If this is true, Dispensationalism is a lie

[mindlight]

There probably was a book of Daniel, back in 332BC, without all the later chapters, and editing.

Daniel 11 v 3 (commonly taken as referring to Alexander) is from one those later chapters

Then a warrior king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion and take action as he pleases.

 

[RDKirk]

Not sure it really matters if Satan did work it out. He would not be able to stop it either way. But God has his own reasons for keeping the day and the hour unknown.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about that. But we can get into some paradoxes discussing it. If God is keeping the day and hour unknown, one could argue that the reason He does is because it is necessary, arguing that God does not do anything in vain.

 

[mindlight]

I don't necessarily disagree with you about that. But we can get into some paradoxes discussing it. If God is keeping the day and hour unknown, one could argue that the reason He does is because it is necessary, arguing that God does not do anything in vain.

I think the reason is that God wants us to be doing his work up until he comes. He wants us to be watchful and witnesses to the very ends of the earth. It's a positive reason rather than one that in any way treats the devil as an equal or someone who could actually overturn Gods plans.

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. mat 25 v 13

7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
Acts 1 v 7-8

 

[mindlight]

The mix of words /languages reflects the reference to the various empires Daniel lived in as a Jew familiar with the alternate languages. That does not seem to be evidence supporting a late dating at all.

that’s a bit of a stretch?

How do you deal with extra biblical references to the text in Josephus for instance and reference to the use of Daniel in 332BC.

There probably was a book of Daniel, back in 332BC, without all the later chapters, and editing.

Josephs story is different from Daniel in a great many ways and again an Omnipotent and Sovereign God may well work with patterns like this in the demonstration of his control of events. There is not really an argument there.

I think that God can make use of a hodgepodge contrived fiction, and use it as a teaching tool, and containing some real prophesy. I have similar views about Revelation.

Your view of biblical inspiration is all too human. God is able to preserve the word he inspired and usually speaks in history- he has no need for fictions. The rest of the bible argues against that way of approaching scripture. Just as the incarnation itself was concrete and in the flesh so also was Gods revelation of himself and of his plans through literal prophets.

 

[Aijalon]

In Dispensationalism the actual date of Christ's coming may be unknown but the general time frame (after 6,000 years) is known. In my mind even claiming to know the general time frame of Christ's coming is arrogance. He comes as a thief.

Actually, the thrust of the thief analogy is that he comes in that regard only toward those who are not of faith. This is what Paul is saying in Thessalonians - "You are not in darkeness that this day should overtake you as a thief".

Meaning, this day will overtake you as it will overtake all men (as shown by 1 Thess chapter 5) but you will be ready for it. The thief analogy shows that Jesus comes in opposition to the world. The Second coming is one stroke redemption to believers and destruction to unbelievers.

In every foreshadow of rapture God gives his people a secret clue as to his coming:

Noah - 7 days warning by God
Lot - 7 proclamations of judgement by God to Abraham
Israel - 7 plages upon ONLY Egypt before being set free.
Rahab - 7 days of marching around the city.
Revelation - 7 trumpet judgements on the world

So I think we'll be plenty ready for Jesus' return. No, the precise beginning and end of the Trumpet judgements will be impossible to date precisely, but I think after we see each one, we'll have a really good clue then that the Return is imminent. As it is now, I feel it is not imminent.

But on the subject of Dispensationalism, which I thought had to do with the concept that Jesus will deal differently with Jews than he will with Gentiles (sounds unscriptural to me btw) I am not sure I am up to speed.

The idea is that Jesus will rapture the "church" and then turn back to Israel and then call Israel back to him during the final 70'th week, do I understand it correctly?

 

[RDKirk]

I think the reason is that God wants us to be doing his work up until he comes. He wants us to be watchful and witnesses to the very ends of the earth. It's a positive reason rather than one that in any way treats the devil as an equal or someone who could actually overturn Gods plans.

Well, I totally agree that what we ought to be doing each day is being faithful to our stewardship so that we will be caught doing what we are commissioned to do on whatever day He returns. To that degree, I don't spend much time at all worrying about what day it will be.

I think, rather, our attitude should be like a farmer bringing in the harvest before the weather breaks. He knows it will break--that's important knowledge--and he knows some of the impending signs. Even though he's makes note of the signs that mark the end of the season, he's spending his time getting in the harvest, not watching the sky.

 

[Interplanner]

To Aijalon
yes you are essentially correct about D'ism. It skips the NT interp of many passages, partly to 'solve problems' about the 70th week, and puts the 70th week in the/our future so that things will happen "literally." (Literal meaning it is OK to force 2000 years in here and there where a chronology would naturally go 68, 69, 70...). More important, it must see a separate level or way of dealing with Israel, and the state must exist again.

