Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Support for the Pre-Tribulation Rapture
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 166 of 330 (871972)
02-16-2020 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
02-16-2020 7:08 PM


Re: The Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on Earth
Just more word salad Faith with once again no supporting evidence.
Yet what is actually written in the stories is what is actually written in the stories and what you try to market is not what is actually written in the Bible.
There is zero evidence of spiritual discernment but ample evidence of what is actually written in the Bible stories and it is what is actually written that provides understanding and not the sales pitch of carny snake oil medicine men.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 02-16-2020 7:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 167 of 330 (871977)
02-17-2020 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
02-16-2020 5:13 PM


Re: The Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on Earth
quote:
What should be asked is why YOU are so committed to denying the obvious scripturqally based arguments of the God-given teachers I've been quoting. You twist everything to suit what YOU think, you don't even bother quoting reputable teachers, and what YOU think is worth nothing
No, that is not a question should be asked, because it is full of falsehood. If the arguments of your teachers have an adequate scriptural basis all you have to do is give it. The fact that you don’t is rather telling.
And of course I don’t quote teachers I quote scripture. Apparently you think that is nothing. That’s even more telling.
quote:
The presence of the Church in the Millennium follows from everything I've been arguing and the teachers I've quoted, it is not an assumption.
So far as I can see it is an assumption. If you want to show otherwise all you have to do is to provide adequate scriptural evidence. The fact that you haven’t is, again, telling.
quote:
The problem is that you haven't the spiritual discernment to know how to use the scriptures properly but like so many unbelievers who think they know how to read the Bible you put yourself above the believers and somehow manage not to doubt your superiority.
Yawn. The usual false boasting. It’s proven that I can read the scriptures better than you. And you don’t like that, hence your silly claim to have spiritual discernment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 02-16-2020 5:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 168 of 330 (871983)
02-17-2020 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
02-16-2020 7:08 PM


Re: The Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on Earth
Faith writes:
Sure, spiritual discernment is itself spiritually discerned....
There's that circular thinking again. Ya gotta know the answer to know the answer.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 02-16-2020 7:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 02-18-2020 5:34 AM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 169 of 330 (872005)
02-18-2020 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by ringo
02-17-2020 10:48 AM


Re: The Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on Earth
No, more like "It takes one to know one."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 02-17-2020 10:48 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by ringo, posted 02-18-2020 10:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 170 of 330 (872006)
02-18-2020 6:21 AM


Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
The basis for a seven-year Tribulation is in Daniel 9:
Daniel 9:24 says that seventy weeks (sevens) (of years) are decreed to completely finish the history of the Jews. There are to be 69 of those weeks until Messiah the Prince:
Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:
Word to note is "after." When the 69 weeks are counted from the understood starting point which is a decree by King Artaxerxes, they come to the Sunday on which Jesus rides into Jerusalem on the donkey to announce that He is the Messiah. He is greeted with palm branches and cheers. One week later He dies on the cross. That is AFTER the end of the 69 weeks.
The seventy prophesied weeks are not completed. We are given only the 69 and they end when Jesus announces He is the Messiah. A literal week of seven days later He dies. No mention is made of the seventieth week of years and there is no period of seven years at that time that can be identified at all. The seventieth week remains unfulfilled, and we are in a "gap" between the 69th and 70th weeks. Jesus is crucified in this gap, and the Church is created during this gap.
The seventy weeks are said clearly to be decreed for Daniel's people, who are the Jews. The Church is not mentioned at all. The whole seventy weeks is a Jewish timeline. The Church belongs to its own time period which intervenes between the 69th and 70th weeks.
This is how those Christian teachers who teach the Pre-Trib Rapture understand this passage in Daniel. Of course there are other interpretations of it, and PaulK has one of them. It took me a long time to grow into the Pre Trib interpretation because I couldn't accept the idea of there being two separate groups of believers, but that is really what the scripture points to as I see it now.
...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.
