Rapture Top Dogs Admit no Proof Exists

[mkgal1]

Another detail we can be disagreeing over is the covenant.

The text in Daniel 9:27 does not say that the Covenant is only for 7 years, “Then He shall confirm a covenant with many for one week.”

It is the Everlasting Covenant, which Christ and His Apostles preached for 7 years to the House of Israel and the House of Judah, before it was given to the Gentile nations.

For 1,700 years the Church of Christ understood that the 70th week of Daniel was fulfilled, and there was no teaching about a future fulfillment.

So how did this false concept of an end-times 70th week of Daniel come to exist?

The Protestant Reformers testified that the Roman Catholic Church is the Sea Beast of Revelation 13, the Little Horn of Daniel 7, of the Pope, the Son of Perdition of 2 Thessalonians 2.

To deflect blame away from the Papal Church, in 1545 A.D. the Jesuits created a commentary that featured an end-times antichrist in a 7-year tribulation period.

This was designed to deflect blame away from the Catholic Church, because if the antichrist is one-man that appears in an end-times 7-year tribulation period, then it can’t be the Papal Church.

This concept was rejected by the Protestants for hundreds of years, as they knew better.

But slowly, the Jesuits found Pastors who they caused to teach these concepts, and it has spread like leaven into Seminaries, Protestant Churches, and to Christians, so that it is accepted by the majority. ~ http://christianitybeliefs.org/end-...ointing-of-christ-in-the-70th-week-of-daniel/​

 

[mkgal1]

....and rob God of the glory in fulfilling the prophecy on time as stated.

This is what saddens (and confuses) me the most. I'd sat in churches every week for 30 years and had not been taught this fulfillment of Scripture. In reading on my own a few months ago, this all became so clear to me. It's so encouraging to see how God fulfilled prophecies (and very upsetting to see that stolen away and hidden by some modern churches).

 

[Dave L]

Here's Clarence Larkin, the top dog's top dog on futurism. He credits the Jesuits for many of the end time beliefs people hold without ever questioning them.

“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

 

[mkgal1]

This seems like an attempt to confound the truth (how can it be both "in modern times only AND most ancient"?) - unless it's understood that ALL premillenialists are of modern interpretations:

Quote from Clarence Larkin: "This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. "​

 

[mkgal1]

This is what makes sense in my mind (right now, anyway). If the 70 weeks have not been completed, then how can it be said that the prophecy of 70 weeks were decreed for the Israelites (v 24)?

 

[DavidPT]

Daniel 9:27 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.



If this part involves the 70th week, and it most certainly does----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---then so must this part involve the 70th week----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Any interpretation that places Christ into verse 27 makes total nonsense out of that verse, because it then means this part----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---is fulfilled during the same period of time this part is fulfilled----and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. There were no abominations being committed during the time when Christ died and rose.


But if one rightly inserts the AC into all of verse 27, this making nonsense of the text goes entirely away. One can't cherry pick in verse 27 what they feel involves the 70th week, and what doesn't, then expect to be taken seriously by some of us. Every single thing recorded in verse 27 involves the 70th week. None of it involves a period of time outside of the 70th week. And with that in mind, Christ couldn't remotely possibly fit verse 27.

 

[mkgal1]

If this part involves the 70th week, and it most certainly does----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---then so must this part involve the 70th week----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Any interpretation that places Christ into verse 27 makes total nonsense out of that verse, because it then means this part----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---is fulfilled during the same period of time this part is fulfilled----and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

Did Jesus' death on the cross do away with the Old Covenant or not? Was His sacrifice the perfect sacrifice or not? Jesus was confirming (not creating a new contract or agreement) the covenant God made with Abraham recorded in Genesis 12 and 15.

Edit: After reading some more today, I don't believe it was the covenant with Abraham He was confirming, but the covenant with Moses. God's covenant with Abraham was one-sided (only God had to keep up His conditions).....it was the covenant with Moses that was conditional.

Christ's coming confirmed the covenants of God. Romans 15:8 says, "Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs."

 

[DavidPT]

Did Jesus' death on the cross do away with the Old Covenant or not? Was His sacrifice the perfect sacrifice or not? Jesus was confirming (not creating a new contract or agreement) the covenant God made with Abraham recorded in Genesis 12 and 15.