So as I asked BW about his new multipart essay on the restoration of Israel, why is it that all the promises to Abraham stay intact in the NT reference to them, except the land as such?

--inter

 

[Biblewriter]

Without necessarily agreeing with it I am aware that the modern consensus on the dating of the book of Daniel is as follows:

Daniel was written or heavily modified in the 2nd century BC - probably 167BC. This would make it apocalyptic literature that reflected on Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Daniels prophecy of the weeks would then be something completely different to the way it has been interpreted by Dispensationalists.


What do people think about this dating? Is this false? If so how could you demonstrate it was false?

It seems to me that if you cannot argue a case for a conservative dating of Daniel in the 6th century BC you cannot credibly argue a Dispensationalist point of view.

Portions of the book speak of Daniel in the second of third person, but much of it is in the first person. That is, it says things like I, Daniel saw, he said to me, etc. The following is a list of places I found in just a few minuter where Daniel explicitly said such things:

Daniel 7: verses 2, 15, 28.
Daniel 8: verses 1, 15, 27.
Daniel 9: verse 2.
Daniel 10: verses 2, 7,11,12.
Daniel 12: verse 5.

This is twelve times that Daniel spoke of these in the first person.
So to claim that the book was not indeed written by Daniel himself is to say that it is blatantly false on its face, and is therefore a complete fraud. Now unbelievers have no problem making such claims. But this is not an option for anyone claiming to be a Christian teacher.

On the other hand, portions of the book of Daniel as we have it today may indeed have been edited at a later date. The basic Christian doctrine of the plenary and verbal inspiration of the scriptures applies only to the books as they originally came from God.

 

[Biblewriter]

But to answer your question briefly, there is no such thing as a credible Dispensationalist view. It was an invention out of John Nelson Darby's own imagination in the 1830s. That's all it ever was, that's all it ever will be. End of story.

The portion of "dispensationalism," that is being discussed in this thread is the concept that Daniel's seventieth week remains to be fulfilled in the future. This is most absolutely not "an invention out of John Nelson Darby's own imagination in the 1830's." It was, in actual fact, taught in the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture of any significant length. This is the last twelve chapters of the famous work by Irenaeus titled "Against Heresies," which is thought ti have been written between 186 and 188. This work clearly teaches a future fulfillment of the week, along with numerous other clearly dispensational concepts.

Again, a future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week was also very clearly set forth in the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture that has survived to the present day. This is a Commentary on Daniel, written by Hyppolytus, and is thought to have been written between 202 and 211.

For full documentation of this, go to:
Dispensationalism in Ancient Christian Writings
http://www.christianforums.com/t7703208-2/

 

[Interplanner]

But that's not the "oldest Christian commentary", is it? The oldest is Mt 24, where Jesus comments on the AofD and says it/he is to happen in Judea to that listening/seeing generation to which those listening to him must make direct response and get out of Jerusalem. The AofD would be in the temple, mess up Israel, and lead to its collapse for no good reason.

It is extremely odd to me, that, with all the tools at his disposal to "protect" the Pope from Reformation accusations, the Jesuit Ribera used these remarks by Irenaeus to construct a view of the future in 1560, which then show up in Protestantism a couple hundred years later, but nowhere else that I know of in between (nor did he!). Ie, when the Catholic scholar "really" hit the books, he couldn't see justification by faith, but he could see a future 70th week! Meanwhile, in the land where historical-grammatical interp had a rebirth, it was so widely understood that Mt 24 & //s had to do with the awful events of the 7th decade in Judea, that major works of art were commissioned to depict it. How could this happen?

--Inter

 

[Biblewriter]

But that's not the "oldest Christian commentary", is it? The oldest is Mt 24, where Jesus comments on the AofD and says it/he is to happen in Judea to that listening/seeing generation to which those listening to him must make direct response and get out of Jerusalem. The AofD would be in the temple, mess up Israel, and lead to its collapse for no good reason.

It is extremely odd to me, that, with all the tools at his disposal to "protect" the Pope from Reformation accusations, the Jesuit Ribera used these remarks by Irenaeus to construct a view of the future in 1560, which then show up in Protestantism a couple hundred years later, but nowhere else that I know of in between (nor did he!). Ie, when the Catholic scholar "really" hit the books, he couldn't see justification by faith, but he could see a future 70th week! Meanwhile, in the land where historical-grammatical interp had a rebirth, it was so widely understood that Mt 24 & //s had to do with the awful events of the 7th decade in Judea, that major works of art were commissioned to depict it. How could this happen?

--Inter

Perhaps it happened because Jesus was not speaking of the first century, as you insist.

