, it was not arbitrary.

 

[Theofilus]

Interesting theory. Do you have any scripture references that support this cronology? I don't recall any dates in that part of Acts.

 

[David505]

When was it? Three and a half years after the cross. Now that raises an interesting question because 3½ is one half of a ‘week.’ Could it be that the conversion of the Gentiles had something to do with Daniels prophecy?

Thanks Cyberseeker,

If I understand correctly, the following summarizes your position and proposed chronology respecting Daniel’s 70th week:

October AD 26 – Christ’s baptism:

April AD 30 – Christ’s crucifixion: (1) finished the transgression, (2) made an end of sins, (3) made reconciliation for iniquity, (4) brought in everlasting righteousness.

October AD 33 – Gentiles baptized by the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the commencement of Paul's ministry (Gal. 1: 18): 5) vision and prophecy was fulfilled, (6) the most Holy was anointed.

Notes:
Daniel’s covenant corresponds to Christ’s new covenant of grace through faith: “a better covenant, which was established upon better promises (Heb. 8: 6).â€

Daniel’s most Holy place corresponds to the body of Christ as the collective temple of the Holy Spirit.

The times of the Gentiles commence in October AD 33.

Have I got it?

 

[Cyberseeker]

Interesting theory. Do you have any scripture references that support this cronology? I don't recall any dates in that part of Acts.

The anchor date is AD50 when St. Paul visited the great Jerusalem Council as recorded in Acts 15. This date is solid so there’s no need to prove what is well known. Next, to find the conversion date of St. Paul we must go to his information in Galatians. His conversion is calculated by cross-referencing Galatians 1-2 with the record in Acts. Paul relates:

• "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me (AD33) I went away into Arabia (Nabataen Kingdom now known as Jordan) and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years (AD36) I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days ... Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. (Tarsus in Cilicia) And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ ... Then after fourteen years (AD50) I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me." (Jerusalem Council - Acts 15)

(My notes added in red)

 

[Vic C.]

... Notes:
Daniel’s covenant corresponds to Christ’s new covenant of grace through faith: “a better covenant, which was established upon better promises (Heb. 8: 6).â€

Daniel’s most Holy place corresponds to the body of Christ as the collective temple of the Holy Spirit.

The times of the Gentiles commence in October AD 33.

Have I got it?

Not bad. Of course, the dates are speculative, but acceptable. When one sees Daniel 9 through a Messianic lens, one will see how easily Daniel 9 ties in with both Covenant and Messianic theologies. :yes

I do have a question for you; where does Daniel speak of a "most Holy place"? It is my understanding that Daniel is referring to the physical temple.

 

[David505]

I do have a question for you; where does Daniel speak of a "most Holy place"? It is my understanding that Daniel is referring to the physical temple.

Thanks Vic C.,

I should've said "the most Holy" with the following explanation:

"The most Holy" translates from qodesh (Strong 6944), which denotes holiness in association with a thing or place; in this example, with reference to the temple sanctuary (qodesh ha qodeshim to the Jews). Witness Dan. 8: 14, which uses the same term to specify "the sanctuary".

 

[Vic C.]

Well thanks for explaining. :yes I have read Daniel 9 so many times, it is almost burned into my screen.

LOL

I thought I had overlooked something.

I read what you posted and am more inclined to relate that to 2 Th 2:4

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

 

[Theofilus]

Interesting theory. Do you have any scripture references that support this cronology? I don't recall any dates in that part of Acts.

The anchor date is AD50 when St. Paul visited the great Jerusalem Council as recorded in Acts 15. This date is solid so there’s no need to prove what is well known. Next, to find the conversion date of St. Paul we must go to his information in Galatians. His conversion is calculated by cross-referencing Galatians 1-2 with the record in Acts. Paul relates:

• "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me (AD33) I went away into Arabia (Nabataen Kingdom now known as Jordan) and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years (AD36) I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days ... Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. (Tarsus in Cilicia) And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ ... Then after fourteen years (AD50) I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me." (Jerusalem Council - Acts 15)

(My notes added in red)

That works if you assume that Paul was converted in 33AD, but where do you get that date? If it is by calculating backwards from 50AD, then where do you get that date. Do you have some hard evidence, preferably from Scripture, that sets the dates accurately? If you do have evidence to set the date, can you show from scripture that Cornelius and Paul were converted in the same year?