Christ's coming confirmed the covenants of God. Romans 15:8 says, "Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs."

Daniel 9:27 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.

Do you not grasp that the context of verse 27, meaning the entire verse, is the 70th week? If one inserts Christ into this verse, the following also has to be fulfilled during this same period of time---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---yet this part doesn't even remotely fit with the time of Christ's death and resurrection.

 

[mkgal1]

Daniel 9:27 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.

Do you not grasp that the context of verse 27, meaning the entire verse, is the 70th week? If one inserts Christ into this verse, the following also has to be fulfilled during this same period of time---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---yet this part doesn't even remotely fit with the time of Christ's death and resurrection

Yes it does (and it has).

The "overspreading abominations" is the continuation of animal sacrifice for atonement. It "overspread" almost 40 years. He made it -the Temple- desolate because their sacrifices were idolatry...they were "empty" and so was their Temple "empty" of His presence ("He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate"). The consummation is not part of the actual 70 weeks.

A relevant verse to this is Hebrews 8:13:

In saying, "new," He has made obsolete the first; and that which is growing old and aging is near vanishing.​

 

[DavidPT]

Yes it does (and it has).

The "overspreading abomination" is the continuation of animal sacrifice for atonement. It "overspread" almost 40 years. He made it desolate at the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D ("He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate"). The consummation is not part of the actual 70 weeks.

A relevant verse to this is Hebrews 8:13:

In saying, "new," He has made obsolete the first; and that which is growing old and aging is near vanishing.​

Who was it that initially required animal sacrificing? Was it not God Himself? Are you then suggesting God was making folks commit abominations the entire time be requiring animal sacrificing of them?

But let's assume you are correct though.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.


If the AOD meant here is the continuing of animal sacrifices post the death and resurrection of Christ, and that this continued for 40 years, what does the text indicate they are to do when they see this? Aren't they supposed to flee into the mountains? You don't expect one to believe that they continually fled into the mountains for an entire 40 years straight, do you? But they would have had to if your interpretation is to be believed.


So getting back to Daniel 9:27 then.

Your interpretation denies that this part----and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease---is also fulfilled by someone other than Christ. This is clearly proven in Daniel 11 for one.

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.


My guess is that you misinterpret this verse altogether by applying it to the wrong period of time, and to the wrong person.

Daniel 9:27 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.


Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.


This context involves the daily sacrifice ceasing----and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease---and so does this context----and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice.


This context involves abominations that make desolate---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate----and so does this context----and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.


This is all just coincedental though, correct?

 

[mkgal1]

Who was it that initially required animal sacrificing? Was it not God Himself? Are you then suggesting God was making folks commit abominations the entire time be requiring animal sacrificing of them?

No. I'm not suggesting that the animal sacrifices PRIOR to Jesus death on the cross were abominations....but AFTER they were. His was the final and perfect sacrifice.

Heb 9.26 But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.​

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.


If the AOD meant here is the continuing of animal sacrifices post the death and resurrection of Christ, and that this continued for 40 years, what does the text indicate they are to do when they see this? Aren't they supposed to flee into the mountains? You don't expect one to believe that they continually fled into the mountains for an entire 40 years straight, do you? But they would have had to if your interpretation is to be believed.

Daniel 9 doesn't talk about an AoD being set up. Rather, it says that on the wing of abominations he shall make it desolate (in the ESV)....which was fully consummated in 70 A.D.

​

 

[jgr]

Prove you are correct. Provide an exact day, month, and year, when the 70 weeks allegedly finished.

Since there is no unified consensus on when Jesus was crucified, the best that exists is an estimate of the year. That estimate ranges from 33 -36 AD for the end of the 70 weeks, with the crucifixion 3.5 years prior to that.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Since there is no unified consensus on when Jesus was crucified, the best that exists is an estimate of the year. That estimate ranges from 33 -36 AD for the end of the 70 weeks, with the crucifixion 3.5 years prior to that.

Is there a way to tell how many years He preached by the Gospel accounts?

Isa 11:6
“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, The leopard shall lie down with the young goat, The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.