 

[mindlight]

Portions of the book speak of Daniel in the second of third person, but much of it is in the first person. That is, it says things like I, Daniel saw, he said to me, etc. The following is a list of places I found in just a few minuter where Daniel explicitly said such things:

Daniel 7: verses 2, 15, 28.
Daniel 8: verses 1, 15, 27.
Daniel 9: verse 2.
Daniel 10: verses 2, 7,11,12.
Daniel 12: verse 5.

This is twelve times that Daniel spoke of these in the first person.
So to claim that the book was not indeed written by Daniel himself is to say that it is blatantly false on its face, and is therefore a complete fraud. Now unbelievers have no problem making such claims. But this is not an option for anyone claiming to be a Christian teacher.

Yes there definitely is an input from Daniel and the internal testimony of the book affirms this.

Isn't it possible that when Daniel is spoken of in the Third person that is merely a more formal writing style to give some context that a government official of his stature would have had to adopt in formal communications and in organising and collating material. But when he speaks in the first person then he is describing a direct personal experience that he does not want to dilute by using the formal style.

On the other hand, portions of the book of Daniel as we have it today may indeed have been edited at a later date. The basic Christian doctrine of the plenary and verbal inspiration of the scriptures applies only to the books as they originally came from God.

Yes that is true but which bits of the book look suspect. If any bits are suspect then that undermines the certainty with which a Dispensationalist could work with the prophecy of the weeks for instance.

 

[Biblewriter]

Yes there definitely is an input from Daniel and the internal testimony of the book affirms this.

Isn't it possible that when Daniel is spoken of in the Third person that is merely a more formal writing style to give some context that a government official of his stature would have had to adopt in formal communications and in organising and collating material. But when he speaks in the first person then he is describing a direct personal experience that he does not want to dilute by using the formal style.



Yes that is true but which bits of the book look suspect. If any bits are suspect then that undermines the certainty with which a Dispensationalist could work with the prophecy of the weeks for instance.

Actually, very little of any book of the Bible is legitimately "suspect." It has been often said that in a thousand page Bible, every word as to which scholars doubt what the original word was, could be fit on one page.

 

[Interplanner]

In that case (your previous about my paragraph on Irenaeus and Ribera and the 7th decade), your eschatology is approved by the Papacy, but not by Protestant streams. P. Hughes (Westminster Th Sem), for ex., happened to agree with you about D'ism being that far back (although his main citation was Lactantius, 4th cent.) But Martyr's admission is there too: 'there are many who belong to the pure and pious faith and are true Christians think otherwise' in the mid-2nd. (ie, other than 1000 years in Jerusalem as we know it).

As for Mt 24 & //s themselves, only "theologians" read something crammed with immediate warnings and instructions and theorize that it has to do with events 2000 years off. Jesus was not a "theologian."

--Inter

 

[Biblewriter]

In that case (your previous about my paragraph on Irenaeus and Ribera and the 7th decade), your eschatology is approved by the Papacy, but not by Protestant streams. P. Hughes (Westminster Th Sem), for ex., happened to agree with you about D'ism being that far back (although his main citation was Lactantius, 4th cent.) But Martyr's admission is there too: 'there are many who belong to the pure and pious faith and are true Christians think otherwise' in the mid-2nd. (ie, other than 1000 years in Jerusalem as we know it).
--Inter

No, the Papacy is most definitely Amil. But that is immaterial. Justin indeed said that there were true Christians who were Amil, but we have zero documents from an amil earlier than around the mid third century, and even then, they were distinctly in the minority until well into the sixth century. And as the medieval editors were amil, they would have preserved all such documents they had. So It is safe to conclude that the church was overwhelmingly premil until at least the mid sixth century.

 

[Interplanner]

But amill is often mistaken as postmill, in which the "millenium" is christ's reign (Acts 2) now. Millenialists may think that is denying its existence but that's just them trying to be clever. The papacy was postmill but they took it carnally, and literally, and politically.

So what do you think Ribera constructed, and why?

 

[Biblewriter]

But amill is often mistaken as postmill, in which the "millenium" is christ's reign (Acts 2) now. Millenialists may think that is denying its existence but that's just them trying to be clever. The papacy was postmill but they took it carnally, and literally, and politically.

So what do you think Ribera constructed, and why?

I am not interested in Ribera, and have never read what he wrote, nor do I have any plan to.

 

[Interplanner]

why not? the papacy may have been post mill to the REformation era, but the counter reformation effort was to deflect the accusation of the pope as antichrist. ribera did this by constructing a futurist scheme of an antichrist in a rebuilt temple in Judea. Problem "solved." That means that the kind of futurism that shows up here a lot is actually a JEsuit answer to the REformation's near-uniform claim of pope as antichrist. How could you possibly not be interested?