This continuation of the passage above is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70AD. We are well into the "gap" period now. The next verse in Daniel foreshadows the seventieth week which is yet future:
The people of "the prince that shall come" destroy the city in 70AD but "the prince that shall come" is yet future to those people. Those people are clearly the Romans, and the prince yet to come must therefore be a Roman.
Dan 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.
So here's some pretty confusing prophet talk. It's clear at least that it is talking about that "prince who is to come," and that he will confirm "the covenant" with "many" for "one week," and there's that seventieth week. Without getting into detail I'll just say that this prince is understood to be the Antichrist, who has not yet appeared in history and is still future. He has to be a Roman. He's going to "confirm the covenant with many" and that is understood to be a covenant he will make with the nation Israel for a seven year period, which seven-year period is understood to be the Seventieth Week of Daniel which is also the Tribulation.
Since the prince is clearly identified as a "Roman" I consider this to be confirmation of my view of the Antichrist as the Protestant Reformers' identification of the Pope, who heads the ROMAN Church. In fact the RCC is considered by some to be the continuation of the Roman Empire in its rulership over Europe for a millennium. It now spreads some 1.2 billion people all over the earth. It was certainly dealt a deadly blow by the Reformation, but it has never completely died and since the prophecy indicates a revived Roman Empire at the very end I think the RCC is going to be it.
Of course others are looking for a more geographic revival of the empire and a leader of one of the expected ten nations in that empire to be the Antichrist. they look to the EU as the seat of power of this revived empire, and I agree that far. I think the Pope is going to be the head of that European coalition. Those who hold to the Pope as the Antichrist count him among the Roman Caesars, which they count up to be ten, but it could be ten nations of the EU.
The Seventieth Week is understood to start when "the fullness of the Gentiles" is complete, which will be at the Rapture of the Church.
At that point the Jewish prophetic clock will start ticking again and Daniel's Seventieth Week begins. Otherwise known as the Great Tribulation or the Day of the Lord. (The whole period is a Tribulation period but the GREAT Tribultion is said to start halfway through, or at three and half years, when the "abomination of desolation" is set up by the Antichrist. That act triggers the outpouring of God's wrath. I still need to study up on this part of the prophecy. I know the last book of Daniel splits the time like that.
So I suppose PaulK will now present his entirely different understanding of the 70 weeks timeline.
)
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 02-18-2020 7:10 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 172 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2020 8:16 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 171 of 330 (872007)
02-18-2020 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
02-18-2020 6:21 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
Just as there is a time gap in the prophecy of Seventy Weeks for the jews, in which the Church grows over two millennia, so when the Jewish prophetic clock starts up again in the Book of Revelation the Church is absent, Raptured into heaven, while the last seven years of Jewish history is played out. This occurs between Revelation 6 and 18. In 19 Jesus appears on a white horse with His Church. 20 begins His Millennial reign.
The Church is the subject of the first three chapters of Revelation, then is seen in heaven in Revelation 4 and 5, at which time Jesus begins to open the seven seals of the scroll of God's judgment on the Earth, and that begins in Chapter 6. The "times of the Gentiles" are over and this is the time of the Jews resumed. One third of them will become believers in Christ during this period which is a great revival period as well as judgment. There are also Gentiles who will come to Christ through the preaching of the 144,000 Jews seen in Revelation 7. (I just ordered John MacArthur's book on Revelation, "Because the Time is Near" so I hope to understand all this better from that book.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 02-18-2020 6:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 172 of 330 (872008)
02-18-2020 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
02-18-2020 6:21 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
I’ll point out that a lot of the preceding post is interpretation, some without an real basis in scripture.
quote:
Word to note is "after." When the 69 weeks are counted from the understood starting point which is a decree by King Artaxerxes, they come to the Sunday on which Jesus rides into Jerusalem on the donkey to announce that He is the Messiah. He is greeted with palm branches and cheers. One week later He dies on the cross. That is AFTER the end of the 69 weeks.