He is first shown speaking in the Temple at age 12:

Luke 2:

42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast.
46 And it came to pass, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them and questioning them,
47 and all those hearing him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

Luke 3:23

Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

 

[DavidPT]

Since there is no unified consensus on when Jesus was crucified, the best that exists is an estimate of the year. That estimate ranges from 33 -36 AD for the end of the 70 weeks, with the crucifixion 3.5 years prior to that.

If one can come up with a precise day and time when the 70 weeks initially started, and assuming no gaps until completion, how hard should it be to come up with the precise day and time it allegedly finished? Shouldn't be hard at all. I would like to know when the 70 weeks allegedly finished, so I can then see if anything in history was special about that day in particular. And since I believe there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week, I'm not the one that needs to provide a precise day and time the 70 weeks allegedly finished. The ones claiming no gap need to provide this since it seems odd they can know precisely when the 70 weeks began, but can't know precisely when they end, while at the same time claiming they have already ended.

 

[jgr]

If one can come up with a precise day and time when the 70 weeks initially started, and assuming no gaps until completion, how hard should it be to come of with the precise day and time it allegedly finished? Shouldn't be hard at all. I would like to know when the 70 weeks allegedly finished, so I can then see if anything in history was special about that day in particular. And since I believe there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week, I'm not the one that needs to provide a precise day and time the 70 weeks allegedly finished. The ones claiming no gap need to provide this since it seems odd they can know precisely when the 70 weeks began, but can't know precicely when they end, while at the same time claiming they have already ended.

If Scripture itself does not give us precise literal days and times or even years, then how would we be expected to know them, expect by estimation based on the information that is provided?

That estimation results in an estimation variance of less than four years or one percent, which in the context of 490 years is not at all unacceptable.

 

[DavidPT]

Daniel 9 doesn't talk about an AoD being set up. Rather, it says that on the wing of abominations he shall make it desolate (in the ESV)....which was fulfilled in 70 A.D.

​

Even if that is the case, it's irrelevant to the point I was making in that post. According to Matthew 24 when they shall see the AOD, they are to then flee to the mountains. If the AOD was animal sacrificing continuing for another 40 years, obviously then they saw the AOD continually for 40 years straight, yet no one was fleeing to the mountains for 40 years straight. This obviously tells us that this AOD initially happens at a particular point in time, and not that it is something that has been taking place for decades. The fact no one was fleeing to the mountains continuously for 40 years straight proves it.

 

[mkgal1]

And since I believe there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week, I'm not the one that needs to provide a precise day and time the 70 weeks allegedly finished.

How do you reconcile a huge gap between week 69 and 70 with the prophecy clearly being about 490 years?

 

[jgr]

Even if that is the case, it's irrelevant to the point I was making in that post. According to Matthew 24 when they shall see the AOD, they are to then flee to the mountains. If the AOD was animal sacrificing continuing for another 40 years, obviously then they saw the AOD continually for 40 years straight, yet no one was fleeing to the mountains for 40 years straight. This obviously tells us that this AOD initially happens at a particular point in time, and not that it is something that has been taking place for decades. The fact no one was fleeing to the mountains continuously for 40 years straight proves it.

The AOD was not animal sacrifices.

It was the appearance of the pagan Roman armies, abominations to the Jews; advancing upon the holy city of Jerusalem.

The desolation which they brought was essentially complete within less than a decade.

Matthew 24
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

 

[DavidPT]

How do you reconcile a huge gap between week 69 and 70 with the prophecy clearly being about 490 years?

Like an analogy I used where someone is sentenced to community service for a certain amount of hours. When they are not performing community service, none of the hours are being counted. So if they were to do 25 hours of community service during the following week, where they do five hours a day for five days, how does that not add up to 25 hours when all said and done, regardless that five 24 hour days add up to far more than 25 hours? It's like I already indicated. When they are not performing community service none of the hours are being counted. In the same way, during the gap in the 70 weeks none of the weeks are being counted during that time. Pretty simple logic actually.

 

[DavidPT]

The AOD was not animal sacrifices.

It was the appearance of the pagan Roman armies, abominations to the Jews; advancing upon the holy city of Jerusalem.

The desolation which they brought was essentially complete within less than a decade.

Matthew 24
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

I'm aware of that interpretation. I don't see it fitting though. Even if the Roman armies were an abomination to the Jews, would they have also been an abomination to God since God obviously didn't want the temple to remain standing to begin with?