HE took the same passages that were historic and went future with them. That's strange because he could have treated them as historic and solved the "problem." So the avoidance of such background materials dates at least to that. When Darby picked up this scheme (of RIbera--probably to reconcile matters with Papists), the lack of awareness of historic materials seems to have prevailed, and thus we have, since Darby, a "Jesus" who is in the middle of talking about the temple being destroyed and just bursts 2-3000 years in the future for no good reason to answer the questions.

There is even a line of reasoning that the effort to see Judea reclaimed is driven by the same protection of the Pope, and funded as far back as Spanish Queen Isabella, sponsor of Columbus, to keep the Empire intact.

MEanwhile the emotion and expectation of the future-bursting JEsus runs high, much too high for people to grasp what was meant historically by Mt 24 & //s. And gosh, what would become of us if we couldnt' solve that rapture question?

 

[Biblewriter]

why not? the papacy may have been post mill to the REformation era, but the counter reformation effort was to deflect the accusation of the pope as antichrist. ribera did this by constructing a futurist scheme of an antichrist in a rebuilt temple in Judea. Problem "solved." That means that the kind of futurism that shows up here a lot is actually a JEsuit answer to the REformation's near-uniform claim of pope as antichrist. How could you possibly not be interested?

HE took the same passages that were historic and went future with them. That's strange because he could have treated them as historic and solved the "problem." So the avoidance of such background materials dates at least to that. When Darby picked up this scheme (of RIbera--probably to reconcile matters with Papists), the lack of awareness of historic materials seems to have prevailed, and thus we have, since Darby, a "Jesus" who is in the middle of talking about the temple being destroyed and just bursts 2-3000 years in the future for no good reason to answer the questions.

There is even a line of reasoning that the effort to see Judea reclaimed is driven by the same protection of the Pope, and funded as far back as Spanish Queen Isabella, sponsor of Columbus, to keep the Empire intact.

MEanwhile the emotion and expectation of the future-bursting JEsus runs high, much too high for people to grasp what was meant historically by Mt 24 & //s. And gosh, what would become of us if we couldnt' solve that rapture question?

I am totally uninterested in Ribera because I am only interested in the scriptures. There is a widespread accusation that Darby got his ideas from Ribera, but I know of zero evidence that he even knew about Ribera. Darby, like Biblewriter, got his ideas from the Bible, just as Irenaeus and Hyppolytus did.

I have already posted extensive proof that futurism was the original doctrine of the church, and that even as late as the fifth century, Jerome wrote that it was "the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church."

I have also posted extensive proof that many of the ideas of dispensationalism were also taught in the oldest Christian documents that have survived, even including a pre-tribulation rapture.

 

[Interplanner]

THe fact that you read Irenaeus and Lactantius and Darby means you don't "read only the Scritpures". YOu are really in a mental knot, fellow. You need to calm down. THere is obviously a lot to know about Ribera, just like there is a lot to know about Henry and Cromwell and what they thought of the Reformation, for other reasons. It is all useful and illuminating.

yOur reference to Irenaeus, anyway, is 180 which is a lot of time for things to become fuzzy when there are really major difficulties in daily life.

THe more you identify yourself as "the" pure interpreter, the less regard I have for you.

BTW, I don't know all the details how Darby got his scheme; I understand it to have been partly through Margaret MacDonald who was having prophetic utterances about it. There were, from Queen Elizabeth onward, many attempts to cool off the strife about Catholics. So it could have come from other sources not trying to 'chip the noses off of Catholic icons' every time they opened their mouths. You surely must be aware of such church history and that expression, or don't you read any of that because you "Just read the Bible" (which apparently excludes Rom 16 and Acts 13s sermon and others)?

To repeat: the kind of futurism that shows up here a lot is actually a construct of Ribera (Alcaraz places AC back in the 4th cent.) to preclude accusations that the pope was AC.

Source: BRinsmead, "JUstification by faith and the identity of Antichrist," PRESENT TRUTH, 1974.
Buchanan. The Doctrine of Justification.
Hitchcock. The BEasts and the LIttle HOrn. (HItchcock is a RCC author)
Tanner. Daniel and the REvelation. 1898
Ribera. Diputationes de controversies Christiane Fidei Adversus uius TEmporis Hereticos.
Berllarmine. "De Summo Pontifici" Disputationes.
Maitland. 1826. FIrst publication which accepted Riberan understanding and opposed the REformation.
Todd. Prof of HEbrew, dublin. 1850s. promoted Maitland.
Newman. (the anglican convert to rCC). VAlidated Todd in "The Protestant Idea of Antichrist". The Oxford, Tractarian movement.
IRving.
NOrton. THe REstaroation of Apostles and PROophets; in the CAtholic APostalic CHurch. 1861. Followed IRvign and accepted the future antichrist revealed through prophetic utterances.

(the server here can't keep up; sorry about CAps and typos)