It comes to about 26 AD which is a little early - the actual year is not known. And since this date really should be considered part of the timeline, I think you’d have to subtract any significant additional time from the duration of the Tribulation.
Of course the start date is very vague and the choice of Artaxerxes has more to do with the fact that it almost works for this interpretation rather than any other merits. Artaxerxes primarily reiterated a decree of Cyrus, and if the decree is the important thing then why should it not be the original ?
quote:
The seventy prophesied weeks are not completed. We are given only the 69 and they end when Jesus announces He is the Messiah. A literal week of seven days later He dies. No mention is made of the seventieth week of years and there is no period of seven years at that time that can be identified at all. The seventieth week remains unfulfilled, and we are in a "gap" between the 69th and 70th weeks. Jesus is crucified in this gap, and the Church is created during this gap.
There is no scriptural support for a gap - it is proposed simply because the events did not occur as predicted - if Jesus was meant. However, the events of the seventieth week do fit well with events that occurred in the 2nd Century BC - supporting the scholarly interpretation.
quote:
The seventy weeks are said clearly to be decreed for Daniel's people, who are the Jews. The Church is not mentioned at all. The whole seventy weeks is a Jewish timeline. The Church belongs to its own time period which intervenes between the 69th and 70th weeks.
This is simply invented. The Jews continued to exist, to worship, to act. There is no reason why the following years should not count against the timeline. Other than the fact that the events did not happen then.
quote:
It took me a long time to grow into the Pre Trib interpretation because I couldn't accept the idea of there being two separate groups of believers, but that is really what the scripture points to as I see it now.
And yet you can’t find any decent scriptural support for it. You’ve just decided to trust the teachers who promote it regardless of scripture.
quote:
This continuation of the passage above is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70AD. We are well into the "gap" period now.
This is a big assumption, especially as this is part of the final part of the prophecy. There is no grounds to consider it as being in a gap rather than part of the 70 weeks.
quote:
The next verse in Daniel foreshadows the seventieth week which is yet future:
The people of "the prince that shall come" destroy the city in 70AD but "the prince that shall come" is yet future to those people. Those people are clearly the Romans, and the prince yet to come must therefore be a Roman.
Note that he has to be a Roman only because of the interpretation. In fact destroy is a mistranslation and desecrate is better.
I did research the translation - but more importantly the city and the Temple are still there in the following verses, so they can’t be destroyed.
quote:
So here's some pretty confusing prophet talk. It's clear at least that it is talking about that "prince who is to come," and that he will confirm "the covenant" with "many" for "one week," and there's that seventieth week. Without getting into detail I'll just say that this prince is understood to be the Antichrist, who has not yet appeared in history and is still future. He has to be a Roman. He's going to "confirm the covenant with many" and that is understood to be a covenant he will make with the nation Israel for a seven year period, which seven-year period is understood to be the Seventieth Week of Daniel which is also the Tribulation.
That is assumed, although there is a better candidate. Especially as Daniel 8 identifies the end times as being in the latter days of the Diadochi kingdoms which had ceased to exist by 70 AD.
quote:
Since the prince is clearly identified as a "Roman" I consider this to be confirmation of my view of the Antichrist as the Protestant Reformers' identification of the Pope, who heads the ROMAN Church. In fact the RCC is considered by some to be the continuation of the Roman Empire in its rulership over Europe for a millennium. It now spreads some 1.2 billion people all over the earth. It was certainly dealt a deadly blow by the Reformation, but it has never completely died and since the prophecy indicates a revived Roman Empire at the very end I think the RCC is going to be it.
There is no revived Roman Empire in the prophecy. Christians assumed that it spoke of the Roman Empire until that became completely impossible. Then the idea of a revived Roman Empire was invented. But the text of Daniel favours the Greek Kingdoms following Alexander’s death.