 

[David505]

Well thanks for explaining. :yes I have read Daniel 9 so many times, it is almost burned into my screen.

LOL

I thought I had overlooked something.

I read what you posted and am more inclined to relate that to 2 Th 2:4

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Thanks Vic C.,

Yep, same place. In 2 Thess. 2: 4, temple (specifically, most Holy place / sanctuary) is from the Greek naos (Strong 3485). Here's a link:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 3485&t=KJV

An interesting angle about the most Holy (place) relates to speculation among some forward-looking prophecy students who insist a Jewish temple will be rebuilt on the present site of the Muslim Dome of the Rock. After all, there is a Jewish Temple Institute dedicated to this purpose. Of course, this prospect infuriates Muslims.

However, in a very basic sense, the most Holy (place) may simply specify a narrow set of geographic coordinates, not expansive in area. As long as this small area is enclosed according to approved Jewish guidelines, the priests might be able resume rituals, without intruding on the Muslim space.

This remains to be seen, but, maybe, it would work.

 

[Vic C.]

Well since I do not adhere to the belief that a physical temple needs to be built, I view that as speaking about us, the temple of God.

1 Cor 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

I already see the Adversary attempting to set himself up in various congregations.

 

[Cyberseeker]

... If it is by calculating backwards from 50AD, then where do you get that date?

From ALL historians secular, catholic and protestant. Yes, we calculate backwards from late AD49 / early AD50. Here an example.

It is a reliable anchor date so asking me to prove it is unnecessary. What I do need to prove however is that the gospel was opened to the gentiles AD33 and here is how I do it: Paul says he was converted seventeen years before his attending the Jerusalem Council. Therefore he was converted late AD32 / early AD33 and a natural reading of the book of Acts places Cornelius conversion shortly after Pauls, so it would be later in AD33.

My belief is that the 'times of Jacob' ended 3½ after the cross and is marked by Cornelius' (the Gentiles) conversion. Using Paul's chronology it is quite close as you can see in the diagram. If you want me to provide greater precision I can do so (and I might) but this information is enough to establish the year.

 

[Theofilus]

From ALL historians secular, catholic and protestant. Yes, we calculate backwards from late AD49 / early AD50. Here an example.

That article doesn't explain how they arive at that date. Is this a "reliable anchor date" in the same way as Dec. 25 is a "reliable" date for Jesus' birth? After all, all Christians, both Protestants and Catholics celebrate his birth on that date. Not only is that date not reliable, it can easilly be shown to be wrong. Being accepted is not the same as being reliable. If all you have to go on is tradition, then it's not reliable.

It is commonly believed that the last week of Daniels 70 weeks is still in the future. Millions of people base their eschetology on that assumtion. If you're going to go against such a common teaching, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some evidence. If this is as reliable as you say it is, it shouldn't be hard for you to show me the evidence for it.

 

[Theofilus]

Here's something interesting. In the article on Christmas at that site it says:

It was not until A.D. 440 that the church officially proclaimed December 25 as the birth of Christ.

Only three paragraphs later it says:

It wasn't until around AD 350 that 25 December was appointed to be the Mass of Christ

It seems that, according to that site, "around" a specific date can cover a time of 90 years. You might want to rethink you're ideas about what's "reliable".

 

[Sinthesis]

Here's something interesting. In the article on Christmas at that site it says:

It was not until A.D. 440 that the church officially proclaimed December 25 as the birth of Christ.

Only three paragraphs later it says:
[quote:1tyv7wwj]
It wasn't until around AD 350 that 25 December was appointed to be the Mass of Christ

It seems that, according to that site, "around" a specific date can cover a time of 90 years. You might want to rethink you're ideas about what's "reliable".[/quote:1tyv7wwj]
People's perceptions are notoriously unreliable. For example:

"It was not until A.D. 440 that the church officially proclaimed December 25 as the birth of Christ."

"It wasn't until around AD 350 that 25 December was appointed to be the Mass of Christ"

You seem to perceive that the above two quotes are in conflict, yet "birth" does not equal "Mass". Thus your error in believing the two dates are in conflict is constructed in order to feed your bias.