Of course, at present, there is no revived Roman Empire and the closest thing in recent history is Mussolini’s rule over Italy. That absence would seem to be rather a problem for anyone expecting these events in the near future.
quote:
The Seventieth Week is understood to start when "the fullness of the Gentiles" is complete, which will be at the Rapture of the Church.
There is no scripture which states that the time of the Gentiles will end with the Rapture. Or indeed that it should take a long time. Luke 21 suggests that it will be a few decades at most, Revelation 11:2 suggests 42 months - or 3 1/2 years. An interesting figure, in the light of Daniel 9.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 02-18-2020 6:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 02-18-2020 6:13 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 02-18-2020 6:50 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 176 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-18-2020 11:09 PM PaulK has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 173 of 330 (872010)
02-18-2020 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
02-18-2020 5:34 AM


Re: The Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on Earth
Faith writes:
No, more like "It takes one to know one."
By their fruits ye shall know them: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 02-18-2020 5:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 174 of 330 (872034)
02-18-2020 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by PaulK
02-18-2020 8:16 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
Of course it's interpretation. Yes, based on scripture. Shared by all the teachers of the Pre Trib Rapture I've run across.
The calculation of the 69 weeks is consistent though I don't know the reasoning. I'll take them over you though, and perhaps eventually I'll have a better understanding of how they arrive at it.
The seventy prophesied weeks are not completed. We are given only the 69 and they end when Jesus announces He is the Messiah. A literal week of seven days later He dies. No mention is made of the seventieth week of years and there is no period of seven years at that time that can be identified at all. The seventieth week remains unfulfilled, and we are in a "gap" between the 69th and 70th weeks. Jesus is crucified in this gap, and the Church is created during this gap.
There is no scriptural support for a gap - it is proposed simply because the events did not occur as predicted - if Jesus was meant. However, the events of the seventieth week do fit well with events that occurred in the 2nd Century BC - supporting the scholarly interpretation.
Yes the idea of the gap is certainly because the fulfillment of the seventy weeks prophecy ended abruptly at the end of 69 weeks when traditional believers put it at Jesus' announcement of His Messiahship on what we now call Palm Sunday. One searches in vain for any fulfillment of the seventieth week in that period of time, or any other time in history so far, which leads us to the realization that it remains unfulfilled until some future time whden a "Roman prince" will make a covenant with Israel for seven years.
Jesus is certainly the Messiah; if you are going to doubt that there's no point in considering anything you say. There is nothing at all that fulfills the seventieth week in history until we get to a time when "the prince who shall come" makes a "covenant with the many" which must be Israel since the prophecy is about Daniel's people, the Jews.
You don't say what the supposed event in the second century is but if it isn't a covenant with Israel for seven years made by a Caesar it's irrelevant.
The seventy weeks are said clearly to be decreed for Daniel's people, who are the Jews. The Church is not mentioned at all. The whole seventy weeks is a Jewish timeline. The Church belongs to its own time period which intervenes between the 69th and 70th weeks.
This is simply invented. The Jews continued to exist, to worship, to act.
They fade from history into the background while the Church becomes the dominant entity for the next two thousand years.
There is no reason why the following years should not count against the timeline. Other than the fact that the events did not happen then.
Yes that is of course the reason. The prophesied events have not happened. All the previous events of the timeline did happen and terminated at the pregnant moment of Jesus' announcement that He is the Messiah. The last week of the prophecy, however, remained and remains, conspicuously unfulfilled in Jewish history.
And yet you can’t find any decent scriptural support for it. You’ve just decided to trust the teachers who promote it regardless of scripture.
Not entirely. I did have to be convinced by the scripture, and what finally convinced me was the Book of Revelation and the argument that the Church is spared God's wrath by Jesus' taking it on Himself. I kept thinking how we know we aren't going to escape tribulation in this world since Jesus said "In this world you will have tribulation." But He went on to say " but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." Just that phrase reminds me of how He took the place of us believers. But there are other scriptures that make it clear that although we are to experience all kinds of tribulations in this world this is a different thing than God's wrath in judgment. It is that wrath He took in the place of us believers so that we are spared the Day of the Lord which is the outpouring of that wrath. There are the direct quotes about how we are not destined to God's wrath which have come up in this discussion earlier though i'd have to look them up again now. Anyway, I realized I was failing to appreciate what Jesus did in our place when He died for us.
For a long time I'd thought the Pre Trib Rapture position trivilalized the Church and made too much of the Jewishness of the Seventy Weeks and the events of the Book of Revelation. Realizing I was the one trivializing the Church by failing to appreciate how Jesus took God's wrath against me onto Himself had a big part in changing my mind.
And the second factor that made a big impression on me was finally seeing the Rapture in Revelation 4 when John is given the command to "Come up here." I thought that a far-fetched way to describe the Rapture, but then when it becomes clear that the Church really does not have a part in anything described in the Book of Revelation after Chapter 4, until Chapter 19, putting all the above together I was persuaded. So the saints of Revelation that are referred to later really cannot be the Church as I'd supposed for a long time, they really do have to be a different set of people.
And it is the Church that follows Jesus back to Earth in Revelation 19. All that had to come together in my mind to convince me, and it's become consolidated in this very discussion. Now the gap in the Seventy Weeks makes solid sense to me as it didn't before. It does all hang together very very well but for me it took quite a long time to get the whole picture, For a long time it remained tentative and subject to reinterpretation, but now it's quite solid.
Now I can also follow the teachers without balking at various points as I often have. I'm now listening to a pastor Gil Rugh at Sermon Audio who is doing a very good job of spelling it all out, someone in a small church somewhere I'd never heard of before, and I'm following along and enjoying whatever he says that's new too. I still have to put trust in the various teachers to know a lot more than I do even as I've grown into the interpretation. Two separate sets of believers just made no sense to me. So I had to grow into that idea by hearing the reasoning for it over and over until I could see how it has to be the only way to look at it, yes, BASED ON THE SCRIPTURE evidence. I now see the reasoning for it in a way that is convincing. I still wish someone would directly address this problem I've had though, since as a Christian all we ever knew is that the Church is God's people and the Jews are going to eventually become part of the Church as they recognize Jesus as their Messiah, not remain outside when they become believers. Again, I now see that there have to be the two separate groups, but even though I see how it is the truth, I can't say I fully grasp it since I saw no hint of it in the scriptures until fairly recently.
I do have a lot better appreciation for the scriptural basis of the argument that I've been hearing from different teachers recently:
1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15, and John 14 are the main scriptures all refer to as the foundation of the Pre Trib Rapture interpretation, but 2 Thessalonians also contains support, and Philippians, and all the accounts of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 also support the interpretation. I did hope to find a comprehensive list of all the scriptures that support the interpretation and there doesn't seem to be one, but the teachers say that there are many others that apply and eventually I hope to collect them. However, the first three I mention above are the main support referred to by all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2020 8:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2020 12:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 175 of 330 (872035)
02-18-2020 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by PaulK
02-18-2020 8:16 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
This continuation of the passage above is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70AD. We are well into the "gap" period now.
This is a big assumption, especially as this is part of the final part of the prophecy. There is no grounds to consider it as being in a gap rather than part of the 70 weeks.
But it isn't part of the seventy weeks prophecy since that was clearly brought to an end after 69 weeks some forty years earlier and there is NO period of time afterward that fits the description in Daniel 9 of the seventieth week. It fits NOTHING after Jesus declared Himself the Messiah. You can't show that it fits, that it is "part of the 70 weeks," you are assuming it although there simply is no period of seven years there and nothing that suggests a covenant made by a Roman prince with Israel. There is nothing but the destruction of the temple and the city by the Roman army under Titus, from which Jesus warned His disciples to flee without going back to get their belongings. You apparently think that just because it is what happened next in history the events of 70 AD must be part of the seventy weeks timeline, but no, it has to fit the description in Daniel and it does not. It is because there is nothing in that time period that fits that prophecy that we know it was cut off at 69 weeks and the seventieth remains unfilled. That's the basis for the idea of the gap.