 

[Sinthesis]

Interesting theory. Do you have any scripture references that support this cronology? I don't recall any dates in that part of Acts.

The anchor date is AD50 when St. Paul visited the great Jerusalem Council as recorded in Acts 15. This date is solid so there’s no need to prove what is well known. Next, to find the conversion date of St. Paul we must go to his information in Galatians. His conversion is calculated by cross-referencing Galatians 1-2 with the record in Acts. Paul relates:

• "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me (AD33) I went away into Arabia (Nabataen Kingdom now known as Jordan) and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years (AD36) I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days ... Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. (Tarsus in Cilicia) And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ ... Then after fourteen years (AD50) I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me." (Jerusalem Council - Acts 15)

(My notes added in red)

It is possible to interpret Paul's "3yrs" and "14yrs" as being concurrent rather than subsequent.

That said, in general I agree with Cyberseeker's idea.

 

[Theofilus]

Here's something interesting. In the article on Christmas at that site it says:

It was not until A.D. 440 that the church officially proclaimed December 25 as the birth of Christ.

Only three paragraphs later it says:
[quote:36izks7n]
It wasn't until around AD 350 that 25 December was appointed to be the Mass of Christ

It seems that, according to that site, "around" a specific date can cover a time of 90 years. You might want to rethink you're ideas about what's "reliable".

People's perceptions are notoriously unreliable. For example:

"It was not until A.D. 440 that the church officially proclaimed December 25 as the birth of Christ."

"It wasn't until around AD 350 that 25 December was appointed to be the Mass of Christ"

You seem to perceive that the above two quotes are in conflict, yet "birth" does not equal "Mass". Thus your error in believing the two dates are in conflict is constructed in order to feed your bias.[/quote:36izks7n]

Christmas (the "Mass of Christ") is, ostensibly, to celebrate the birth of Christ. That article says that the holiday, or "mass", to celebrate Christ's birt was appointed in around 350AD, but that it was not until 440AD that it was officially proclaimed as the birth of Christ. So, apparently, for 90 years people were celebrating the birth of Christ on a day that had not yet been decided on as the day of his birth. Do you really see no problem with that?

But that's beside the point. I still haven't seen any reliable evidence for 50AD being the date of the Jerusalem council. It may well be the correct date, but if someone is going to use it as the foundation for a doctrine, especially one that goes against the escatological teachings of most of the western church, then I want to see some reliable evidence, not just a bunch of sources all claiming the same thing without any real support for it.

 

[Sinthesis]

Here's something interesting. In the article on Christmas at that site it says:

It was not until A.D. 440 that the church officially proclaimed December 25 as the birth of Christ.

Only three paragraphs later it says:
[quote:3lg65165]
It wasn't until around AD 350 that 25 December was appointed to be the Mass of Christ

It seems that, according to that site, "around" a specific date can cover a time of 90 years. You might want to rethink you're ideas about what's "reliable".

Christmas (the "Mass of Christ") is, ostensibly, to celebrate the birth of Christ. That article says that the holiday, or "mass", to celebrate Christ's birt was appointed in around 350AD, but that it was not until 440AD that it was officially proclaimed as the birth of Christ. So, apparently, for 90 years people were celebrating the birth of Christ on a day that had not yet been decided on as the day of his birth. Do you really see no problem with that?
[/quote:3lg65165]

People's perceptions are notoriously unreliable.
You seem to perceive that the above two quotes are in conflict, yet "birth" does not equal "Mass". Thus your error in believing the two dates are in conflict is constructed in order to feed your bias.

Read the article again.http://www.conservapedia.com/Christmas

The Christ Mass was adopted to compete with Saturnalia "a tradition inherited by the Roman pagans from an earlier Babylonian priesthood. December 25 was used as a celebration of the birthday of the sun god. It was observed near the winter solstice."

Ninety years later the church officially deposed the sun god and gave Christ his symbolic birthday. There is no indication that Christians were originally assigning Jesus a birthday, or celebrating said birthday, from 350AD. This is a bias you impose on history because Christianity was so successful that you can't imagine Christ's Mass as having any other meaning than our modern day Christmas' symbolic birth of Christ.

totopic