Jewish history effectively ended at the destruction of the temple since their entire way of life had revolved around the sacrifices they performed there and could not perform anywhere else. Now that they have returned and formed the State of Israel, although the temple mount is occupied by a mosque they are putting together the elements of a new temple in the hope that eventually they will get the mount back for that purpose.
I don't know if that will happen, though part of the interpretation we are discussing involves the idea that the Antichrist must declare himself to be God as he sits in the temple, which is understood to be the Abomination of Desolation, so that there must be a literal temple that has been rebuilt for that purpose.
But I'd point out that if the Antichrist is the Pope, which I believe along with a small group of others, then he has already declared himself to be God in the temple by simply occupying the position of head of the Church in the place of Christ, putting himself over the people of the Church, or temple. This is the position he has held since 606 AD when the Bishop of Rome was elevated to Bishop over all other bishops, which established the papacy in the Roman Church.
This was the view of the Reformers. So whether there will in fact be a literal presentation of himself as God in a literal temple remains a question I have. The establishment of the Abomination of Desolation does seem to be a clear event that must happen at a point in time that triggers the second half of the Seventieth Week and the outpouring of God's wrath on the world.
I'll have to come back to the rest of your post later, God willing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2020 8:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2020 12:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 330 (872043)
02-18-2020 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by PaulK
02-18-2020 8:16 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
There is no scriptural support for a gap - it is proposed simply because the events did not occur as predicted - if Jesus was meant. However, the events of the seventieth week do fit well with events that occurred in the 2nd Century BC - supporting the scholarly interpretation.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
So the 69 weeks were literal weeks... that last week though, well, that one drags on for 2,000+ years cuz it never came to fruition. They thought they were living in the End Times back then. In fact, every Christian has thought they were in the End Times.
Meanwhile, every single doomsday prophecy has had a 100% rate of failure. You have better odds playing the lottery.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2020 8:16 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 12:07 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 177 of 330 (872049)
02-19-2020 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Hyroglyphx
02-18-2020 11:09 PM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
No wonder you are so wrong on the other thread. You're just wrong, period, about all these things. Were you really ever a Christian? Well if you weren't, then you still have a chance to become one. Go read what I just wrote on the other thread and may it be of some help to you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-18-2020 11:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-19-2020 10:58 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 178 of 330 (872050)
02-19-2020 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
02-18-2020 6:13 PM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
quote:
Yes the idea of the gap is certainly because the fulfillment of the seventy weeks prophecy ended abruptly at the end of 69 weeks when traditional believers put it at Jesus' announcement of His Messiahship on what we now call Palm Sunday. One searches in vain for any fulfillment of the seventieth week in that period of time, or any other time in history so far, which leads us to the realization that it remains unfulfilled until some future time whden a "Roman prince" will make a covenant with Israel for seven years.
Except that it didn’t end abruptly. There is an event you identify with the destruction but you put it outside the timeline for some reason. Even the event you identify as the end of the 69th week more likely happened a few years later (it can’t happen before 27 AD because that is the first Passover of Pilate’s tenure)
quote:
Jesus is certainly the Messiah; if you are going to doubt that there's no point in considering anything you say. There is nothing at all that fulfills the seventieth week in history until we get to a time when "the prince who shall come" makes a "covenant with the many" which must be Israel since the prophecy is about Daniel's people, the Jews.
For the purposes of interpreting Daniel we cannot assume that it refers to the Messiah. Especially as the punctuation of the Masoretic text indicates two Messiahs. One who comes at the end of the first seven weeks, and one who is cut off at the end of the 69th week,
quote:
You don't say what the supposed event in the second century is but if it isn't a covenant with Israel for seven years made by a Caesar it's irrelevant.
Oh, it’s the lot. All the 70th week, except for the very end. And it’s a Greek ruler so in better agreement with the text.
quote:
They fade from history into the background while the Church becomes the dominant entity for the next two thousand years
Aside from the Church’s disputes with the Jews, two major revolts and various other events, you mean. The Jews do not fade from history in 26 AD or even 36 AD. They are more noticeable than the Church for the 1st and early 2nd Centuries AD.
quote:
Yes that is of course the reason. The prophesied events have not happened. All the previous events of the timeline did happen and terminated at the pregnant moment of Jesus' announcement that He is the Messiah. The last week of the prophecy, however, remained and remains, conspicuously unfulfilled in Jewish history
Of course most of it did happen just not on your timeline. But making things up because the prophecy failed is just adding to the Bible. It’s not scripture , it’s just something people made up,
quote:
Not entirely. I did have to be convinced by the scripture, and what finally convinced me was the Book of Revelation and the argument that the Church is spared God's wrath by Jesus' taking it on Himself.
Which does not require a Rapture. Indeed, as I pointed out the Book of Revelation contradicts a pre-Tribulation Rapture. So it is not the Book of Revelation that convinced you but an interpretation of selected verses - which are open to alternate interpretations which better fit the rest of the Book. Indeed, if the Revelation was intended to present a pre-Tribulation Rapture, it could simply mention it occurring as one of the events - but it does not.
quote:
And the second factor that made a big impression on me was finally seeing the Rapture in Revelation 4 when John is given the command to "Come up here." I thought that a far-fetched way to describe the Rapture, but then when it becomes clear that the Church really does not have a part in anything described in the Book of Revelation after Chapter 4, until Chapter 19, putting all the above together I was persuaded. So the saints of Revelation that are referred to later really cannot be the Church as I'd supposed for a long time, they really do have to be a different set of people
John is told to come up here to witness what will occur in Heaven, there is no reason to interpret it as an event. The idea that the Church plays no part until Revelation 19 is simply assumed. You are easily convinced when you want to be (and not convinced by proof when you don’t want to be).
quote:
And it is the Church that follows Jesus back to Earth in Revelation 19.
Another assumption. It is certainly not explicit.
quote:
Two separate sets of believers just made no sense to me. So I had to grow into that idea by hearing the reasoning for it over and over until I could see how it has to be the only way to look at it, yes, BASED ON THE SCRIPTURE evidence
Except it isn’t. Scripture is interpreted to fit the idea, not vice versa. That is very clear from this thread.
quote:
1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15, and John 14 are the main scriptures all refer to as the foundation of the Pre Trib Rapture interpretation, but 2 Thessalonians also contains support, and Philippians, and all the accounts of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 also support the interpretation.
I can say that the Olivet Discourse provides evidence against it (already discussed here) as does 1 Thessalonians 4 and 2 Thessalonians. 1 Corinthians 15 is hardly helpful. For instance 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3 indicates that Christians may expect to see the rise of the AntiChrist - and not a hint of being Raptured out of the way in those verse or the rest of the chapter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 02-18-2020 6:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 179 of 330 (872051)
02-19-2020 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
02-18-2020 6:50 PM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
quote:
But it isn't part of the seventy weeks prophecy since that was clearly brought to an end after 69 weeks some forty years earlier and there is NO period of time afterward that fits the description in Daniel 9 of the seventieth week
You mean that you exclude it from the timeline because it doesn’t fit your interpretation. But it is in the description of the seventy weeks - and there is no mention of a pause, let alone one lasting 2000 years or more. Which is a bit absurd when the whole timeline is 490 years.
quote:
It fits NOTHING after Jesus declared Himself the Messiah
You claim that the destruction - which is what is being referred to - DOES fit events after Jesus declared himself Messiah. But you still exclude it from the timeline.
quote:
you are assuming it although there simply is no period of seven years there and nothing that suggests a covenant made by a Roman prince with Israel
No, I am concluding that the supposed destruction is part of the timeline because it is explicitly mentioned in the description of the seventy weeks.
quote:
It is because there is nothing in that time period that fits that prophecy that we know it was cut off at 69 weeks and the seventieth remains unfilled. That's the basis for the idea of the gap
Yes, the basis for making up the gap is that the prophecy failed and you can’t accept that. Hence making things up.
quote:
Jewish history effectively ended at the destruction of the temple since their entire way of life had revolved around the sacrifices they performed there and could not perform anywhere else. Now that they have returned and formed the State of Israel, although the temple mount is occupied by a mosque they are putting together the elements of a new temple in the hope that eventually they will get the mount back for that purpose.
There is a lot of Jewish history you are excluding, but if we decide that the Temple is the deciding factor the gap can’t start before 70AD, which is too late for you.
quote:
I don't know if that will happen, though part of the interpretation we are discussing involves the idea that the Antichrist must declare himself to be God as he sits in the temple, which is understood to be the Abomination of Desolation, so that there must be a literal temple that has been rebuilt for that purpose.
The Olivet Discourse in Mark and Matthew indicates that it will be in the Herodian Temple, of course. But work has yet to start and Israel has existed for more than 70 years now. I wouldn’t assume that the Temple will be rebuilt anytime soon.
quote:
But I'd point out that if the Antichrist is the Pope, which I believe along with a small group of others, then he has already declared himself to be God in the temple by simply occupying the position of head of the Church in the place of Christ, putting himself over the people of the Church, or temple. This is the position he has held since 606 AD when the Bishop of Rome was elevated to Bishop over all other bishops, which established the papacy in the Roman Church.
No, the Pope has not declared himself to be God. That’s just anti-Catholic propaganda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 02-18-2020 6:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 180 of 330 (872057)
02-19-2020 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
02-19-2020 12:07 AM


Re: Daniel 9's Seventy Weeks.
No wonder you are so wrong on the other thread. You're just wrong, period, about all these things. Were you really ever a Christian? Well if you weren't, then you still have a chance to become one. Go read what I just wrote on the other thread and may it be of some help to you.
Malign me all that you would like, Faith. I will use scripture and only scripture to demonstrate that the Early Christians fervently believed that End Times would be in THEIR lifetime.
quote:
"Truly I tell you, THIS GENERATION will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." -- Matthew 24:34
"Truly I tell you, THIS GENERATION will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." -- Mark 13:30
Truly I tell you, THIS GENERATION will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." -- Luke 21:32
"Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue US from the PRESENT EVIL AGE." -- Galatians 1:3
"Dear children, THIS IS THE LAST HOUR; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." -- 1st John 2:18
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in THESE LAST DAYS he has spoken to us by his Son" -- Hebrews 1:1-2
"But he [Jesus] has appeared once for all AT THE END OF AGES to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." -- Hebrews 9:26
"He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in THESE LAST TIMES for your sake." -- 1st Peter 1:20
"These things happened to them as examples and were written down as WARNINGS for US, upon whom the END OF THE AGES HAS COME." -- 1st Corinthians 10:11
"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. I AM COMING SOON" -- Revelation 3:10-11
"Jesus, who rescues US from the coming wrath." -- 1st Thessalonians 1:10
So..... as you can see from HOLY SCRIPTURE, that you can cross reference for yourself so that you can know it didn't come from a demon, or the anti-christ, or Satan, that the early Christians unmistakably believed that the end of days would be in their generation.
.... Meanwhile, 2,000 + years later....
Straight from the horses mouth.
So what to make of it? It is possible that the early Christians could have believed this but would have been wrong. It doesn't necessarily mean that it cannot happen at a later time. BUT if you believe that the bible is inerrant, and you seem to be in that camp, in the sense that whatever has been scribed is 100% accurate and incapable of being altered, the scriptures have failed to meet its objective.
If they got that wrong then you can't claim inerrancy and, if nothing else, is it unreasonable that it should cast a measure of doubt as to the validity of the bible?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 12:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 02-19-2020 11:48 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024